2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 31, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 5

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

VICTORIA COUGARS
HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP WIN

M. Karagianis: I'd like to share some news with the House today about an exciting event that took place over the weekend in my community. The Victoria Cougars, who call the Archie Browning Sports Centre in Esquimalt their home, have won their third-straight Vancouver Island junior hockey championship. They shut out the Peninsula Panthers 3-0 on Friday night to win the best-of-seven series in six games. The Victoria Cougars are now off to the Cyclone Taylor Cup, which begins in Nelson on April 10.

[1335]

Now, it's not unusual to have a bit of good-natured rivalry here in the House, and so I'd like to join the tradition. Today I am challenging my colleague from Nelson-Creston, who is over here, to a friendly bet: whichever of our teams wins, the losing MLA, with the Speaker's approval, will sport the opposing team's jersey here in the House and do a two-minute statement admitting defeat and praising the winning team.

I'm fairly confident in this bet, so I'm saying: "Go, Cougars, go!"

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm delighted today. I think the last time I introduced some of my family, I said: "There are never enough Fassbenders." Members opposite reacted accordingly, but I have some more to introduce to you today. I have my son Steve and wife, Hollie, who are both RCMP members in Thompson, Manitoba, who came for a visit, and my son's son, my grandson, Aidan. They're joined by my wife, Charlene. I'd ask members to welcome them to this House.

Michelle Stilwell: Joining us in the House today are my two favourite people in the world. My husband of almost 17 years, Mark, has been my rock throughout our journey together, both during my career in sport and now my transition into life here at the Legislature. He is a true legend, in my eyes.

With him, is our 12-year-old son, Kai, here for his first question period. Kai has travelled the world with Mark and me, to the Olympics and to other destinations, as I competed, and he's always been my very best cheerleader. I'm thrilled that I can have them both here today to observe a very different kind of sport.

I have no doubt that the members will not disappoint in this democratic House. Please join me in making them feel welcome.

Madame Speaker: My apologies to the Minister of Education. I curtailed his introduction.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I'm also very proud today to introduce a member in this House, a gentleman who has served the Ministry of Education and this government for well over 29 years. After 19 years in the Ministry of Education, he has served in a number of capacities — the director of funding and compliance. He also managed the allocation of the operating block funding for school districts.

Today is his absolute last day as a full-time member of the employ of the Ministry of Education. I would ask the House to give a big welcome and a bon voyage to Mr. Doug Stewart and his wife, Carol, as they chart new courses in the future.

R. Fleming: I'd like the House to make welcome a constituent of mine, Mr. Richard Swinden, who is pretty close to being a lifelong British Columbian and has visited this House on many occasions over the decades. He's got a background in management consulting. It's been awhile since he's been here in the House. I don't remember losing a bet to him, but I have to buy him a piece of pie after question period, and I look forward to sitting down with him. Would the House make him welcome here this afternoon.

Hon. T. Lake: Genome B.C. is a research organization that we're very proud of here in British Columbia. They invest in and manage large-scale genomics and proteomics research projects. We had the opportunity to spend some time at lunch with members of this organization.

People think of Genome B.C. as focusing on human health, but they also do a lot of work in forestry, bioenergy and the environment, with a goal of generating social and economic benefits for British Columbia and Canada. They do some amazing work, which we were happy to hear about at lunchtime.

There are some members of that organization in the House today. I'd like everyone to welcome James Taylor, Ida Goodreau, Hennie van Vuuren and Julia White. Would the House please make them very welcome.

C. James: I have a school group visiting us today in the gallery. St. Patrick's Elementary School is here with 24 grade 5 students, with their teacher Mr. Patrick Card and a group of parents. Would the House please make our visitors very welcome.
[ Page 2568 ]

[1340]

M. Bernier: It's my pleasure to host in the precinct today a bunch of former colleagues, friends of mine from up in the northeast part of British Columbia. They were down here to remind us that every time we talk about LNG it starts with NG, which is the northeast part of the province. It's my pleasure to introduce today Mayor Lori Ackerman from the city of Fort St. John and also the mayor from the village of Taylor, Mr. Fred Jarvis. Will the House please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: It is my pleasure to introduce to this Legislature a gentleman who is a lifelong resident of British Columbia and a first-time visitor to this Legislature. Please welcome Tom Collins.

Tributes

SELKIRK SAINTS
HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP WIN

K. Conroy: I'm going to stand up and admit I just dropped the ball on this one — not something politicians do often. I should have taken a page out of my colleague's book and challenged some of the members of the hockey teams that the Selkirk Saints played against. Not only did they defeat Kamloops' Thompson Rivers University to get into the finals — we would have had two Kamloops MLAs wearing Selkirk Saints jerseys — but they defeated, for the finals and to win the intercollegiate championships, Trinity Western University. I think there would have been a few Langley MLAs that also would've been wearing jerseys. Please join me in congratulating the Selkirk Saints on their second win.

ROSHAN THOMAS

S. Sullivan: At this moment in Burnaby in the Ismaili Jamatkhana there is a funeral for Roshan Thomas, who was a woman who was killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. She was a teacher especially focusing on girls. She was a doctor. I know that all of us will be in the spirit with the family as they celebrate this wonderful life.

KOOTENAY ICE HOCKEY TEAM WIN

Hon. B. Bennett: In the spirit of, or, I guess, consistent with the hockey theme today, I'd like to congratulate the Kootenay Ice, who defeated the Calgary Hitmen on Saturday night four games to two in the first round of the WHL playoffs. They're on their way again. They're been to the Memorial Cup twice, and I'm sure they're going a third time this year.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CREATIVE B.C. AND FILM INDUSTRY

J. Thornthwaite: In November I had the pleasure of joining representatives from the B.C. Motion Picture Production Industry at a client appreciation reception in Los Angeles. There, members of the MPPIA had a chance to tour the biggest studios, thank producers for bringing projects to B.C. and encourage them to continue doing business here. The event also had an opportunity to introduce studios to the Creative B.C. team.

Creative B.C. began in January 2013 by combining the B.C. Film Commission and B.C. Film and Media. By consolidating resources, we created a one-stop shop that provides enhanced support for a wide range of programs, production services and tax credit opportunities.

Creative B.C. makes it easier for producers to bring their projects to B.C. and is one of the many ways we are working with industry to ensure clients have unfettered access to our high-quality production environment and world-class production and visual effects facilities.

It was clear to all in attendance that producers have immense confidence in B.C. Peter Leitch, president of North Shore and Mammoth Studios and chair of MPPIA, said feedback from clients was overwhelmingly positive, not just because of our stunning scenery but also because of our proximity to Hollywood, the quality of our work and the skill of our workforce.

The sector directly employs more than 20,000 British Columbians, including more than 2,000 North Vancouver residents who work on set in television and film production. These people are the backbone of the industry, and their expertise is what continues to attract foreign production to our shores.

Mr. Leitch says that because of the continued support of government and a low dollar, he has seen a dramatic improvement in B.C.'s film industry. There has been an increase of several thousand jobs since this time last year, and we have now re-established ourselves as the number one choice for L.A.-based production. We have proven that we have the talent to grow the industry and create new opportunities for the next generation of content creators. I'm very pleased both government and the MPPIA remain committed to working together to continue building the B.C. brand overseas.

[1345]

GAY ACTIVISM BY TED NORTHE

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm saddened to inform British Columbians that a hero for human rights and lesbian, gay, bi and transgender equality has left us. At 6:10 a.m. on Saturday Mr. Ted Northe passed away. He's left a legacy that should inspire us all.
[ Page 2569 ]

Born in 1937 in Alberta and raised in the Fraser Valley, from a young age Ted knew he was different. He was a gay man in a country that still forced gay and lesbian people into jail, shock treatment or worse. As a young man, he grew up, and his anger grew stronger because his friends kept getting locked up, not for any criminal act but for being gay and for being alive.

In 1958 Ted joined a protest outside of the art gallery dressed head to toe in drag. At the time, he faced arrest for impersonating a woman, but Ted, as always, was a step ahead, wearing the required three items of men's clothing to avoid arrest. Under his gown he had one pair of men's socks, two pairs of men's socks and, of course, his underwear — the men's socks in a bra. He wore it very well, I'm sure.

Ted always stood up and stood out. In 1964 he founded the Imperial Court System in Canada and soon thereafter was named the Empress of Canada, a title he holds to this day.

Through his work with the Dogwood Monarch Society, the Gay Businessmen's Guild and many other organizations, he created safe spaces for the gay and lesbian community, raised over $10 million for charity and helped change the world.

In 1969 community efforts, including his own, to end the criminalization of gay people were finally successful. Ted was crucial in the fight. He recalls receiving a phone call. He answered it only to hear the Prime Minister call him "Your Majesty" before congratulating him for his efforts and for the good news. Your Majesty, indeed.

Ted was a fighter, a community builder and somebody that will live in our hearts for a long, long time. He dared to be himself. He dared to stand up to convention, and for all of that, we are so grateful and we are so better for it as a community.

Rest in peace, Ted. May your entrance to wherever you may go be greeted by a big old gay coronation, where they, of course, will await your entrance, Ted, head to toe in drag. Thank you, Ted Northe.

RICHMOND LIONS MANOR BRIDGEPORT
CARE FACILITY

J. Yap: I'm pleased to rise in the House today and speak about Richmond Lions Manor Bridgeport, a complex care seniors living facility in Richmond. The original Richmond Lions Manor has been located in my riding, Richmond-Steveston, since the '70s. For years the caring staff at the facility have provided excellent service for each and every resident who lived there. While we will miss the facility, Vancouver Coastal Health is working on a long-term plan for the outdated building.

The residents of Richmond Lions Manor have moved from this aging space into the renovated and significantly upgraded facility of Richmond Lions Manor Bridgeport. With 93 beds, including 49 single room and 22 double rooms that are twice as large as the rooms in the original facility, residents have their private space while receiving the care that they need.

Improvements to this facility include bedrooms, lounge and dining areas on each floor and activity and exercise area, care and treatment areas. The second floor has a special care unit for patients living with dementia.

While providing residents with a home-like environment, Richmond Lions Manor Bridgeport is equipped with security measures that include quality technological devices to ensure safety and security, including cameras, closed-circuit TV, secure doors that require swipe card access, and bracelets for those with cognitive decline. An indoor courtyard and an outdoor gated park with a six-foot minimum fence around the perimeter ensure that residents can enjoy the outdoors while remaining safe. Residents can visit amenities close by, including coffee shops, restaurants and the Cambie Community Centre.

It's fantastic to see an updated space to support residents' needs in a bright, communal environment. Many people in Richmond Health Services were involved in making this project a success, but I want to mention in particular Mike Nader, chief operating officer; Kathy Wong, manager; and Natalie McCarthy, director of mental health and addictions and residential care — who oversaw the project.

Richmond Lions Manor Bridgeport is a welcome addition to the Richmond community.

50th ANNIVERSARY OF
TSUNAMI IN PORT ALBERNI

S. Fraser: It was Good Friday in 1964 that the largest earthquake of the century rocked Alaska, heaving up the ocean floor 15 metres and sending seismic waves all along the west coast of Vancouver Island. Friday marked the 50th anniversary of the tsunami that travelled up the Alberni Inlet.

[1350]

In the wee hours of March 28, 1964, three consecutive waves flooded the town, causing massive damage and mayhem. But miraculously, no one was killed or seriously injured. From the pulp mill to Beaver Creek there were cars, houses and boats severely damaged. Loose logs were acting like battering rams as they hit the buildings in their path. Houses and cabins that weren't washed out to the river were strewn everywhere. A church was moved several hundred feet and was facing a new direction. It was surreal.

The people of Port Alberni rallied that night to prevent death and injury, as they rallied in the weeks and months to come to rebuild their town. On Friday I attended a fascinating commemorative event at the Alberni Maritime Discovery Centre. Incredible displays of original photographs brought that event back to life, and the awesome power of nature was graphically depicted to a full house of visitors.
[ Page 2570 ]

Jan Jansma was there in 1964. He presented an amazing slide show at the Discovery Centre and told a firsthand story that had me captivated and had the rest of the house captivated as well. Following Jan, George Monrufet told the story of how he, as a young lad, was called to action by his father to help save the infamous Lady Rose that was at dock in the harbour.

I want to thank museum director and emcee Jamie Morton and everyone involved at the Port Alberni Maritime Discovery Centre for allowing us to relive and learn from history and for reminding us in this Legislative Assembly to follow the lead of the people of Port Alberni and get prepared for the next big one.

LIFESAVING SOCIETY AWARDS
FOR BRAVERY

R. Lee: Courage, bravery and quick thinking are often required to rescue a drowning person. Risking one's own life characterizes many rescues and acts of selfless bravery. Whether on a lake, river or ocean; whether on a boat or near the shore; whether in calm waters or in a fierce storm, we credit the many heroes who risk their lives to save others.

Today I rise in the House to recognize an important organization which helps us all work and play safer: the B.C. and Yukon branch of the Lifesaving Society, a non-profit organization whose mandate is to reduce water-related death and injury.

I had the honour to attend its 102nd annual Commonwealth Awards ceremony last Saturday where five volunteers — Anita Bernardo, Chris Cordova, Melina Sweezey, Kim Town-Schon and Tia Town-Schon — received a certificate of thanks. Service medals were awarded to Lauralee Cheng, Jeff Holland, Michael Miller, Dan Minster and Alison Stevens to acknowledge their meritorious service in saving lives.

Silver Medals of Merit were awarded to David Cobb, Andrew and Mackenzie Lacon, Peter MacDougal, Kristine Williams, Paul Murnaghan, Eric Pehota, Callie Hill and Cameron and Sydney Wetter.

Finally, to acknowledge rescues involving significant acts of bravery, the Silver Medals for Bravery were awarded to the following heroes: Oswald Felsman, Deion Watts, Tracy Goodman, Jennifer Partridge, Julien Peron, Gary Lefebvre, Brennan Lund, Connor Lund, Ethan Milne, Bruce Shaw, Daniel Zayonc, Roger Wetter and Alan Downie, who was also awarded with the Governor's Gold Medal.

Thank you to the Lifesaving Society for improving water safety, and thank you to all of the brave heroes who risk their lives to save others in need.

EXPIRATION OF CANADA HEALTH ACCORD

J. Darcy: Today in ten communities across B.C. and dozens more across Canada people are gathering at rallies and public meetings to raise the alarm about the end of the Canada health accord. Today the ten-year-old health accord, which provided stable, long-term funding to the provinces after a decade of cuts, is set to expire.

The accord recommitted all provinces to protecting our most cherished social program by upholding the five principles of medicare, and it committed governments to common goals around wait times, home care, prescription drugs and team-based primary care. But now all of that is set to change.

[1355]

Federal transfers to the provinces will be cut by $36 billion over the next ten years, and B.C. will be the biggest loser. Our cut, of $5 billion, is greater than the total cuts to the four Atlantic provinces, the three prairie provinces and the territories combined.

The first cuts take effect today — $255 million worth. What could that $255 million pay for? Improved standards in residential care and home support for thousands more seniors, plus dozens of new community health centres, plus making progress in tackling the major crisis in mental health.

That's why people across B.C. and across Canada are raising the alarm today. They want to improve our health care and ensure it's sustainable. They know that a weakening of medicare leads to two-tier health care where the quality of care you get depends on the size of your pocketbook, where they check your purse before they check your pulse. That's something that British Columbians and Canadians will never accept.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, allow me to thank those members whose two-minute statements were actually two minutes. I appreciate that.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION INTO EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: The Kwantlen Polytechnic University Foundation website says its current and only priority is to support students through scholarships, bursaries and awards made possible by generous donors.

Now e-mails from inside Kwantlen reveal that the chair of the board, the Minister of Advanced Education and one other board member wanted to break government salary cap rules by giving $100,000 from this foundation to the incoming president. Can the minister tell the House whether he was successful in using student scholarship money to make a secret six-figure payment to the president of Kwantlen University?

Hon. A. Virk: As the member opposite may certainly recall, there is a full examination of compensation occurring at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Assistant
[ Page 2571 ]
Deputy Minister Mingay has been tasked with that, and his report will include any findings or recommendations relating to examination of specific transactions, as well as any general conclusions he's able to draw from his review on that matter. That report is due for the Minister of Finance to examine.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: The minister knows that the outline of the investigation doesn't mention the foundation at all. In fact, the minister's proposal was scheduled to go to the board of directors on November 7, 2011. In an e-mail the chair of the board said that he, the minister, and one other board member had discussed the plan.

Now, this harebrained scheme was only interrupted when staff e-mailed and asked for advice from the president of the B.C. Association of Institutes and Universities two days before the board meeting. The advice the staff member received was what you would expect: "Stop. This is wrong."

As one of the three board members in on this, can the minister explain why he was pursuing this outlandish plan in the first place and whether he told Mr. Mingay to look into this as part of the investigation?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, Madame Speaker, if the member opposite has in his possession any additional materials, I certainly recommend that he be able to table those so that Mr. Mingay can have more additional information to complete his review.

D. Eby: It's rapidly becoming clear that the minister is the one with the most interesting information for Mr. Mingay, not this side of the House.

Kwantlen staff are well aware that the irregular nature of presidential and executive contracts at the school were inappropriate. An e-mail from the current president, Alan Davis, about his contract notes that since the minister was on the board at the time the president's contract was signed, "we need to be ready to defend him if this becomes an issue."

[1400]

To the minister, what actions did he take or not take that need defending? What actions, if any, are Kwantlen staff currently taking to defend the minister from his own government's investigation?

Hon. A. Virk: At the risk of sounding repetitive, let me lay out what the appointment letter to Mr. Mingay reads. "What payments were made and pursuant to what contractual arrangements? What was disclosed? Did disclosure occur consistent with the applicable guidelines, including PSEC requirements? Was the total compensation received by the employees consistent with the compensation guidelines?"

The ADM has authority under the Financial Administration Act and the Financial Information Act to require the appropriate information. That review will come forth and provide the information to myself and to the Minister of Finance: were the appropriate Financial Information Act requirements fulfilled?

A. Dix: Here's what we know so far. We know that Kwantlen Polytechnic University has schemed to hide at least $100,000 in payments to senior staff by recording them as supplier payments. We know they also spent large amounts of money in research payments to senior staff, also not reported as compensation. We also know that the minister, in his role on the board, along with Mr. Schoberg, who is still chair of the Kwantlen board, hatched a plan to divert money from the university student foundations to top up the president's salary.

The minister has talked about the role of boards. He knows that section 19 of the University Act states that members of the board must act in the best interests of the university and that they have fiduciary duties.

Specifically to the minister, can he tell the House if he has been interviewed yet by Mr. Mingay?

Hon. A. Virk: We take this matter very seriously, and the Public Sector Employers Council secretary is going to indeed examine all the facts surrounding the payments made to those executives. Any payments made outside of their contractual period are going to be examined, and the review is underway. It's looking at the payments themselves. It's looking at the public disclosure of those payments. It's looking at the compensation and to ensure that it met with the appropriate government guidelines.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: The minister answers these questions as if he was witnessing a car accident. He was driving the car. The question was very, very simple. Has the minister been interviewed in Mr. Mingay's investigation of these activities at Kwantlen Polytechnic University?

Hon. A. Virk: I think the member of the opposition is suggesting that the review process be circumvented. The review is underway, and the report will be available when the review is done.

IMPACT OF ELECTRICITY RATES ON
INDUSTRY AND LOW-INCOME EARNERS

J. Horgan: Tomorrow heating your home and turning the lights on will cost 9 percent more than it does today. Over the next five years hydro rates are forecast to go up 28 percent. These reckless increases are going to have a
[ Page 2572 ]
significant impact on low-income individuals, middle-class individuals and businesses right across the board.

We have been asking British Columbians to give us their views on this matter, and I'd like to share with the minister. Susan from North Vancouver wrote to us. She's on a fixed income, lives in a townhouse. She's done everything she can, availed herself of Power Smart programs, but yet she says: "It will be debatable if we turn the electricity on next winter."

My question is to the Minister of Energy. After coming to the conclusion, without any review by the Utilities Commission, of 28 percent rate increases, most of which will be going to the Minister of Finance's treasury, what steps are you going to take to protect low-income British Columbians in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Bennett: First of all, the rate increases should be judged in the context of the full ten-year plan that we announced in November.

[1405]

The ten-year plan includes not only the rate increases that the member quoted accurately but also a commitment for government to take less over the course of that plan. It includes a commitment to pay off the so-called deferral accounts. It has already included a reduction of operating costs at B.C. Hydro, to the tune of almost $400 million over three years. It includes the reduction, unfortunately, of employees at B.C. Hydro, to the tune of 900. That has already happened. Executive compensation is under control, compared to other public utilities in North America.

In that context, it is true that it is necessary to raise rates in this province to pay for future infrastructure that's necessary to our economy and necessary to those same ratepayers. I would just close by saying that there is $1.6 billion for Power Smart programs over the life of the plan.

J. Horgan: Well, there's certainly a lot to chew on there. We have $1.6 billion over ten years to try and reduce consumption while we're trying to pay off $60 billion in unfunded liabilities for private power. We have a whole host of other costs that have been incurred over the 12 years that this government has been in power.

In fact, we had an integrated utility in 2001. The government took B.C. Transmission Corporation out, and that minister jammed it back in eight years later, saying it was a failure. That was only $200 million of waste. We've had billions and billions and billions of dollars in waste, and yet no contrition whatsoever from the government on the consequences to individuals.

There are options available in other jurisdictions. A bill, I think, might have been tabled just recently on that matter. Will the minister do everything he can to protect British Columbians rather than bash them with 28 percent rate increases?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I think probably both myself and the critic are pretty good at getting a lot of information out in a short period of time. So in response to the question, I'd say first of all that in the first two years of rate increases — the largest rate increases, the 9 percent and the 6 percent — independent power electricity is responsible for 0.5 percent of that increase. So that's the first point.

Secondly, I actually share — and know this side of the House shares — that member's concern for low-income British Columbians and the impact that increased rates will have on low-income British Columbians. We also share the concern as it relates to business, in particular large, industrial ratepayers. That's frankly why there is $1.6 billion in Power Smart money in this budget to develop programs for the whole range of ratepayers, particularly ratepayers that are going to need our assistance, particularly low-income ratepayers.

Now, I know that the Energy critic would prefer to simply give low-income British Columbians a cash subsidy. He has proposed a cash subsidy. While that might sound like a good idea, it does absolutely nothing to get the ratepayer to use less electricity, and that's where we differ.

IMPACT OF ELECTRICITY RATES ON
SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND HOSPITALS

M. Farnworth: Well, the Minister of Energy says he's concerned about low-income British Columbians, and he says he's concerned about big industrial users. What I notice he didn't say was whether or not he had any concern for institutions such as schools and hospitals that have had frozen budgets and the impact that these increases are going to have on them.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: They clearly don't seem to acknowledge the impact that increase in hydro rates are going to have on schools and institutions.

[1410]

Perhaps the Minister of Energy can tell this House what advice he has given to hospitals and schools about which services they must eliminate to make up the approximately additional $45 million in extra costs over the next three years.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the sky is not falling. In fact, electricity and gas costs make up about 1 percent of the overall budget for health authorities. That's the story on health authorities. As far as school districts go, the increased electricity rates will amount to less than 1 percent of their budget.

We think they're going to do their share. Like every other ratepayer in the province, the public sector will do its share. If we tell them they needn't do their share,
[ Page 2573 ]
if they don't have to pay the increase, that means that other ratepayers will have to make up the difference. On this side of the House, we don't believe that's the right way to do it.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, hospitals and schools have been doing their share under this government for the last 13 years, and it's resulted in cuts, cuts, cuts. Talk to the school districts. Talk to the health authorities. Most importantly, perhaps the Health Minister might want to talk to people who use the health service. They'll give him examples of cuts every single day.

Again, to the Minister of Energy, can he tell us what advice he's given to school districts and health authorities on how they're going to make up the impact of these hydro rate increases? Is it to come out of books, textbooks, teachers' wages, services to kids? Does it come out of bandages and supplies in health authorities or delayed wait-lists? Which is it? Because it's going to come from somewhere.

Hon. B. Bennett: As I said a minute ago, the real impact, not the sky-is-falling impact, on school boards is actually quite minimal from the electricity rate increase.

I think what's important is the larger context. The members keep talking about cuts. They've been doing that for 13 years. It hasn't worked out all that well for them electorally. They always like to talk about cuts.

I'm actually very, very proud to be on this side of the House, part of a government that has increased the health budget 13 years in a row. The B.C. Liberal government has never cut the health budget, ever, in 13 years. The B.C. Liberal government has never cut the K-to-12 education budget, ever, in 13 years. It's a great opportunity to stand up and say that.

FERRY FARES

C. Trevena: It's not only hydro rates that are going up. Ferry fares are going up too. The independent Ferry Commissioner set a three-year price cap on fares. A cap usually means a ceiling, a level beyond which fares won't go up. This year it was supposed to be 4 percent, yet tomorrow on most routes people are going to be paying 5 percent more. That's on top of a 3½ percent fuel surcharge back in January, so people are paying 8½ percent more in three months for the cost of using their highway.

They're hearing today about cuts in services. It's very interesting. The Premier does get it, or at least she used to. When she was a host on CKNW, she said: "I'm betting that fares have gotten so high that for every dollar they raise, it'll actually garner less in revenue." Well, that's exactly what's happening. Ridership is plummeting, fares are increasing and now services are being cut.

To the Minister of Transportation, how can he justify the gouging of people for using their highway that even his own Premier thinks is wrong?

[1415]

Hon. T. Stone: I thank the member for North Island for her question. Once again we hear from the member opposite and from the opposition nothing but hollow rhetoric on this file — rhetoric. Government made a commitment to British Columbians that we were going to fix B.C. Ferries for the long term, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

Now, I know the hon. members don't like to be reminded of what the facts actually are on this file. But this government has invested the highest amount in B.C. Ferries this fiscal year, at $180 million, than any previous government has…. That $180 million — a record level of investment from the taxpayers of British Columbia — is all about keeping fares down as low as possible.

The $54 million efficiency target at B.C. Ferries, which we are holding Ferries accountable for, is all about keeping the fares down at B.C. Ferries. Again, we are all about action. We're going to continue to do what it takes to ensure that the ferry system is there for the long term.

Madame Speaker: North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I guess the minister is saying that the Premier was wrong. That's the long way around it. I have to say that Liberal math is astounding — that an 8½ percent increase in fares in three months is keeping fares down. Ask anybody who lives in ferry-dependent communities, any business that is operating in a ferry-dependent community. They will know that an 8½ percent increase is definitely not keeping fares down, and it's damaging their businesses.

Tomorrow seniors are going to have to pay for the first time. B.C. Liberals are going to be taking $7½ million a year from the over-65s, people on a fixed income. That's on top of $162 million the government is planning to take from all ferry users in the form of these fare hikes over the next three years.

Seniors are not rich. Just because they work on the islands — grew up on the islands and worked on the islands — doesn't mean that they are wealthy. For thousands of seniors on a fixed income, it'll restrict their lives. They'll not be able to get their groceries. They'll not be able to visit family. It's going to diminish what their lives are. Why does the minister expect that seniors…?

Interjections.

C. Trevena: As I was saying to the Minister of Transportation, why does he expect that seniors should be held responsible for fixing the ferry system his government has broken so badly?
[ Page 2574 ]

Hon. T. Stone: What, effectively, the member is suggesting is that it makes sense for the long term and, in fact, that it's a good strategy to keep fares down, that it makes sense in an effort to keep pressure on fares down, to have a sailing like, as many examples, the last, off-peak 11 p.m. Tuesday sailing from Gabriola Island to Nanaimo. Now, listen really carefully. Listen to these numbers. You're talking about a ferry that carries 400 people and 70 cars on this particular sailing. It has a utilization rate of one or two cars, five people and seven or eight crew. Surely, the member opposite isn't suggesting that continuing to run a ferry with 1.3 percent utilization — more crew than passengers — is going to help keep fares down.

[1420]

JUMBO GLACIER RESORT MUNICIPALITY

N. Macdonald: Jumbo resort municipality is a 6,000-hectare wilderness with no people and not one building. The mayor and council have already spent $250,000 of taxpayers' money, and they have accomplished nothing. And it's not surprising, since there is no investor, and there has not been an investor for the past decade.

The question is…. We now see that the fake municipality is being potentially funded by taxpayers to the tune of a million dollars over the next five years. We're asking for money for dialysis in my area. We're asking for money so that the TransCanada has a highway rescue vehicle. Does the minister not see the absurdity of then giving $1.25 million for a mayor and council of a town with no people, no building and no investors?

Hon. C. Oakes: Our government believes that 20 years is long enough and that this project should be going forward, because this side of the House believes in growing the economy. And let me tell you about what this economic piece…. The plan: a $450 million resort will ultimately include 5,500 bed units and a 104-hectare resort base area. It will provide approximately 3,750 person-years of construction employment and create 750 to 800 permanent, full-time jobs. We believe in jobs. We believe in growing the economy. And this project is good for B.C.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: I mean, like, wow. It blows you away, right?

At some point you need an investor before you get that outcome. I'm sure the minister knows that. All right.

We have real needs. The minister intends to spend a million dollars over the next five years, having wasted $250,000. There are real needs for that money. We've asked for dialysis service. No, there's no provincial money for that. We asked for an abattoir. No provincial money for that. We asked for a rescue truck so that people on the TransCanada who are injured can actually be saved. No money for that. But the minister still seriously says it's a wise investment to spend a million dollars over the next five years for a mayor and council that has no people, no buildings and no investor. How does that make sense at all?

Hon. C. Oakes: Well, the citizens of British Columbia spoke up, and they said that we pay for these types of items that are so crucial, so important for people by growing the economy. And let me stand correct. The member opposite was in estimates last week, where they know full well that the $200,000 that was provided, which we provide to all start-up municipalities or provide to infrastructure investment…. Every community of both sides can apply from local government to implement infrastructure pieces, start-up money for its infrastructure.

The $200,000 that the member opposite was talking about is money…. All local governments can put their application for it forward. But let me ask the member opposite: when Whistler was formed, when Sun Peaks was formed…. These are good investments for the province of British Columbia. Tourism is important for the province of British Columbia. And we are committed to growing the economy of British Columbia.

[1425]

M. Mungall: No one in the Kootenays voted for a government to spend $1 million on a fake municipality without a single resident, without a single pub, without a hospital, without a school, without a house. There isn't even a street there. If she would take the time to drive up there, she would know that.

While this government — and the minister seems to be very proud of this — found $1 million for this fake municipality without a single resident, they said that they could not afford $1 million to help victims of the Johnsons Landing mudslide with a buyout program similar to the one offered to North Vancouver residents in 2005. They also said that they have no money to run the CT scanner at Kootenay Lake Hospital 24/7 or literacy programs in the region or for Trafalgar School and Selkirk College. They have money for a fake municipality that is run by the Minister of Energy's buddies, that is only invested by the Minister of Energy's buddies…

Madame Speaker: Pose your question.

M. Mungall: …but they don't have $1 million for real people in the Kootenays.
[ Page 2575 ]

To the minister for local government: how do you find $1 million for a fake municipality, but the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education can't find a cent for the real projects that help real people in the Kootenays?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, I wish the members opposite would listen to the fact during estimates, of which you sat through, that $200,000 was provided for the start-up of the municipality.

Small community grants are available to local governments to assist them in providing services and hiring qualified staff. Grants are based on a formula that factors in the base amount and other information. In 2013 Invermere received $280,402 through this, Radium Hot Springs received $182,758, and Canal Flats received $204,679.

But the final thing: in 1975, by an NDP government, Whistler was formed in just the same way.

Madame Speaker, we're going to grow this economy. We're going to provide jobs and make sure we can provide the services that are so important to British Columbians across the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

D. Eby: I seek leave to table the e-mails that detail wrongdoing at Kwantlen University requested by the Minister of Advanced Education.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the main chamber here I call continuing committee stage of Bill 7, intituled Laboratory Services Act, and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, the continuing estimates of the Ministry of International Trade.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — LABORATORY SERVICES ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

The Chair: I'll recognize the Minister of Health to introduce his staff.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm joined by three very important and very intelligent women, which is very fortunate for me as I go through this committee stage of our bill. We have Elaine McKnight, who is Associate Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Health, Corrie Campbell and Jane Crickmore, who are from our legislative branch and will be helping us through the committee stage. I look forward to committee debate.

On section 1.

J. Darcy: Well, I'm really looking forward to further discussion on the clause-by-clause of the laboratory reform, Bill 7, and I guess we start with definitions in part 1. I have a number of questions for the minister.

Could we just begin by "administrative body"? I know that there's been a lot of discussion about consolidation of laboratory services. Various options are being considered. Could the minister please talk about what he envisions an administrative body under this act looking like?

Hon. T. Lake: Essentially, this part of the definition gives the minister the ability to establish a body.

[1435]

In this case, it would be like a board, much like we have boards to manage health authorities or different administrations of the health care system. This gives us the potential opportunity to create a board that would oversee the laboratory system in the province of British Columbia.

J. Darcy: I understand that, but I wonder if the minister could share more of his thinking. Are we talking about one administrative body that would deal with all laboratory services, both administering the public labs as well as dealing with contracts with private labs? Or does the minister envision more than one administrative body under this act?

Hon. T. Lake: Section 31, when we get to that section, certainly can speak more to this part of the act, as administrative body is referred to under that section. We will have a transition period of three years as we move through this process, so the legislation we are moving through today really is giving us the ability to do a number of things to rationalize the laboratory system in the province of British Columbia.

The administrative body could be an overall body to manage the entire system, but as we move through this and do our consultation, our decisions about the form of that administrative body will be informed by those consultations with the various stakeholders in the laboratory system.

J. Darcy: I assume "approved laboratory facility" means both a public facility or a privately operated facility?

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is yes.

J. Darcy: So "college" appears a little bit further down the list under definitions. Could the minister just explain which colleges he considers to be relevant to this act?

Hon. T. Lake: The colleges are those that have the ability to order diagnostic tests. That would include
[ Page 2576 ]
the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Midwives, of nurse practitioners, podiatrists and Dental Surgeons.

J. Darcy: Can I ask the minister to repeat that a little bit more slowly?

Hon. T. Lake: The colleges referred to are the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Midwives, of nurse practitioners, podiatrists and Dental Surgeons.

J. Darcy: Under "laboratory facility" it refers to — on the second page — "a facility that provides laboratory services." My question is whether a private clinic could potentially contain a laboratory service, and would it be covered under this act?

Hon. T. Lake: Potentially.

[1440]

J. Darcy: Going further along under definitions, "laboratory services agreement," can the minister please explain what the nature of current agreements, agreements that exist now, is for providing laboratory services?

Hon. T. Lake: We have no agreements.

J. Darcy: That makes that quite simple. Referring to "referring practitioner," could the minister please set out what the categories of practitioners are that would be covered under this?

Hon. T. Lake: It is the same as referred to earlier — that is, the physicians and surgeons, midwives, nurse practitioners, podiatrists and dental surgeons.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Darcy: Can the minister please explain the meaning of the term "the minister must have regard to the principles expressed in sections 5.1 to 5.7 of the Medicare Protection Act"?

Hon. T. Lake: The principles referred to in the Medicare Protection Act are those of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, accessibility. Those are in common with the Canada Health Act. So that is 5.1 to 5.6, and 5.7 refers to sustainability, which is part of the Medicare Protection Act.

J. Darcy: Could the minister explain in particular what "must have regard to" means?

Hon. T. Lake: It means that in administering this particular piece of legislation, you must uphold the principles that are in the Medicare Protection Act, which are the tenets, if you like, of the public health care act that we have in the province of British Columbia.

J. Darcy: I'd like to propose an amendment to that section. Shall I read it first?

The Chair: Proceed.

J. Darcy:

[To amend section 3 of the Act by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

3 In exercising powers and performing duties under this Act, the minister must have regard to respect the principles expressed in sections 5.1 to 5.7 of the Medicare Protection Act.]

The Chair: Does the member wish to speak to the amendment?

On the amendment.

J. Darcy: Yes, I would. The Canada Health Act is something that we certainly all hold sacred. When we are making reference to the Canada Health Act and, by definition, the Medicare Protection Act in British Columbia, words that say "must have regard to" are not strong enough. I think it's critical that we in fact say that the provisions of the Medicare Protection Act "must be respected," as opposed to "the minister must have regard to."

[1445]

These principles are ones that the minister has referred to. Public administration, so that the plan is publicly funded. "Operated on an accountable basis" is what we have in the Medicare Protection Act. Comprehensiveness, that all medically required services are provided by enrolled medical practitioners, that they're in approved diagnostic facilities, and so on.

On the issue of universality, the plan applies to 100 percent of beneficiaries. On uniform terms and conditions, that there is no discrimination with regard to benefits or rights under that. Portability, which the minister has also referred to.

Accessibility I think is an absolutely critical one. When we discussed this earlier at second reading you certainly heard concerns expressed from some of my colleagues, especially from rural and remote communities. I know that those concerns were expressed in the consultation process that preceded this bill — that we need to ensure in the process of consolidation, where there is certainly risk of reduced access to services, that we say right up front when we are dealing with this bill that there will continue to be accessibility for all communities across this province.

I know that the minister, in the response to second reading, said that there would be no change to accessibility in the province, but I think it's critical.
[ Page 2577 ]

And on the issue of sustainability of the health care system, as well, I think it's critical that we say right from the top, when we are dealing with this bill, that the minister will exercise his powers not just in regard to but that he must, in fact, respect the principles of the Medicare Protection Act.

Hon. T. Lake: I take the member's point in that she is, I think, demonstrating that this piece of legislation must reflect and uphold the principles of the Medicare Protection Act. I just don't think the wording suggested is any different than the wording that we have at the moment, so I would speak against the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

J. Darcy: There is a reference in 4(1)(b)(ii) that refers to "in accordance with all applicable protocols approved by the minister." Could the minister please explain what is meant by that? What kinds of protocols are envisioned?

Hon. T. Lake: Diagnostic testing has to be delivered in a way that upholds protocols that are designed by science and experts in the field. The protocols referred to would be developed by the ministry and approved by the minister for different testing procedures.

[1450]

If there is a certain type of test, then the ministry and the minister can command the diagnostic facility to adhere to a certain protocol that is established by accredited agencies or organizations. For example, the way we test for Lyme disease is accredited by the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta. We accept their protocols, and that's the type of testing protocol referred to in this section.

J. Darcy: In the second section of 4 it says: "The minister may make orders as follows: (a) that a laboratory service or a class of laboratory services are not benefits." I wonder if the minister could explain examples of what that might mean. What would guide the minister in making a decision on a matter such as this?

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, as technology changes and knowledge base changes, there may be tests that are no longer deemed viable or suitable. Another test may be adopted which does become the benefit, and the former test then will no longer be a benefit. It wouldn't be recognized as a proper test.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

J. Darcy: On "Payment for laboratory services outside British Columbia," I wonder if the minister could speak to what the present practice is in this regard. Does this represent a change in practice or a confirmation of existing practice?

Hon. T. Lake: This is essentially…. Well, it is — not just essentially — the same practice that we follow today.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

J. Darcy: Yes, a question on section 8. Does the….? Oh, you know what? I think it might have been on section 7, which I believe we just voted on, so we should just continue, I guess.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

J. Darcy: Can the minister please explain what the purpose is of this section? What is it that is being excluded here? There's a reference to payment for medically necessary services. I wonder: can the minister please explain the purpose of that section?

Hon. T. Lake: This provision mirrors section 45 of the Medicare Protection Act. If a person is not eligible to be a beneficiary in B.C. because he or she does not meet the definition of resident, then this prohibition does not apply. This is essentially to say that you can't go out and buy private insurance to cover diagnostic testing. If you're a beneficiary, then you are covered. You can't go out of that public system in order to get diagnostic testing at the facilities that have agreements or are accredited under the system.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

J. Darcy: Section 10 says, "A person may provide benefits only through a laboratory facility.… The minister may grant an approval or enter into a laboratory services agreement..." and so on. Can the minister please explain how this is determined at present — in subsection (1), to begin with?

[1455]

Hon. T. Lake: The current system is through approval of facilities, so health authorities, for instance, or private providers have to have an approval from the ministry to provide benefits.
[ Page 2578 ]

J. Darcy: In section 10(2)(c) it says: "the minister, on considering the matters set out in the regulations, is satisfied that it would be in the public interest to grant the approval or to enter into the laboratory services agreement."

Can the minister please define what is meant by "public interest" in that section?

Hon. T. Lake: The public interest would be served by things like accessibility, appropriateness and value for money. So the things that….

If it was in the interest of the public for the government to enter into an agreement or approve a diagnostic facility, we would look at what the people of British Columbia are going to get out of that. As I mentioned, things like the appropriateness; the accreditation of the facility; the cost, if we were doing an agreement for a service with a private provider, for instance; the value for money that would come into it — essentially making sure that it is providing the high level of health care for the population of British Columbia.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister.

A question. The minister has mentioned accessibility, and he also mentioned cost savings. It's quite possible, of course, that those two goals can be in conflict with one another and that reducing access points to lab services across the province, especially in rural communities, can conceivably save money. So can reduction of services anywhere in the province. How does the minister envision balancing those different parts of public interest?

The minister has assured us, and the introduction to this bill refers to the principles of the Medicare Protection Act, which certainly enshrines the principles of the Canada Health Act regarding accessibility. Yet the minister says….

Overall, we understand that one of the primary objectives of this bill and of laboratory reform is efficiencies and cost savings. How does the minister envision balancing — this is a pretty broad term — cost savings with accessibility in local communities?

Hon. T. Lake: That's a very good question. That's why I get paid so much. It is an interesting question, and that is the balance that you have to find. For instance, if someone wanted to provide laboratory services and have only one place where you could go to give your blood sample, and they gave the government a really great deal, that would not, obviously, meet the test of accessibility.

The Medicare Protection Act does enshrine sustainability as well, so this is very consistent with our approach, with the triple-aim approach, which has been developed by the Institute for Health Care Innovation. That is to improve the health of the population, improve the patient experience and outcome and have value for money. All of those have to be considered.

If we wanted to have diagnostic sampling sites on every block, that clearly would increase accessibility, but it would come at a very high price. The member opposite is making a very good point about the very tough decisions that need to be made.

[1500]

In the public interest, obviously, you need to be able to provide accessibility for people and, if someone is living in a smaller community, find ways through innovation and by…. Well, a good example is the use of telehealth, which we use now and that we didn't have available to us 20 years ago.

There are ways and means of providing accessibility, yet still finding value for money. I don't think they are mutually exclusive at all, but it's always a challenge to find the right balance of those two.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

J. Darcy: Approvals to provide benefits. I made some of these remarks when we were discussing this bill at second reading. Subsection 11(2) says: "The minister may change the limits or conditions attached to an existing approval if the minister first gives, in accordance with the regulations, notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard." It's the reference to changing limits and conditions. How broad is that power? Can the minister please explain? Does that give the minister the power to cancel the provision of services by a public body?

Hon. T. Lake: As the current system is at the moment, there are limits and conditions on laboratory facilities based on the types of testing they're doing. Some laboratory facilities will not be that sophisticated, so they will be limited to certain types of tests. Other laboratories may be very sophisticated and have a wider array of tests that they are able to perform.

This gives the power to the minister to change the limits and conditions, essentially to move a diagnostic facility from one level to another based on decisions that — perhaps there's a new technology — make sense to consolidate all of that technology into one centre. DNA testing might be something that would not make sense to do in smaller facilities but would make sense to take a critical mass and put it into one facility.

This gives the minister the ability to order a facility, then, to change its terms and conditions or its limits and conditions to achieve the objective of a more efficient service, whether that's to make sure the results are more accurate or to provide better value for money. There are various things that could bring about that decision.

J. Darcy: Just a further question to the minister. I understand that in the Lower Mainland, for instance, where we already have had consolidation of labs over
[ Page 2579 ]
the last number of years, people continue to still have access to the same level of lab services. But I'd like the minister to speak in regard to this in particular. What does he think it means, for instance, for the north Island or northern B.C., the rural parts of the Interior Health Authority? What differences does he envision this being for those regions?

Hon. T. Lake: I think that would be pure speculation on my part because the technology of diagnostic testing changes dramatically. It's kind of like Moore's law with computing power. We were just talking to Genome B.C. about the ability to test the genomic makeup of a tumour and to tailor the treatment based on the genetic makeup of someone's tumour. That kind of technology didn't exist even a couple of years ago.

[1505]

It's very hard for me to speculate what this would mean, because the technologies, the types of lab testing we do, change dramatically from one year to the next. This gives us the flexibility to make sure that we are constantly rationalizing, optimizing the service to drive home efficiencies and the best service to British Columbians.

I think the member would agree that particularly a patient faced with a diagnosis that might be quite scary would really want us to have the very best testing capability available, and if that meant that you had to change the terms and conditions on one lab to make sure that they were done where that testing was at the very highest level, that would be in the interests of the patient.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

J. Darcy: Can the minister please explain the purpose of this section?

Hon. T. Lake: This would give the ability to enter into contracts with providers of laboratory services. All of these sections you see are related to the ability to enter into those agreements.

J. Darcy: The minister has said that laboratory service agreements do not exist at the present time. Does the minister envision there will be a change of the mix between the public and the private delivery of lab services under this act?

Hon. T. Lake: In the current system, the in-patient laboratory testing is done in the public system. On an out-patient basis, about 70 percent is conducted by private businesses and 30 percent by health authorities, essentially.

I guess that we're agnostic on what the future holds. We want to do our consultation with all of the stakeholders. I had a very interesting meeting with a pathologist from Interior Health last week, and he made a very strong case about using health authority facilities to do a lot of the laboratory testing.

I think, again, it's back to the principles of the Medicare Protection Act and getting efficiencies and value for money while at the same time delivering a high level of service. As I say, we will be putting our thoughts around how that will best be achieved. We have the ability to do it through the public system, the private system or a combination of both, as we have today.

J. Darcy: Moving on to subsection 12(2)(b), which deals with providing "for different payments for (i) different benefits and laboratory facilities and different classes of benefits and laboratory facilities, (ii) benefits provided in different geographic locations, and (iii) different volumes of benefits," can the minister please explain what the present practice is for payment and whether this reflects any change?

Hon. T. Lake: Currently the in-patient services are globally funded. A health authority will get their global funding, and the in-patient testing is covered under that. On the out-patient side, whether it's done by a health authority or a private facility, it is a fee-for-service model. There's a fee paid for each diagnostic test that is carried out.

[1510]

This provision allows us to have more flexibility in how we would fund the testing scheme. It may be that it would all be fee-for-service, or it may be that contractually, with a laboratory services agreement, we would agree, much like you do with an RFP, to a certain price for a certain type of test at a certain volume. It just gives us more flexibility to reap the benefits for the taxpayers when we're entering into laboratory service agreements.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister. Just in reviewing some of the contributions in the consultations phase prior to the bill, I noted that in some other jurisdictions sometimes there are caps on payment — for private providers, I guess, in this case in particular. Can the minister say if that's one of the things that he would be considering when there's a reference to different volumes of benefits?

Hon. T. Lake: There's been no determination or really much discussion about any type of capping. Just to drive the point home a little bit, I guess. I mentioned technological advances. Under a fee-for-service model, if I pay $25 for a complete blood count now and the technology changes to make that test a lot cheaper to run, I don't want to continue to pay $25.

I wanted to have the flexibility to reap the benefits of technology and efficiencies for the taxpayer, so this
[ Page 2580 ]
gives us the flexibility to do that. It doesn't envision, at this point anyway, a cap on the number of tests that can be run.

J. Darcy: On the final section under 12, I wonder if the minister can explain what point (4) means.

Hon. T. Lake: Just to give you an example, currently we have approvals of some private providers. Once we were to enter into a laboratory services agreement with that provider, the old approval would be cancelled. It's just to provide clarity that once a laboratory services agreement was reached, that would guide the work of the laboratory and its relationship to government. The old approval would no longer be valid.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

J. Darcy: I wonder, again, if the minister could please explain the purpose of section 14.

Hon. T. Lake: This section just gives the minister the ability to determine how and how much payment would go to a laboratory service provider.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

J. Darcy: On section 15. There are a whole lot of subsections and subsections of subsections here. But if we go to (3), I wonder if the minister could please provide an example or explain the circumstances that would make it acceptable to charge for laboratory services.

Hon. T. Lake: Essentially, this means that if someone wants to go and have a laboratory test done in a facility that is not approved or doesn't have a laboratory services agreement and wants to pay for it, they can. There are all kinds of testing that you can have done that don't fall within the accepted practices, I guess, of health care that the public system recognizes.

[1515]

So you could go and have your hair tested or your nails tested at a non-approved facility and pay for it yourself, and that's what it refers to. People have that right to do that. It's just not covered under the government plan.

J. Darcy: So just to clarify, this section, then, would refer only to testing that is not considered medically necessary by a practitioner?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, that, but also, if it's a non-approved facility…. It may be a medically necessary test that actually is covered under an approved facility. So the operator of the non-approved facility…. Just a simple blood test that may be covered by an approved facility — if I as a member of the public wanted to get that blood test done at another facility that's not approved, the non-approved facility has a duty to inform me that they are not approved and that the cost of that test would not be covered by MSP.

J. Darcy: A further question to the minister: what would be a non-approved facility that could provide laboratory testing?

Hon. T. Lake: It's a very good question. This, I guess, allows the idea that laboratory testing facilities may spring up, hoping to attract business, but if they do not enter into an agreement with the government or be approved by the government, then they, essentially, have to charge the patient directly. This section says that if that were to happen, they would have to inform the patient that their testing is not covered because they are a non-approved facility. So it's just, I guess, envisioning the potential for that to happen and the protection of the public so that they are fully informed.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

J. Darcy: The issue of records. I raised, and other of my colleagues raised, in the discussion at second reading and certainly in the consultation period beforehand…. There were concerns raised about privacy issues, and I wonder if the minister could please explain in 16(b) the nature of the records that must be provided.

Hon. T. Lake: The purpose of this section is to create a responsibility for operators and former operators to keep and produce records prescribed by the regulations. The records must be kept in a manner required by the minister and produced when the minister demands them in a timely fashion. So for the purposes of an audit and investigations under the act, records relevant to the provision of benefits to the beneficiaries must be kept, and they must be produced. Those records could include, for example, referral requests, clinical information about patients and diagnoses, administrative information regarding the benefits provided, or billing and payment information.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

[1520]

J. Darcy: I think it's fair to say that this next section is an area of serious concern to myself and to my colleagues. We
[ Page 2581 ]
spoke in second reading about the enormous power that this bill confers on the minister. "The minister may cancel an approval if the minister is of the opinion that (a) it is in the public interest for benefits to be provided to beneficiaries through a different operator, or (b) cancelling the approval is necessary to enhance efficiencies in the delivery of benefits in one or more areas of British Columbia."

I'll take these concerns one at a time. I've already spoken to the issue of accessibility. The minister said at second reading stage: "We've heard from a couple of members. I want to assure members that while the intent of this might be to consolidate some of the processes in our laboratory system, the accessibility will remain unchanged." Those are very strong words. "It's important that we provide access for all of our patients throughout British Columbia."

Certainly, some of my colleagues from rural and northern British Columbia have spoken to this eloquently. We have certainly seen on a number of occasions, when we've talked about consolidation of services over the last number of years, when we've talked about efficiencies in services, that some of the first services and programs to go have been, in fact, those provided to rural and to northern communities.

I'd like to ask a question first about what assurances the minister can give that in fact his commitment in second reading, which was that accessibility will remain unchanged…. Can the minister please explain how he intends to keep that commitment?

Hon. T. Lake: The intent is to maintain the level of accessibility that we currently have. It is important. I mean, my riding encompasses a large rural area, so I am acutely sensitive to the needs of smaller communities. It is important that people have health care provided in their communities to the greatest degree possible. So the commitment is to have a level of accessibility that meets the needs of British Columbians.

We can't speculate at this point how the system will look two years from now, five years from now, ten years from now, 25 years from now, because this is an area that changes greatly with increased knowledge, increased technology.

But we do know, as I mentioned, that Telehealth provides us with technology to provide a level of service to rural communities that they never had before. So there are advantages to technology to increase the level of service to smaller communities in rural areas of the province of British Columbia.

In this legislation the purpose is to provide a high level of service and to provide value for money. This is a commitment that I have made in terms of the level of accessibility. That doesn't mean things won't change in terms of the details, but in terms of the level of accessibility, there should be no change. It's important that people have health care provision in their communities.

J. Darcy: I would like to move an amendment. I will read it first.

The Chair: Proceed.

J. Darcy: It's an amendment to section 18(1)(b), and the amendment would read:

[To amend section 18 of the Act by adding the text shown as underlined:

Cancellation of approvals for laboratory system reasons

18 (1) The minister may cancel an approval if the minister is of the opinion that

(a) it is in the public interest for benefits to be provided to beneficiaries through a different operator, or

(b) cancelling the approval is necessary to enhance efficiencies in the delivery of benefits in one of more areas of British Columbia so long as the Guiding Principles expressed in sections 5.1 to 5.7 of the Medicare Protection Act are respected.

(2) Before cancelling an approval, the minister must give notice in accordance with the regulations.]

The Chair: Unfortunately, as the amendment appears to provide a cost to government, it would be out of order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

[1525]

J. Darcy: Excuse me. Could you please explain that to me? Certainly, because the minister has spoken to the issue of ensuring accessibility of services, this would serve to underline that, and I would be happy to speak to it.

It's about taking the words that the minister has made both in this House today and in our earlier discussions on second reading where he has committed that accessibility would be maintained throughout the province. The principles of the Medicare Protection Act have already been referenced in the preamble to the bill.

The minister has assured this House and assured me that the wording I suggested, which said that the minister must respect the terms of the Medicare Protection Act, and the wording in the act in fact mean the same thing. I'll take the minister at his word on that.

What we are attempting to do in this section is to say that any actions the minister might carry out under this section of the act would, of course, be prescribed by the terms of the Medicare Protection Act, which appear earlier in this bill.

Hon. T. Lake: I would speak against the amendment, simply because in the guiding principles that is already enshrined, so I think it is redundant. In anything the minister does…. "In exercising powers and performing duties under this Act, the minister must have regard to the principles expressed in sections 5.1 to 5.7 of the Medicare Protection Act." The concern that the member has has already been covered in the guiding principles at the beginning of the act.
[ Page 2582 ]

The Chair: Member, for greater clarity, it's out of order for a private member to propose an amendment, resolution or other motion that would provide a cost to government. Section 1(b) of the amendment is where that cost potentially would be.

J. Darcy: I wonder if I could ask for further explanation of that, because the minister has just said that it's unnecessary because it is contained earlier in the bill. Why is it a cost factor in this section, which is the section that bestows incredible power on the minister, and not a cost issue earlier on in the bill? Certainly, the argument was not made earlier on when I proposed to strengthen the language about reference to the principles of the Medicare Protection Act. No issue of cost was raised then.

The minister assures me it's his intention. So why is this a cost issue? I don't understand. I know it's the first time I've done this, but I fail to understand why this is a cost issue.

The Chair: For greater clarity, it's not concerning the cost issue itself. It's the amendment that's out of order. While it may appear earlier in the bill, which is what the minister's response has been, the amendment itself is out of order.

J. Darcy: For clarity, if it's not a cost issue, what has been stated, then, is that it's already covered.

The Chair: That was the minister's response. However, I am ruling that the amendment is out of order.

The minister has basically responded by saying that it's covered in other sections of the bill. My ruling is to do with the amendment, not with whether it's covered in other sections of the bill.

K. Corrigan: Just for further clarification, if the minister is saying that the whole of the bill is covered by the earlier reference to being required to follow the principles, then would that not apply to this section as well? If that was the case, then there would be no additional cost that is referenced in this section.

[1530]

The Chair: I was responding to the amendment on the bill. The minister's response to the earlier sections is obviously to do with the costs. The amendment itself is out of order for the reasons that I've stated.

K. Corrigan: Hon. Chair, to you again: for the reason stated — that this would impose a cost on government, correct?

The Chair: Correct.

H. Bains: For further clarification, hon. Chair, if the ruling is — and the minister already admitted it — that this amendment part that is being proposed is already covered earlier, then my argument, I submit to you, is that there is no additional cost that is being attached to this amendment. How do we consider that as a cost item, as an amendment, when there is no additional cost attached to it when you consider it in a totality of the amendment and the earlier section of the bill that is being talked about? The minister already admits that it's already covered somewhere else.

I ask you to consider this argument and please provide that ruling.

The Chair: While I hear what the member is saying, I've actually already ruled on this issue.

J. Darcy: Let me turn, then, to another…. Let me continue on section 18. As I've already stated, this bill certainly allows…. This section confers on the minister pretty sweeping powers to cancel an approval for any of a number of different reasons.

We've discussed the issue of the public-private mix in the delivery of services. The minister has said that he doesn't have a crystal ball. He can't predict what the future might hold as far as the delivery of those services.

Certainly, we have heard considerable concern expressed in the consultation period by a number of parties, including those people responsible presently for delivering laboratory services, including laboratory technologists, laboratory technicians, the professional organizations that represent them, as well as the union organizations that represent them, about the possibility of shifting services, which are presently provided through the public sector through a health facility, to the private sector. I wonder if the minister can share any further thoughts about what he envisions with regard to the public-private mix.

Hon. T. Lake: I don't have any further thoughts. We canvassed this earlier.

J. Darcy: I would like to propose an amendment to section 18.

[To amend section 18 of the Act by adding the text shown as underlined:

Cancellation of approvals for laboratory system reasons

18 (1) The minister may cancel an approval if the minister is of the opinion that

(a) it is in the public interest for benefits to be provided to beneficiaries through a different operator, or

(b) cancelling the approval is necessary to enhance efficiencies in the delivery of benefits in one or more areas of British Columbia.

(2) Before cancelling an approval, the minister must give notice in accordance with the regulations.

(3) The minister shall not cancel an approval if the effect of the approval is to transfer delivery of the service from a publicly-operated approved facility to a privately-held facility, except by bringing the matter before the Legislative Assembly. ]
[ Page 2583 ]

The Chair: Does the member wish to speak to the amendment?

On the amendment.

J. Darcy: Yes, I would. This bill says that "administrative bodies" will be created and that the administrative bodies will be responsible for administrative issues related to this bill, to operational issues under this bill, but it says that the policy issues — and this was certainly an issue that we discussed in the earlier stages — would remain under the jurisdiction of the minister.

[1535]

In my opinion, and in the opinion of my colleagues, a major shift in delivery of services, in how that service is provided…. A major shift in how those services are delivered from the public sector to the private sector is a major policy shift.

Throughout the history of this government we have seen many, many examples of privatization of various services and various programs. Some of those have been done without the kind of consultation that should be required, both consultation with the recipients of those services — patients and members of the public — and also without the appropriate consultation with the providers of those services.

The providers of those services are expressing deep concern about this bill, which gives the minister essentially the unbridled power not only to carry out all of the various provisions of this bill but including deciding that a public facility will no longer provide services. Conceivably, under this bill, all laboratory services, whether it's the minister's intention or not, provided in this province could conceivably be contracted out to private service delivery, for private service delivery under laboratory services agreements with the private sector. That power is there.

I think that we want to ensure that before a major shift like that were to occur…. I hope that is not the intention. The minister says he has no plans at present. He has no crystal ball as to what might evolve. I think we want to ensure that if the government decides to go in that direction, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be the place where such a major policy decision is made.

I have referred to previous decisions regarding privatization that have been made by this government. Some of them went as far as the Supreme Court of Canada, which said that decisions like this need to be made with thorough consultation beforehand. Decisions like this can have a fundamental impact, both on recipients of services — on patients, on clients of lab services — but also on those people who deliver those services.

I think the minister owes it to the people of British Columbia and, in particular, the recipients of services and those who deliver those services to commit that if such a major shift in policy were to be made, it would come before the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia with proper opportunity for full consultation by everyone affected.

K. Corrigan: I rise to speak in support of this amendment. I think it's a good amendment to protect a public service that has worked very well to date.

It concerns me, as well, that this section as written, without the amendment, opens us up to the possibility of privatization of laboratory services within a hospital. Like my colleague from New Westminster, I have watched closely and seen the privatization of services in this province over many, many years. For the most part, I think many of those privatizations have been very problematic. We have seen it with privatization of cleaning services, of food services, of transport services, of all sorts of different services.

I know in my community of Burnaby that when we had a C. difficile major outbreak a couple of years ago, the aging infrastructure was cited by the doctors as probably the main reason for the C. difficile outbreak. In addition, there was concern raised about the privatization of cleaning services and the fact that….

For example, if somebody were to get sick, to vomit in a room, in order to get that cleaned up a nurse couldn't simply talk to a contract worker who was cleaning. They'd have to call a 1-800 number and get an order for that. We have had dozens — no, hundreds — of examples, I believe, brought to this House by people talking about the impact of privatization of services. These are very important services.

[1540]

I think you need a workforce that is dedicated and a workforce that can interface seamlessly with all the professionals and all the support workers in a hospital. If there is the possibility herein, with the act as written, it really concerns me that we're talking about the possibility of privatizing another service which could, in my opinion, if that were to happen, decrease the level. There is always that push and pull between trying to get the cheapest price but keeping service at appropriate levels. It's a hard balance to get, and it's very difficult to do.

I think what we found repeatedly, when we've had privatized contracts in health care in a number of other areas, including in long-term-care facilities, is that we end up with contract flipping sometimes. We end up with real problems in service deliveries.

This is an absolutely essential service to our hospitals, and I think it's important that we support this amendment in order that we keep those services in the public sector. I think that the medical community, that the people that work in the hospitals would largely be supportive.

For that reason I stand up and support this amendment.
[ Page 2584 ]

Hon. T. Lake: I rise to speak against the amendment. I guess, just to note, that members opposite assume that people employed by government can do things better than people employed in the private sector in every case. I'm surprised they're not calling for anaesthetists, for instance, to be employees of the government. Most doctors in our system are private corporations.

A lot of our health care system is, in fact, delivered by the private system. I would, I guess, ask the members if they feel confident in the anaesthetists, in the surgeons, in the general practitioners that perform excellent care in this province each and every day — that perhaps they're substandard because they're not directly employees of the government.

It's interesting to note that they haven't put another amendment forward to say that if we were going to have the public system take over the private labs that that would have to come to the Legislature for approval.

Nowhere have I heard anything about the patient and how the patient is best served. The patient doesn't care how the service is provided, who provides the service if it meets their needs, if it provides them with the best service available and provides the necessary information to help them meet their health care needs.

I think this is ideology speaking, and I rise to speak against the amendment.

J. Darcy: Well, this is not about ideology. This is about quality of service, but it's also about a major shift in direction. We have had other jurisdictions move in the direction, in fact, of greater public delivery of laboratory services, Alberta being one of them. The overwhelming majority of services, including some that in the past were delivered through private labs, are in fact now delivered through publicly operated not-for-profit laboratories.

We are certainly in favour of increased efficiencies, improved service delivery. There are many arguments that have come out in favour of consolidation and efficiencies and where those can be found, both within the public system and in the private delivery that exists at present. The minister has spoken about some of those earlier.

For the minister to liken this to us saying that all doctors or all private practitioners should now come under the public domain…. In fact, we've suggested nothing of the sort, although, when we've seen practitioners in things like community health centres working on an alternate payment plan, this minister's actions have in fact taken us back to the fee-for-service, so the direction is pretty clear.

The direction is pretty clear. The record of this government is pretty clear in the area of privatization. Many of those privatization experiments, as my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake has spoken of earlier, have turned out to be abject failures. We're seeing the consequences of that in some of the issues related to cleanliness in our hospitals today. In residential care we're seeing the consequences of some of those decisions as it relates to contracting more and more private delivery and contracting out of residential care and, as my colleague mentioned, contract flipping. We're seeing it in food service delivery.

[1545]

So there is ample reason for patients, for the public and for the people who provide these services to be concerned about whether or not a major policy shift is intended.

If there is none intended, I don't know why the minister would be concerned about it. The minister has said he doesn't envision going in that direction. He doesn't know where we're going to go.

Essentially, what this says is that if a major policy shift of this sort that involves greater privatization of lab services is the decision of this minister, it should come before this House, plain and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

K. Corrigan: The minister spoke about ideology. I remember, when I was a researcher in health care, seeing a business case for the privatization of cleaning services. This was a business case that took years to access, fighting through the freedom-of-information processes. When I finally saw the business case, what we found was that with the contracted-out services, what was happening was that the only way government could make it cost anywhere close to the same — and it was right in the business case — was to cut cleaning by 15 percent. It just said it right in the document: cut cleaning by 15 percent.

In addition, I remember looking at some of those contracts, looking at how much they actually cost over the years and how much was actually paid to those providers. The numbers just went up, up, up from an initial number, far more than the original business case or original contract had contemplated.

I think the place where ideology has trumped everything else is with this government. This government has been absolutely determined, whether it makes sense or not, to privatize services, to privatize hospitals, to privatize the health care system wherever possible.

I think my colleague from New Westminster and I are both saying: "Look, there are real concerns when you privatize. Be realistic about those services." Given the record of this government, absolutely ideologically determined to privatize whatever it can, whether it makes sense or not, whether it causes problems or not….

Given that determination and record and history — sometimes unlawfully privatizing — I think it's perfectly legitimate and sensible for the member for New Westminster to be proposing this amendment in order to prevent the wholesale privatization — at least to make sure that there is due consideration of such a major policy change.

The Chair: The question is the amendment proposed
[ Page 2585 ]
by the member for New Westminster for the cancellation of approvals for laboratory system reasons.

[1550-1555]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

The Chair: The committee will take a brief recess.

The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

D. Donaldson: I have a few questions for the minister on section 18(b). I wanted to say that there's a quote from Shakespeare: "Mind your words, lest they do you harm." I think the minister will be relating to that quote as I undertake to address some of his comments previous in relation to section 18(b).

[1600]

The minister said that in the preamble, the issue of reasonable access and accessibility under the Medicare Protection Act is covered. And so I wanted to ask a question around section 18(b) that relates to accessibility, because 18(b) says: "The minister may cancel an approval if the minister is of the opinion that…(b) cancelling the approval is necessary to enhance efficiencies in the delivery of benefits in one or more areas of British Columbia."

I want to talk about laboratory services in remote rural regions, such as in the north. The minister talked earlier — I take it that he was perhaps making light — about how efficient it would be to have laboratory services on every corner. Well, in Stikine and in other areas these kinds of services are three hours away — a three-hour drive on a winter road — so we're not talking about any great service as it stands now. We're talking about some bare minimum services.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

In 2009 the microbiology lab services were cut at Wrinch Memorial and at Bulkley Valley District Hospital, and this meant three to four days now to get microbiology tests back. When the minister described in his earlier words about wanting to get the very best system and how many errors could have been under the system that exists now, well, that kind of information was never dispensed in justification for the cutting of the microbiology lab services back in 2009. If that's his argument, then the proof has to be put out there that this consolidation will increase the confidence of patients. It just doesn't wash in my region.

When he talks about how he's never heard this side of the House, in this discussion at committee stage, talking about patient care, well, I'm here to tell him about patient care in the north. It's a bare minimum service when it comes to microbiology lab services, and it's decreased under this government. Those are the facts, and that's talking about patient care.

For instance — I talked about this a little bit before, but I think it's worth repeating here — the incidence of strep throat. When a doctor has to wait three to four days for results for that because the microbiology services are now at labs far away, that is an increased risk to patients. What we see is that microbiology lab services could also involve other kinds of infections, and microbiology lab services are to get down — I know the minister knows this — to the detail of what the infection is actually covering.

What can happen is doctors can end up prescribing antibiotics without specifically knowing the causes of infection, because doctors don't want to wait around three to four days when a patient comes in, is perhaps presenting with strep throat, and the doctor knows it's going to take perhaps three to four days to get the results. By the way, these results now go on a courier to Mills Memorial Hospital, which is about two hours from Hazelton and about three hours from Smithers. That's been the case since this government made these cuts.

Then the doctor is faced with the situation of prescribing without knowing, perhaps, the exact nature of the infection and taking that cautionary approach. This is widely…. This kind of practice, we know, is coming
[ Page 2586 ]
into question because antibiotics are a broad spectrum. I believe the minister will know this from his previous experience in a related field, in veterinary medicine. Antibiotics are broad spectrum. They're out to attack not just a specific kind of bacterial infection but many types of bacteria. It ends up impacting the positive bacteria that we contain. Some people say we're nothing more than vehicles for the transportation of bacteria. We are more bacterial cells in a human body than human cells.

[1605]

With an overprescription of antibiotics, bacteria become resistant. You know what? The advancements right now in prescription medicine are on pinpointing this. This has to do with accessibility, because microbiology lab services were cut, and the minister talks about: "Well, there's some justification for cuts when it comes to saving costs or perhaps improving service." In this case, an outcome of cutting the microbiology lab services in the two hospitals that I am pointing out could be the overprescription of antibiotics. That's something that we don't like to see in this province or anywhere in B.C.

The accessibility to the services is the real issue here, and that's why I'm talking about section 18(b), because it gives the minister the ability to cancel to enhance efficiencies. We know that lab services are things that attract GPs to remote areas so that they can do things like deliver children. When there are complications and Caesarean birth is required, a Caesarean delivery, immediate lab services are important. So that kind of accessibility is what we are talking about here.

The Chair: Member, do you have a question?

D. Donaldson: Yeah. Okay, I'll get to the question. I just to wanted to address some of the comments of the minister.

In connection to accessibility, with 18(b), the minister says that accessibility will remain unchanged. I take him for his word when he talks about the situation in his constituency, which is rural as well. But at the same time as saying that accessibility will remain unchanged, he said that there should be no change, and he can't speculate on what the changes will look like.

My question on section 18(b) is regarding the times when he would consider that a cancelling of the approval is necessary to enhance efficiencies — in other words, cancelling of the current accessibility of lab services, which is minimum as it is in the north. But "cancelling the approval is necessary to enhance efficiencies…." I'd like to know when the minister would see the need for this. It's not speculative. He's brought in this legislation.

He's brought in section 18(b) to address an issue. What is the issue he's trying to address? Would he see, as he says, better value for the money and reducing services is something that he would see under section 18(b) as justifying cancelling the approval to enhance efficiencies?

Hon. T. Lake: So 18(b). I guess I could use some examples as illustration. If in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia it makes sense to have one superlab that is at a higher level than smaller labs scattered throughout the region — and yet it doesn't impact the accessibility of the service to patients — that, to me, would be a reason to cancel approval and have one facility doing that type of testing.

Or you could be in a small town where, let's say, they have a microbiology lab, but they don't have people that are accredited to run those tests, for recruitment reasons. Someone no longer works there. They can't recruit proper microbiology technicians. Yet to have that service two hours by courier down the road at a properly operated lab to provide the best patient results that doesn't impact the quality of care — that might be another example of where you would make a decision to cancel an approval.

In the microbiology situation, for instance, where it takes about 48 hours for culture and sensitivity results to be known, a two-hour bus ride or courier trip would not significantly impact the outcome of that diagnostic test and would be in the best interests of the patient, to make sure that you have the quality of the test to inform the physician's treatment of the condition.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for that answer. The minister talks about tough decisions, but I think that there's a difference between tough decisions and uninformed decisions.

The microbiology services that were cut — this is in connection to the accessibility that he refers to — might only be two hours down the road by courier, but the fact is that the results are taking a lot longer to get back because the staffing at the hospital that now takes care of those services is still trying to find recruits.

[1610]

That kind of evidence, that kind of logic just doesn't have, in the situation I'm describing, a basis in reality. When the minister said in his answer about…. He gave a Lower Mainland kind of example. He knows that's not the examples I'm talking about, but I will talk to that. When he talks about a higher level of lab work being available, perhaps, through the example he gave, is he talking about in relation to how many errors occur in microbiology testing, for instance?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm not being specific. I'm just saying if evidence were to suggest that the quality of the testing did not meet the standard in a certain laboratory facility, it would warrant, in the patient's interest, to cancel the approval and move the testing to a laboratory in which the quality of the service was in the interests of the patients being served.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. What I would say, then, to the minister is: let's see the evidence. I mean, he has introduced a bill, legislation, section 18(1)(b), and
[ Page 2587 ]
apparently, what good government does is introduce legislation to address an issue, to rectify something.

On one hand, the minister says that he can't be speculating, or it's speculative to imagine what kind of circumstances this bill could address; and on the other hand, he says that there could be evidence of better performance of labs.

Would the minister please explain the evidence that he has gathered in order to justify section 18(1)(b)?

Hon. T. Lake: Legislation isn't necessarily reactive by nature. Legislation is to path a way for the future, trying to envision the needs of the health care system as we move into a higher technological world, a world with much more information available to us.

This provision, like many in this legislation, provides the flexibility to make the best decisions in the interests of the patient, again following the principles of the Medicare Protection Act, which we have spoken about previously, and the Triple Aim, which is to improve population health, to improve the experience and outcome for the patient and to provide value for money.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for that answer. My question would then be: if we're dealing with a future situation in section 18(1)(b), then what would the minister envision would be a future situation that would end up decreasing the level of service in a community such as Smithers or Hazelton, to send test results far afield? Would that kind of situation, in his mind, be better value for money?

Hon. T. Lake: Mr. Chair, I'm getting a bit frustrated, I guess, with the speculative nature of the questions.

I'm sure when the telegraph was used, people didn't envision computers. It's very difficult to envision what changes will occur in technology. Perhaps microbiology will be able to be done through a simple test in a physician's office in the future. That could happen. I don't know. But we need the flexibility to be able to respond to technology, to have a nimble system that allows us to make the decisions in the best interests of the patients and of the health care system.

I know the member opposite is concerned about this particular service in his community, and he's representing his constituents. I appreciate that. But there's nothing nefarious about this section as it relates to smaller communities. It simply gives us the ability to have the very best service at the best value for money for the citizens of British Columbia.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister. Certainly, I am concerned, and not just about the remote-rural region that I represent but across the north. We've seen an erosion of services, so that's why I'm asking these questions.

[1615]

What I am looking for is more than just: "Trust us." That's why I'm looking for evidence. The legislation opens up some major discretion for the minister, and I haven't been convinced that the evidence warrants that.

J. Darcy: I just have one further question for the minister on this section. The minister has assured us in second reading that accessibility will remain unchanged in the laboratory service and has reiterated that over and over again. He considered that an amendment that underlines that he must respect the principles of the Medicare Protection Act was not necessary.

Can the minister please explain what mechanism is available to someone in the member's constituency, or any other constituency across the province, who believes that accessibility of services has been limited by this minister's actions? What mechanism could that individual or that individual's family pursue in order to ensure that their case is in fact heard, that the minister's decision can be reviewed in some way and that accessibility is in fact ensured, consistent with the minister's words?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, there are many mechanisms available. We have patient care quality offices, if someone feels they are not receiving a health care level of service that they think is necessary. Obviously, people have an MLA and can make their voices heard through their MLA. We have an Ombudsperson that addresses concerns. So there are many mechanisms. This is not unlike many parts of government where the minister, through the ministry, has powers in order to deliver the very best service for the people of British Columbia.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

J. Darcy: Yes, I would like to introduce an amendment that would create a new 19.1. Then, of course, there would need to be consequential amendments for the provisions that follow. I will read it.

[Accreditation of laboratory technologists

19.1 A Regulatory College for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Health Professionals shall be established for laboratory technologists.]

On the amendment.

Hon. T. Lake: Hon. Chair, a point of order — that the amendment (a) does represent a cost to government and (b) is out of the scope of this act.

J. Darcy: The advocates for such a college — in making the case to the minister and making the case in the consultation period and making the case to various MLAs, certainly on this side of the House, and I'm sure members on the other side of the House have also heard this — have been very, very clear that the costs of regulatory colleges are not borne by the Legislature. This proposed college would not only achieve cost savings; it would not
[ Page 2588 ]
cost the provincial government any money. So I do not think it would be appropriate to rule this out on the basis that it reflects a cost to government.

The Chair: Member, just for clarification, is there an existing therapeutic college?

[1620]

J. Darcy: There is not now; this proposes that there is. I would be happy to make the case, as the B.C. Society of Laboratory Science has made, the Health Sciences Association has made and various other stakeholders, including health authority executives.

Let me just clarify: there is no cost to the government. I just want to underline that there is no cost to the government with this proposal. In fact, the proponents of it would make the case very strongly — and I would like the opportunity to make that case — that this could well result in considerable cost-savings to government, rather than a cost to government.

Hon. T. Lake: As I've mentioned, I believe this is out of scope of this act. This section is about the appointment of an administrator should the existing operator have some difficulty and the minister becomes concerned about their ability to provide a service.

Whether there is a college for laboratory technicians or not has absolutely nothing to do with this section. I would argue that the issue is out of scope of this act, and it is a separate issue that can be pursued. In fact, I have met with the organizations which the member references. It is a completely separate issue from this legislation.

J. Darcy: Well, I want to clarify. The minister refers to it being not appropriately part of section 19. That is why I suggested, in fact, that it is…. It's an amendment to the legislation. It's an addition. That would mean, as I said at the outset, there would need to be consequential amendments. That's very clear. It is not about appointment of an administrator of an approved laboratory facility. I did not suggest that it was. It is an additional article, a clause that would need to be added.

As for the merits of the issue, many of the professionals who are involved in delivering these services, as well as executives in health authorities, have said that one of the missing links in this legislation is quality management. The government says the legislation is about efficiency and cost-savings. Granted, but the legislation does not in fact address quality management in our labs and the huge costs associated with retesting in British Columbia — retesting that is a result, often, of mistakes being made in the process by anyone involved down the line.

The cost of retesting could be substantially reduced by mandatory continuing education and quality management of all lab technologists through the establishment of a regulatory college. As the minister knows well, the B.C. Society of Laboratory Science has been attempting for years to have the government establish a regulatory college for laboratory technologists. The society is the professional association for those technologists.

The college is supported by an ever-increasing number of professionals in the health care field, including the chair of the B.C. Patient Safety Council, senior executives in health authorities, and the union that represents laboratory technologists, the Health Sciences Association, among others.

Currently — and the minister has said this earlier when this was discussed in second reading — only lab processes, systems, procedures and protocols are accredited by the diagnostic accreditation program. The people who work in labs themselves are not accredited and are not licensed. A regulatory college would require licensing and ensure quality management in our labs.

The B.C. Society of Laboratory Science says that a college could potentially save more money than lab consolidation by reducing errors made — and the need for retesting because of errors made. Furthermore, they say that this would be of no cost to government. Licensing and accreditation are simply better for patient safety. We believe, as do many proponents regarding this entire issue, that a regulatory college would help to ensure patient safety and also achieve cost-savings.

It appears to be a major oversight in this legislation.

[1625-1630]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[1635-1640]

The Chair: Members, we are back to section 19.

J. Darcy: In the section "Appointment of administrator of approved laboratory facility," I wonder if the minister could please explain the purpose of this section and the situations in which it is envisioned that an administrator would be appointed.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, it's conceivable, for instance, that an operator of a laboratory that has an approval or an agreement may declare bankruptcy or commit a serious offence or breach the limits or conditions of its approval in such a way that it would be in the public interest to cancel the approval and to put an administrator in place.

J. Darcy: So I guess I understand that as it might relate to a private operator. Lab services are now provided, also, through public facilities across the province. Do you envision the administrator playing a role in the laboratory services that are now provided through public facilities, through health authorities?

Hon. T. Lake: An administrator would be put in place if it was necessary to continue services in the best interests of the public, but the operator…. I guess the minister had lost confidence in the operator and so needed to have an administrator in place to run that service to provide a continued service to the public.

So it conceivably could occur in a public facility. The answer is: it's conceivable, but given the system we have, it's highly unlikely, I would think.

J. Darcy: If I could just pursue that a little bit further. In the case of a publicly operated lab in a hospital, the health authority has the ability to replace whoever is running that laboratory service — the director or whatever the official title would be in the health care hierarchy. So I'm still a bit puzzled about how it might occur in that situation.

Maybe I'll let the minister answer that question first. Then I have another one.

Hon. T. Lake: It's unlikely, as I mentioned, but as a worst-case scenario, there could be a situation in which a facility, whether it's privately owned or publicly owned, is not living up to the standards that the minister has put in place, and it would be in the public's interest to put an administrator in place to oversee the facility to ensure that the quality of the service is upheld.

J. Darcy: What authority would exist now to deal with that kind of situation in a health care facility?

Hon. T. Lake: Through the Hospital Act, we currently have that power now.

J. Darcy: If that's the case — if you have that power now — that means it would not apply, or it's not necessary in the case of a lab in a public facility?

[1645]

Hon. T. Lake: One of the major motivations for this legislation is to have stand-alone legislation governing laboratory services because it now falls under a number of different acts, as I mentioned.

Just to correct the record, it's the Hospital Insurance Act that gives us the ability now to place an administrator. That will be carved out of that act, once this act is in place. We need to have this provision in this act because this will be the stand-alone act for laboratory services in British Columbia.

J. Darcy: If I'm understanding it correctly, the authority does exist already, and it's a matter of taking authority that exists in other acts and putting it in this act.

I understand perfectly the desire of the minister to ensure that laboratory services are of the highest quality and that if there are serious problems, that that's taken in hand and that the authority should exist to do that. I was having difficulty wrestling with: laboratory services are a part of hospital facilities which are part of health authorities which ultimately report to the minister and are creatures of government.

I was having difficulty understanding why the need for it existed in that case. But you're saying it's a matter of taking authority that exists in another act, because you're consolidating all of those things in one act, and nothing more.

A couple more questions. It would appear in subsection (5) of this clause, "At the end of the period of the administrator's appointment," and it goes on…. It would appear that the appointment, then, would be temporary, as opposed to permanent. That's the intention of it?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, that is correct.

J. Darcy: Subsection (6) then goes on to talk about the fees to be paid to the administrator. I wonder if the minister can talk about…. There is presumably no change as this affects any laboratory services in public facilities. It would apply in the case of private facilities. Does the minister envision that this person appointed as an administrator, as a trustee, would be someone employed by government? The issue of paying fees to the administrator — I wonder if the minister can clarify the intent of that section. It would appear to be the responsibility of government to ensure that laboratory services are delivering their services to the highest quality and the highest standards.
[ Page 2590 ]

Hon. T. Lake: The administrator will be compensated from any excess of revenue over expenditures from the facility. But if there is inefficient revenue to pay the administrator, the minister must pay the administrator. Then the minister has the recourse to go after the operator of the facility to recoup those costs.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

J. Darcy: I'm just not quick enough. We're just speeding along here.

Section 20 is "Transfer of records." "Subject to the regulations, the minister may, by order, require an operator that is a public body to transfer to another public body records relevant to the operation…" and so on. Can the minister explain in what circumstances that would apply?

[1650]

Hon. T. Lake: If consolidation does occur, if an approval is given to one laboratory facility and approval is taken away from another laboratory facility, then the formerly approved facility must transfer those records. So it's just to ensure continuity of care and that those records are not lost in the process.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

J. Darcy: The minister is voting before I have a chance to get to my feet. I know that he's doing it in humour as opposed to with any seriousness of preventing any further discussion, so I will just plow ahead.

Under section 21: "Transfer of rights, property, assets, obligations and liabilities." I know that the purpose of this act is to enable a number of things, including consolidation of laboratory services, but I'd like to just explore this issue a little bit further with the minister.

We've had Lower Mainland consolidation of laboratory services. Well, it's been completed. It's been in place for a few years now. Does the minister envision one entity? It was also talked about, potentially, under PHSA. I think this came out in some of the briefing that we had. I'm not sure it came out in our discussion at second reading.

But potentially, a new entity that operates laboratory facilities — a public entity that would come under the PHSA, the Provincial Health Services Authority: is that what the minister envisages? I understand he doesn't have a crystal ball, but the minister and his staff have been working on this issue for some considerable time and have engaged in consultation on it.

I'd like the minister, if he could, to please explain, because this section certainly provides pretty sweeping powers to be able to consolidate. Does the minister envision one laboratory entity under the Provincial Health Services Authority?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm trying to couch my answer so that it doesn't sound like I don't have any vision. Because I'm agnostic, as I mentioned earlier. You don't have to comment on that right away.

The fact is that we don't know what the future holds. This provision allows us, if we…. Let's say that we had two labs doing genetic testing in the province of British Columbia, and it was determined that it made sense to only have one lab do genetic testing. This allows the transfer of assets from the one lab that is being closed — the equipment and everything else — to go, then, to the lab that is going to be the lab that does genetic testing.

It's really just to make sure that, as we seek efficiencies and the highest level of service possible, the material things — and it could be intangible items such as debts or other obligations — get transferred from one laboratory to another as those decisions are made. Again, it's just for continuity, just like with the records. It ensures a flow of information and, in this case, things like equipment, from one lab to another as those decisions are made.

J. Darcy: But does the minister envision the creation of a provincial laboratory entity, whether under the PHSA or independent of it? Does the minister envision that this is where…?

Certainly, the minister would have the authority to do that under the very sweeping provisions of this act. Is that what the minister envisions happening? Not just one lab taking over services of another lab but a provincial consolidation of services, such as we've seen through lab consolidation in the Lower Mainland.

Hon. T. Lake: When we talked about the definition of "administrative body," we did talk about a board that may be established to oversee the administration of laboratory services — I think that's what the member is referring to — perhaps falling under the auspices of the Provincial Health Services Authority. Certainly, the board that manages the system could be a part of PHSA. But in terms of having one superlab for the whole province — if that's what the member is saying — I don't envision that.

J. Darcy: I don't want to…. I'm not trying to dissect this to the ultimate degree.

[1655]

But I know we're not talking about one laboratory — which would not be practical and would not be efficient for a whole lot of reasons. But are we talking about one administrative body, then, for the province for all publicly delivered laboratory services that would also oversee contracts with private providers?

Hon. T. Lake: I think I've spoken to this. When we
[ Page 2591 ]
talked about "administrative body," this would be conceivably a board that would oversee the administration of laboratory services. That is one potential. As we go to our stakeholder consultation, it will become more clear if that is the appropriate structure for which to place the administration of laboratory services. But those decisions haven't been made.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

J. Darcy: Gotta be fast. "Assignment of agreements" — section 22. Can the minister please explain why he considers, especially in section 22(4), "An assignment is effective despite any failure to fulfill a provision in an agreement requiring consent, leave or approval…" and so on…? What is it that the ministry feels it's necessary to be protected against in this case?

Hon. T. Lake: An example might be the contracts with physicians that would be under the agreement held by one operator so that those physician contracts could move over to the second operator if that was the decision of the ministry to move the approval from one body to another.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

On section 24.

J. Darcy: Actually, I did have a question on that, but I think the minister covered it in 15(3).

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

Hon. T. Lake: I want to move the amendment to section 25 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 25, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Prohibitions on referrals

25 (1) A referring practitioner must not act contrary to a regulation made under section 71 (e)71 (f) [regulations respecting benefits, beneficiaries and referring practitioners] in referring a beneficiary to an approved laboratory facility for the purposes of receiving benefits.]

On the amendment.

The Chair: Do you want to speak on it?

Hon. T. Lake: Essentially, the amendment is to correct a typo.

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

On section 26.

J. Darcy: Collection, use and disclosure of personal information. I wonder if I could ask the minister, first, to explain what exchanges have happened with the Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding all of the sections of this bill related to privacy.

[1700]

Hon. T. Lake: The Office of the Privacy Commissioner was briefed on the act, and they did not have any objections to the legislation but expressed an interest in being engaged as regulations are developed. So we will do that.

J. Darcy: Section 26(2) subsection (c) says: "to identify an individual who needs or is receiving health services; (d) to identify a person who is providing health services." I guess it's (c) in particular. I wonder if the minister could please speak to that.

Hon. T. Lake: As the member is aware, only beneficiaries are covered by the Medical Services Plan. This allows us to identify if the individual having laboratory testing is, in fact, a beneficiary.

Section 26 approved.

On section 27.

J. Darcy: In section 27(2) the words appear: "…must comply with the request in the manner and at the times requested if the information or records are in the custody or under the control of the operator or prescribed person." My question to the minister is: what if the operator or the person referred to does not believe that the request is appropriate?

Hon. T. Lake: It's my understanding that if the operator did not want to provide that information, they would have to make a request to the Privacy Commissioner. Or another avenue, perhaps, would be a judicial review of the minister's order.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

J. Darcy: Under section 28 there's a definition: "'personal information' means personal information contained in a health information bank." And then: "Despite any provision of the E-Health Act that would otherwise limit or put conditions on the use or disclosure of personal information, the chief data steward may disclose personal information...."
[ Page 2592 ]

I wonder if the minister could explain the circumstances in which that would arise.

[1705]

Hon. T. Lake: There are various commissions and committees that fall under the Medicare Protection Act that administer benefits. This provision enables the chief data steward to disclose information to an appropriate committee of the Medical Services Commission, for instance, or to a patterns of practice committee under the Medicare Protection Act, and the information disclosed to those committees can then be used by the committees in ways that are consistent with their purpose in accordance with the Medicare Protection Act.

Patterns of practice look at physician-prescribing or, in this case, ordering of tests and the pattern of appropriateness. In terms of the patient, obviously it's making sure, again, that the right information refers to a beneficiary that is eligible for benefits.

J. Darcy: I just want to probe this a little bit further. Perhaps the minister can explain whether this is an authority that already exists that is being consolidated in this act or whether it is something that is being created that does not presently exist. On the face of it, when it says that it's "despite any provision of the E-Health Act that would otherwise limit" blah, blah, blah…. Yet certain things can be done.

There is tremendous concern out there about privacy of health records, and I think for good reason. It's something that people guard very, very carefully. There have been enough incidents of issues related to privacy of medical records that I think it's a legitimate cause for concern.

I would like to understand: is it a new provision, a new right? Or is it something that's being consolidated from another act? I'm still not clear on that.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for her patience. Some parts of it are new. The Provincial Laboratory Information Solution is designated as a health information bank under the current E-Health Act. This is a list of clinical information. It contains detailed information about every laboratory service benefit rendered to beneficiaries in the province, whether it's in-patient or out-patient, in a public lab or a private lab. So this is a listing of all the lab services that are done.

This provision allows the chief data steward then to use that PLIS to get information to provide to the Medical Services Commission or the Pattern of Practice Committee to administer the Medicare Protection Act and ensure that the right benefits are going to the right beneficiary and that there's appropriateness in terms of ordering diagnostic tests.

Currently we rely on fee-for-service billing for that information. This is envisioning a potential future where we don't have fee-for-service for diagnostic testing. It allows us, then, to garner this information from PLIS and use it for those committees that currently rely on the fee-for-service information that we have at the moment.

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

J. Darcy: This section is certainly a welcome provision: "The minister must not disclose, for the purpose of market research, any of the following information collected under this Act…." I wonder if the minister could explain how market research is defined for the purposes of this act?

[1710]

Hon. T. Lake: It is not defined in this act. We've had this discussion with the Privacy Commissioner. That's why they want to remain engaged with us as we develop the regulations, and to discuss the issue about the definition of "market research." We will be engaging with the Privacy Commissioner when we deal with that in regulation.

J. Darcy: Just perhaps a broader question that is appropriate here. The minister said that the Privacy Commissioner wanted to be engaged in the development of regulations for the bill, but is there actually a letter on file that raises questions or concerns about any of the provisions of this bill? If so, could the minister share that, please?

Hon. T. Lake: This was just the e-mail discussion back and forth with staff and the Privacy Commissioner after the briefing. They made that comment that as regulations are developed and the definition of "market research" is laid out, they would like to be involved in those discussions.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

J. Darcy: In section 30 I would like to ask…. Under the first subsection there, (a) — where it talks about information-sharing agreements — it refers to "the government of Canada or of any jurisdiction in or outside Canada." I wonder if the minister could please explain what that provision is meant to encompass.

Hon. T. Lake: This section gives us the ability to enter into information-sharing agreements with like-minded organizations. Examples would be the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, for instance, and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. I mentioned earlier about Lyme disease
[ Page 2593 ]
testing, for instance. We share information about the type of testing that's going on, the results of testing. That allows the best information to flow in between two like-minded bodies.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

J. Darcy: Well, I think that probably, on the issue of delegation to an administrative body, I may already have asked those questions as we were discussing various other provisions earlier. I'll leave 31, and I'll continue my comments and questions under 32.

Section 31 approved.

On section 32.

J. Darcy: "Operation of administrative body." This section says that an administrative body may appoint officers and hire employees, engage or retain specialists or consultants, establish panels to conduct the business of the administrative body.

I wonder…. Well, I'll take them one at a time. Could the minister speak to what he envisions when it refers to appointing officers and hiring employees? I know the minister says that he doesn't have a crystal ball, that the plans aren't made yet and he plans to consult. But some of this wording is really quite specific. Yes, if the minister could please speak to (a) first.

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, in earlier discussions we talked about an administrative body that would look like a board. The comparator, I guess, could be a health authority board that has a board of governance and then employs a CEO and different executives as part of their management team. Those would be the officers and employees of the administrative body.

[1715]

J. Darcy: Section (b), then. If I could ask the minister the same question on "engage or retain specialists or consultants"?

Hon. T. Lake: This enables, then, an administrative body to design protocols that would be acceptable for the laboratory facilities under its administration. So in order to determine what the appropriate type of testing for cancer would be, they would hire experts in that field and look at the best available evidence. Mammography — another type of service that, again, they would look at best-practices guidelines around the world and come up with protocols.

You need to have people that are experts in those fields to make those recommendations for those different protocols that would be administered by this body.

Sections 32 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

J. Darcy: Section 35 says: "The minister may establish committees for the purpose of advising the minister respecting any matter under this Act." I wonder if the minister could please explain what kinds of committees he would envision establishing, the purpose of the committees, the composition of the committees.

Hon. T. Lake: Under the current framework, the Medical Services Commission can establish advisory committees and panels, so this is essentially moving that over to the minister or to the administrative body that the minister designates as the body administering the framework for laboratory services.

This would be like the advisory committee on diagnostic facilities that helps the current Medical Services Commission with the task of approving new diagnostic facilities. That particular committee on diagnostic facilities, that advisory committee, has representatives from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., the Ministry of Health and also has public members as well. It reviews applications for approval for payment of diagnostic services such as medical laboratories and radiology units. This is essentially moving what happens now under the Medical Services Commission over to the minister or to the administrative body.

J. Darcy: I would like to propose an amendment to this section. The amendment would read:

[Industry consultation panel

35.1 The minister must establish an industry consultation panel for the purpose of consulting parties who will be affected by changes brought about by this Act or the regulations made under it.]

On the amendment.

J. Darcy: I noted in the summary of the results of the consultation that preceded the introduction of this bill that there were numerous references by all of the various stakeholders potentially affected by this bill about the need for ongoing consultation. The minister has said during second reading, in terms of stakeholder consultation, that "it is important that we go out and talk to people that are impacted by this change" and that "we will be consulting with physicians, including the B.C. Association of Laboratory Physicians. We'll be consulting with nurse practitioners, with medical technologists, with laboratory service providers, with health authorities, with professional colleges."

Certainly, I take the minister at his word that he plans to do that over the next few years, but there were some pretty strong recommendations, I think, that came from some of the stakeholders that were consulted previously
[ Page 2594 ]
that talked about establishing a panel that involved the many stakeholders who provide laboratory services or have a direct interest in it.

[1720]

I think it's critical that if this reform of laboratory services is going to proceed in a way that, indeed, meets the public interest and, indeed, engages everyone who should be engaged and who has an important perspective and valuable experience and expertise to bring to the table…. It's very, very important that an industry consultation panel should be struck.

I have no doubt that physicians will have things to say about this. Nurse practitioners will have things to say about it. Other health care providers will. The college of laboratory technologists, if it comes about soon — and I hope that the minister considers it — would certainly play a role, as would the other professional colleges already in existence.

I have no doubt that private service providers would like to have an opportunity to have their perspectives heard. I can certainly assure the minister from all of the feedback that I've received that the professional society of laboratory technologists and the Health Sciences Association that represents laboratory technologists and the Hospital Employees Union that represents laboratory technicians certainly believe that it's important that their voices be heard and that they have a seat at the table as this goes forward.

The suggestion of an industry consultation panel is not about saying that the authority of the minister goes to another place. It is about saying that before sweeping changes, such as some of the ones envisioned by this bill, are implemented, there should be thorough consultation with everyone affected by it — providers, professional associations, patient groups and a number of other stakeholders who are critically invested in the success of the project that the minister wants to undertake with this laboratory reform bill.

G. Heyman: I'd like to support the amendment put forward by my colleague from New Westminster. I think she has made a number of good points. I won't take a lot of time in repeating them all, but I think that in implementing sweeping change, as the member has noted, it's important to hear from people who will be impacted for a couple of reasons.

One of them is that they may well have significant contributions to make to the process of implementing such a broad change in a system that affects virtually every British Columbian and, certainly, every community in British Columbia. These are professionals and interested parties, whether they're lab workers, whether they're physicians, whether they're associations, who could well come up with useful ideas for the government, for the minister, for the ministry and staff, to assist with the implementation.

The other reason is that any sweeping change works best and, in fact, likely only works at all with a feeling of involvement and buy-in of the people affected. That's another reason to support this amendment for a broad consultation.

Having added those two thoughts to the well-said comments of my colleague from New Westminster, I'd urge the minister to consider this amendment and to consider the value of consultation, both to the bill being put forward, to the process and, certainly, to the stakeholders in the process.

[1725-1730]

The Chair: Hon. Members, this is an amendment proposed by the member for New Westminster to section 35. It reads: "The minister must establish an industry consultation panel for the purpose of consulting parties who will be affected by changes brought about by this Act or the regulations made under it."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[1735]

Sections 35 and 36 approved.

On section 37.

J. Darcy: Can the minister please explain…? "For the
[ Page 2595 ]
purposes of a hearing under this Act, sections 34 (3) and (4), 48 and 49 of the Administrative Tribunals Act apply to the minister as if the minister were a tribunal within the meaning of that Act." Can the minister please explain what powers this confers on him?

Hon. T. Lake: The Administrative Tribunals Act currently applies to the Medical Services Commission under the Medicare Protection Act. This is simply moving the way hearings are conducted from the Medicare Protection Act to the Laboratory Services Act so that the minister who is managing the tribunal has to adhere to the Administrative Tribunals Act.

J. Darcy: I want to just explore this a little bit further. The administrative tribunals that come to mind…. Workers compensation tribunal, Labour Relations Board are also administrative tribunals. In my experience, they don't confer authority on a minister.

Is the minister saying that this authority already exists and is simply being transferred from one act to another? Or is it authority that now exists with an actual tribunal or a commission of more than one person, which is now being transferred to the minister?

Hon. T. Lake: Currently the Medical Services Commission will hold hearings, and the Administrative Tribunals Act applies to many different organizations in government that hold those types of hearings, as the hon. member mentioned. This is, essentially, transferring that ability from the Medical Services Commission to the minister.

Of course, the minister has the ability to create an administrative body to manage this framework. Essentially, it would go to the minister, but if the minister were to create an administrative body, they would be the ones conducting hearings, and then they would have to comply with the ATA.

J. Darcy: Back, then, to a previous question about the administrative body. If the administrative body could effectively be designated the authority to act as the tribunal by the minister, that presumes the administrative body would have jurisdiction not just over the public laboratory services but over contracts with private laboratory services and could intervene in that situation. Is that…? I didn't understand that clearly from a previous question.

[1740]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: Welcome back, hon. Chair.

The administrative body, should it be formed, would administer the framework over the private and public system or the entire public system if there was only a public system or the entire private system if there was only a private system. The future remains interesting as we develop.

If terms and conditions, for instance, on an approval were changed, as we mentioned earlier in the act, and the operator who had that approval or that contract wanted to dispute that, they would then apply to have a hearing in front of that body. That body would have to conduct the hearing according to the Administrative Tribunals Act, much the same way that the Medical Services Commission does today in a similar circumstance.

J. Darcy: I'm not going to take the minister's bait on the issue of potential complete privatization of the laboratory services, because I'm sure he meant that in humour as opposed to seriousness. Could the minister please share some examples about what kinds of matters would go before such an administrative tribunal as is set out under this act?

Hon. T. Lake: If there was a cancellation of an approval for cause — the minister or the administrative body felt that the operator with the approval was not serving in the public interest and withdrew the approval — then the operator could apply for a hearing. I think elsewhere in the act we talk about how people have to be heard. If you take severe action, there has to be a potential ability for an appeal of some type. That would be the hearing that we're referring to.

Section 37 approved.

On section 38.

J. Darcy: Well, it's certainly welcome to see whistle-blower protection enshrined in the act. I wonder if the minister could clarify several other provisions of the act. The minister has stated that they were about consolidating provisions that existed in other pieces of legislation. Is this identical to language that existed under other statutes that are now being put together under this legislation?

Hon. T. Lake: As the member indicated in her remarks, it is becoming standard to have whistle-blower protection provisions in new legislation. If we look at the E-Health Act and the Pharmaceutical Services Act, which are relatively new pieces of legislation, they contain whistle-blower protection.

This is in alignment with that move towards protecting people coming forward where they think that it is necessary in the protection of the public. So this provision is there. It's common, as I said, in statutes where it's in the interests of the public and government to encourage people to report unlawful activity without fear of reprisal.

J. Darcy: Can the minister please clarify: what would
[ Page 2596 ]
be the recourse for someone who acted as a whistle-blower, who in good faith believed there was something that ought to be brought to the minister's attention or brought to public attention? What would be a whistle-blower's recourse? Is there any recourse under this bill for whistle-blowers?

[1745]

An Hon. Member: Recourse from what?

J. Darcy: Recourse if a decision, a determination, was made that they had not acted in good faith. If there's a dispute about what it means to have acted in good faith under this bill, what would be the recourse for an individual affected?

Hon. T. Lake: Under the offences provision later in section 64, a person who does "any of the following" commits an offence. That includes contravention of section 38, the section that we are talking about at the moment. Essentially, if someone thought they were acting in good faith and yet someone thought they were not acting in good faith and took action against them, that would be a subject for the judiciary to make a ruling on. But it is covered under the offence provisions that if someone is acting in good faith, they cannot be punished for that.

J. Darcy: I mean, it is a serious area of concern. As the minister knows, I've represented health care employees for a number of years. There is considerable fear of people speaking out legitimately about anything that affects patient confidentiality, as it should.

But there are often systemic issues that arise. There are often issues that relate to the administration of a program or service, as there could be in the area of provision of laboratory services, where someone has a genuine belief — a good-faith belief — that there are serious problems afoot. Yet the atmosphere that exists at the present time, the atmosphere that prevails, is one that very often prohibits people from speaking out when in fact it could benefit all of us if they did. That's why the questions about what the process would be that would be followed in that case.

Sections 38 and 39 approved.

On section 40.

J. Darcy: In section 40(3) a decision of the minister "made under any of the following sections is final and binding and is not open to review in any court." Can the minister please elaborate on that?

[1750]

Hon. T. Lake: This section just confers the appropriate powers to the minister to manage the laboratory system so the minister can decide — obviously, through the benefit of expert advice and the process that we have been discussing earlier about advisory committees, etc. — what the benefits are.

The minister has that determination, not the courts — the approvals to provide benefits, agreements respecting laboratory services and cancellations of approval of laboratory services. These are within the purview of the minister, essentially of the elected officials, not to any court.

Sections 40 to 43 inclusive approved.

On section 44.

J. Darcy: "Laboratory facility records." An inspector "may require the production of or electronic access to any record, including the following." I wonder if this is one of the issues that was canvassed with the Privacy Commissioner and whether there were any concerns expressed regarding this?

Hon. T. Lake: The Privacy Commissioner did not indicate a concern with this particular section.

Sections 44 to 70 inclusive approved.

On section 71.

J. Darcy: Really, the question that I want to ask regarding regulations applies not so much to one particular part of this section but to the entire part 5 about regulations, because as the minister is well aware and as other people have said before me in this House, the devil is always in the details in how a bill is implemented.

The minister has said that the implementation of this bill will take place over a period of three years. I believe I heard him say that at second reading. The minister has also said that there will be extensive consultation.

I am deeply concerned that the minister didn't see fit to support an amendment earlier that would have actually put in place a panel for consultation on an ongoing basis which could then speak to and advise the minister on regulations that were being considered or on any other matter arising under this act.

[1755]

Again, it's not on a specific section — 71, 72. It's about the whole section that deals with regulations. I wonder if the minister could please speak to how he envisages consultation occurring, how long that consultation period will take, how long that consultation period will be, how he envisages consulting various stakeholders and in what way he envisions consulting them as regulations are developed under this act.

Hon. T. Lake: Again, I appreciate the member's patience. Currently under the Medicare Protection Act there is a set of regulations called the medical and health
[ Page 2597 ]
care services regulations, and those guide the way that the laboratory services are conducted at the moment. Those regulations will be moved over to this new act as we move through this system.

As I mentioned earlier, with the passage of this act it doesn't mean that the system will change tomorrow. In fact, it will not change following passage of the act. We will take up to three years to move the system over to a new system. As we do that, regulations will be developed as the vision is crystallized.

[1800]

Again, that will be informed by stakeholder consultations with the list of stakeholders that we have consulted with previously. Examples include the Doctors of B.C., the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the regulatory colleges for the different health care practitioners that currently are involved in health care.

The consultation will be as we develop the regulations. All the regulations won't be developed at once. It will be an iterative process as we go through and design the new framework for the laboratory services in British Columbia.

Sections 71 to 109 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:03 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 7 — LABORATORY SERVICES ACT

Bill 7, Laboratory Services Act, reported complete with amendment.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. T. Lake: By leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — LABORATORY SERVICES ACT

Bill 7, Laboratory Services Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call for committee stage of Bill 14, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014.

[1805]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — JUSTICE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 6:08 p.m.

On section 24.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, as I was saying just last week…. Thank you for the indulgence. My apologies for being late.

If the minister could just explain the effect of section 24 and why it was needed. Does it arise out of any case law?

Hon. S. Anton: This is correcting an error and ensuring consistency with the Family Law Act. Subsection (1), of course, was already there; subsection (2) was in the old act and was inadvertently missed; and subsection (3) is a new section but ensuring the same power so that it works and is consistent with the Family Law Act.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

L. Krog: With respect to section 25, this "authorizes a person to disclose information obtained under the act for the purposes of protecting a person or property from imminent and serious harm."

In terms of the reference to imminent and serious harm referring to both person and property, I'm just trying to determine the kinds of situations where this might apply. Otherwise, it's a breach of disclosure, generally speaking, and privilege that has always been seen as a way of encouraging people to engage in counselling, or whatever the case may be, to try and resolve their matters outside of a litigation process.

[1810]

I'm just wondering if the minister could comment on that. Is this consistent with similar legislation — the Alberta legislation, for instance — on which the statute is based? I'd be very curious to hear what she has to say.

Hon. S. Anton: The purpose of this, obviously, is to ensure that search officers are able to act to prevent harm to persons and property. What the section does is make the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act consistent with the Family Law Act — actually, section 243(1)(b), which
[ Page 2598 ]
also deals with the issue. The goal of this was not in consideration of other jurisdictions. It was in consideration of internal consistency in our own statutes.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

On section 27.

L. Krog: With respect to section 27, it says that it's a clarification of the meaning of "support application." Why was it necessary to clarify? Was the definition out of sync with some international treaty or uniform law code or something of that nature?

Hon. S. Anton: The provisional order referred to here…. In the original drafting it appeared that a provisional order was always needed. In fact, not every jurisdiction issues a provisional order. It has now been divided in two to deal with jurisdictions which have provisional orders and jurisdictions which do not have provisional orders.

L. Krog: Then I take it, essentially, that what we're doing is making it easier for parties to enforce these orders. It's a clarification to ensure that there isn't some unnecessary judicial proceeding that would otherwise delay enforcement. Is that fair to say?

Hon. S. Anton: It deals with a possible interpretation of the statute as previously written, which interpretation would lead one to conclude that you must have a provisional order, whereas, in fact, not every other jurisdiction creates a provisional order. Provisional orders exist in some jurisdictions and not others.

L. Krog: Perhaps I'm not being terribly clear. I just want to confirm that the essence of this change will mean that it's more likely that an order can be enforced. Will it make it in any way easier, or is it simply some comfort to the ministry?

Hon. S. Anton: It makes it easier by clarifying the law. It means that an application will not be declined just because it does not have a provisional order.

[1815]

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

L. Krog: If the Attorney General can just confirm that the same reasoning applies to section 28 as applies to section 27 — a simple nod will do — we can get on to 29.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes.

Section 28 approved.

On section 37.

L. Krog: This section allows for an increase in the number of persons from five to seven. I take it that in fairness, though, this isn't going to allow any persons who now sit on the police board who aren't appointed by the municipality to sit on the police board.

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, I wonder I could have clarification of that question.

L. Krog: My understanding is, and I'm not the expert on this side of the statute, that the Police Act now provides that the municipal police board shall not have more than five persons, three of which are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — in other words, OIC appointments — and two of which are appointed by the municipality, essentially, which includes the mayor, I believe. Perhaps the Attorney General can assist me here.

Hon. S. Anton: Currently there are five appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, one appointed by the city council, and the mayor. That five number is going up to seven, so there can be a maximum of seven appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

L. Krog: I'm sorry. I'm not entirely clear on this. We're upping the numbers who can be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to not more than seven from five, but an existing municipal police board would consist of those five appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and two appointed by the council, including the mayor. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: Currently there can be five appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, one appointed by the municipal council, and the mayor, for a total of seven. That number is now potentially changing to seven by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; again, the one appointed by the municipal council; and the mayor.

L. Krog: That's what I understood. I guess that the obvious question is: why are we allowing for the appointment of two more by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council when one considers that it's the local municipality that obviously has to bear the cost of policing and would presumably have the greatest interest in how police matters are handled? In other words, what's the rationale? What's the policy decision? What's the explanation for this change?

Hon. S. Anton: The request came from the B.C. Association of Police Boards. Also, the city of Vancouver requested the possibility of a larger board to deal with workload issues in larger municipalities. We are re-
[ Page 2599 ]
sponding to that request.

[1820]

In developing this section, we had consultations with both UBCM and the B.C. Association of Police Boards, and they indicated no issue with the way that those new members would be chosen.

L. Krog: I appreciate, then, that some of the requests have come from the city of Vancouver, etc. But I'm wondering: did they request that it be further appointees by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? Or did they simply request further appointees, with a view to perhaps appointing their own members of council to undertake this work — or people recommended by the city, so to speak?

Hon. S. Anton: We had a request from the B.C. Association of Police Boards, and we also had a direct request from the city of Vancouver. Neither specified as to how the additional appointments should be made.

K. Corrigan: I'm sorry. I missed the first few questions. I was doing something else. So I hope I'm not being repetitive in terms of this section.

The minister has just said there was a request from the B.C. Association of Police Boards. Did the ministry talk to individual municipalities — go out and seek advice from individual municipalities? I apologize if this question has already been asked.

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question was whether there was additional consultation.

We consulted with the B.C. Association of Police Boards. We consulted with UBCM. We had a direct letter — when I said the city of Vancouver, I should correct that — actually from the Vancouver police board, which requested that we allow for an increase in the size of the board in Vancouver, without any requests in particular as to how those should be selected.

K. Corrigan: I talked to a few mayors that have local police forces. Those that I talked to were not aware of the change. And there are only…. I think there are 11 municipal departments, plus the First Nations police force as well.

The mayor that I spoke to the most about this was not aware and was a little bit concerned. I guess the potential that there is some concern about is the fact that these appointees are provincial appointees. They're not local appointees; they're provincial appointees.

Essentially, what is happening is that the percentage of local representation or locally controlled representation is actually going to decrease. As it exists now, there's the mayor, and a councillor can be represented, but the provincial government is the one that now makes the other five. Now that could be up to seven.

Did the minister get any kind of negative feedback with regard to that percentage being even higher?

[1825]

Hon. S. Anton: In the consultations that were done, we did not hear any negative feedback.

K. Corrigan: Well, maybe the mayor that was most concerned…. Maybe their quibble is going to have to be with the UBCM then, because they were not aware. There are so few police forces that you would think they would have been aware.

I also wanted to clarify: at whose discretion is it that a police board would be increased up to seven persons? What would the process be for that?

The Chair: Minister, and noting the hour.

Hon. S. Anton: I'll give the answer to this one here.

The request from the police boards was that the section be amended to permit boards to request an increase in the size of the board by way of application, with rationale, to B.C. police services division. In fact, we have received a request from the city of Vancouver, and it's likely, if this section passes, that we will then move forward to consider that request.

Some of the boards are quite small around British Columbia. For some of them it's probably perfectly appropriate to stay at seven, but for the city of Vancouver it may be appropriate to take it up to the nine people.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.
[ Page 2600 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
INTERNATIONAL TRADE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $36,135,000 (continued).

J. Shin: I understand that the ministry is allocating from its budget $650,000 per year for this fiscal year for the multiculturalism work, and the same amount is projected for 2015-2016 as well as 2016-2017. I also understand that there is funding of $1.74 million from the federal government that's slated to terminate effective tomorrow, which is April 1, 2014.

My question is: has the ministry identified yet what the alternative sources of funding are in order to make up for the shortfall once this particular fee is terminated?

Hon. T. Wat: There is no reduction in our budget for multiculturalism. The total budget is $2.47 million, which includes $1.85 million deferred federal funding and also the continued provincial-based funding of $625,000 for this fiscal year.

J. Shin: Thank you for the clarification. Just so that I understand this correctly, the $1.74 million federal funding is, in effect, good for the current fiscal year coming up? Okay.

If I can get a clarification on the programs and services that, currently, that particular federal funding is covering right now…. If I can get some examples, that would be great.

[1440]

Hon. T. Wat: The Multiculturalism branch promotes diversity in B.C. through our EmbraceBC program. Let me tell you a few of the initiatives that we have been doing. Actually, all these initiatives are posted on our website. All the details are there, but I'm just citing you some examples.

We have the Provincial Nesika Awards, which will take place this Friday evening. If you would like to go and attend, you're more than welcome. I will be there as well.

There is the Report on Multiculturalism. We have a Multicultural Advisory Council, which will have consultations with the ethnic community, multicultural community as well. There's an Organizing Against Racism and Hate program. There's the Safe Harbour program. We also conduct public education, including Unlearn Racism, anti–hate crime and public education.

As I said, all of these program details are posted online at embracebc.ca. I encourage the member to go on the website, and if you have anything that you want to know further, our staff is more than pleased to give you a briefing.

J. Shin: Thank you for that. Just going back to your previous response. I'm sorry; I'm not quite clear on whether I got an answer as to what will happen to these programs and services the next fiscal year, once the federal funding is not in place.

Hon. T. Wat: I just want to assure you that this government is committed to funding all the programs I mentioned earlier on. A decision regarding funding for the following fiscal year will be part of the 2015-16 budget process.

Also, I would like to let you know that by March 31, 2015, CIC's, Citizenship and Immigration Canada's, new role regarding immigration and multiculturalism should become clear, and replacement funding for B.C. multiculturalism programs from the federal government or another source may be identified in the budget development process.

J. Shin: I would like to move on and talk about the EmbraceBC program. Just curious to find out how much is the current cost of annual operation for that particular initiative in the ministry and how much of those dollars in total were awarded to the 40-60 provincial organizations or community-based projects that the website mentions. If the minister would please name, maybe, about the top five organizations that received the most amount of funding, and their amounts, please, that would be great.

[1445]

Hon. T. Wat: All our funding supports the EmbraceBC program, and the funding ranges from $20,000 to $35,000. The top recipient of our EmbraceBC program funding is AMSSA for their Safe Harbour program. It's $250,000. We have two pages of the list of the recipients, and I'm more than happy to provide the list to the member.

V. Huntington: I advised the minister's office that I would be asking a quick couple of questions on Alberta's residency requirements in the oil and gas sector. Firstly, let me thank the minister's staff and staff in the ministry for the very good briefing that they afforded my staff and me a few weeks ago.

However, as the minister is aware, the Alberta Energy
[ Page 2601 ]
Regulator requires firms operating in the oil and gas sector in Alberta to be resident in Alberta. Mind and management must be resident in Alberta. It's been a core energy policy of the province, and it's been instrumental in the growth of that economic sector and the benefits that flow to Alberta out of it.

The minister knows that following a whole series of questions, I've been told: "It has been fixed. It is being fixed. It was being fixed. It will be fixed. It might not be fixed, because we have to go into dispute resolution to do it, and that's an enormous process." It ended up on the government's platform in the last election.

I would like to know from the minister why British Columbia has not forced this issue. What is it about B.C.'s lack of policy in the area that enables the province to stand aside while all of the benefits of British Columbian firms required to operate in Alberta leave this province — all the payroll, all the equipment purchases, all of the insurance purchases, all of the taxes?

We are not reaping the benefits from our own citizens who are forced into moving to Alberta, who will then be operating from Alberta in our energy sector, because that's where their company is.

[1450]

I fail to understand why British Columbia has allowed this process, this situation, to exist for so long. What is it? Is it fear of the multinationals? Is it some sort of agreement that companies are better served out of the Alberta market than here and that we're willing to support that? What is it that has prevented us from moving in this area?

Hon. T. Wat: To the member: I thank you for the question. I, myself, understand how frustrated you are and the concern you have. I actually have the same kind of concern, and I was talking to my staff, when I first took up this appointment, trying understand the issue. From what I understand, we have been working to resolve this issue. It is true, as you said, that B.C.'s concerns have not been adequately addressed by Alberta.

Just for your information, I have scheduled a meeting with my counterpart in Alberta in an effort to resolve this issue. I think it's in ten days' time that I will be talking to him. Actually, I talked to him once a couple of months ago because of the concern I have. That's why I asked for another meeting to talk to him.

In the meantime, our province's and Alberta's energy sectors are highly integrated. Our two provinces have been working to streamline and align our regulatory regimes in order to allow energy firms to work seamlessly in both jurisdictions. In late 2012, under pressure from British Columbia, Alberta adopted regulatory changes to waive their local presence requirements once regulatory equivalency has been achieved.

My deputy minister, who is Shannon Baskerville, has provided a mutual recognition agreement, MRA, to the Alberta government to confirm this regulatory equivalence and to reaffirm Alberta's commitment to live up to the obligations of the TILMA. We are fully prepared, I just want to assure you, to request that a formal panel be established to hear the dispute if Alberta refuses a wide, full and open access for our province's energy companies.

V. Huntington: Well, I'm pleased to hear that, obviously. It's been ten years. This thing has been going on for ten years. I think it's been a substantial loss to British Columbia's GDP. I don't know whether the ministry has estimates of what that loss is. But my concern is obviously the ongoing loss, if it's not rectified, and the continuing failure to go into the dispute resolution process as a result. I know a lot of work has been done on the issue, but for some reason there's a failure to resolve it.

[1455]

I just look at the developing LNG sector alone. If all of those companies are based out of Alberta, all the ancillary benefits will not accrue to British Columbia. And they should be accruing to this province and its people.

I urge the minister to be quite determined in the discussions with the minister in Alberta and to resolve this once and for all. I don't think this has been to B.C.'s benefit at all. It certainly hasn't to my own constituent, who was forced to move back to Calgary thinking that the problem was resolved and that he could move back to his home province. It needs to be resolved for the benefit of everybody in British Columbia.

B. Ralston: Clearly, we're going to run out of time. The minister has a schedule, and I'm going to try to stick to it. I may pose the multicultural questions in a written form later on. Obviously, there is a lot of work going on, on the apology and reconciliation file, which I'm involved in, but I'll leave those questions till later. If we run out of time, I'll address them in written form.

When we left off last day, we were talking about the investor-state provision in the proposed Canada-Europe trade deal. The minister was apparently prepared to defend a formulation of that clause in the same manner as chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement. I did advise that my research would seem to suggest that governments of at least France and Germany, differing parts of the political spectrum, were both opposed to having a clause like that in the Europe–United States agreement, which is currently in negotiation — and for a variety of reasons.

I'm wondering if the minister can explain. She is defending the CETA agreement, although the final text has not been released publicly and the public comment is on a summary, not the exact text, and that can be very important in evaluating trade deals. Can the minister explain what the existing difficulties are in terms of protection for Canadian investors in the EU and how these difficulties might be overcome or reduced if the CETA — that's the Canada–European Union trade deal — is ratified?

[1500]

Hon. T. Wat: With the CETA in place, that will benefit B.C. investors in EU countries because it offers a much faster, transparent and fair resolution process. Currently, without CETA, the investor could be dragged through time-consuming and costly court systems.

B. Ralston: Well, those are the national courts of First World countries that are widely respected for their judicial independence. I haven't heard that complaint expressed about partiality of national courts in Europe particularly.

I think the objection to the mechanism in chapter 11 is that it's a closed-door, secret commercial arbitration that is immune from judicial review. I find that explanation surprising, but if that's the minister's position, I can understand that. But it doesn't seem as though the minister is prepared to grapple with the emerging consensus that's coming from Europe on the failures of that system.

Let me move to another related topic. A representative of the Forest Products Association of Canada told the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, in reference to the CETA deal: "Right now the government procurement process for forest products in the EU is a fairly behind-closed-doors process. We're advocating something that's a bit more open and that taps into leveraging our environmental pedigree."

Can the minister explain how the CETA — this is, obviously, a concern for the forest sector here in British Columbia — would address the forest sector's concerns regarding government procurement process in the EU for forest products?

[1505]

Hon. T. Wat: As far as we know, CETA will offer provincial access to the EU's procurement market for all sectors, including the lumber industry. The EU procurement market is estimated at $2.7 trillion.

B. Ralston: In pursuit of her duties on behalf of British Columbia and according to the service plan, can the minister explain what consultations or advice she sought from the major timber companies in the province about their concern about access to government procurement of lumber products in the EU, should this deal proceed?

[1510]

Hon. T. Wat: For all international trade negotiations, consultation has been ongoing throughout the period. Not only have we met with hundreds of companies, individuals and associations, we also welcome every e-mail, phone call and letter regarding these negotiations and for any of the markets in which British Columbians are doing business.

As for the forest industry that the member is asking about, we have talked to each forestry industry association and also a number of forestry companies as well. We continue to encourage people, if they have any comments, to contact the province through our dedicated e-mail at tradesubmissions@gov.bc.ca. And just for your information, the government of Canada is also consulting extensively.

B. Ralston: I want to turn now to the TPP negotiations, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. As the minister will know, Canada entered those negotiations in 2012. In a trade policy statement released in 2011 the Australian government announced that it would discontinue its practice of including investor-state dispute resolution provisions in its trade agreements.

In addition to Australia, have any other TPP countries publicly indicated whether they wish to include investor-state dispute resolution provisions in an eventual TPP agreement?

Hon. T. Wat: That is a very good question. As far as we know, Australia is the only country right now.

B. Ralston: Last time we met in estimates debate, in July of last year, I asked the minister about the Australian government's white paper Australia in the Asian Century. That's something included in the minister's mandate letter, a direction formally to her from the Premier. I asked about what steps had been taken on examining that paper and what response there was.

The minister said at that time in July that that was being considered and in progress, and there was nothing to report at that time.

Can the minister advise, given that some eight or nine months have passed since July, what progress has been reached on considering that paper, what conclusions have been reached and what the minister will want to share with the public — since I'm sure that there is public recognition internationally of some of the successes of the Australian strategy?

[1515]

Hon. T. Wat: Thank you, Member, for the question. We have completed a review of the Australian best practices on trade and investment. It's currently in draft form. Once we have finalized this report, we will post it on the website.

B. Ralston: Well, given that I patiently waited eight months for a response, can the minister at least indicate what form the response will take? Are there going to be substantive recommendations to government? Can she give some idea of the nature of these?

I think the ministry could reasonably be assumed to have had a long time to work on this. Simply saying that it's coming at an indeterminate time in the future is not really very much of a satisfactory answer, in my view. I
[ Page 2603 ]
wonder if the minister could put a little more flesh on that very bare-bones answer.

[1520]

Hon. T. Wat: To the member: I know you're very anxious to know about the actual recommendations, but I just want to let you know that we are right now developing the recommendations for options that could be implemented in British Columbia and incorporating the findings into the development of our Asia trade strategy. But since you really want to know, I'll just cite you some of the examples. There are so many examples, but just to cite you a couple of examples.

For example, they have the strategic focus on emerging markets, such as China, and the importance of using the badge of government to expand trade. Another example is the focus on key accounts, those accounts that have the best chance to translate into real trade and investment outcomes.

B. Ralston: In the minister's accountability statement it stated, I think in her words, that "the ministry has a role in the softwood lumber agreement negotiations." And there are other ministries, obviously, that are involved as well.

Is the ministry's role merely an honorific role, or is there an actual substantive role in these negotiations for the minister's ministry?

Hon. T. Wat: To answer your question, yes, we have a substantial role, because the softwood lumber agreement has provided stability and certainty to B.C.'s softwood lumber producers. We are working with the federal government and industry and also with FLNRO to commence negotiations with the U.S. very soon.

The B.C. forest industry is very important to communities throughout our province. They create jobs, support families and generate economic growth. Continued access to the U.S. market is important. Exports of B.C. wood products to the U.S. grew by 24 percent in 2013.

B. Ralston: Can the minister say which specific staff members are assigned from the ministry to those negotiations? For example, is the deputy minister on the negotiating team representing British Columbia? Or are there personnel from other ministries? I'd be interested in the names of the specific people who are assigned from the ministry of foreign trade.

[1525]

Hon. T. Wat: I just want the member to know that the negotiations are actually led by the federal government. As for our ministry, the head is our deputy minister, and the team comprises two members. One is executive director of trade policy, and the other one is senior director of softwood lumber.

B. Ralston: I want to turn now to the Canada-Korea agreement, which has been signed in principle. Once again, the federal government hasn't released a full text. But can the minister advise — I understand she's been privy to confidential briefings about the contents of that agreement — whether the investor-state dispute resolution provisions of the Canada-Korea agreement are similar to chapter 11 in NAFTA or not?

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. T. Wat: At this time, since we have not seen the text, we cannot tell you the exact wording there.

[1530]

What we do know is the agreement grants investors access to international arbitration to resolve disputes through the investor-state dispute settlement provision. This will provide impartial, objective means for foreign investors to resolve disputes with host countries.

I just want to let the member know that British Columbia has long pressed the federal government to accelerate efforts to achieve enhanced trade negotiation with high-growth Asian markets. This is the first free trade agreement we've reached with an Asian country. As an open, competitive and trade-dependent economy, B.C. is well positioned to participate in and benefit from Canada's trade negotiations. Agreements with our Asian trade partners will generate jobs and economic opportunities for businesses, workers and investors in B.C.

B. Ralston: I can't tell from the minister's answer whether the form that that investor-state dispute resolution process would take would change her support or not for the deal. But given that she hasn't seen the text either…. I know she's expressed support for the deal in general. I think everyone recognizes the advantages of trade arrangements with a dynamic economy such as that of South Korea, but there is that issue, and it doesn't sound like the minister really is very certain what the content of that provision might be in the agreement.

Given the limited time I have, I'm going to move on. I want to talk a little bit about the B.C. Immigrant Investment Fund. In the service plan, on page 9, the writers of this document identify what they describe as key risks and opportunities. As the minister knows, this is an area she's responsible for. Money from the B.C. portion that is invested by immigrant investors in pursuit of their financial obligations to receive their immigration status in Canada…. Some of those funds are flowed to British Columbia, and they're housed in this fund.

They do note on page 9 that unexpected "termination or material changes to the federal IIP" — that's the immigrant investor program — "could result in the need to use a portion of the $500 million provincial guarantee to finance repayment to the IIP. BCIIF" — that's this agency — "continues to rebalance the investment portfolio to address these
[ Page 2604 ]
risks and ensure sufficient liquidity to meet the five-year federal repayment obligation."

As the minister knows, the federal Immigration Minister made an announcement about that program being axed. Given that those risks were identified in the plan, can the minister explain what the impact of the ending of that program will be upon the obligations of this fund and the ability of the province to use it as it does to fund provincial infrastructure within the province of British Columbia?

Hon. T. Wat: It's still too early to tell exactly how the federal government decision will affect B.C., as we still don't have details of the federal government's proposed immigrant venture fund pilot program or the immigrant investment business skills pilot.

[1535]

We do know the wind-down period may be fairly long, as the money we receive today from the federal government does not have to be repaid for five years. Paying back the money to the federal government has always been a condition of this program.

In the meantime, the BCIIF remains a going concern, with continued payment of loans made by the Crown. There will be no new loans, and on maturity, the province will assist with refinancing through its fiscal loan program.

B. Ralston: What would be the impact on lending for B.C. infrastructure programs financed at least in part out of this fund here in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Wat: If those public infrastructure projects have been approved, they will be funded through another source. But if you have any questions about what other source, then you have to be directed to the Minister of Finance.

B. Ralston: One of the subsidiaries of the B.C. Immigrant Investment Fund is the B.C. Renaissance Capital Fund. It's described on page 5 of the service plan as a subsidiary. I do have a series of questions on that. It looks like I'm going to run out of time.

Can the minister explain what the impact will be, given the changes in the federal program, on the, I think, $90 million that was initial seed money to the Renaissance Fund as a subsidiary of the B.C. Immigrant Investment Fund?

Hon. T. Wat: To the member: you are right. We have committed $90 million to fund managers under this BCRCF program. I want to stress that the province has a legal obligation to honour those commitments.

As for future implications for the venture capital financing under BCRCF, it has yet to be determined.

[1540]

B. Ralston: The federal Minister of Immigration, Mr. Alexander, made some public statements explaining why the federal government was axing the immigrant investor program. I think he made some statements in Hong Kong. He said, according to one news report — I think this is a translation of a Sing Tao story — that the flouting of residency rules by mainlanders was one of the reasons its investor visa scheme was axed. But he went on to say that it wasn't the principle reason and that Canada's door was still open to Chinese migrants.

Can the minister explain what position she's taken publicly on the ending of the program and the federal minister's reasons that he claims that that decision was made?

Hon. T. Wat: British Columbia, just like the member opposite, learned of the cancellation of the federal immigrant investor program in the February 11 federal budget. The federal rational for termination was based on the program not meeting intended federal immigration and economic outcomes.

B. Ralston: This is going to be my last question, perhaps those opposite will be relieved to hear. The minister is involved in a public process leading to a reconciliation and an apology to British Columbia's citizens of Chinese origin. She stated at the outset of these estimates that she expected that that matter would be dealt with by the Legislature before the end of May.

I'm seeking specifically from the minister, one, the timeline and, secondly, the reassurance that myself, as the opposition member responsible, will receive the draft document in advance — not a day before but at least several days before, if not a week before — in order that we can properly consider it and make some reasoned response to it.

Can the minister provide me with the assurance here publicly on the record that the final document will be provided to members of the opposition at least a week in advance of the date on which she proposes that the motion be put before the House prior to the House rising, as it is now scheduled to do, at the end of May?

[1545]

Hon. T. Wat: Before I respond to the question, I actually would like to thank the member of the opposition and also the independent member for supporting our consultation and providing so much input. I particularly saw the member of the opposition in, I think, five consultations. I really appreciate your support.

As committed in the terms of reference, we will work cooperatively with the members of the opposition on delivering an apology for historical wrongs against the Chinese-Canadian community. At the recommendation of the opposition, we added an additional two consultation forums.
[ Page 2605 ]

Ministry staff has already met with the opposition and independent members to discuss the framework of the consultation summary and have reached out to meet again. I understand that our staff are hoping to set up a meeting to provide more details. I understand my staff also provided a package of material to the opposition, including over 20 hours of footage from the forums.

This process has been non-partisan, and I hope the formal apology, when introduced, will be supported by all parties of the House.

Yes, to the member, we are committed to providing a draft of the full consultation report one week, if not sooner, before the announcement.

B. Ralston: I wanted to thank the minister and her staff for their help in these estimates. There are a number of other topics that I've not been able to canvass in the time that's available to me, and I will follow up in written form.

With that, I conclude my questions for these estimates.

Vote 29: ministry operations, $36,135,000 — approved on division.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: The committee now stands recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:49 to 4:04 p.m.

[1605]

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

On Vote 44: ministry operations, $812,293,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening comment?

Hon. T. Stone: A very brief opening comment, if I may. First off, I want to acknowledge the member for North Island, the opposition critic for Transportation and ferries. I think we were here about ten or 11 months ago. It's hard to believe that that amount of time has gone by. I know that we may have a spirited debate on a wide range of transportation issues, whether that be ferries or transit, highways, etc., but at the end of the day, I know that both the member for North Island and myself, and certainly her colleagues and my colleagues…. We're all here for the same reason, and that's to do good by British Columbians.

Certain days, certain issues, we may have different ideas as to how to get there, but I want to acknowledge and thank the member for her hard work on behalf of not just her constituents but the people of British Columbia on the Transportation file.

I'd also like to take a moment to introduce a few members of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure executive who are here with me today. I have Grant Main, who is the deputy minister; Nancy Bain, assistant deputy minister for finance and management services; Dave Duncan, ADM, highways department; Jacquie Dawes, ADM, partnerships; Kevin Richter, ADM, infrastructure department; Greg Gilks, ADM, transportation policy and programs. I certainly am blessed in this ministry to have an incredible team of people. Obviously, the tone is set with this executive.

I'd like to take this opportunity as well to thank the thousands of ministry staff who work in offices across the province. Certainly, since the last time we were engaged in the estimates discussion I've had an opportunity to travel throughout British Columbia and meet many of the hard-working men and women who actually make the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure work. I take my hat off to all of those individuals who really do bend over backwards to make sure that we have a safe and reliable transportation network here in British Columbia.

Now, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is a very large ministry, as I think everyone in the room understands well, spanning transit, highways and ferries, certainly ports and airports, as well as a wide range of Crown corporations and other agencies and commissions. I look forward to the thorough review which I'm certain is about to start, led by the fine member for North Island. I certainly look forward to her questions and the questions of other members of the Legislature as we move forward.

C. Trevena: I won't be making any opening remarks apart from saying that I thank the minister for his kind words. I also would like to acknowledge the staff of the highways department, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, around the province. I think that all of us as MLAs, us and our staff, have very frequent interactions with ministry staff, and there is always very, very responsive and very good interaction there. We get things done on a local level.

As I say, I'm not going to do an opening statement because time is limited. I'm going to start straight in on the ten-year transportation plan.

[1610]

The minister gave myself and a colleague a briefing on this the other day. I thank the minister for that. I just wanted to get on the record how this relates to the already existing or announced plans for highway improvements, whether it's the four-laning of Highway 1 to the Massey Tunnel to the Island plans — the Malahat. If the minister could just briefly put on the record how that's going to impact them.
[ Page 2606 ]

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, to the member's question on the ten-year transportation plan, this was announced as part of the last throne speech. It really comes as a result of the fact that the last provincial transportation plan encompassing all facets of transportation in British Columbia was actually released in 2003. As the member knows well, it was called Opening Up B.C.

Now, since that time we have embarked upon one of the most ambitious transportation infrastructure investment programs in the history of British Columbia and probably — arguably, on a per-capita basis — throughout Canada. Since the launch of the 2003 Opening Up B.C. plan, $17 billion has been invested in all facets of transportation across British Columbia.

As the member knows, that investment has really been focused in a number of key areas and has been reflected through a number of key programs: the Pacific gateway transportation strategy is one; Connecting the World, which is the province of British Columbia's aviation strategy; the provincial transit plan, last refreshed in 2008 and in need of a refresh, will be part of this; the gateway Program Definition Report from January 2006; the B.C. ports strategy from March 2005.

There has been a tremendous number of specific projects that we have made investments in which have been all about moving people and goods in the province. Certainly, the South Fraser Perimeter Road project is a very significant piece, the Port Mann Bridge and related infrastructure improvements.

[1615]

We've seen investments at our ports, the road-rail utility corridor, the Deltaport — certainly, similar investments up in the Port of Prince Rupert. There has been a record level of investment in the Trans-Canada Highway — continuing to four-lane the Trans-Canada, particularly east of Kamloops; the Bennett Bridge in Kelowna; and on and on the list goes — again, fully $17 billion of investment.

The thinking here in moving forward with a refresh of our ten-year plan is to recognize that most of those major infrastructure projects which were contemplated back in the early 2000s and that were detailed in the 2003 Opening Up B.C. program have now come to an end or are very near to coming to an end. It's therefore timely to refocus and look at a new ten-year horizon.

That is certainly what the plan will be all about. We are in the early stages of framing up what the consultation will look like for this and look forward to hearing from British Columbians.

C. Trevena: Thank you for that synopsis of it.

In the briefing that we had, the minister said that there'd be a reconsideration of the commitment to the mountain pine beetle action plan. I notice that in this service plan there is still, up till 2017, $90 million committed to it. Likewise, there is $60 million committed to the oil and gas rural road improvement program and $210 million in Interior and rural side roads program.

I wondered if the minister could explain why, if this is going to be reconsidered, it is still in the plan and where the money will be going to if it's going to be reconsidered in the ten-year plan.

Hon. T. Stone: To the member's question, with respect to the ten-year transportation plan, I'm really glad that we had the opportunity to sit down recently and talk it through to some level of detail. These are good follow-up questions.

[1620]

As the member knows well, the recent budget included $3.4 billion for further transportation and infrastructure investments. Of those investments, about $300 million have been allocated to projects that are critical for northern B.C., including the OGRRIP program and the rural roads program. For the current fiscal year for the Interior and rural side roads, there's an allocation of $50 million. OGRRIP is $20 million. There's also the mountain pine beetle fund. That program has an allocation of $30 million for the current fiscal.

Government continues to believe that there is merit in each of these programs. There has been a tremendous amount of good work done. There is likely more important work that needs to be finished.

That all being said, we're at the very front end of the development of the refreshed ten-year transportation plan. As I said to the member when we met recently, one of the areas that we're going to be looking at is obviously dollars that are currently in the capital plan and currently in the operational plan over the next three years to ensure that these dollars are best placed to give maximum impact for tax dollars spent.

Now, the lens that we'll be looking through, in large part…. Obviously, the number one priority is the safe movement of people throughout British Columbia. But we're also applying, more so than ever before, goods-movement plans — the movement of goods — to the priorities that we set in terms of how capital and operational dollars are spent.

We'll be looking at the economic development priorities, particularly of the north. We'll be looking at LNG development, a refresh of the provincial transit plan and a number of other priorities. I should also point out that there is a tremendous amount of good work going on with the Mayors Council, ongoing discussions with TransLink and so forth in terms of continued investments there as well.

To sum up, the ten-year transportation plan is a refresh strategy that we're at the front end of developing, putting a fence around, determining how to best facilitate public engagement as we talk through these priorities.

How do we best weave together all of these different silos of transportation investments that have typically
[ Page 2607 ]
been made in the past? Most importantly, how do we make sure that we are making transportation investments that provide maximum bang for buck in terms of growing British Columbia's economy, creating jobs and safely moving people and goods around the province?

C. Trevena: The investment in the oil and gas rural road improvement program and Interior and rural side roads is primarily looking at the northeast sector of B.C. and investing there. I'm just trying to make a comparison to communities, for instance, which I represent and others on the Island may represent as well as others around the province where it is mainly…. You'd look at Forest Service roads. That is both the Ministry of Forests and the companies themselves — at certain places if they are working there will fund the roads.

Here we're looking at provincial investment of $60 million over three years for oil and gas and another $150 million over three years for the rural side roads. These are specifically ministry-funded with no support from the industries themselves to ensure that they can get their workers to the places. It's all going to come from the ministry?

The Chair: This committee stands recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:25 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: Just a couple quick things for the member for North Island. I just want to really reiterate — I'm certain that she knows this — that the rehabilitation line item in the budget, obviously, is provincewide. The interior and rural side roads as well as mountain pine beetle strategy funding envelopes are certainly provincewide, in terms of the Interior and rural British Columbia.

The oil and gas rural road improvement program, as she stated correctly, is indeed a program that is specific to the northeast sector or the Peace region of our province. I think it's important to note that OGRRIP is not matched by industry investment dollars. OGRRIP is spent on Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure public roads.

Now, the oil and gas companies typically invest dollars to upgrade and maintain petroleum development roads that extend beyond the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure public roads to access well sites. This is actually quite similar to the investments that forestry companies make in Forest Service roads.

We had a bit of a break there, so I'm hoping that I actually answered the question that she posed. If I didn't, I'd be happy to give it another shot.

C. Trevena: No, the minister actually said very clearly just the answer that I was looking for.

The minister mentioned, when you were talking about the transportation plan and things moving on and about the four-laning of the Trans-Canada…. On behalf of my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, he wanted to know what is happening to the four-laning around his area in Golden.

I think the minister must be well aware that there was a 14-vehicle accident there last week. There are regularly accidents there. I hear a lot about it, my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke obviously does, and I'm sure the minister does. I just wanted to know when that section will be four-laned.

While we're talking about the Trans-Canada, I wanted to have a quick question on the other end of the Trans-Canada, here just outside of Victoria. I drive that a lot and have noticed, like many people, the fencing down by Spencer Road in that new interchange down there.

[1640]

I just wanted to know how much did that fencing cost the ministry, and is the ministry looking at investing in an overpass in that area?

Hon. T. Stone: If I may answer the questions in reverse order. In terms of Spencer Road and the fencing, that was erected there not that long ago. I do not have the exact dollar figure here today, but I'll be happy to provide that to the member as soon as possible. Staff will get that number for you.

In terms of whether a pedestrian overpass has been or is being considered, the answer to that is yes. We have been engaged in discussions with the city of Langford on the potential for an overpass at Spencer Road. The city of Langford and the Ministry of Transportation are working on a business plan for that, and I would hope that we will have some positive news on that in the not too distant future.

Safety is the number one consideration. Certainly, the fencing has gone a long ways to providing peace of mind to most of the residents down in that part of Langford, but a pedestrian overpass would certainly take that safety consideration to the next level. No pun intended.

In terms of the question that the member for North Island asked with respect to the Trans-Canada and specifically, I believe, investments in the Columbia-Revelstoke region of the province, again, I think it is useful to remind British Columbians that since 2001 this government has invested $700 million in four-laning the Trans-Canada Highway east of Kamloops to the Alberta border.

[1645]

It's a very ambitious program that the government has been committed to since 2001. Last year the Premier announced a new $650 million program for four-laning between Kamloops and the Alberta border, and there are a number of projects that will be represented in that funding.
[ Page 2608 ]

I'm very pleased to acknowledge that phase 3 of the Kicking Horse Canyon project recently completed, as did the Donald Bridge, which is west of Golden, as the member knows.

We are in active discussions with the federal government at the moment in terms of finishing off the one last piece of the Kicking Horse Canyon. Certainly, when you come at it from either direction, you're cruising along on a nice four-lane divided highway, and then you hit a wall, a bit of a wagon trail. It's a very significant investment that's required to complete that remaining, I believe, only four kilometres. It's a very significant investment.

That investment cannot move forward without federal participation. We have identified it as what we believe to be a priority of national significance and are having discussions with the federal government on that particular piece as well as a number of other four-laning sections.

There are also two remaining low-overhead bridges — one at Malakwa; one at North Fork — that need to be replaced. Those are also projects that will happen once the federal government commits to their portion of the funding for that.

C. Trevena: I'm very mindful of the time here. I'm not sure we're going to get an extension, so although I have a number of other more general questions, I'd move on, when we're talking safety, to the issue of truck safety. It seems a bit of a jump.

There was a blitz in Delta last year on truck safety, and a number of vehicles were found to be unsafe — quite a number of vehicles. I wondered whether the low pass rate concerned the minister and if similar blitzes have been carried out since.

While the minister is getting the statistics, I just wondered if he could also tell me how many inspections are carried out every month and if the pass rate is improving.

[1650]

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I just want to let the member for North Island know that as a reflection of how good the staff are in this ministry, we are able to answer the previous question with respect to the costs of the Spencer Road fencing. The cost was actually $300,000.

In terms of the member for North Island's last question with respect to truck safety…. Again, in reverse order of the two questions she asked on this topic, I believe the second question being: has the pass rate been improving? We don't actually have those statistics with us today. We will endeavour to get those for you as quickly as possible. I would venture to guess we may even have them for you today. I mean, we just set the bar pretty high here.

In terms of the first part of her question, so the record clearly states, there are about 35,000 detailed roadside inspections every single year in British Columbia. Those roadside inspections are conducted by about 220 field staff. On top of that, there are hundreds of thousands of other visual inspections of commercial vehicles which are done every single year.

I was actually able to participate in visually inspecting a number of commercial trucks at the JUVIS Golden weigh scale. That's an important part of our safety regimen.

On top of that, there are about 3,100 school bus inspections that are carried out by CVSE every single year.

I suppose the final point to close on this would be that everything I've just said — in addition to that, there are designated inspection facilities around British Columbia, and every commercial vehicle is required to undertake an inspection every year.

C. Trevena: Thank you to the minister. I think what was significant was that the blitz in Delta caught a lot of vehicles. It was focused on one area, catching a lot of vehicles. I wonder if the minister could say whether there will be another one — without giving a time, because part of the plan is obviously to find drivers relatively unaware. I'm quite sure of that.

I also wondered if the minister could say…. I mean, in going through the service plan, which I guess is the guidebook for the ministry in the coming year to three years, there are no targets and timelines for commercial vehicle safety in the service plan. I'm wondering why not.

I mean, there are targets and performance measures for customer service, which one hopes is here, that everybody drives and gets good response from the Ministry of Transportation. But there are no targets, timelines nor performance measures for something as significant as commercial vehicle safety.

[1655]

Hon. T. Stone: First, just back on the question in regards to CVSE blitzes, there is one really large one held every year. It's a 72-hour blitz. It's always held in the same location, in Hope, at some point in the summer — done with the participation of the RCMP and other agencies.

In addition to that, we do a number of slightly smaller blitzes, like the one in Delta that the member referenced. We do those blitzes in varying parts of the province.

Each one of the blitzes has a particular focal point. Sometimes we're looking at tires. Sometimes we're looking at brakes. Sometimes we're looking at load safety and so forth.

In terms of the member's question with respect to the service plan and the consideration of targets and performance measures and so forth related to commercial safety, in the current service plan there are two objectives under goal 4 which relate to safety. Objective 4.3, which is all about improving highway safety and reliability, actually has a specific performance measure, the performance measure being "crash reduction after construction on safety improvement capital projects."

I appreciate that this one is not specific to commercial
[ Page 2609 ]
traffic. However, objective 4.4 — which is all about providing effective road safety enforcement, education and programs for the commercial transport industry — does lay out a number of strategies. Now, the member will also notice that there is no specific performance measure there, and I'll certainly take that back as feedback.

I think, at the end of the day, ministry staff, government, we…. There's always a debate on how many objectives, how many performance measures and which performance measures on which objectives and so forth. But I'd be happy to take that back as feedback in terms of the performance measure related specifically to objective 4.4.

C. Trevena: I feel that we're doing this almost going through….

I've got one other question on safety. It's on highway safety, and then I'm going to move on to a couple of questions before getting on to the major projects.

[1700]

The other one — I guess it's on highway safety. I understand that there was training held for ministry staff on how to deal with avalanches, back in February. I wonder if the minister could tell me who attended that and from what region, what the cost of the training was, if any special equipment or clothing was bought and, if so, what cost that was.

Hon. T. Stone: In terms of the member's question with respect to avalanche control and costs and so forth, certainly I want to acknowledge that we've got 38 full-time-equivalent avalanche control specialists in all corners of the province. These individuals receive rigorous training. They're top-notch professionals in their area of expertise, and thank goodness. We sure needed them this last winter.

In addition to that, there are a number of district managers, and there are about 100 to 120 area managers. Now, the area managers receive a one-off, a one-time avalanche control course that usually spans about five days. The district managers meet every year for a day and a half, usually in February, where they go through a broad range of avalanche control techniques and practices and so forth. This year again it was in February. It was one and a half days for their training.

[1705]

I do not have the specific cost of the training that they received. I would be very happy, though, to provide that to the member as soon as we can pull that together for her.

If I may, though, I'm not sure I fully understood the final part of the member's question with respect to equipment. Perhaps the member could just let me know what she was trying to get at there.

C. Trevena: Just if the ministry provided any specific — I don't know — equipment that people might need going on this course, if they were provided any extra clothing that they may have needed, anything like that, anything specific to the managers to go on this course.

Hon. T. Stone: To the member for North Island on her question with respect to the equipment that was provided to the district managers who attended the avalanche training back in February, most of the participants brought their own boots and coats and so forth.

There was a fleece that was provided to each participant. That fleece was provided by the Ministry of Transportation. It was provided as part of the ministry's recognition program to recognize the hard work of these individuals. In addition to that, a backpack was provided to each member. The backpacks, however, were provided to the participants at no cost to the taxpayer.

C. Trevena: I wonder if the minister could find out for me the cost of the clothing and fleece. I'm sure it'll go on when you find out the cost of the avalanche training.

I'm going to be moving on to capital projects in a moment, but I wondered if the minister could provide the utilization rates and losses on the provincial highways and whether these losses include P3s.

[1710]

Hon. T. Stone: To the member for North Island, her question was with respect to, if I understood correctly, utilization rates and losses on highways. I think the hon. member knows that we don't track utilization. There is no method by which utilization rates could be tracked on 47,800 kilometres of highway across British Columbia.

That being said, the two key pieces of information that we do track every single day are traffic volumes and safety statistics. The traffic volumes, depending on the highway in question, vary from a low of somewhere around 2,000 vehicles per day to as high as 100,000 plus per day — again, obviously depending greatly on the area of the province in question and the variability of uses for that particular highway.

I would also point out that a large part of the $17 billion worth of investment over the last ten, 12 years has been on highways, and during that time we've seen a 25 percent reduction in the number of crashes, so from a safety perspective, the investments that we have been making on our highways have certainly had a direct correlation to making our highways safer for British Columbians.

[1715]

C. Trevena: I did ask the question about whether there was any information about the losses on provincial highways, the P3s, the investment in that. I think the minister is well aware that it's language that's used all the time when we're talking about the ferry system. It just seems only fair to use it in reverse and for the paved and gravel
[ Page 2610 ]
highway system as much as the marine highway system.

I'm going to move on now. I don't know if you need to have a change of staff. I just wanted to talk about some of the capital projects. I'm going to be talking about the Massey Tunnel, other bridges — primarily the Massey Tunnel and the Port Mann and Pattullo bridges. I understand that the person for the Port Mann is not here, but hopefully, you'd be able to answer the questions.

On the Massey Tunnel, I have seen in the service plan that there is still no cost estimate for it and that it is still going to be going ahead in 2017. It does seem to be — to myself, I would say, and others who are concerned about the potential costs — somewhat reckless to be just going ahead without even having any idea of what the costs are.

The service plan says it's too soon to estimate how much the project will cost, but the line for it says very clearly that construction is scheduled to begin in 2017. Seeing as the ministry is going to be pushing through with this no matter what the cost, I have a number of initial questions for the minister.

One is: can he commit to formally including Metro Vancouver, who are obviously responsible for their own regional plan as well as the transit Mayors Council for this? I'll bundle all the questions together just to make it easier.

I also wanted to know whether we have yet…. Although we have no cost for building the new replacement, what are the costs for the removal of the tunnel? Who will be paying for that? Will that cost be part of the total budget cost? Has there been a cost-benefit analysis done on plans to replace the tunnel? If so, is that going to be released? Is it going to be made publicly available?

Also the money for dredging of the tunnel at the moment. I believe that the money allocated for 2012 is not stretching as far as expected. What is the cost of dredging to accommodate ships above the tunnel and when the tunnel is removed?

That's it at the moment. I wanted just to start off with that.

[1720]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the George Massey replacement project, certainly this a project that our government is extremely excited about. Now that the work on the Port Mann Bridge and the related improvements — Cape Horn Interchange and so forth — are substantially completed and the benefits are being realized by British Columbians, the largest bottleneck in the province, the single-largest congestion point, is now the George Massey Tunnel. We know that the tunnel is nearing the end of its useful life, so it will either require a very significant and expensive upgrade and repair or a replacement.

As the member for North Island knows, we are now in the third phase of this project. Phase 1 was identifying the need. Phase 2 was extensive consultation with communities and stakeholders to determine the best solution moving forward. The result of that engagement was indeed to replace the current tunnel with a new bridge on the same alignment. We're now into phase 3 of the project, which is the technical engineering budget phase, if I can call it that. A project team was hired not that long ago, and we're….

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: I would like to declare a brief recess.

The committee recessed from 5:24 p.m. to 5:37 p.m.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: I'll just pick up from where I left off a moment ago. I believe I was just getting to…. Phase 3 is the phase that the George Massey replacement project is in at the present time. This is the technical engineering phase. This is also the phase where the project's scope will be refined.

As the member for North Island knows, the price tag at the end of the day can vary dramatically depending on what the final scope of this project ends up looking like. For example, if it's just a replacement of the tunnel with a new bridge, that will result in a certain price.

If, however, there is work done on either side of the bridge, similar to the work that was conducted on either side of the Port Mann Bridge in that project, that will obviously have a direct impact on the final dollar value at the end of the day. We are just working our way through all of the considerations on the scope, and again, that will inform the final price, which will then enable us to consider different financing options for the project.

With respect to the specific question that the member for North Island asked — will this project include a cost for the removal of the existing tunnel? — the very simple, straightforward answer is yes. It will include a cost for that. With respect to the member for North Island's question about dredging, the only facet of dredging that will be included in this project, and in the cost as a result, is the dredging related to the removal of the old tunnels. There are no other dredging-related costs included as part of this project.

Last but not least, the member also asked about participation or consultation with Metro Vancouver. Indeed, there has been a fair bit of consultation through phases 1 and 2 and now in phase 3, particularly at the staff level between the Ministry of Transportation — now the project team that's been created specifically for this project — as well as the staff within Metro Vancouver and TransLink.

Also, on an unrelated note, I can report back to the member now that the approximate cost for those fleece shirts that were provided was $80 per fleece.

[1740]

C. Trevena: Thanks to the minister for getting back to me quickly on the other question.
[ Page 2611 ]

I did ask whether there's been any cost-benefit analysis done on the plans to replace the tunnel, seeing as it's so determined to be going ahead, which I wonder if the minister could tell me.

The minister is talking about the bottleneck that this is going to relieve. I wonder what his staff tell him about what everybody's talking about, which is the next bottleneck, which would be the Oak Street Bridge.

Final question on this. Talking to staff and others about the plans, we're looking at the Port Mann Bridge, which is going to be a ten-lane bridge. We've got the Alex Fraser Bridge. I wonder if the minister has any confirmation on whether this is going to be a six-, eight- or ten-lane bridge yet.

Hon. T. Stone: Very quickly, from a bottleneck perspective, this tunnel actually moves about 80,000 vehicles through it every single day. Now that the Port Mann project has come to an end, this is the largest bottleneck in the province.

The member asked a very specific question about: what does this mean for the Oak Street Bridge, and are we just moving traffic from one crossing to another? Our analysis actually demonstrates that depending on the day, between 55 and 70 percent of the traffic that goes through the George Massey Tunnel today is actually traffic that is moving from Richmond to Delta or back again. It's traffic that doesn't actually ever cross the Oak Street Bridge.

We certainly don't make any assumptions that this bridge, while it may fix a congestion challenge at the current tunnel location, is simply going to result in moving that congestion challenge to the Oak Street Bridge. The majority of travellers are actually just moving between Delta and Richmond and/or they're peeling off and heading over to Surrey or coming from Surrey.

In terms of the question about whether it's going to be a six- or eight- or ten-lane bridge, it's too early to say. We don't know at this point how many lanes the bridge will have. That's one of the critical considerations that we're working through in phase 3, the technical engineering and scoping phase that we're in right now.

Also, I would say, to the last part of her question, with respect to a business case…. I mean, to truly round out a business case for a project of this nature, you really need to make those decisions. You really need to know: how many vehicles are we talking? How many lanes is the bridge? How much work is going to be done on either side of the bridge? What is the total price tag going to be? As a result, how are you going to finance it?

All of those considerations, which, at the end of the day, will be the key ingredients for that business case, will be fully informed through this spring, and we'll release all of that information later this year.

[1745]

V. Huntington: I thank the member for North Island for giving me an opportunity to ask a question on the Massey Tunnel. As you can imagine, Mr. Chair, I could go on forever on the Massey Tunnel and anything related.

To follow up on the issue of the business case, the minister may know that I filed a request for any documents related to cost-benefit analyses of the five options that were publicly discussed and consulted on prior to the decision to choose the bridge over the tunnel. I now have been given to understand that there is going to be a business case analysis of the bridge.

My question then is: how can you do an analysis of the options after the fact? What did the government use to properly inform itself, with no cost-benefit analysis in front of it, on choosing this particular bridge and the location for this bridge?

[1750]

Hon. T. Stone: I want to thank the member for Delta South for her question. I certainly understand why she has such an interest in the George Massey replacement project.

With respect to her question, again I will reiterate the extent of work that has actually taken place up to this point, the different phases that the project has actually been carried through. Phases 1 and 2 actually looked at a tremendous amount of historic data as part of the consultation and engagement with various communities and stakeholders, local governments and so forth.

That data included critical soil information, seismic information. Traffic patterns were looked at. There had been a tremendous amount of work done in previous years on potential options for replacement as well as different alignment options. All of that information was used to help inform the case for moving forward. Certainly, phase 1 was all about identifying the need; phase 2 was about identifying the other replacement option.

Obviously, the critical first question in phase 2 was: bridge versus tunnel? When you look at the costs, generally speaking, for tunnels versus bridges, the costs tend to be higher with tunnels. There were also unique considerations relating, again, to soil conditions in the area as well as seismic considerations.

Also, a critical consideration here was enabling larger ships to be able to move up the Fraser, which is constrained to some degree with the current tunnel. Replacing the current tunnel with a tunnel that would have to be deeper obviously increases the costs of the overall project again.

Once it was clear that a bridge as a replacement made more sense, then obviously the next consideration in phase 2 was looking at the alignment. Again, the ministry relied very heavily on traffic patterns, traffic data, as well as input from the various stakeholders and communities.

At the end of the day, now that we're in phase 3, which is the technical engineering and the finance stage, which is really where we're finalizing the scope of this project….
[ Page 2612 ]
Is it a six-, eight- or ten-lane bridge? Are we doing significant road improvements on either side of the bridge, and if so, to what extent?

A fully informed business case can't be completed until we have all of those variables nailed down. The ministry is working hard on that, with the project team leading the way. We will release all of that information in the forthcoming months.

V. Huntington: I would have thought, then, that some of that data would have satisfied the FOI request for information on the business case for choosing one or the other of the different scenarios. If there is data available, I'd certainly appreciate receiving it.

One other issue you mentioned on dredging: that the only dredging that will be done would be the removal of the existing tunnel. If there is dredging required for mitigation or as part of your work with local government in terms of satisfying some of their needs adjacent to the bridge, would the ministry consider those opportunities if they included dredging?

[1755]

Hon. T. Stone: To the member for Delta South, as I think she's aware, projects of this size and scope often include significant mitigation components. A great example of that is the South Fraser Perimeter Road. It was almost $100 million of environmental and agricultural mitigation that was done as part of that project. It's been recognized around the world for those mitigation works.

If additional dredging is required beyond just that required for the removal of the tunnel on the George Massey replacement project, from a mitigation of impact perspective, then we would certainly look to including that within the project and in partnership with other stakeholders.

V. Huntington: Just very quickly, given the tunnel had a 100-year life, and it's got 50 years left with appropriate upgrades, we have to assume that much of the hurry for this replacement bridge, even though the traffic congestion requires it, is to assist the port in getting larger ships up the river. Are the ministry and the government approaching the port to ask them and the federal government to assist in the payment for this bridge?

[1800]

Hon. T. Stone: Again to the member for Delta South, I think, first off, I want to make a very clear statement in response to any suggestion that there could be anywhere close to 50 years of life left in this tunnel, even with significant upgrades. That is simply not a position of the Ministry of Transportation. What we have said to British Columbians is that the current tunnel is absolutely safe to continue to use, and it will be for a good number of years into the future.

When you look at the additional benefits which come from a replacement of this tunnel with a more modern structure that will address the single largest congestion point in the province of British Columbia, now that the Port Mann Bridge and related improvements are complete — 80,000 vehicles move through this choke point every single day — addressing that critical issue of congestion is the number one benefit that comes from the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel.

I think if there is to be serious consideration in the years ahead for rapid transit to move through that corridor to the member's community in Delta, it cannot be facilitated at the present time with the current tunnel. The new bridge structure provides a tremendous amount of more flexibility related to relieving congestion challenges, as well as affording opportunities for rapid transit in the years ahead.

I would also like to say that with respect to any federal participation…. The port is a federally regulated agency. The federal government also does cost-share on projects, as we know. They participated in the South Fraser Perimeter Road, as one of a number of other projects.

We are engaged in discussions with them now that they have finally released the details and the criteria of the Building Canada fund. We are now actively discussing priorities with them, and we have put forward the George Massey replacement as one of those priorities that we would sure appreciate federal participation on.

C. Trevena: I'm now going to move on to a couple of other bridges. The first one I hope will be…. Well, it might be quite a long answer. When the Premier was running for election after the May provincial election, in the by-election when she won her seat, she mentioned the possibility of another span in Kelowna. She says: "I believe it's time for to us start planning a second crossing."

Seeing as the Massey Tunnel replacement came from, seemingly, a very quick comment, I'm wondering whether there is any work going on within the ministry for this second crossing for the Premier's riding.

I'd also like now to move on to the Port Mann, and because of time, I will just go through a few of the questions that I'd like the minister to answer.

[1805]

Primarily, it's the issue of traffic volumes. Obviously, the bridge is complete. The six or seven kilometers are complete. We've got the intersections working, but traffic volumes are down from last year. We had those figures in January. The Transportation Investment Corp obviously shows less revenue than it did last year. Still, its service plan is showing that there are going to be significant revenue increases year on year.

I wondered if the minister could explain, given that traffic volumes are down now, why there is this optimism that they will pick up so significantly, especially since we're also looking at a replacement for the Pattullo
[ Page 2613 ]
Bridge. I also wonder if the minister could tell me how those revenue forecasts are developed.

That's it for the time being. We'll see how we get on before we have to break.

[1810]

Hon. T. Stone: To the first part of the member's question, with respect to the second crossing on Okanagan Lake in West Kelowna, there are actually some planning dollars that have been included in the budget, specifically in the funding envelope that's entitled "Other highway corridors and programs."

This is going to be a significant project. There's no question about that. Our staff are in the very early stages of beginning the planning process, which obviously will initially…. Similar to the George Massey replacement project, phase 1 will be all about stakeholder and community engagement to discuss the need and different options.

With respect to the Port Mann project — and I very much appreciate the questions there — this is perhaps one of the signature achievements of our government over the past 12 years. I mean, we're very, very proud of this project. This is a project that by almost every measure has been a tremendous success. Not only did it create thousands of construction jobs and thousands more permanent jobs, but this is a project that also is saving British Columbians a good hour a day in their commutes. Not a day goes by that I don't talk to people from Langley or Surrey that thank the government for making this investment.

Most notably, we now know that during the peak rush hour in the morning, traffic is up considerably. It's up westbound about 10 percent during those peak rush hour hours. Similarly, at the end of the day traffic is up heading eastbound, as well, in rush hour. People are clearly choosing to use this span during the hours of the day when there would otherwise be the most congestion on the roads.

We also are seeing rapid transit over the Port Mann Bridge for the first time in 25 years, and 50,000 British Columbians are now using the rapid transit bus from Langley to the other side of the crossing every single month — 50,000 British Columbians. I was pleased to try that service out myself only weeks ago, and it's a terrific service.

Now, there's no question, as the member pointed out, that the traffic volumes have not materialized to the levels that were originally forecast. There's no question about that. In fact, in the week before this legislative session started, on behalf of government, I held a press conference. We put the numbers out, so we are going to be completely transparent about that.

We believe that the numbers are less than what were originally projected for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the significant economic downturn with our economy, as was the case across the entire world. There has been a significant increase in gas prices over the last ten years. Again, the transit. In some respects, the bridge is a victim of its own success from a transit perspective, when you have 50,000 British Columbians using that rapid transit service every month. The vast majority of these people were sitting in their vehicles in lines, in congestion, trying to get over the old Port Mann Bridge.

[1815]

Certainly, we know that a number of British Columbians have also made different choices in the heat of the moment, so to speak. When the congestion was at its worst during construction time, many British Columbians made different arrangements with respect to working at home, with respect to moving closer to their work. We've seen very significant population increases in communities south of the Fraser, for example in Surrey and Langley, which I think reflects in part a decision by some British Columbians to work closer to home.

What we have done on a go-forward basis is we have retained a new firm to provide revised traffic forecasts, which is what we talked about before this legislative session started. We are taking all into account, everything that I've just talked about, all of those considerations. We believe that the revised forecasts are much more in alignment with what will actually transpire.

I'll end on this note. This experience of traffic forecasts not being met, the original forecasts not being met on projects of this size — again, this construction time frame here was upwards of ten years — is quite common. This happens around the world. Texas and Florida are examples of other jurisdictions that recently had very similar experiences. In Texas their numbers were 7 percent off. In Florida they were 4 percent off. What both those jurisdictions also experienced was a slow but gradual rebound in their numbers. We certainly are seeing that here in British Columbia and expect that to continue in the months ahead.

C. Trevena: Thank you for your indulgence. I know that you want to close down this discussion for the evening.

I just have one quick question. It's going back to the bridge over Lake Okanagan. The minister has talked about it being a significant project and that there are planning dollars set aside for it. I wondered if the minister could tell me how much money is set aside for it.

Really, there has been a new bridge opened over Lake Okanagan very recently. Why is there such a need to have a second crossing quite so soon? I mean, what went wrong with the planning last time that you need to have a second one?

[1820]

Hon. T. Stone: To the member for North Island, first off, in terms of her question with respect to how many dollars
[ Page 2614 ]
have been included in the budget for planning purposes for a second crossing on Okanagan Lake, there is about $2 million included in the budget over a three-year period, over the next three years, which is for planning purposes.

In terms of her question as to why we believe it's needed at this point, she's quite correct. The W.R. Bennett Bridge was completed about five years ago. At the time, it was believed that it would provide capacity for a 20- to 25-year period. What we are seeing in Kelowna and certainly throughout the Okanagan Valley is tremendous population growth and traffic volumes, which are demonstrating through our analysis that additional capacity is going to be required sooner than later.

I will emphasize very strongly that this is very early, early, early in the planning process. But it's not a matter of: is a project, a second bridge, going to be required? It's more of a matter of when. So we're engaging in that planning work now and, as I said, have allocated a couple of million dollars for planning purposes over the next three years.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of International Trade and report progress on the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and ask sit to leave again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada