2016 Legislative Session: Fifth 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)

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 38, Number 8

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

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2016

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Ministerial Statements

RESPONSE TO FIRES IN FORT McMURRAY

Hon. C. Clark: We are watching in horror today as we see what unfolds in Fort McMurray. An entire city is being forced to evacuate, and it is nothing less than a nightmare come to life — a nightmare that people in Kelowna will remember from 2003.

Alberta is our partner. They are our neighbour. They are our best friend in Canada. For many of us, though, Alberta is also family, with so many connections across the Rockies between our two provinces.

In times of need, families stand together, and so although our own resources are very stretched — 48 fires in British Columbia right now; some of them very close to the border between our two provinces — we have been in contact with the Alberta government. They have asked us, as a priority, to make sure that we control the fires along the border and, if they do move into Alberta, that we take the unusual step of chasing them across the border and doing that work on Alberta’s behalf so that they can continue to focus their resources.

This battle is far from over. We all see that in the news coverage that we see on TV every night. But the fact that no lives have been lost is a testament to first responders: paramedics, firefighters, police — all authorities who are so well coordinated and so brave in fighting this terrible fire that people are facing.

We won’t know the full extent of the damage, obviously, until it’s extinguished, but we do already know that thousands of people have lost their homes. I know that hundreds of British Columbians have already reached out. On behalf of all of us here, I’d like to thank them for bringing their heart to this problem to support our friends and family in Alberta.

They are asking how they can help, and I want to encourage them. I want all British Columbians to donate to the Red Cross in their ongoing efforts to support the people in Alberta, in Fort McMurray, who are dealing with this today.

[1340]

By rallying together, we can keep each other safer, and we can stay calm in the face of this terrible disaster that’s unfolding. The people of Fort McMurray have shown incredible tenacity, courage and resilience in the face of this. We all wish them our very best.

To the people of Alberta, British Columbia stands with you as we always have and as we always will.

J. Horgan: On behalf of the official opposition, I want to join with the Premier in offering every ounce of help we can to the good people of Alberta, particularly in Fort McMurray. It’s just bizarre beyond belief the images that we’re all seeing and experiencing on our televisions and our social media feeds.

It’s also extraordinary — the amount of help being offered right across country, whether it be in the Maritimes, in central Canada or here, out west, to stand with our brothers and sisters, the men and women and the good people of Alberta. I know that the people of Fort McMurray are among the most resilient in the country. They will regroup, they will rebuild, and they will recover.

As that happens, I echo the Premier’s call. If anyone is listening and watching and has something that they can give, please do that. Reach out to the Red Cross, reach out to faith organizations, and do what we can in a modest way to assist in this difficult time. The work will go on much beyond the fires. But in this time, when we see what could only be described as Hades on earth, it’s critically important for all of us to band together.

I support the Premier and the government in every way possible to bring our resources to bear to address this serious issue just to the east of us. I know that all British Columbians would support that as well.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: I thought Tommy Bahama had walked into the Legislature today. I was looking at…. Who’s the most relaxed person on the floor of the House today? Of course, it’s our dear friend Blair Lekstrom, down from the Peace country. I’ve not seen him so relaxed. I’ve not seen him so at ease. I thought it might have been to do with the motorcycle ride yesterday, but he said he didn’t even come down for that. He just came down for some good old-time fellowship with his colleagues on that side of the House as well as his good friends on this side of the House.

I am delighted to be able to say, on behalf of everyone here, would you please make a guy named Blair Lekstrom, the calmest, coolest guy in the place today, very, very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: Some of my colleagues joined me this afternoon, at lunchtime at the rotunda, to announce the reopening of the Crossing at Keremeos. The Crossing at Keremeos is a purpose-built, specialized residential treatment program for youth and young adults that are experiencing challenges with substance use. We were very happy to announce the reopening of that facility in Keremeos.

It’s overseen by the Provincial Health Services Authority. I would like to welcome a couple of people
[ Page 12686 ]
from PHSA: Lynn Pelletier, who is the vice-president of B.C. Mental Health and Substance Use Services, and Connie Coniglio, the executive director of B.C. Mental Health and Substance Use Services.

With them are two members of Central City Foundation, which has become a leader for its model of investing in sustainable, social purpose real estate properties: Jennifer Johnstone, the CEO of Central City, and Carla Shore, the communications director.

Accompanying them are two very important people, the co-founders of the Association of Families and Friends of Drug Users, just the sweetest people who have done so much good for young people in our province: Robert and Susan Ruttan.

Would the House please make them all very welcome.

C. James: I have two guests who are here in the gallery today. Both of these individuals are incredibly committed, through their work and through the amazing organizations they work for, to improving the lives of seniors, of families and of women and children in our community.

The first individual is Candace Stretch, who is assistant manager of women and family services at the Cridge Centre for the Family. The second is Rebecca Mabee, who is the aboriginal early education and nutrition programs coordinator and manager for the Little Paws Preschool at the Victoria Native Friendship Centre.

Would the House please make both these guests very welcome.

Hon. M. Bernier: Just to follow up on the official opposition leader’s introduction, I also want to acknowledge a good friend mine who is here from Peace River South. Such a good friend, in fact, he stepped aside so I could run to take over his spot as MLA in that area.

[1345]

I think it’s really important to stress that for 12 years Blair served in this House, serving not only impeccably for Peace River South but also for the province in his time as Minister of Transportation, Minister of Community and Minister of Energy and Mines. He did an excellent job, I’m told by the opposition, on two out of three of those great ministries.

It’s a real, great opportunity to welcome my good friend Blair Lekstrom to the House. Again, please make him welcome.

Tributes

NELSON KEITLAH

S. Fraser: The province has lost a great man. On Saturday last, May 1, Nelson Keitlah passed on. Nelson was a respected Nuu-chah-nulth elder and statesman from Ahousat on Flores Island near Tofino, and he was a friend.

Nelson played a major role in creating the Nuu-chah-nulth governance structure, the NTC or Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, as it is known today. He was first elected as chief councillor for Ahousat. He was the co-chair of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council for many, many years. He was tribal council negotiator for many years on the B.C. treaty process.

I first met Nelson in 1997, and I was honoured to sit with him on the Clayoquot Sound central region board, where he presided as the Nuu-chah-nulth co-chair. Nelson was fluent in the central Nuu-chah-nulth language, and he was also fluent in all things Nuu-chah-nulth and history. You could learn so much from just being in the room with him.

He was an eloquent and powerful speaker, and he could hold a room with his very presence. Nelson Keitlah was known as the General, and the General will be deeply and dearly missed.

Introductions by Members

L. Reimer: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the precinct this afternoon the Coastal Sound Music Academy children’s choir, led by many volunteers and Diana Clark, who is my constituent. They are hosting this week a group from Dieppe, in Moncton, New Brunswick, named the Jeunes chanteurs d’Acadie. I had the pleasure of listening to all of them sing on the weekend at Old Orchard Hall in Port Moody, and they are so melodic.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

C. Trevena: In the House today are John Bowman, the president of North Island College, and Randall Heidt, the vice-president of the college. They’ve been meeting with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations as well as the Ministers of Advanced Education and Jobs and Tourism.

They’re talking about the importance, to the college and to the whole of the north Island, of a reconfiguration of the Campbell River campus. They are looking for support, and I hope that the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Jobs will be giving them that support. I will also, hopefully, be having meetings with those ministers to talk about this.

I hope the House will make them both very welcome.

Hon. T. Wat: It is my pleasure to welcome eight esteemed guests to the House today. They all sit on B.C.’s Multicultural Advisory Council. The Multicultural Advisory Council was created in 1990 with a mandate to advise the minister on multiculturalism issues. There are currently eight board members, including the chair, and they all generously donate their time as volunteers to carry out their roles. Today the council is meeting to discuss their annual action plan, and I’m looking forward to seeing the developments that arise as a result.
[ Page 12687 ]

We are so lucky to have the full team in the House with us today. I’d like to extend a big thank-you to members Dennis Chan, Garrison Duke, Angela Hollinger, Tenzin Khangsar, Steve Kim, Anar Popatia, Tanveer Siddiqui and David Chuenyan Lai for all your service to British Columbia.

Please join me today in giving them a warm welcome.

G. Holman: A number of Vancouver Island MLAs had the opportunity to meet with the ALS Society of B.C. advocacy committee earlier this morning. The committee is here to request very modest support for a pilot program to provide respite for caregivers of ALS sufferers and to document the benefits of the program.

Would the House please welcome Richard Poliquin, chairperson and director of ALS B.C.; directors Dr. Neil Cashman, Ann McArthur and Jim Williams; Wendy Toyer, who is executive director of the ALS Society of B.C.; and, last but not least, Susan Brice, who is executive member of the Victoria chapter of the ALS Society of B.C. and, of course, a former MLA and currently chair of the greater Victoria transit commission.

Would the House please make all of these guests feel very welcome.

[1350]

R. Sultan: It’s my pleasure to introduce to you, for a second time, some of the same guests from the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, or ALS, Society, perhaps known to many of us as Lou Gehrig’s disease. As the member has already pointed out, this society is dedicated to providing direct support to ALS patients, their families and caregivers, to ensure the best quality of life possible while living with ALS.

Each year in Canada, in the United States, and in most of the western world, only one or two people out of 100,000 get ALS. Men get it slightly more often than women. It can occur at any age, but it’s more common in the middle-aged and the elderly.

Our Ministry of Health has supported ALS research by financially supporting agencies such as the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. In addition to the names of the guests in the gallery today that have already been mentioned, I would like to single out my constituent Rick Poliquin, who is chair and director of ALSBC.

I would like to acknowledge for the second time, my old buddy, Susan Brice, MLA for what was, in those days, known as Saanich South. We had the pleasure of sitting directly behind Jenny and Joy, the only two NDP members in the House. Some of the barbs aimed in their direction glanced off them, and we had to duck from time to time.

The good news is that Wendy Toyer, the executive director of ALSBC, has told us that if you’re going to get this affliction, British Columbia is the place to get it, because the Ministry of Health’s, G.F. Strong ALS facility is “the best in the world.” That’s from Wendy, and I believe her.

Would the House again make the ALS Society welcome.

J. Shin: Last year I visited South Korea twice, in the spring and in the fall, and had the pleasure of visiting the federal government to meet with the MPs; the capital city, Seoul; as well as Burnaby’s sister city, Hwaseong, to connect with the council; and, of course our sister province, Gyeonggi, where my colleagues, members for Surrey-Whalley and Surrey–Green Timbers, and I were received so warmly.

We extended our invitation to them to reciprocate and to continue our dialogue on trade, educational and cultural relationships between South Korea and British Columbia. I’m thrilled that our sister province of Gyeonggi has accepted.

They are here, all 13 MLAs, led by the Minister of Urban Development and Environment, with their parliamentary secretaries and senior staff in the entourage of 26 guests today. Would the House please make our special guests from across the Pacific, the MLAs Oh Se Young-nim, Yom Jong Hyun-nim, Kim Kyu Chang-nim, Park Dong Hyeon-nim, Yang Keun Suh-nim, Im Chae Ho-nim, Jung Yoon Kyung-nim, Cho Kwang Myung-nim, Kim Chul In-nim, Lee Jung Hoon-nim, Jung Jin Sun-nim, Cho Jae Wook-nim, Chun Dong Hyun-nim, Cho Min Ho-nim and Shin Shung Hai-nim, feel very, very welcome.

J. Martin: We have a delegation joining us this afternoon from the B.C. and Yukon Catholic Women’s League.

Please welcome legislation chairperson Gisela Montague, from Chilliwack; president-elect Evelyn Rigby, from Powell River; education and health chairperson Agnes Geiger, from Nanaimo; and resolutions chairperson Dianne Barker, from Kamloops. Please make them welcome.

L. Reimer: I would like to welcome, as well, my friend Steve Kim, who is here today. Steve has been a very active member of the C3 Canada-Korea society and is with Boilingpoint communications. I’ve had the great pleasure to run with him, back in 2013.

Would the House please make him welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, members of this House will know I’ve spoken of the Dragons before and my love for King George high school in the West End.

I’m very excited today to have about 42 students from King George, in grade 11 and grade 10, in the House today. They’re incredible people.

[1355]

If you see them around the hall, tell them so. They will give you a few opinions, I think, about education and their crowded school, but they’re great students. I hope you’ll listen to them. I’d also like to welcome them.
[ Page 12688 ]

Along with them are Sherry Preston, Patrick Wilband, Malini Rajkumar, Cliff Butt, Lee Rachar, Steve Scrimshaw and, of course, the Dragons. So please give it up for the King George Dragons. Welcome to the people’s House.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WILDSTONE GROUP OF COMPANIES

D. Ashton: I’d like to take a moment to speak about one of the terrific family-run businesses based in Penticton. As general contractors, builders, engineers and construction managers, the Wildstone Group of Companies provides services throughout western and northern Canada, including some of the most remote and unforgiving places on this continent.

The goal of the company and its 100-plus employees is to provide a better building experience than any other company in the building industry. In addition to encouraging each other to be better at their jobs, their core values also include the commitment to be strong contributors to the community and a demand for a healthy family-worklife balance. Wildstone Group of Companies was founded in Penticton in 1995 by professional engineer Jim Morrison and now has branches in Whitehorse and in Yellowknife.

Some of the major projects the company has undertaken include a $42 million gas pipeline in Canada’s far north and a nearly $20 million northern Arctic RCMP detachment built on thermal piles. This is the first installation of its kind in Canada.

As a testament to Wildstone’s overall excellence, it was recently named one of Canada’s 50 best-managed companies by Deloitte. As we know, this is one of Canada’s most prestigious business awards. This is the second year in a row that Wildstone has been selected as B.C.’s finalist in the Deloitte Canada’s best-managed program.

Wildstone and its employees are also rightfully proud of their safety record, which now stretches five years without a lost-time incident — a record that is approaching one million hours on the job, much of it in the high Arctic. I’d ask each and every one: let’s knock on wood for that company. As a longtime and lifetime resident of Penticton and area, I’m extremely proud of this home-grown company’s achievements, and I’m very proud to be able to share their success with this House.

GYEONGGI DELEGATION
FROM SOUTH KOREA

B. Ralston: Today in the House we welcome an important delegation of elected legislators and their supporting staff from the Gyeonggi Provincial Assembly of the Republic of Korea.

The word gyeonggi means “the area surrounding the capital,” and indeed, the province wraps around the national capital of Seoul. The provincial capital of Gyeonggi is Suwon. Seoul, Korea’s largest city and national capital, is located at the heart of the province but is administered separately as a provincial special city. Gyeonggi is Korea’s most populous province, with 12 million people, and is home to globally recognized companies such as Samsung, Hyundai, Kia and LG.

British Columbia and Gyeonggi established a sister province relationship in May 2008. The member for Surrey–Green Timbers, the member for Burnaby-Lougheed and myself visited as guests of the provincial assembly in November 2015, and we are pleased that such a large delegation has chosen to visit us here in our provincial capital of Victoria. We look forward to pursuing talks on a wide variety of topics and strengthening the bonds of friendship between the Gyeonggi Provincial Assembly and the British Columbia Legislative Assembly.

The implementation of the Canada-Korea Trade Agreement, supported by both sides of the House, has opened new opportunities for exports to Korea, particularly from British Columbia. Korea has a dynamic cultural and business environment. There are opportunities for Canadian business in such areas as clean tech services, education and high-tech specialties such as gaming. We will strengthen the bonds of friendship between the Gyeonggi Provincial Assembly and the British Columbia Legislative Assembly.

To our many guests from Korea, on behalf of all members here, welcome.

ALS AWARENESS

G. Hogg: There’s an old adage that, I think, is attributed to that profession that we love to hate — lawyers. It says that you should tell people what you’re going to say; you should then say it and then repeat it so that people will know what you’ve said. With the help of two of my colleagues, we’ve already praised the ALS Society of B.C. So let me tell you what they told you, in different words.

Each day an average of 2.5 Canadians die of ALS. It affects one in 350 people, about one-third as many as are affected by diabetes.

[1400]

ALS is a progressive, neurodegenerative disease that relatively quickly causes muscle weakness, paralysis and, ultimately, respiratory failure. It can affect anyone at any time, and it is not yet treatable. The amazing freezing success of the ice bucket challenge raised a frigid awareness of the disease and reinforced our resolve to persevere and to find a cure.

The ALS Society of B.C. was founded 35 years ago, and it is dedicated to providing the best possible quality of life support to ALS patients, their families and caregivers. With over 445 trained volunteers, they support over 400 British Columbians with ALS.
[ Page 12689 ]

We are blessed in British Columbia to have the world’s best ALS specialists caring for our patients at the ALS Centre at the G.F. Strong Rehabilitation hospital. B.C.’s continued partnership with the centre is a crucial component in ensuring that we can provide the best possible quality of care and service to our ALS patients.

June is ALS Awareness Month in B.C. Your support of the many events occurring in communities across this province is both needed and appreciated.

Thank you to the B.C. ALS Society.

FARMERS MARKET NUTRITION
AND COUPON PROJECT

C. James: The B.C. farmers market nutrition and coupon program has been a great success in my community. The program, built with community partners, makes local fresh food available to low-income expectant moms, families and seniors.

Funding is provided through HealthyFamilies B.C., in partnership with the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets. It’s available in 48 communities across B.C. Last year more than 3,000 households and over 9,000 British Columbians used this service.

In Victoria, the Moss Street Market and the Oaklands Sunset Market both participated, in partnership with the Victoria Native Friendship Centre and the Cridge Centre for the Family. This year the James Bay Market and the James Bay Community Project have been added to the program.

Program participants receive $15 in coupons per week for 16 weeks, redeemable from June to October, to purchase fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, cheese, nuts and fresh herbs at local farmers markets.

The community partners often participate by offering skill-building activities such as cooking, meal planning and gardening classes. The participants have the opportunity to connect and be a part of their community at the farmers markets. This program also supports local farmers and keeps money in the local economy.

This year the program is at capacity and was not able to fund all of the participants requested. There are 137 families funded this year in greater Victoria, but 82 requests had to be turned down.

The B.C. farmers market nutrition and coupon program has been well received, and other community partners and other markets want to offer it as well. So I add my voice in the hope that funding for expansion will occur.

Thanks to those who’ve worked so hard to get this program up and running and make it such a success. It’s improving nutrition for families in my community and improving lives.

SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

J. Tegart: I rise in the House today to recognize May as Social Enterprise Month.

Social enterprises across B.C. are making a difference in people’s lives, in our communities and in our neighbourhoods. They use business strategies to serve the common good, finding innovative ways to help societies most pressing social, cultural and environmental problems.

They range from thrift stores and farmers markets to businesses that provide work experience, affordable housing and job opportunities for people with disabilities or other barriers to employment.

In 2012, a survey from the Canadian social enterprise sector survey project stated that B.C.’s social enterprises provided services to nearly 700,000 people and paid $37 million in wages. They are an important part of B.C.’s economy, and the sector continues to grow.

This is the third Social Enterprise Month in British Columbia. Ten years ago a social enterprise was a relatively new concept, but now a business focused on achieving social or environmental goals is mainstream.

Our government is committed to strengthening B.C.’s social innovation sector. In 2011, we started a conversation about social innovation. Since then, we’ve formed partnerships, supported the sector and enacted legislation. We’ve worked to create an environment where social entrepreneurs are welcome and can thrive.

[1405]

We know that no single organization, government or business can solve society’s most difficult challenges on its own. This month I encourage everyone to celebrate and to raise the profile of this important sector and the work they do to strengthen our communities. I encourage you to visit and support social enterprises in your community and go to hubcapbc.ca to learn more about B.C.’s social enterprise system.

YOUTH VOLUNTEER CONTRIBUTIONS

D. Eby: One of our community newspapers, the Campus Resident, recently featured five outstanding young people for their exceptional volunteer work in our community. I’d like to share their stories with the House today.

High school student Eric Lin spent his time as a volunteer coach of the Math Challengers club at a local elementary school, Norma Rose Point. Andrew maintains the club’s blog. He coaches 40 grade 5 to 8 students once a week. This year he gave an extra hour and a half of time for the 20 competitors for SFU’s provincial math contest. Their team came in first place in the province. Congratulations to Eric and the hard-working team at Norma Rose Point.

Alice Hong is a core member of — I don’t think I’m wrong to say — the famous CRAZI Youth Club Dance
[ Page 12690 ]
Crew, which she helped found in 2012. The Crazy Crew have been the stars of several community events. Alice and her friends always keep the crowd entertained with their amazing choreography. Alice also volunteers with the social fitness program, and she hasn’t missed a single session.

David He is the winner of the 2016 citizenship award at UHill Secondary, in part for his role in leading the fundraising for the Downtown Eastside Women’s Centre. With 140 hours of volunteering to date, David’s efforts have improved the Community Connection Night, the Let’s Cook Club, the UNA Annual Barn Raising, our lunar new year celebrations and the Westbrook outdoor movie.

Now, I met volunteer Jessie Ou at the Green Depot, where she volunteers regularly to educate community members about diverting e-waste out of the garbage. Despite wind, rain and cold at our annual Wesbrook Festival, Jessie and her colleagues bravely staffed the weigh station, making sure that we had a minimal environmental impact.

Eric Luo is a new arrival to Canada, but that hasn’t slowed him down from volunteering for 46 hours for every major University Neighbourhoods Association community event since he arrived. This spring he’ll be helping run the floor hockey program at our beautiful new community centre.

I ask all members of this House to recognize the amazing and outstanding volunteer work of these young people in my community.

Oral Questions

TAILINGS POND BREACH AT
MOUNT POLLEY MINE AND
MINING INDUSTRY REGULATION

J. Horgan: Yesterday the Auditor General tabled what could only be described as a scathing report on the enforcement and compliance capacity of the provincial government. I want to read several excerpts over the next number of minutes, and I’ll start with this one with respect to regulation and oversight.

The Auditor General said the following: “We have found over a decade of neglect in compliance and enforcement program activities within the Ministry of Energy and Mines and significant deficiencies within the Ministry of Environment.” So “a decade of neglect” is how it was characterized by the independent Auditor General.

In that report, we didn’t just hear about environmental degradation. We heard about taxpayer liability and lost jobs as a result of that neglect. My question to the Premier is: why did it take a catastrophic disaster at Mount Polley for her government to wake up to their responsibilities to adequately and appropriately regulate the mining sector in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: The mining industry in British Columbia is vitally important to many, many communities and thousands of people whose families depend on it for an income. We’ve worked hard to make sure that we support the industry and those workers in continuing to be able to generate the wealth that our province depends on but, also, the income that they need to be able to make sure that their lives are good ones and that they’re raising their children in the kinds of homes that they’d like to raise them in.

British Columbia has enjoyed, over the last many years, a reputation around the world as one of the best places — the most environmentally sound, the most safe — in the world in which to do mining.

[1410]

When the Mount Polley incident happened, we were all shocked. It was a real wake-up call for everyone. An incident that’s almost unique over the last 75 years. A reminder, for a mine that had been permitted long ago, that we do need to make sure that we always, continually, improve. We are acknowledged to be amongst the best in the world, but we can certainly do better.

The reports from the independent panel of engineers and geologists and from the auditors are both extremely helpful in helping us make sure that we make the changes that we need to. Many of those changes are underway because we intend to make sure that we stay not just amongst the best in the world but that we will be acknowledged as the best in the world for mining.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: It always astounds me when government members stand up and say: “I’m shocked. I had no idea.” The government has been in power for 15 years. “A decade of neglect” was entirely and totally on their watch.

The Auditor General went on to say, with respect to the reputation that the Premier just referenced: “We found that almost every one of our expectations for a robust compliance and enforcement program” within the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Environment was not met. Every one not met.

She went further to say the Ministry of Energy and Mines “has the ability to compel a mining company to take corrective action when necessary.” However, at Mount Polley, the ministry “did not use any of these enforcement mechanisms to compel the mine operator to build or operate the dam as designed or intended.”

What the conclusion was is that the government was asleep at the switch. Professional reliance was what they depended on, not people on the ground protecting the public interest, people on the ground protecting the jobs of people in the mining sector.

My question to the Premier is: what possible reason does the Premier have for not using the tools at the dis-
[ Page 12691 ]
posal of the ministry to protect the environment, to protect workers and to protect the resources that belong to all British Columbians?

Hon. C. Clark: One of the most important things that we have to do at this juncture, in our province, in order to protect mining jobs and mines in British Columbia is ensure that we protect the reputation that British Columbia has established as one of the best, safest, most environmentally sound mining industries in the world.

That does mean that we need to respond to the recommendations both of the independent panel and of the auditors, and we are working to do that. Amongst some of those things is setting up a new compliance and enforcement board, working to boost penalties for non-compliance, new guidelines for engineers and geoscientists.

This was a mine that was permitted long ago. The independent panel said that the cause of this terrible mess at Mount Polley was the fact that not enough holes had been drilled to determine the nature of the subsurface on which the tailings pond stood. They met the standards of the time, in the 1990s. But as the Auditor General reports today, they don’t meet the standards of today.

We need to make sure that we continue to change the way the….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. C. Clark: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

We need to make sure that we continue to change the way that we set those standards and meet those standards. The Ministry of Mines is doing that now in response to the reports that we’ve seen. That work will continue. We are amongst the best at mining anywhere in the world. We want to protect that reputation. We want to enhance it. Making sure that we maintain that public trust and that public confidence is absolutely crucial to making sure that we protect those jobs for those families that depend on it.

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

J. Horgan: If I’m not mistaken, I was at Mount Polley two summers ago. The Premier joined me there. The minister joined me there. I think the reputation of the mining industry kind of left the barn on that day. When you have 25 million metric tonnes of junk coming down from a tailings pond and going into a pristine water body, that’s a problem. It’s not an unfortunate circumstance. It’s a catastrophic event.

[1415]

The Auditor General reviewed that event, reviewed our preparedness for this very activity. The Premier talks about when the permit was issued. It was amended 12 times, not by people on this side of the House but by people on that side of the House. The permit to operate was amended a dozen times over a decade, and the Premier wants to think that it was someone else’s problem a long, long time ago.

Unfortunately, the people of British Columbia got more going on than that. They know that people sitting in government are the ones that are supposed to be accountable, not the opposition.

The Auditor General went on to say, with respect to taxpayers and the consequences for all of us inside the mining industry and outside of the mining industry: The Ministry of Energy and Mines “is not holding an adequate amount of security to cover the estimated environmental liabilities at major mines.” Not enough liability. In other words, the Yellow Giant mine — we made reference to it earlier in the week — a problem for all taxpayers. Mount Polley — potentially a problem for all taxpayers.

The Premier talked about trust. This is a big challenge for her, and I hope she’s got a good answer. How can the people of British Columbia trust our enforcement and compliance process when the owners of Mount Polley contributed $800,000 to the governing party over the past ten years? During that decade of neglect, the government’s party received $800,000 from the mining company that sent 25 million metric tonnes from their tailings pond into pristine water. How should we have trust in that?

Hon. C. Clark: The mining industry also created jobs for 30,000 citizens directly in British Columbia. The average salary for those jobs was $120,000. Five new mines creating over 1,300 jobs since 2011. We are continuing to work to make sure that our mining industry not only grows but that it grows in a way that enhances our reputation as amongst the best in the world at mining and mine safety.

That’s why we’re responding to both reports fully, accepting all of the recommendations from the Auditor General’s report, save one, where we are accepting it, trying to make sure we understand it better and seeing whether or not it can be fully implemented.

We want to make sure that we remain number one in the world, that we protect our reputation as a great place to do mining. We know that that’s vitally important, because on this side of the House we know that mining jobs matter to a lot of people. They matter to a lot of families. They matter to a lot of communities…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …that they keep alive. One of the many things that we need to do to preserve those jobs, to preserve those communities, is make sure that we
[ Page 12692 ]
preserve, protect and enhance our reputation for mine safety and environmental sustainability across the province. In accepting these recommendations, we will continue to do that.

N. Macdonald: The Auditor General says, with respect to the Mount Polley disaster: “We focused on why the dam failed.” Then she went on that they found the ministry did not ensure that the tailings dam was built properly or operated according to the approved design. “Nor did it ensure that the mining company rectified design and operational deficiencies.”

In short, the Auditor General says that the Mount Polley tailings storage facility failed because the minister failed to do his job. The Auditor General says that repeatedly throughout the report.

The minister promised to resign if he or his ministry were found at fault. That has happened. When is he going to resign?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1420]

Hon. B. Bennett: Apparently, I have bad news for the opposition. I have no intention of resigning. But I would like to tell the House and the public what I plan to do.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair would like to hear the answer.

Hon. B. Bennett: They’re going to have to contain their disappointment, hon. Speaker.

What I want to do on behalf of this government is I want to take the seven recommendations that were made by the independent expert engineering panel. That report came out in January 30 of 2015. I want to take the 19 recommendations that came from the chief inspector of mine’s report. That report took 18 months to do. It was done by several engineers within the ministry. There are 19 recommendations from that report and 17 recommendations, in total, from the performance audit that was done and released yesterday by the Auditor General. As the Premier just mentioned a second ago, that totals 43 recommendations.

Now, government is going to implement — and in fact is already in the process of implementing — all of those recommendations, even the 43rd recommendation. We have accepted every single recommendation of the two engineering investigations as to what caused the accident and, also, the recommendations that come from the Auditor General’s performance audit that came out yesterday, with that one exception, which I would imagine I will get an opportunity to explain, perhaps in a follow-up question, if the opposition decides they want to ask more questions.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Well, the question I asked, the minister ignored completely. He made a promise that if the findings such as we had with this report came forward, he would resign. That is what he promised.

I don’t mind…. I’m not surprised that he actually avoided the defence he used yesterday, because it’s ridiculous, what he said yesterday. He said that he only promised to resign if the panel that he handpicked and appointed said he was responsible for Mount Polley. Well, the Auditor General, the expert this Legislature appointed, says Mount Polley is his fault. The Auditor General’s report is an indictment of this minister’s tenure.

The question I have for the minister is: after reading the Auditor General’s report, how can the minister do anything other than resign? Where’s the integrity?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke would love to see me resign, I know. I’m sorry on a personal level that he feels that way, but I’m not going to resign.

He calls into question the independent expert panel of engineers that was appointed within two weeks following the Mount Polley disaster. We appointed that panel. He referred to them as “handpicked.” Let’s just take a moment and consider who these three people were.

Steven Vick is from the United States of America. He is the gentleman who is responsible for investigating the failure of the levees in New Orleans after the hurricane. The second person who was on the panel is a PhD geotechnical engineer who teaches at UBC and who currently is in Mexico City, as I speak, giving a lecture. What on? On tailings dams. The third person, who chaired the panel, teaches or used to teach at the University of Alberta. He also is a PhD geotechnical engineer.

[1425]

Those three geotechnical experts came to the conclusion that the accident at Mount Polley was caused by something called a glaciolacustrine layer. That’s what they said.

They also said that the men and women who work in the Ministry of Energy and Mines are actually really good at their job. That’s what these three engineering experts said. They said, in fact, that the people who work within the Ministry of Energy and Mines are actually some of the best people they’ve ever encountered anywhere in their travels.

M. Mungall: Well, the minister knows, or at least he ought to know, that the panel looked at what happened with Mount Polley, but the Auditor General was looking
[ Page 12693 ]
at why it happened. According to her, the ministry did not conduct geotechnical inspections for several years, even though the ministry policy requires annual inspections. According to the Auditor General, these inspections would have identified that the operator was not building or operating the tailings dam according to the permitted design.

The mine operators were not following the ministry’s rules. In the case of Mount Polley, we would have known that if the minister hadn’t given a pass on the annual inspections for that mine.

It’s clear that the minister neglected his responsibilities. Why did he do that?

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s great to see another MLA from the Kootenays up on her feet talking about mining. I’ve never heard her, ever, in her time here ever mention mining before. I appreciate the fact that she actually knows that it exists as an industry.

The member is asking about inspections that may or may not have taken place at Mount Polley over the last 15 years. What I can say is that there was a period of time, between — I hope I get my dates right — I think 2009 and 2011, where there were not the number of geotechnical engineering inspectors within the ministry that there ought to have been. That is something that we have acknowledged.

That is something that I will acknowledge right here today. It’s absolutely true, and we can’t let it happen again. Government takes responsibility for not letting that happen again.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Hon. B. Bennett: Here’s what those three engineers said about inspections. They said that no number of inspections would have found that hidden, unstable layer of clay under the perimeter embankment of the tailings storage facility. That’s what they said. It wouldn’t have mattered if you had 1,000 inspectors wandering all over that tailings storage facility. They would not have found what caused the accident at Mount Polley. That’s what the three experts said. It is clear that the members in the opposition don’t like that, but that’s what they said.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: First, let me invite the minister to any of the annual dinners or holiday parties that the Kootenay Chamber of Mines hosts. I’d be happy to see him there. In fact, maybe he’d actually buy something from one of the auctions.

The Auditor General, who’s an independent officer of this Legislature, said: “It is the Ministry of Energy and Mines’ responsibility for regulating all mining-related activity in B.C., including design, construction, operation, closure and reclamation. The chief inspector is given significant power and discretion during all phases. These powers include ensuring the safety and stability of tailings storage facilities.”

[1430]

It is the minister’s responsibility to ensure the safety of tailings storage facilities. The minister neglected to do that at Mount Polley, and I have to ask a question that I know is on British Columbians’ minds across this province. Is that because the mine’s owners are big-money donors to his political party?

Hon. B. Bennett: I couldn’t help but notice that Teck Resources, one of the biggest mining companies in the world, gave the NDP $59,400. I’m not….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members, we will wait.

Hon. B. Bennett: The ceremonial leader of the NDP could buy a lot of suits with $59,000.

You know, the best thing that we can do…. And I know that question period is all about theatre and politics and partisan politics. I’m not immune to participating in that. Everyone knows that. However, Mount Polley was a terrible disaster. There is no question about it. I think both sides of the House agree that it was a terrible disaster.

I think what the people of the province really expect from us…. I know they expect that from government; they may not expect that from the opposition. I think the opposition and government both have an obligation to learn what we can from what happened at Mount Polley.

It was an unprecedented event. It has not happened before in this province. There are 43 recommendations from the engineering panels that looked into the accident, that did the investigation, and also from the Auditor General’s report. Government is working on all of them.

G. Heyman: The minister may not be inclined to listen to the advice of independent officers of the Legislature, but the Auditor General went on to say: “The Ministry of Energy and Mines was unable to demonstrate how the mine performed against its permit requirements for the last two decades. In particular, the panel concluded that had the downstream slope on the perimeter embankment been flattened in recent years, as proposed in the original design, failure would have been avoided.”
[ Page 12694 ]

“Failure would have been avoided.” Does the minister agree with the Auditor General that had he decided to force Imperial Metals to follow their original design, the failure at Mount Polley would have been avoided?

Hon. B. Bennett: I’d like to go back to one of the engineering experts. His name is Harvey McLeod. He doesn’t work for government. He’s actually chairing our code review tailings storage facility subcommittee. He’s also vice-president of Klohn Crippen Berger engineering. Here’s what he has to say about the concept of “original design.”

He said: “This is the nature of mining. The tailings dam design at Mount Polley, just as at mines around the world, is not static. It evolves throughout the life of operations. That is appropriate engineering practice. Operating mines evolve their tailings dam designs over time to reflect actual operating conditions.”

With the greatest respect to the staff in the Office of the Auditor General, I think that what we got yesterday was a very good performance audit with 17 good recommendations. That’s what I think.

[1435]

I also think that if you want to understand what happened at Mount Polley, you should go to the two reports that were done by engineers. That will tell you. If you really want to know what happened, go and listen to the engineering advice that was provided by those experts.

S. Simpson: What’s clear from the Auditor General’s report is that the minister and the Premier made a choice. They chose to listen to major donors who fund the B.C. Liberal Party instead of workers who raised concerns about bad mining practices. The Auditor General called this a decade of neglect. It wasn’t a mistake; it was a choice. The result is that mineworkers lost their jobs. Mining communities are left with considerable environmental damage. Listening to major donors was the wrong choice for this minister.

Will he make the right choice and resign today?

Hon. B. Bennett: Forty-three recommendations. We’re going to implement all of them, possibly not all of one — not sure yet. That one recommendation deals with separating permitting from compliance and enforcement.

What we have said — I said it yesterday, but to get it on the record here today — is that we will do a jurisdictional scan, not just across Canada but around the world, to find other places where they have separated permitting from compliance and enforcement. Once we find those other models that are out there, according to the Auditor General, we will have a good look at them, and we will make a determination then as to whether we’re going to implement that particular recommendation fully.

The last thing I want to say…. It’s really important today that I say this. The people who work in the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Environment are people who are absolutely committed to doing everything they possibly can to protect the natural environment. We all know that.

S. Simpson: What we know today is that the workers at Mount Polley and the residents at Likely look at the $800,000 the mine owner gave to the B.C. Liberal Party and wonder what impact that money had. They look at the million-dollar dinner the mine owners held for the B.C. Liberal Party in Calgary and wonder: what impact did that money have? They look at the Auditor General’s report, and they see that the Premier and the minister chose not to enforce the law.

It’s time for the minister to demonstrate some integrity. Last chance — resign now, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: You know, when you look at the mining industry and you look at what the regulator is responsible for, governments do have a choice. We have a choice between trying to reduce the risk as much as we possibly can to make sure that workers are safe — and certainly B.C. mining workers are safe, the safest heavy industry in the world — and also to make sure that the environment is not jeopardized by the activities of mining….

It is not possible to remove all of the risk out of the mining industry or, frankly, any other activity on the land base, except by doing one thing. That is to simply eliminate the industry, get rid of it, which is what the other side did in the 1990s. That’s what they did. For every mine that opened in the 1990s, two closed.

Hon. Speaker, I look forward to tomorrow.

[End of question period.]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I will take this opportunity to caution all members. It is never appropriate — never appropriate — to impugn the integrity of any hon. member in this House.

[1440]

Motions Without Notice

REFERRAL OF MUNICIPAL
REPLOTTING ACT TO
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things for members, and I think the hon. Opposition House Leader and the independent members have received the first motion that I seek leave to move, relating to the revision of the Municipal Replotting Act and the submission of that to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. I seek leave to move that motion.
[ Page 12695 ]

[The revision of the Municipal Replotting Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 323 be presented to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for examination and recommendation pursuant to the Statute Revision Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 440.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills by the Legislative Assembly, the Committee is empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

REFERRAL OF ISSUES TO
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: Secondly, I seek leave to move a second motion that also involves the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. Again, I think this has been provided — I’m certain this has been provided — to the Opposition House Leader and the independent members. I will read the referral, though, because I think it’s a significant one for members to hear.

[The Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills be appointed to examine and make recommendations by October 31, 2016 with respect to the practice and procedure relating to:

1. the referral and consideration of Estimates by Committee of Supply; and

2. the establishment of Select Standing Committees for the life of a Parliament.]

In seeking leave, I am obliged to the member for Delta South and the Opposition House Leader for their assistance with respect to the motion itself.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: Finally, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I would like to present the reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. The reports cover all amounts borrowed by the government and, secondly, all amounts loaned to government bodies and provide an overview of the province’s borrowing activities for fiscal year 2014-15.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, and in this chamber, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Health.

[1445]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $17,820,706,000 (continued).

J. Darcy: I’d like to begin by canvassing some issues related to health human resources, in particular as they relate to seniors care.

We have, on many occasions and over several years, had discussions with the ministry about health human resource strategies, shortages of various occupations. Certainly, one of the things that has been impressed on the ministry on various occasions is the importance of looking at — very broadly — what shortages we have in health care, not in restricting it to a few specific occupations. Certainly, organizations representing care aides have raised the issue over the years — about shortages of care aides in various areas of the province and the need to address that.

Now, the B.C. Care Providers recently has already spoken out on this issue, very strongly — that the ability to attract qualified care aides to B.C. has increasingly become a challenge, is particularly acute for residential care operators in the Interior and on Vancouver Island. For home support employers, this is a provincewide issue with chronic shortages in the north.

[1450]

They have stated that we are simply not training enough care aides to deal with what we’ve all known for some time, an aging population, and that the lack of care aides in the Interior and Vancouver Island and home support workers in Metro Vancouver is just an early warning signal of what lies ahead. Our workforce is also aging, Daniel Fontaine says, and it’s critical to ensure that we recruit and train enough staff to ensure the adequate levels of seniors care that are needed across the province.
[ Page 12696 ]

My question is: what is the minister doing to address the shortage of care aides — both those who work in residential care as well as those who work in home support?

Hon. T. Lake: The training of health care aides is carried out both in the public system and through other providers as well. Currently there are 41 education providers that offer the health care assistant program; 16 of these are public colleges. There are two school district programs and 23 private colleges. Quite a number of programs around the province.

Where we do see a shortage, we try to bump up the number of seats in that area. Since 2008, we’ve been providing one-time funding for short-term health education programs to address the immediate needs where we see the need in a community.

For instance, in 2013-14, part of that funding was awarded to Camosun College, here on the Island. In 2014-15, there was $356,000 awarded to the great university in Kamloops, Thompson Rivers University — to their health care aide program. I was there for that announcement and saw the great work they’re doing. In 2015-16, $153,000 was awarded to the College of New Caledonia for 18 additional health care aides in the Quesnel campus.

What we do is we have a base of 41 providers. Where we see there is a shortage in any particular part of the province, we inject money to boost the programming in that area to meet that demand.

J. Darcy: I’d like to turn to the issue that relates to staffing, human resources, and to continuity of care for seniors. This is an issue that we have also discussed extensively, both in estimates as well as in question period.

I want to go back to the Ombudsperson’s report on seniors care of several years ago, when she spoke of the significant mass replacements of staff.

[1455]

“Mass replacement of staff can occur when facility operators switch from contracting with one private service provider to another. Such turnovers can disrupt the lives of seniors in residential care, especially those…whose care needs are complex. Over time, long-term staff acquire specialized knowledge of these needs, so the simultaneous replacement of many employees can make it difficult for the seniors because continuity of care is disrupted. This is particularly the case for residents with dementia.”

She also goes on to talk about how incredibly stressful this is for families.

This phenomenon, which is…. We’re not revisiting legislation now, but we know it is a direct result of Bill 29, going back 13 years. We have more instances. There are instances of this that occur every year — mass displacements of staff, most recently Wexford Creek in Nanaimo where workers will lose their jobs and where care for seniors will be disrupted. The staff who care for their most intimate care needs will be torn away from them.

Last year in this place we discussed Inglewood, where the contract has been flipped five times, and Laurel Place. We could go back every year with numerous instances.

My first question on this is whether the Ministry of Health or health authorities are tracing the number of times that services have been contracted out or flipped in residential care.

Hon. T. Lake: The member and I share a concern. I know other members of her team have expressed a concern, and I know that members on our side have expressed concern.

When caregivers are subjected to a change in a contract or for a long-term residential care facility…. People do get very attached, obviously, to the people who care for them every day. It’s important to their well-being that there is continuity of care, that there is familiarity, that there is trust. When we do see a change, it can be impactful on residents and their family.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I want to, again, just acknowledge what the member said — that through 2010, 2012 and 2014 collective bargaining agreements and the Bill 29 settlements, both health employers and unions agreed through negotiations to allow contracting out to continue. I want to stress that this was part of a discussion with the unions, and it was agreed that the ability to contract out would be preserved.

The member said that it’s happening more and more every year. I’m not sure that’s the case. We are in discussion with the seniors advocate, asking her to take a look at this particular issue.

What we have done, in the meantime, is we have developed a policy, which is policy 6.K, “Large-scale staff replacements.” This is policy that is in the Home and Community Care Policy Manual that health authorities have to follow. “Health authorities must ensure service providers plan and manage the change process for clients when a service provider is planning a large-scale staff replacement.”

The requirements are that they ensure that maintenance of the quality and safety of the client’s care is the priority through the process and that the client and their families are provided with information about the upcoming change; clients and families should have an opportunity to meet with the service provider, the new staff members, to identify key concerns; and ensure that the staff replacement does not happen until all clients are informed and have had an opportunity to have their concerns heard.

We acknowledge the impact this can have on residents and on families. We are working with the seniors advocate to look at making sure that we are tracking how often this is occurring and for what reasons it’s occur-
[ Page 12697 ]
ring and, in the meanwhile, ensuring that the impacts on families and residents is absolutely minimized by health authorities.

[1500]

J. Darcy: To suggest that anyone agrees with contracting out because they have been unsuccessful in achieving protections or guarantees against it is a bit of a stretch.

The reality is…. We discussed this very issue last year in this place, as we have in question period. The minister said exactly the same thing last year. “We have this policy. This is where you find it.” Referring to what the minister just said, he said…. It talks about meeting with family members, providing them with information. It doesn’t say anything about changing the practice.

Now, it is true that it is legal to contract out. It is legal to flip contracts. But the minister has levers. The minister has the ability to say…. Because the ministry provides funding to residential care operators through health authorities, the minister certainly has the ability to set policy that says that even in the event of contracting out or contract flipping, there is continuity of staffing and, therefore, continuity of care.

Besides the policy that the minister referred to, which involves meeting with and sharing information, what is the minister prepared to do to actually ensure continuity of care?

Hon. T. Lake: The member refuses to acknowledge that…. Bill 29, and the contract negotiations that occurred, was an agreement. Union members agreed that contracting out would still be allowed to occur. The reason for contracting out is in order to save money. There’s another way to save money, and that’s to not ask for so much on the other side of the bargain that is created.

This is a two-sided bargain. To suggest afterwards, after unionized members agreed to a certain raise, an increase to allow for savings on the other side, and then after the fact say: “Well, we didn’t really mean it. We didn’t want that….” Well, okay, give up the other side of the bargain as well. It’s just disingenuous to suggest that the government or the contractors should give something up when it was bargained for in good faith by both sides.

What we have said is that we are going to monitor this situation. We have instructed the health authorities to minimize the impact on families in the ways that I just outlined. That’s what we are doing. We want to minimize impacts on families while still ensuring that we have a sustainable system of caring for our seniors in residential care. Again, the answer from the member opposite is always: “Just put more money into something.” There has to be a way of ensuring that the system is sustainable. That is why the bargain was made — the grand bargain to allow contracting out to continue.

J. Darcy: Well, we’re not going to pursue that line of discussion further. I’m actually extremely familiar with what the minister is talking about, and he has it wrong. But that’s a discussion for another time.

Let’s move on to….

Interjection.

J. Darcy: The minister is laughing, but the impact of contract flipping on seniors care, on their morbidity and their mortality, is well documented.

Let’s discuss the issue of staffing level and staffing mix in residential care. One of the issues that has been discussed in question period over a number of days this session is the issue of….

Interjections.

J. Darcy: I’m sorry, hon. Chair. I’m….

The Chair: Minister.

Member.

J. Darcy: Thank you, hon. Chair.

We have spent some considerable time talking in this House during this session about the 3.36 hours of care that is the guideline for care per resident in residential care.

[1505]

My question to the minister has to do with whether or not his ministry has provided any advice, guidance or direction to health authorities beyond the 3.36 hours of discussion starter, which seems to have been in place for some time.

It would appear that health authorities have, in some cases, developed their own staffing mix guidelines. For instance, in Island Health, there’s a requirement, I understand, that contracted long-term-care providers meet that direct care hour accountability for which they are funded. But there is flexibility in those accountabilities, with the minimum of professional hours being 15 percent. Professions, as defined in the Health Professions Act, can include dieticians, occupational therapists and social workers. It would appear that the hours of care per resident can vary depending on the professional percentage.

In Vancouver Coastal Health, I understand, they have recently reviewed staffing levels, and they’re attempting to standardize it with a new model of a mix of 10 percent RNs, 22 percent LPNs and 68 percent care aides, with the maximum number of RNs proportionate to facility size, which I understand was rolled out just last month.

My question is whether or not the ministry is planning to apply some consistency across health authorities, across the province — some consistency between funded residential care facilities. Just further to that, I know that
[ Page 12698 ]
an increase in residential care fees back in 2010-2011 was supposed to standardize staffing across the sector. That clearly has not worked. What are the ministry’s plans or intentions to standardize care?

Hon. T. Lake: When the changes occurred to client rates in 2010, we committed to ensuring that all additional revenue would be invested to improve residential care services. In fact, that is what happened. Over $250 million of incremental revenue between 2010 and 2013 went into increasing staffing levels, increasing staff education and acquiring equipment.

Seniors in residential care obviously do not all have the same care needs. So 3.36 direct care hours are included as a guideline to help planning when health authorities are looking at moving forward and at the needs to help them with budgeting. But it is not a requirement at this time.

The mix of the seniors that are being cared for in the residential care facility will dictate the number of hours. In many of the health-authority-owned-and-operated residential care homes, the needs of the clients are higher. It is not unusual to see a higher number of direct care hours in those HA-owned-and-operated facilities.

In other health care residential care facilities, the needs are at a lower level. The staffing number of direct care hours can be lower, reflecting the lower needs of that population base. It is not a requirement. It’s a guideline.

I know that the seniors advocate has been thinking about this. I remember this discussion when she first came on board. She was not at that time a proponent of mandating hours for every resident of residential care services based on a particular number. I know that she has been doing some thinking about that, and her opinions have evolved.

[1510]

I have asked my Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, the MLA for Abbotsford South, to work with the seniors advocate, to work with the community of care providers and with the ministry to look at the number of hours for client care in residential care. I look forward to seeing the results of that work later this year.

J. Darcy: I’d like to move on to staffing shortages in the area of health science professionals. We have, in several areas amongst health science professionals, some significant shortages, according to the occupations most in need in both the ministry’s documents and documents that flow from the Ministry of Advanced Education. Some of the most acute shortages, I understand, are in the area of diagnostic medical sonographers — that is, the folks who do ultrasound — psychologists, physiotherapists and also occupational therapists and respiratory therapists.

When we’re talking about shortages, we’re talking about budgeted vacancies that employers are trying to fill but can’t find people to hire in order to fill those. Even though there are not huge numbers of health science professionals in some of those categories — the percentage in terms of people employed in public health care in those categories — it has a very huge impact. There is a growing reliance, in the case of sonographer and psychologist positions and several others, on privately contracted health science professionals, who actually cost the health care system more.

My question for the Health Minister is: what steps is the ministry taking to address the shortages of health science professionals in areas like sonographers, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and respiratory therapists? I understand one of the issues is that we have far more people applying for these positions than we have training spaces. What is the ministry planning to do, together with the Ministry of Advanced Education, to ensure that we have the training spaces in order to fill those needs?

[1515]

Hon. T. Lake: The member asked about a number of professions. Each of them has their different challenges.

Ultrasonography. We have increased the number of seats at BCIT from 24 to 30, and there is still some challenge in filling all the vacancies. Part of that challenge has been some of the wage disparities between what health professionals in this category would earn here versus Alberta. Alberta stands out as quite a bit higher from all other provinces.

I recall a discussion I had with a former Minister of Health from Alberta who admitted that they had been solving labour issues by writing very large cheques for a long time. He did not think that was sustainable.

When we look at the gap, Alberta, for instance…. The hourly wage for a six-year ultrasonographer is about $9 more in Alberta than it would be in British Columbia and about $15 more than it is in the province of Quebec. You can see that our proximity to Alberta and the ease of mobilization certainly is a challenge when we’re trying to keep ultrasonographers here in the province of British Columbia.

Health Employers Association of B.C., working with the Ministry of Health…. We do a forecast of health human resources. Each of the professions that the member asked about is included in our forecast.

Now, forecasting is exactly that. It’s your best estimate of the needs over time. With ultrasonographers, it’s estimated that as we move into 2016-2017, the supply will be somewhat nearer to the demand than it is today. But again, that’s a forecast. That will be with our population coming, increased numbers coming out of BCIT, and I think we will see a migration of health care professionals back from Alberta over the next number of years. Again, it is a forecast.

We work with Advanced Education. We have, through our agreement with the Health Sciences Association, a
[ Page 12699 ]
recruitment and retention committee to look at each of the areas that the member has mentioned, look at the number of seats available and make a plan, going forward, to meet that demand.

Rather than go through each of these professions in turn, I would commit to the member that we will provide a written response for all of those professions that she has outlined.

J. Darcy: That would be greatly appreciated.

Just on the issue of physiotherapists, my understanding is that we have far more people applying to get in, in an area of significant shortage. As well, we have far more students applying to get into the program every year. The last number I have is 310 applying in September of 2013. There are only about 80 of those accepted, some of them in the northern, rural and remote cohort, each year.

Are there plans to increase the number of training spaces? Perhaps that’s part of what the ministry can provide — what plans there are to increase training spaces in the area of sonography, physiotherapists and the other health care professionals that I referred to.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Are there any plans to expand those training spaces so that they are provided outside of the Lower Mainland, because we know that health professionals are far more likely to stay in the communities or the regions that they come from and where they receive their training?

[1520]

Hon. T. Lake: When I went to UNBC, I actually participated and met with the physiotherapists there that were established as a northern and rural cohort in September 2012. This is part of the UBC training, but it gives students training and experience at UNBC. That is to the member’s point that we need to ensure that physiotherapists are looking at all areas of the province to practise.

We have identified a gap in physiotherapists, which by 2018 will mean we’ll be falling short by 169 physios. That’s our estimate. As I said, that’s a forecast. Difficult to know exactly because people move in and out of the province. We’re seeing a net migration of people from Alberta at the moment.

However, the ministry is currently engaged with the Ministry of Advanced Education and other health system partners to analyze both public and private post-secondary education and training programs, including clinical placement capacity. That analysis will be used in concert with workforce planning models to identify opportunities to realign programs with the population health needs.

It is very competitive to be placed in the master’s program, which is what the physical therapy program is. I know this because a former ministerial assistant of mine, who was very, very keen, was very interested in entering the program. We’re doing work with the Ministry of Advanced Education at the moment, and part of that will look at training physiotherapists in more parts of the province than currently occurs.

J. Darcy: The minister will also be aware that in addition to training, the clinical practicum spaces are absolutely critical. What is the Ministry of Health doing to ensure that we have an increased number of clinical practicum spaces for sonography students as well as physiotherapy students?

[1525]

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, in my last answer I said that we were looking at the training programs, including clinical placement capacities. That’s a joint committee that we have with the Ministry of Advanced Education.

The member is quite right. It’s one thing to have the classroom time, but you need to have those clinical placements available at the same time, so we are looking at that as well.

J. Darcy: The minister referred to working with the Ministry of Advanced Education. I know that if we look at the B.C. labour market outlook, health occupations as a category are predicted to have the sixth-highest number of vacancies over the next ten years. That’s out of ten broad occupational groups, including some that we discussed yesterday — RNs, as well as specialty nurses, nurse practitioners. Previously we talked about health care assistants, care aides and licensed practical nurses.

The occupations that we’re discussing now — health science professionals — certainly are on that list: physiotherapists, OTs, respiratory therapists, stenographers, medical laboratory technologists and profusionists.

I understand there is a cross-ministry committee that is dealing with shortages in priority occupations going forward. Is the Ministry of Health represented on that committee? If so, who is it in the ministry that sits on that committee?

Hon. T. Lake: The Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Health have formed a partnership committee on health and education. It stays in close contact with the cross-ministerial committee looking at labour market needs.

The member is quite right. We talk a lot about trades and technologists. When you look at the health professions, it is right up there in terms of the demand that will be there for professions, and so we are paying a lot of attention to that.

We have, as I mentioned, the partnership committee on health and education, which acts as a forum to facilitate strategic planning and dialogue, to make recommen-
[ Page 12700 ]
dations on an integrated provincial approach to practice education, simulation and other issues where health and education intersect.

We have a wide membership here. We have members — executive directors, for instance — from the Ministry of Health. From the Ministry of Advanced Education, we have a director of the provincial practice education, Health Sciences Placement Network from the Provincial Health Services Authority. We have chief nursing officers from the Chief Nursing Officer Council. We have the First Nations Health Authority. We have VPs of human resources representing the health authorities, the VPs of medicine from the health authorities.

[1530]

UBC is represented there — the associate provost of health; research university, health and human services dean; teaching university’s school of health sciences dean; and a regional post-secondary institution dean from science, technology and health from Okanagan College. So it’s a combination of health authorities, ministries involving Advanced Education and Health, and academic institutions that all work together to plan and look for the gaps that we will be looking at so that we can meet the demand in these various health professions.

J. Darcy: I’d like to move on now to what we refer to as general health categories — so it’s not about health human resources — and the issue of insulin pumps, diabetes care.

The minister is, I know, very well aware of the numbers of people living with diabetes in the province of British Columbia — according to the Canadian Diabetes Association, approximately 460,000 diabetics in B.C. Those numbers are predicted to steadily increase. Of those people living with diabetes, approximately 20,000 have type 1 diabetes. The minister will be very well aware, of course, of the impact of diabetes on the health care budget and that diabetes cost British Columbia $1.6 billion last year.

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway, in a previous role, was really very active in leading the efforts in this province to get coverage for insulin pumps for type 1 diabetics for whom they were clinically necessary. The government did, a few years ago, agree that insulin pumps would be covered up to age 25 under the PharmaCare program. But as the minister also knows, there are many type 1 diabetics over the age of 25 for whom an insulin pump is not just valuable but considered medically necessary, clinically required by their physicians and by their endocrinologists. They’re not covered past the age of 25. At the cost of $7,000 per pump, that puts insulin pumps out of reach for thousands of British Columbians.

We know that the diabetes pumps can significantly reduce the risk of serious complications like blindness, kidney failures, heart attacks, strokes and amputations. The case is being made powerfully by the Canadian Diabetes Association and by a very active group called Young and T1.

[1535]

Will the minster change the government’s policy and decide to start funding insulin pumps that are clinically required beyond the age of 25? There are indeed cost savings that have been clearly demonstrated by the business case made by the Canadian Diabetes Association. Will the government change its policy in this regard?

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, we’re always analyzing proposals that come either up through the ministry or through patient advocates. That’s what we did when we met with the Canadian Diabetes Association and advocates — some very powerful advocates, I might add. I have to give a shout-out to Nel Peach, who was very persuasive when we looked at covering insulin pumps up to the age of 25.

You know, it’s often where you’re going from late teens into early adulthood, a lot of people are going to university or just starting a job, and so often don’t have extended health care coverage, which would cover the use of an insulin pump. I think that what we did — I believe it was about 2½ years ago — to increase the coverage to cover everyone that wanted an insulin pump up to age 25 made a big difference in the lives of those people.

Now, there’s no question that for some people an insulin pump is the best way to control their diabetes. I’ve talked with some type 1 diabetics who prefer to use injections, even though they have coverage which would provide them with an insulin pump. It is not necessarily the best control mechanism for every type 1 diabetic, but we do understand that for many a pump is preferable. It costs, I believe, around $2 million each and every year when we made the change to cover the insulin pumps for those up to age 25.

After meeting with the Canadian Diabetes Association and Nel and some of the other advocates just recently, here in Victoria, I’ve asked my staff to go back and look at this issue to see what it would cost to extend the coverage of insulin pumps. Of course, when we are dealing with the allocation of scarce resources, these are decisions that have to be thoughtful. For every decision you make to increase coverage in one area, you have to look at how you’re going to manage your entire budget.

For 2016-17, our PharmaCare budget is $1,174,714,000. You would think that a few million dollars here or there doesn’t make a lot of difference, but the reality is that every time one of these decisions is made, it means that something else can’t be covered. When we’re looking at the addition of the newer hepatitis C drugs, which come at a cost of $50,000 to $70,000 per treatment, it leaves little room for flexibility on some other areas that you would like to increase coverage.

I have not ruled out a future decision to increase the coverage of insulin pumps, but we are faced with the challenge of finding out where we can find savings that
[ Page 12701 ]
would allow us to do that. I must say that our staff work very hard to look for those opportunities to have savings so that we can use those savings to increase coverage in areas where we know it would make a difference.

J. Darcy: I’m certainly glad to hear that the ministry is taking a hard look at this. The Canadian Diabetes Association estimates that of the 20,000 type 1 diabetics in British Columbia, approximately 13,000 of them are over the age of 25. They also estimate based on that that only about 40 percent of those would probably decide that they wanted to use an insulin pump. It is, absolutely, very much a matter of not just personal choice but also very much what medical advice people receive about the situations in which this is clinically required.

Alberta and Ontario have both introduced coverage beyond the age of 25. What was introduced in those provinces states very clearly that we’re talking about clinically required, medically necessary, and it spells out what that is.

[1540]

Certainly, the people who have come to this place to advocate on this issue have been very, very clear about what kinds of complications and what kinds of costs to the health care system have already been avoided because they were on an insulin pump up to the age of 25.

Some of these young people — and it’s not just about young people — sure as heck don’t have access to extended health coverage that pays for this. Some of them have now been on insulin pumps for a number of years and can’t afford to stay on one. Companies are calling back the pumps that they have as loaners.

Can the minister say within which time frame he hopes to make a decision about extending insulin pump coverage beyond the age of 25? There are an awful lot of people waiting on his answer.

Hon. T. Lake: I apologize for not introducing my staff from the PharmaCare division. Barb Walman is assistant deputy minister, and Mitch Moneo is executive director. I want to thank them publicly because they’ve done some phenomenal work on a number of very difficult files, and I always appreciate the advice they give me.

I can’t commit to a timeline at this point. It is, as I mentioned, a delicate balance looking at the potential savings in other areas. We are working on a number of different plans to try to save money in our PharmaCare budget. When we are further down the road of realizing those savings, we’ll be in a better position to be where we can make a decision to cover insulin pumps for everyone, or, unfortunately, it may be that we won’t be able to make that decision because we can’t find the savings. It is something that we are committed to working on, but I cannot make promises at this point.

I do want to make this point: even if we do not cover an insulin pump for someone 25 or older that is using one, we do pay for all of their insulin pump supplies. That’s an important factor. In 2014-15, our expenditure for insulin pumps was $2.19 million, and for insulin pump supplies, it was $3.9 million — so a significant public coverage of insulin pump supplies, which does, obviously, help those that are using a pump, even if the pump itself is not covered.

J. Darcy: I’m well aware that the supplies are covered, but $7,000 is a cost that very, very few people can afford to pay. It essentially means that we’re talking about unequal access to health care. If you can afford to pay for your own pump beyond the age of 25, or if you’re lucky enough to have a Cadillac extended health plan that covers it — because most plans don’t — then you have access to it. If you don’t have enough money in your bank account or you have a lousy or nonexistent extended health plan, then you don’t have access to it.

I’d like to move on to HPV vaccine.

[1545]

About a year and a half ago, I wrote to the minister about two boys in my constituency who had just learned that they were not eligible to receive the HPV vaccine that girls in their classrooms were receiving. I raised that issue with the minister. At that point, boys were not covered at all.

Last year, the Minister of Health expanded the HPV vaccination program to include boys and young men that it deemed as “vulnerable,” such as those who are gay, bisexual or questioning, along with those who are street-involved or HIV-positive. But the reality is — and this won’t be the first time the minister has heard this — that this policy move is discriminatory in that it forces boys and young men to come out as gay, bisexual or questioning to their parents and classmates in order to receive the vaccine.

Will the Minister of Health do the right thing and expand vaccination to all boys and young men, not just those who are prepared to out themselves, with all of the stigma that is still attached to that?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, when we are looking at allocation of resources, we need to make sure that we are using them optimally. The vaccination of girls in a school-based program does provide a level of herd immunity for the population. But it has been identified that there are some males that are at risk, so we have allowed that vulnerable males would be eligible for the vaccine — but not in a school-based program. It is not a requirement that any male would identify or put themselves in a position that they have to make a public announcement about anything. They can simply go to the public health service and say that they are vulnerable, and they will be provided with the vaccine.

[1550]

J. Darcy: I think the minister is missing the point. We are still putting these boys or young men in a position of having to self-identify about their sexual or gender identity or self-identify as being at risk. That, itself, is a barrier to ensuring that, in fact, the protections are in place for some of the young men who are most in need of the vaccine.

By doing this, we are also effectively…. We’ve now said that certain males, if they self-identify and risk the stigma that goes with that, can have access to the vaccine. We are effectively saying that responsibility for vaccination, in order to protect against diseases that have to do with sexual activity, if they are between girls and boys, males and females, are girls’ responsibility, are females’ responsibility.

It seems to me that this is discriminatory on both counts. Surely, we want to have boys and girls — in this case, ensuring that boys, all boys — take responsibility for sexual activity and what might flow from that.

One of the best ways to ensure that we have the greatest possible protection, including what is referred to in the public health field as “herd immunity,” which we only achieve when a certain percentage of that population of young people actually receives the vaccine…. Surely, we want to increase the numbers significantly in order to have that kind of herd immunity, for the sake of preventing cancers amongst this population and because of the costs that would be incurred by the health care system down the road when they do.

Can the minister speak to both issues, both what self-identifying means for young boys and also the fact that we are effectively putting the onus for male-female sexual relationships on girls by not protecting all boys?

[1555]

Hon. T. Lake: I want to go over a couple of points if I didn’t make it clear. If you’ve got a young male that is concerned about human papillomavirus and being exposed to the virus, they simply have to attend with a public health nurse in a confidential manner. It does not need to involve anybody else. They don’t have to make a public statement. They don’t have to reveal to anybody else what their concerns are and why they feel they’re vulnerable. The vaccine would be provided free.

The vaccine, for the member’s edification, is $250 for the series of vaccines, so it is not an inexpensive vaccine. Again, we are dealing with finite resources and how we use those finite resources to get the best possible coverage of immunity for these particular diseases that we are forced to confront.

We’ve gone from a situation where no boys were being vaccinated — which is a position taken by most jurisdictions, by the way. The member has quoted two jurisdictions, but two out of 13 jurisdictions across the country is certainly not a majority. Now we’ve gone to where we have provided the opportunity for the highest-risk males who will not benefit from the herd immunity that is created by vaccinating females. We’ve provided that opportunity for them to be covered.

If the member is criticizing a decision that has provided coverage for vulnerable males, well, I’m sorry, but these are the decisions that have to be made when you have a finite number of resources. It is a decision that’s made on the advice of professionals like Dr. Bonnie Henry, who is our deputy public health officer; Dr. Perry Kendall, our provincial health officer; and Warren O’Briain, who is my executive director. These are the recommendations that come from committees.

If, in fact, we can bring the price of that vaccine down, reconsideration can be given. But these are the decisions that have to be made in order to utilize the resources we have available.

J. Darcy: The minister refers to other jurisdictions, and he also refers to costs. There was a study done by Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Ontario that found that if all Canadian boys aged 12 years of age were vaccinated in 2012 there would be a savings of $8 million to $28 million for this cohort over their lifetime.

Speaking of other jurisdictions, in April of this year Ontario extended HPV vaccination to all youth, joining with Prince Edward Island, Alberta and Nova Scotia. So British Columbia would be the fifth in line if it were to join those.

Speaking of expert advice, the Canadian Cancer Society of British Columbia is calling for a gender-neutral HPV immunization program. So are the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, the Federation of Medical Women of Canada, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, the B.C. Pediatric Society and the Canadian Medical Association.

They have all called for a gender-neutral HPV immunization program based both on cost analyses such as the Princess Margaret study and on the growing numbers of cancers that are developing amongst girls and boys as a result of the HPV. Has the minister studied those other provinces’ decisions as well as the cost-benefit analysis that has been done in other jurisdictions?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, we look at all of these studies. I believe that the Princess Margaret study was before a universal female program was instituted. One of the reasons we went to a targeted program for males was a result of a study that indicated a targeted program for males would be highly cost-effective.

[1600]

That’s the decision that we made based on studies that showed that it would be highly cost-effective to cover vulnerable males in a way that, I believe, protects the confidentiality and privacy of the patients that are being vaccinated. And I’m assured that since the HPV vaccine has been available, we are seeing the number of infections drop. The herd immunity is developing with the univer-
[ Page 12703 ]
sal female program. Adding the targeted male program will add to that — the gap in herd immunity for vulnerable males in a manner that has been studied and shown to be highly cost-effective.

J. Darcy: I’d like to move back to PharmaCare issues, if we could. I’d like to ask a number of questions related to pharmaceuticals, beginning with the issue of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its potential impact on drug costs.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, for which this government seems to have given its unequivocal support…. There are numerous research reports that indicate that the TPP is likely to increase drug costs for British Columbians. I’d like to ask the minister whether he has done any research into the cost of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on drug costs for individual British Columbians and for the provincial PharmaCare program.

[1605]

Hon. T. Lake: Two agreements could have an impact on pharmaceuticals. That’s the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, between Canada and the European Union, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a free trade agreement that includes 12 countries around the Pacific area.

The federal government, obviously, is leading those negotiations. In terms of CETA, the federal government has said that they are prepared to address any incremental cost impacts to provinces. In the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we have expressed our desire to work with the federal government to look at compensation related to any potential increased drug costs — of, first of all, CETA.

Alberta is leading a CETA working group, with Manitoba and Ontario, to look at the impacts of CETA to provincial and territorial governments. They are working to represent the provinces and the territories on CETA and the potential impact it would have on pharmaceuticals. We would, at the provincial-territorial table, work in that same process so that any potential impacts to costs of pharmaceuticals to provinces would be compensated by the federal government.

J. Darcy: Well, I’m glad the minister referred to CETA, because it is estimated that this could lead to increased drug costs of between $850 million and $1.6 billion annually, primarily because of extended patent protections for drug manufacturers. The TPP could extend those patent protections for as much as five years.

We already know that drug prices in Canada, compared to many other countries — U.K., France, Italy and others — are significantly higher, including outpacing countries like the United States, and that we’ve seen approximately 184 percent growth in total drug costs.

I guess my question to the minister…. The minister is suggesting that the federal government is going to reimburse provinces for the, potentially, hundreds of millions of dollars of additional costs that could be incurred by the health care system in British Columbia. Does this government have a firm commitment of that from the federal government?

Hon. T. Lake: I just mentioned that Alberta is co-chairing a provincial-territorial committee to have those discussions with the federal government. Of course, with the change of federal government recently, those discussions will probably be refreshed, and they will be very active.

This new federal government has come to the table with the provinces and territories in joining the Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, which allows us to purchase, I believe, 18 drugs now, commonly drugs used drugs across the country, at 18 percent of brand name. Adding the federal government to that table — because they cover a lot of people that either work for the federal government or through extended health care plans that they currently cover, to First Nations in particular — will give us increased bargaining power.

[1610]

They have indicated a willingness, the new federal government, to working with the provinces and the territories. I’m optimistic that they, in their quest to create these trade partnerships internationally, will look at the impacts on the health care system for provinces and agree to mitigate those.

We don’t have a solid commitment at this point, as the member well knows. The discussion about the federal participation in health care funding is a very lively one at the moment, and we continue to push them in what we feel is the right direction.

J. Darcy: The issue of a national PharmaCare program has been the subject of considerable discussion in recent years, including during the recent federal election and in the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Health Ministers meeting, which the minister took part in earlier this year. I have been struggling to understand what the B.C. government’s position is on a national PharmaCare program.

I know that there were provinces and Health ministers that advocated very strongly for a national PharmaCare plan. One day the Premier was quoted in the media saying: “Yes, we’re supportive of a national PharmaCare plan.” A couple of days later the minister, when interviewed after the Health ministers conference, expressed serious concerns. “Ambivalence,” I think, was the term he used.

In the discussion about a national PharmaCare program, certainly on this side of the House what we support and what the CMA, nursing organizations and many organizations across the country and across B.C. support is a national PharmaCare program — yes, bulk-buying, absolutely — in order to increase economies of scale between provincial and territorial governments and the fed-
[ Page 12704 ]
eral government. That’s absolutely an important part of it. A national PharmaCare plan is also far more than that.

The minister referred yesterday to…. When we were talking about doctors and fee-for-service, he talked about the original conception of medicare, which was, yes, initially about hospitals and the payment of doctors.

Certainly, the vision of the founders of medicare and the approach that many health care advocates take today is that if we’re going to take public health care, medicare, to the next step, it needs to include a national PharmaCare plan that is not just about bulk-buying but that is, in fact, about taking serious steps towards a universal PharmaCare program. That would enable Canadians who cannot afford to take prescription drugs that are vital to their health also to be able to have that kind of health care coverage, in addition to reducing costs significantly for governments and for our public providers who cover PharmaCare and drugs for a certain percentage of the population.

What is this government’s position on the need for a national PharmaCare program — not just bulk-buying but a national PharmaCare program?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, we had a very interesting discussion at the federal, provincial and territorial meeting. I wouldn’t say it was a very extensive discussion. We had a deeper discussion when I went to Toronto and the Ontario minister hosted a round table on this topic. I think Dr. Steve Morgan was there from UBC. He’s a big advocate of a national PharmaCare program. But I would say that there were differing opinions around that table. I’m sure the member has read the different opinions that are out there.

Currently, extended health care programs do cover a lot of the costs of pharmaceuticals for many Canadians. When the member talks about the impact on the public health system of making certain decisions, she would know that there are studies that show that a national PharmaCare program would transfer between $5 billion and $8 billion worth of pharmaceutical costs from the private sector to the public sector.

Now, that is a significant amount of money that needs to be found, unless there are levers built in to the system to reduce the costs of those drugs. Through bulk-buying, we are able to get the costs down, but there’s certainly no guarantee that instituting a national PharmaCare program would reduce the cost to the public system. It may reduce costs to individuals that don’t have extended health care plans. I will say that. But it comes at a big cost to the taxpayer.

[1615]

The Fair PharmaCare that we institute in British Columbia looks at individuals and their financial resources when making judgments on coverage. For instance, low-income British Columbians — I believe it’s plan C — will have essentially all of their drugs, extended health care, covered by the government plan. As your income goes up, then the burden transfers over to the individual. In many cases, individuals will have extended health care plans that will cover that.

A national PharmaCare plan sounds very good from a high-level, idealistic point of view, but it comes with very real fiscal impacts that cannot be ignored. What I have said — and, I think, an idea that is getting some traction among Health ministers, including the federal Health Minister — is to look at a common formula across the country of commonly used pharmaceuticals.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Rather than say that we will have a national PharmaCare program that covers all drugs, maybe look at the top, let’s say, 40 or 50 drugs initially in a national formulary that we all agree on. That, I think, would achieve some savings without having the enormous transfer of costs from the private to the public. There’s some work going on to look at that potential idea.

Here’s another reason why I’m not necessarily, at this point, anyway, a fan of a national PharmaCare program. As provincial Health Minister, it is my responsibility to be the steward of the taxpayer dollars that go into health. At the moment, the Health Ministry spends $2 million every single hour — $18 billion a year. So when we look at our PharmaCare plan, which is about $1.2 billion, we need to look at ways and means of saving money.

We have things like the low-cost alternative program, where we say to pharmaceutical companies: “Here’s a particular molecule that has a certain physiological effect, and we want to get the lowest possible price we can.” We open it up for the drug companies to make an offer in terms of giving us that particular molecule.

We also have reference drug-pricing programs, where we look at the common outcomes of a particular pharmaceutical — it doesn’t necessarily have to be the same molecule but a similar molecule that has the same impact, the same clinical benefit — and say that we are going to cover the lower cost of that category of medication that has a clinical impact.

If you give up those decisions to someone else, you lose the ability to save money in your PharmaCare budget. I’m not prepared to do that, because I take that responsibility very seriously, unless there’s a system developed that assures me that there’s not going to be a transfer of costs from the private sector to the public sector that doesn’t come with some of these other levers that allow us to reduce the cost of these particular medications.

J. Darcy: Just on the issue of cost. The minister may be familiar — I have no doubt he is — with a new report by Dr. Marc-André Gagnon, who has found that there are, in fact, tremendous savings to British Columbia if it were to participate in a new national PharmaCare program.

We’re both talking about overcoming the inequities
[ Page 12705 ]
that have health consequences that are costly for those thousands of British Columbians who don’t have health care coverage. They’re not low-income enough to be covered by Fair Pharmacare, and they don’t have coverage themselves. That means that they cannot afford prescription medicine. The minister must hear from these people. I hear from them every week in my constituency. I know that my colleagues across the province do. This compromises their health, with financial consequences for the health care system.

[1620]

Dr. Gagnon’s report also highlights a savings of at least $105 million to British Columbia with a universal PharmaCare program and even higher savings, of as much as $1 billion, if the provinces were to, together with the federal government, decide to repeal certain cost industrial policies that, in fact, have the impact of pushing up prices for drugs considerably.

My question to the minister is whether his ministry has examined that report and whether he has any response to a report that says that in fact a national PharmaCare program can reduce costs for British Columbia and other provinces.

Hon. T. Lake: I will repeat that I can see your one report and raise you two other reports. The science is not settled on national PharmaCare and whether or not it would result in savings to the public health care system. The member can quote studies all day.

This group that works in the Ministry of Health examined all of these. We do talk with experts in the field. We look at what the impacts will be on the province of British Columbia and the taxpayers of British Columbia and the patients of British Columbia, and we make decisions based on that. If someone can unequivocally guarantee that the cost to the British Columbia taxpayer and the cost to the patients and the benefits were to be accrued in a national PharmaCare program, then I would be the first in line. But I have not been convinced by the evidence that I have seen to date.

J. Darcy: I have several other questions related to pharmaceuticals. I know that the member for Delta North has some questions that we’ve been trying to figure out a time for — to work in some questions. If we could shift to some questions for the member, I believe a couple of them she feels she can put on the record and get a written response, but there’s also one she’d like to ask directly.

V. Huntington: I’ll just say that I’m the member for Delta South.

Interjection.

V. Huntington: Quite all right. Just so that my constituents, when reading Hansard, will know.

I’ll just follow up with the issue of PharmaCare for a moment, if the minister wouldn’t mind answering.

I’ve had a constituent approach us mentioning that he is able to buy products, which are provided by PharmaCare providers in the community, on line far more cheaply than he can get them through the community provider, and he is wondering why he’s not permitted to purchase these products — one of which, for instance, is the ostomy skin barrier. He can buy it $5 cheaper on line than he can through PharmaCare. He’s wondering why he is not permitted to do so and whether the ministry is looking at that option as a fairly significant way of saving money across the system.

[1625]

Hon. T. Lake: The short answer is: protection of the public, and I’ll just explain what I mean. The role of the College of Pharmacists is to protect the public by licensing pharmacists and, with the new changes we’ve made to the pharmaceutical operations and drug dispensing act, also the pharmacies themselves — the actual sites. That is because when you are talking about a particular product or a pharmaceutical, it’s the pharmacist’s role to protect the patient by ensuring the integrity of the product or the pharmaceutical. We are able to do that by auditing pharmacies to ensure that the product or the pharmaceutical is exactly what it is claimed to be.

The role of the college, of course, comes in regulating the pharmacies and the pharmacists, and they don’t have reach on line, so essentially, you are allowing unregulated suppliers to provide products into British Columbia. And if there is a problem with that product, we don’t have the capacity through the college or through the ministry to take action to protect the public.

V. Huntington: I understand that particularly in the case of products that would be ingested, internalized or are incredibly important for medical purposes. But perhaps on products that aren’t so necessary to regulate carefully through the PharmaCare, like an ostomy skin barrier…. Maybe if I read the question in, we could get a written answer back on the rationale.

Why are British Columbians unable to be reimbursed for purchasing identical medical supplies that would be covered by PharmaCare if sold by a registered PharmaCare provider? I can leave that for the minister to perhaps get back to me with an explanation of the less important, perhaps, regulated items.

The other is that a constituent approached my office asking for assistance in having increased funding for the cochlear implant program at St. Paul’s Hospital. I wondered…. There’s a two-year wait list at the moment. For those needing cochlear implants, this is a very serious hearing issue and definitely a problem for the people needing them.

Can the minister tell us — this, again, I don’t mind receiving a written reply — how many cochlear im-
[ Page 12706 ]
plants are funded by the government at St. Paul’s each year and if there is a plan to reduce wait times for British Columbians? Again, I don’t mind if I receive a response at a later date.

My last question is about patient medical records. South Delta is in the throes of the…. I won’t say failure, because I recognize how difficult it is to follow through the GP for Me program, but we are having a very significant time and problem in the community with retiring physicians.

The ancillary to that is while patients are being left adrift and they are attempting to obtain their medical records, they are being forced to buy these medical records back from the company where they are being stored. To have these records transferred back, which people think of as their own medical records, it’s costing more than $100 and sometimes up to $200 for families to get these records back so that they can be given to a new doctor, should one become available.

My office has contacted DOCUdavit and discovered that they offer substantial discounts for individuals who are on social or disability assistance but, in fact, don’t advertise that problem. So we’re having to tell people who come in: “Have they looked at that possibility of reduced record transfer costs?”

[1630]

My question is: what is the rationale for insisting that patients who do not have a doctor because their doctor is retired and cannot have another doctor because there are substantial waiting lists for doctors in a community…? Why hasn’t the government looked at dealing with this cost of obtaining personal medical records?

Is there not some program that the government could offer assistance or full payment for the medical transfers? Could they not set up their own payment for in-province storage of the medical records so that people can avoid having to pay for their own medical information in order to find another doctor?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to answer the member’s question on non-pharmaceutical products on the Internet. It will save a response from the staff.

When you’re looking at ostomy barriers, for instance, you can imagine that if a subpar product was utilized from a provider that is not approved here in the province of British Columbia, you could have some serious problems with infections, for instance. The fact that you’re not taking it internally doesn’t mean there’s not a risk in terms of the quality of the product. That, I think, is the reason there.

The member is asking about medical records. I share her frustration on this topic. It seems intuitive that the medical information about a particular person belongs to that person, but in fact the information is gathered and kept and owned by the physician. They keep it, and they, essentially, can transfer it to the patient if they want to. If the practice closes, it’s kept in storage, and there’s a cost to providing that. So I understand the frustration.

If we were to pay all of those fees, it would come at a substantial cost to government. We haven’t looked at that particular approach. What we are doing is looking at empowering patients more than we currently are empowered as patients.

I’ll give you an example of a system that has been piloted in Nova Scotia for two years that provides a patient portal, a secure website, not unlike a banking website where you have your own identification and password to get into. You can create a virtual community with your physician, with your pharmacist, with the laboratory that provides tests, with the health authority to provide imaging, for instance, that occurs. That has been a very successful pilot in Nova Scotia.

What it does is it empowers the patient. The patient can decide who gets to be part of that virtual health portal. The patient owns that information and can download it and do with it what they want.

I sat down with the Privacy Commissioner to talk about this. She assured me that, in fact, that was perfectly fine because the patient then owns the information. You don’t have to worry about the sharing of it. It’s up to the patient to share it.

I think that’s the way we’re going. It empowers patients. In fact, in Northern Health, there are some physicians that are setting up these types of virtual patient portals. There are some hospitals that are working on this and are very close to doing it, at least in terms of the health authority information.

I know the member is probably familiar with the Excelleris program. When you go to a diagnostic laboratory through LifeLabs, you can access that information on your computer. You can see the results of that blood test at the same time your physician sees it. I think this is very empowering.

[1635]

This is the way that we need to move with primary care. Empower the patient to have access to the information and to use that information as they want to and move away from the provider-centred kind of service that we had in the 1960s to a more patient-centred system that we need to have today.

V. Huntington: That ends my questions, but I would just like to suggest to the minister and his officials that, really, this is quite an onerous situation for people who are already extremely concerned that they have not got a practitioner.

If there was some other arrangement that the ministry could look at for the storage of or the assistance of obtaining these records back…. Yes, I understand that the physician owns them. People have been told that. They’re frustrated by it. They don’t see that.

The additional costs of sending it back to Ontario to be stored, be sent back and having the patient — who’s no longer a patient — actually pay for that is troubling to my constituents, and I’m sure to most people in the province
[ Page 12707 ]
who are running into this problem. If their community doesn’t have a shortage of doctors, it’s not going to be a problem; but when you do, it’s suddenly a very expensive one when you start to add it up.

I thank the minister for his answer, but I would encourage him and his officials to try and find an answer. Coming on line and empowering the patient is wonderful, but it’s going to take a lot of time to get there. I just hope that there is some other assistance that can be provided in this case.

I thank the critic for allowing me the time.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member. We will provide the answer to the cochlear implant question that she had.

I wonder, hon. Chair, if we could take a recess for health purposes.

The Chair: The committee will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

J. Darcy: I have a couple of questions. Then we’re going to go back to pharmaceuticals. We’re just juggling a lot of issues and a lot of people who very much want a piece of the minister’s time to ask questions. I apologize to the staff for jumping around.

We spoke earlier about the HPV vaccine. We have also spoken in estimates in the past and in correspondence about the issue of shingles, an issue that I’m sure the minister hears about — especially from organizations representing seniors in British Columbia. We have thousands of seniors in B.C. who suffer from shingles every year. This can be a really debilitating and very, very painful disease. Studies have shown that if a person had chicken pox earlier in life, they are at a 95 percent risk of developing shingles.

We know also that the present cost of the vaccine…. It may be higher than this, but when I wrote to the minister on this issue in October of 2014, we had recently heard from a member on the south Island who had come forward and said that the cost of a vaccine at the local pharmacy was $230, which obviously means that if you don’t have the ability to pay, you go without.

At the time, myself and the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads wrote to the minister on the issue and asked if he was reconsidering the current policy. He wrote back and said that he was not reconsidering it at that time. Can the minister please tell us whether he has re-examined this question and whether the minister is looking at this issue and whether he plans to change the policy and cover the shingles vaccine for seniors in British Columbia who need it?

[1655]

Hon. T. Lake: The pharmaceutical services division has not been able to identify a mechanism for offering the zoster, or shingles, vaccine to lower-income seniors using the Fair Pharmacare platform to date. The zoster vaccine is not covered by other publicly funded programs across the country and therefore is not procured through the national pooled vaccine purchase process, so the cost per dose is very high.

Now, a couple of things are on the horizon. One thing that is potentially on the horizon is a new vaccine that is being developed. That will likely, through competition, bring the price down.

We’re always looking at those opportunities. If the price per dose comes down or if we’re able to secure a way of buying it in a pooled way through discussion with provinces, territories or the federal government, then that might change. But to date, we have not identified a mechanism that would make it cost-effective for government to cover the cost of the zoster vaccine.

J. Darcy: I’d like to move to an entirely different topic. It’s not one that fits under any particular category that we have discussed so far but is a very, very serious matter and a very difficult matter. That is the issue of physician-assisted dying.

As the minister knows, the Select Standing Committee on Health deliberated on this issue for many months. We sent out, under our mandate of the Select Standing Committee on Health…. We asked for submissions on a variety of issues, including end-of-life care. Of the submissions that we received relating to end-of-life care, there were many on palliative care and hospice care and so on. There were also hundreds of submissions on physician-assisted dying.

The Select Standing Committee on Health developed a very thoughtful and reasoned report. I will say that, given the difficulty of the issue, it is one that members of the committee on both sides of this House wrestled with. These were very emotional and very challenging discussions, but we reached a bipartisan agreement on what to recommend to this House in that respect.

As the minister knows very well, the government decided at the last minute to refuse to allow that report to come forward except to be tabled in the House, not to have the recommendations adopted by this House.

This is early May. By June 6 of 2016, there will be a new federal law. The federal government is required, based on the Supreme Court of Canada decision, for a new bill to have passed first, second and third reading in the House and the Senate and to be enacted by June 6 of this year.

The federal government recognizes that the Supreme Court recognized clearly that while the legal framework will be established federally, it is the provinces that are responsible for the delivery of health services and that physician-assisted dying has been deemed to be a health service that will be delivered by the provinces.
[ Page 12708 ]

To date, this government, aside from refusing to allow a bipartisan report to come before this House, has been silent on what is being done in British Columbia. There may be disagreements on the issue in the government caucus. There may be disagreements in the cabinet. But the reality is that it will be the law of the land on June 6, and the province will be required to have programs and services in place.

What is the Ministry of Health doing to ensure that in the province of British Columbia, those health services, those programs and those regulations are in place so that the Supreme Court of Canada decision on physician-assisted dying will be respected?

[1700]

Hon. T. Lake: The provision of health care is certainly a provincial responsibility but has to be done within the law.

Just to correct the member, because she is misleading the House when she says that we refused to allow the report to come before the House. That is not the case. The report was tabled in the House. We did not adopt the recommendations….

The Chair: Minister, the member didn’t mislead the House.

Hon. T. Lake: Yeah, she did mislead the House.

The Chair: I advise that the minister withdraw.

Hon. T. Lake: Clearly, it is misleading the House to say that we did not allow that report to come into this House. It was tabled in this House.

If the members will say that it was tabled in this House, I will withdraw the remark. But the member said that we blocked it from entering this House.

J. Darcy: I’m sure that if we take a look at the record, I said that the government refused to have it be anything, allow anything but to have it tabled. What I said was — and the record will show — the government refused to allow it to come forward to accept the recommendations of the committee.

This bipartisan committee, which deliberated for several months, nearly unanimously adopted those recommendations. The original motion from the committee was to recommend acceptance, adoption by this House. At the last minute, the government decided that the report would simply be tabled and that government would not allow us to adopt the recommendations.

In fact, I attempted to move a motion at the time that this House adopt the recommendations, and that was voted down by the government side. The record at that time will show it.

Hon. T. Lake: What the member just said is correct. What she said previously about blocking the report was incorrect and was misleading. So if she will withdraw that remark, I would be happy to hear that.

The Chair: On vote 29, we continue the debate.

Hon. T. Lake: As I said, the provision of health care is a provincial responsibility, but it is a provincial responsibility to be done under the law. Had we adopted the recommendations of the standing committee, as the member well knows, with a bill in front of the federal parliament, those recommendations would have been illegal with passage of this current bill.

The point I am trying to make is that to adopt recommendations before the federal government had changed the law would be premature, and that is why the recommendations were not adopted. And now, as we see from the proposed legislation federally, the federal legislation that is proposed, currently being debated, does not go as far as those recommendations in the joint standing committee report. So the recommendations would have been illegal for us to implement.

What we have been doing…. Despite what the member says, we have not been silent on this. We have been working diligently with our provincial-territorial partners. We have been working with our College of Physicians and Surgeons, our College of Pharmacists and our college of nurses to ensure that we are ready for when the federal law is changed, so that we can provide a health service within the bounds of the Criminal Code that provides patient-centred care that is protecting vulnerable people and that ensures that health providers are not in a vulnerable position themselves.

[1705]

We feel that we are well prepared for the federal legislation. We have analyzed the federal legislation. We are comfortable with the guidelines that have been issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. We will continue to ensure that vulnerable people are protected and that patients are provided the health care that they require, within the bounds of the law.

J. Darcy: It would appear that the minister has actually not studied that report. These were among the main recommendations — recommendations that the minister says would be illegal.

One of those recommendations was that knowledge and information and access to health services — consistent with the federal law and the Supreme Court ruling — should be available across the continuum of care. That was one of the recommendations.

One of the recommendations spoke very clearly to the issue of the right of conscientious objection on the part of physicians, nurses and other health professionals. That was very clear in the bill. The bill also spoke to the obliga-
[ Page 12709 ]
tion. That is clearly part of the Supreme Court decision and the discussions about the federal law about, in the case of conscientious objection, the obligation to refer to another health care professional or to a public agency.

Finally, one of the recommendations referred to advance care directives, but it said “consistent with future federal legislation.”

So can the minister explain how the committee’s recommendations would be in violation of the federal law? The majority of members on that committee were from the government side, and it was a bipartisan report with nearly unanimous recommendation.

[1710]

Hon. T. Lake: One of the recommendations, as the member has alluded to, is in respect to advance care planning. While there have been groups that have advocated to be able to put physician-assisted dying in advance care directives, it is clear from the federal legislation that that is not going to be allowed. So with respect to advance care planning — as the bill stands in front of parliament, that would not be allowed.

The point I’m trying to make is that to try to forecast what the federal government would do by creating a report and accepting recommendations here would be premature. That would put us in a position where we would have accepted recommendations before understanding what the federal law would be.

Having clarity with the federal law allows us now to move forward in a way that we can provide health care within the bounds of the federal legislation.

J. Darcy: I want to be really clear on this issue because the committee, members from both sides of the House, spent a lot of time on the particular provision that the minister is referring to. The wording from the committee report — the minister would appear to have it in front of him — was that the “provincial government assess whether current legislation respecting advance care planning directives is appropriately legally binding in light of the Supreme Court of Canada Carter v. Canada decision.”

What’s illegal about that? It says: “assess whether current legislation respecting advance care planning directives is appropriately legally….” On the contrary, it says we don’t know what that law will be, but we do have advance care planning directives in British Columbia, and we need to make sure that they’re consistent.

I don’t think there’s any point in belabouring this issue. The minister…. Well, I’m not going to venture into why the minister is using red herrings to try and divert this discussion. The question was about what the ministry was doing to prepare. Instead, the minister wanders off into saying that somehow a very, very moderate, reasoned, balanced report, a bipartisan report…. We were not able to present it to the Legislature for adoption because, supposedly, some provisions were illegal, when they clearly were not.

I would also note that the staff, the Clerks who advise the Select Standing Committee on Health and other committees, would certainly make it very clear to the committee if there was something that was illegal or not constitutional in something we were recommending.

[1715]

But let’s move on to another issue, therapeutics initiative.

Does the minister still maintain his position that what was in that report was illegal?

Hon. T. Lake: The point I was making was that adoption of recommendations before knowing what the federal government had planned in legislation would put us at risk for creating a situation that would go beyond what the law would allow.

J. Darcy: The minister said that what the committee was proposing was illegal. Does the minister still believe that that’s the case? And if not, I believe he should make that clear. That’s a pretty serious accusation to make of a bipartisan committee of this Legislature.

Hon. T. Lake: The bipartisan committee made recommendations. The member made the comment that we blocked the report from entering the House, which is not true. The report was accepted by the House. The recommendations were not adopted by the House because it was premature and could have gone outside the law because the law had not been created. And I think I did give the impression that it went beyond the law in its recommendations. It had the potential to go beyond the law because we had not seen the federal legislation yet.

I take the member’s point, and I accept the member’s point that as written, it does not appear to have gone beyond the law, but without knowing what the law was, we were unable to decide that at the time.

J. Darcy: The therapeutics initiative. The existing contract for the therapeutics initiative ended this past fiscal year. Has the contract been renewed?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes.

J. Darcy: Can the minister please explain what the terms of that contract are, and what are the deliverables under the contract?

Hon. T. Lake: There are two programs that the therapeutics initiative carries out for the ministry. The one contract is to provide health professional education and PharmaCare program evaluations. That funding is $550,000 a year. Also, the second one is for clinical evidence reviews. Clinical evidence reviews are valued at $50,000 for each one, I believe. For ’16-17, maximum funding is $170,000. Between the two that’s about $720,000 per year.
[ Page 12710 ]

J. Darcy: Can the minister please outline what the funding was for the therapeutics initiative over the past five years?

[1720]

Hon. T. Lake: From April 1, 1999, to March 31, the total funding to the therapeutics initiative and the faculty, I believe, at UBC was approximately $700,000 per year. From April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2011, the funding was approximately $1 million a year. From April 2011 to March 31, 2012, the funding was $850,000 a year. And for 2012-13, the program was restructured, the contract was restructured, to fund for $550,000 per year. That was when the drug approval process was changed in the province of B.C. using the Drug Benefit Council. So the deliverables from the therapeutics initiative changed, and the contract changed at that time.

J. Darcy: The minister referred to the health professional education, $550,000, and the second was three different areas of clinical evaluation of drugs at $50,000 each. Can the minister outline what each of those are, please?

Hon. T. Lake: I just want to make a bit of correction in my earlier answer when I said that the clinical evidence reviews were valued at $50,000. It depends on what the therapeutics initiative is doing.

In 2013 there were three contracts which were valued at $50,000. For this year, the maximum funding is $170,000. It will depend on what the pharmaceutical services division looks to the TI to evaluate for us.

In the past, for instance, clinical evidence reviews have been done on statins, which are used to lower cholesterol, and proton pump inhibitors, which are used to reduce acid production in the stomach. Those were done to help us to make a decision on reference drug pricing, which is using the lowest cost of a particular class of drugs to achieve a clinical outcome.

Currently they are working on a clinical evidence review on quality performance measures for our PharmaCare program itself.

J. Darcy: So they’re not doing specific clinical evaluation of specific drugs?

[1725]

Hon. T. Lake: The common drug review does evaluation of drugs prior to the approval through the Drug Benefit Council and decisions made by the ministry, but the clinical evidence reviews that the therapeutics initiative does will vary depending on what the needs of the ministry are. Because we were looking at our reference drug pricing, we asked them to look at clinical evidence reviews of statins to control cholesterol and proton pump inhibitors to control acid reflux as we made decisions around reference drug pricing.

It can be a particular drug or a class of drug where they do a clinical evidence review. But it can be, as in the case of the current contract, as a quality performance measures review, looking at the PharmaCare program itself and looking at quality indicators in the PharmaCare program, which is helpful in government for making decisions, many of which we have been debating here today.

J. Darcy: Well, there is certainly — I’m sure that the minister would agree — a pressing need to conduct evaluations using British Columbia data on the impact that different prescription drugs have on B.C. patients. One that has been discussed in this House is the blood thinner dabigatran — also, type 2 diabetes drugs and others.

Maybe I’m asking the same question a different way, but are there specific pharmacoepidemiological evaluations that the therapeutics initiative will be conducting under this current contract?

Hon. T. Lake: The pharmacoepidemiological program evaluations are the ones that I had mentioned. In the former contract, the therapeutics initiative did at least one, with the target of three per year. Topics for the program up until now have included statins, as I mentioned, proton pump inhibitors and a rapid monitoring tool.

Going forward, the topics for program evaluations to be completed in the contract have yet to be finalized. The focus of the work for the current year, moving forward, is still under negotiation between the therapeutics initiative and the ministry.

J. Darcy: Certainly, the minister and the province are all very well aware of the crisis that we have in the prescribing of opioids in the province and the usage of opioids to the extent that this has been declared a public health emergency.

[1730]

Certainly, improving prescriber education in order to mitigate against inappropriate prescribing of opioids is being recommended by the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, among others, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in order to counter the opioid overdose crisis.

Given its record on expert evaluation and improving physician prescribing practices, will the minister engage the therapeutics initiative to work on a specific program for clinicians on the issue of appropriate and unsafe prescribing practices when it comes to opioids as part of the public health emergency that has been declared regarding opioid overdoses? For example, the therapeutics initiative, given its world-renowned expertise, could certainly prepare and deliver an opioid-prescribing curriculum that would be a continuing medical education critic — something pretty important, it would appear, for physician education in the province.
[ Page 12711 ]

Will the ministry engage the therapeutics initiative in order to undertake that kind of work as part of this public health emergency that has been declared?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is referring to the very real, emergent issue of opioid overdosing and the misuse of opioids. As she well knows, Dr. Perry Kendall, our provincial health officer, declared a state of public health emergency recently, which allows us to collect data in real time to identify where there have been overdoses. Even if there is not a fatal overdose, we can track that and react.

We have a group of professionals, including the Centre for Disease Control, the provincial health officers and drug users, in our drug overdose awareness partnership, so we are doing a lot of work on this. In fact, other provinces have indicated that they would like to learn more about what British Columbia is doing. The federal government has also indicated a willingness to look at what we’re doing and see how other jurisdictions can address the very real issue of opioid use and misuse.

[1735]

We do a number of different things. We fund and support the network of excellence in substance use and harms, led by Dr. Evan Wood. His group recently published guidelines for opioid prescribing. In fact, those have been adopted by Vancouver Coastal. They’re being looked at by a number of other health authorities as well.

On top of that, we are talking to the therapeutics initiative about examining aspects of PharmaCare programs to look at certain at-risk patients, looking at a single prescriber or a single pharmacy for medications with a potential for abuse. The member is probably very familiar with the phenomenon of doctor shopping among those that are in the grip of opioids. That is one strategy that we’re looking at. The therapeutics initiative is doing some work with us on that, but we’re also working closely with Dr. Wood and his group.

We’re also talking to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and looking at the use of PharmaNet. Currently only about 25 to 30 percent of physicians use PharmaNet. We’re looking at whether that should be a mandatory access to PharmaCare, where prescribing would be to have mandatory access to PharmaNet. That would allow us, then, to track better the number of prescriptions being filled for opioids.

J. Darcy: In answer to my second question — about what the projects are that the therapeutics initiative has been contracted with at the present time — the minister referred to the health professional education program. Certainly, it is clear, and it’s clear from what the minister just said, that there is a dearth of evaluation and analysis that has been done at the present time to inform better prescribing about what is optimal. When do you use opioids versus non-opioids for various types of things — the difference between a palliative case or someone who presents with severe headaches, for instance?

Is the minister planning to engage the therapeutics initiative in order to develop this kind of analysis, which can then lead also to education with physicians on more effective and safer prescribing practices? I think we would agree that the therapeutics initiative is known worldwide for its excellence in this area.

Hon. T. Lake: I think the question is the same as the one I just answered. We are looking at various ways of ensuring proper prescribing practices among physicians in British Columbia. We are doing some work with the therapeutics initiative, but we’re also working closely with Dr. Evan Wood and his team. In fact, the support that his team has received from the government and from some very generous philanthropists has enabled him to assemble the largest collection of addiction physicians in North America, here in British Columbia.

While the therapeutics initiative is recognized and does a very good job, there are many sources of researchers that are available to the government of British Columbia, and we avail ourselves of different ways of ensuring that we’re providing the very best prescribing practices and health care for patients in B.C.

J. Darcy: The minister has spoken a little earlier about the issue of statins. As the minister knows and will recall, the NDP, with the exemplary work, especially what’s been done by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway…. I see the minister is agreeing about the exemplary work that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway has done on statins.

[1740]

For several years we have advocated for the expansion of reference-based pricing, starting with statins, and absolutely believe that it’s part of the prudent philosophy of paying for what works. The minister will be well aware that expanding reference-based pricing is really about the government paying for the lowest-cost option when there is no therapeutic difference between different-priced drugs.

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway for several years called for including statins, anti-cholesterol drugs, under reference-based pricing, by which PharmaCare would encourage doctors to prescribe generic alternatives to more expensive brand-name drugs if there is no difference in patient outcomes.

The government, while abandoning their position to eliminate reference-based pricing after forming government 15 years ago, continued to reject the proposal to expand reference-based pricing for several years. Has the government’s resistance to expanding reference-based pricing changed?

Hon. T. Lake: The reference drug program is a program that groups equally effective drugs that treat the
[ Page 12712 ]
same illness or medical condition into categories, and then PharmaCare covers the costs of the less expensive drug option. That is in order to have the same outcomes for patients at a lower cost to government. The program has been in existence for a while with some categories of drugs.

As I mentioned, the ministry has been looking at expansion of the reference-drug-pricing program to include new categories, including angiotensin receptor blockers, which treat high blood pressure; proton pump inhibitors that treat gastrointestinal issues, including acid reflux; and statins, or HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, as that they’re known commonly on the street. That’s to treat high cholesterol.

These are, in fact, included in our reference-drug-pricing program as of June 1. The changes will come into effect, and there will be a transition period.

So yes, we’re always looking at ways of saving money so that we can look to opportunities to save and apply those savings to investments, whether it’s treating people with hepatitis C or expanding diabetes treatments. This is the way that we are doing it.

It comes with some resistance. There’s no question that there will be patient groups, many that receive their funding from pharmaceutical companies, that will object to what they consider a limitation of their choice of pharmaceuticals. However, when we do this, we are trying to ensure that the impact on patients is absolutely minimized by grandfathering those that have been on a certain type or that have a physician who says that they can’t tolerate a certain type.

We’re working with patient groups now. We’re working with physicians to help them understand the changes that we feel do two things — continue to provide excellent results for patients and will provide value for money for taxpayers.

J. Darcy: Certainly statins are in very, very wide use in British Columbia. The savings to be achieved by including statins in reference-based pricing…. I’m sure there has been some evaluation of the potential cost savings there. This is certainly something that, on this side of the House, we have advocated for several years.

[1745]

I note that an amendment was signed on December 17, 2015, to the drug price regulation under the Pharmaceutical Services Act to expand the reference-based pricing program to include statins. They were to be added to the list that are already covered by this regulation. This expansion was to go into effect on January 1 of this year. The minister has just indicated that it….

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Well, the record will show it is not yet in effect. The question I would ask the minister is: why has including statins in that regulation been delayed by, it would appear, six months? What additional costs have been incurred by the health care system as a result of not including it when it was supposed to have been included?

Hon. T. Lake: You know, you can’t win for losing sometimes. You make a decision that the members have been advocating, and they say: “Why wasn’t it done yesterday?”

The reality is that when you are making decisions that impact both the prescriber and the patient, you have to be very thoughtful about implementation. I think I’ve heard that from the members opposite before. Is government being thoughtful about the way they implement things to ensure that there is full awareness of what is being changed?

You can imagine — especially in the face of some lobbying and advertising efforts — that there will be confusion among patients. There will be confusion among physicians. We want to ensure that we do our work so that we can minimize any fear, any confusion that might be created by any change in the reference-drug-pricing program. We are being thoughtful.

These changes come into effect on June 1, but there will be a six-month transition period, to November 30, to ensure that we mitigate impacts on both prescribers and patients.

J. Darcy: Just one more question, and then I will need to leave and return, but there are other members who have questions.

This expansion to include statins was supposed to take effect on January 1, 2016. Why was it delayed? What additional costs have been incurred as a result? Was that delay the result of lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry?

Hon. T. Lake: Because the regulation was in place doesn’t mean it was intended to take effect at that time. It was put in place so that we could go forward with consultation and ensure that we had all of the things we needed to do.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a victim of lobbying by pharmaceutical companies. You can probably get that from the pharmaceutical companies, themselves. We pride ourselves on making evidence-based decisions. While the input from everyone is appreciated, there are avenues for those companies to make their concerns, their views, known. It is rare that I will meet with a pharmaceutical company.

A. Dix: Just to follow up on the extension to the reference-based pricing program. It’s the annualized value of those savings that the minister referred to for the three classes of drugs he referred to. What is the estimated annualized value of savings under the extension of the reference-based pricing program?
[ Page 12713 ]

Hon. T. Lake: Just to be clear, there are three new categories in the program. Those are the ACE inhibitors, as I mentioned, the proton pump inhibitors and the statins. Sorry — the first one was an angiotensin receptor blocker, not an ACE inhibitor.

[1750]

We are changing the reference drug in three of the five existing categories, which are ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers and H2 blockers.

The annualized saving is estimated to be $9 million a year once the transition period is over, or $27 million over three years.

A. Dix: It’s nice, because I think I first proposed this in an article in 2003, so one can only imagine the savings that might have occurred in that period had the government moved more quickly. But I don’t want to end this era of good feeling of the minister adopting my proposals. I think that one can imagine, had that occurred when some of the drugs continued to be on patent, it might have been kind of interesting. In any event, $27 million over three years is a significant savings.

Just to be clear, is this the end of the government’s consideration of proposals to extend the reference-based pricing program? He will know that, obviously, the government did a considerable number of reviews between ’01 and ’05 around the elimination of that program and decided to maintain it because it was an excellent idea. Are these three changes the only changes under consideration, or is the minister considering other changes to expand the program?

Hon. T. Lake: There is no decision in terms of looking at increasing, changing or expanding the program at this time. Obviously, when you are doing this sort of change, there are impacts. We want to make sure that we manage those impacts thoughtfully. Will we review? Evaluate? Yes, of course. That’s something that we do on a regular basis, both with this reference drug-pricing program, with our low-cost alternative program and with our Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance. We are looking at every way we can to reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals.

Soon on the market there will be subsequent entry biologics which, hopefully, will bring down the price of some of the drugs used to treat immune-mediated conditions. We look forward to having lower-cost alternatives for those types of ailments as well.

So it is ongoing. This team that I am surrounded by — and I haven’t introduced Eric Lun, who is behind me, but I want to welcome Eric to the debate here — is extremely, I would say, recognized, not only in the pharmaceutical industry but across Canada within health ministries for the exceptional work they do at looking at ways of providing the very best they can for patients but getting extremely good value for money for British Columbians.

A. Dix: The one other thing I would say before leaving this topic is that his $27 million over three is actually…. I was actually more conservative in my assessment of the savings, so I’m delighted to hear that that number is there.

I wanted to ask the minister about the Alzheimer’s drug therapy initiative report that the government would have received, I believe, last fall. The minister will know the ADTI program was put in place in 2007 and that the costs of the program as of September 30, 2014, in terms of the drugs involved, were $64.7 million.

That was under the initial amount, I think, estimated for the program. I think it was initially budgeted to be $77 million over three years, but the takeup was slightly less. It was $64.7 million over the seven years in question. I think that was $10 million in the last nine months, looking at it, because I think it had been $54 million as of December 31, 2013. It’s obviously more as of today. The research component was approximately $2.6 million or $2.7 million, I believe.

Can the minister speak to the report? Is he happy and satisfied with the value of the report, the recommendations in the report? Obviously, the report’s general recommendation was not taken up by the government, but is he satisfied with the work done? Does he think that the report represents a value for money for the ministry and an excellent report and a good contribution to the ministry’s assessment of Alzheimer’s therapies and medication?

[1755]

Hon. T. Lake: I apologize for that. There’s just so much material here.

The Alzheimer’s drug therapy initiative, or ADTI, looked at drugs called cholinesterase inhibitors to help the ministry decide whether or not to continue covering these. These are drugs that interfere with the breakdown of acetylcholine, which helps, or purported to help, in Alzheimer’s by activating neurons.

There was a question as to whether or not the drugs involved — and there are a variety of different drugs that are involved — were effective and whether PharmaCare should continue to cover them.

This initiative…. I believe there were four different studies. I read the report. I don’t have the actual report in front of me. There were different organizations that…. Oh, sorry. There were five research studies: the University of Victoria and UBC. I believe there was information from Ontario, as well, if I’m not mistaken, that was taken into account. I will confirm that in a second.

The results of the comprehensive reports that were done was that there was limited benefit for Alzheimer’s patients with these cholinesterase inhibitors. So the decision was that they would continue to be covered under special authority with criteria to ensure that these patients, who may benefit, get coverage.

So some changes. As of April 1 of 2016, PharmaCare will cover the following drugs under special author-
[ Page 12714 ]
ity: donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine, subject to usual PharmaCare plan rules. The patients who choose the brand name — Aricept or Reminyl or Exelon — will pay the difference in cost between the generic and the brand-name drug.

PharmaCare will only cover the oral tablets or capsules. The Exelon patch will not be covered. There is a special authority needed, so physicians need to say that patients continue to need these.

But patients that are currently receiving the drugs under the initiative will be grandfathered. Again, this is important because you can imagine that if it’s your elderly parent that is on one of these drugs and you think they are doing well on them, it would be very difficult for a coverage to change.

[1800]

So we are grandfathering those patients that have had special authority to have these drugs covered, and the new criteria around these drugs will be on a go-forward basis, still under special authority.

The member asked about whether this was good value for money. We did spend $2.78 million on the ADTI research, as the member indicated. The projected savings as a result of the change in coverage is thought to be between $4 million and $5 million a year. So I would say yes, it is good value for money. We will see those savings accrue to the PharmaCare division which, again, can be used potentially to expand some other programs.

A. Dix: I think the report did conclude — I enjoy reading the ministry’s reports — that as he notes, there’s insufficient evidence to support coverage of ChEIs based on the findings from these four studies. I would say this was an interesting process because, as the minister will recall, this process was in many ways kicked off at the initiative of the then Premier, Mr. Campbell. He had a very considerable interest in this area.

The view was that even though the ministry had rejected coverage of this drug program before, it would be useful to initiate a program that had coverage of the drugs only if it was accompanied by this very initiative. That’s what happened, and I recall, when it was announced, being quite moved. I think the Premier himself was personally involved at the time, and he had some very moving discussions about it.

I make the point about the study because the minister will know that this is one of the studies in the unredacted part of the comptroller general’s report that was described as vague and not being that useful with respect to their report on the health research situation. I just wanted to make the point that this report seemed to be quite on point and quite useful. The four studies that ended up being in this report, as the minister said, produced a rate of return for the taxpayers and for the health care system. It was a useful and important report.

I say that just to ask…. This report was directly linked to the Health firings issue. We’re not going to re-litigate that today. I think the minister will be happy to hear that. But this was directly delayed by the Health firings issue. I’d like to ask the minister how long it was delayed and whether he thought that had any impact on its value, first of all.

Secondly, I just want to explain why I think it’s important that the Ministry of Health — which I think is advocating that the report was of value and the initiative was of value — is in this sense disagreeing with the conclusions of the redacted comptroller general’s report. I’ve only seen little bits of it that say this. It’s important that he, I think, as minister stand behind the report.

I wanted to just be clear about those two points. How long was the report — the findings — delayed by the Health firings scandal? And to hear from the minister his firm belief, which I think he just expressed, that the report was of great use.

Hon. T. Lake: The contract was suspended in September of 2012 and reinstituted in February of 2014, so that’s about 18 months, as I eyeball it.

[1805]

The study was certainly worthwhile. As mentioned, it showed that there’s limited benefit, so using generic versions versus brand-name versions would not impact patients. That helped us in savings to cover generic versions.

Also, the rules are that because these benefits are somewhat limited and there does not appear to be a superior benefit from one to the other…. If you are tried on one cholinesterase inhibitor and it doesn’t have a clinical impact, previously you were allowed to switch to another to try it. Now that is no longer the case. The study was useful in that respect.

In terms of the comptroller general’s report, as the member knows, that is the subject of the Ombudsperson’s investigation. I know that an unredacted version of that report was made available, not with authorization and quite against the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I don’t want to comment on the unredacted version, simply because it is not a fulsome description of the comptroller general’s report. So we will await the results of the Ombudsperson’s review.

A. Dix: I was referring to the redacted version, not the unredacted version — just to be clear. The redacted version criticized this report as a vague deliverable. So I just wanted to be clear that the Ministry of Health is disagreeing with that assertion. In fact, the report is the opposite of a vague deliverable. It’s a specific deliverable, delivered at the direction of an initiative led by the Premier of the day. It was not only not a vague deliverable; it was a comprehensive and interesting deliverable that had specific benefits to the Ministry of Health.

I wanted to ask the minister about another related issue which is the same thing. At a time in 2012, the EQIP program was terminated — again, directly linked to the
[ Page 12715 ]
now wrongful dismissal of health researchers. That program was terminated and ended six years of collaboration between PharmaCare and the Doctors of B.C. The minister will know that the Auditor General, in his report on PharmaCare in 2006….

Of course, I’m going back to my own time as a Health critic, and in that regard, it seems like only yesterday. I now deal with the Minister of Energy, which is very fulsome and interesting.

That report said: “Use PharmaNet information to identify trends in prescribing practices and to inform physicians about their own prescribing practices and the projected results had currently recognized clinical best practices been followed…. Support greater involvement of physicians in developing actions to promote appropriate drug use.”

The BCMA did its own report a year later, Prescription for Quality, that argued that programs such as EQIP were effective and that feedback and collaboration between PharmaCare staff and Doctors of B.C. were of value. PharmaCare doesn’t participate in the Doctors of B.C.’s polypharmacy educational program today and provides no prescribing data on polypharmacy to B.C. physicians.

What ended in 2012 as a result of the Health firings — it was coincident with that — was that the EQIP program was terminated. The six years of collaboration were terminated, and it has never been resumed.

I guess I’m asking the minister directly because I think those reports…. That program is particularly effective, I would argue, and would meet the goals of the ministry. Does he support that non-collaboration continuing into the present? Doesn’t he think that that presumably unintended consequence of the wrongful dismissal of health researchers…? It goes against its long-term impact, the recommendations of the Auditor General, the Doctors of B.C. and the then Ministry of Health.

Regardless of whether EQIP comes back or what the form of that cooperation is, doesn’t he think that that’s a negative consequence of the health firings scandal, and doesn’t he think that the ministry should reconsider that model?

[1810]

Hon. T. Lake: It’s nice to be able to get into the debate here. I’ve never seen this many people in estimates before. It’s really great. I’m going to quiz all of my colleagues on the answers that I’ve provided today. They’ll be telling me what cholinesterase inhibiters are before the day is out.

The EQIP program essentially created prescriber portraits so that they would look at where a prescriber was in relation to their peers. This is an effective tool, for sure, in a number of different areas. We can do it in MSP billings, for instance, and see who are outliers.

They do it in hospitals. I’ve talked to different hospitals where they will look at surgeons, for instance, and find out who is doing something in a certain amount of time versus others. There is nothing that physicians and very highly competitive professionals like better than to compare themselves to their peers. There’s a tendency to want to get into the optimal zone.

This was, I think I would say, a good program. But I want to correct the member’s inference that it was terminated as a result of what was going on in the Health Ministry. The reality is that that contract expired coincidently with all of the things that were happening in the Health Ministry.

It has not been renewed. But we know that the College of Physicians and Surgeons is looking at a quality assurance program that would in many ways, potentially, mimic the prescriber portrait program, or the EQIP program, that we had.

[1815]

The question is: is it the role of the ministry, or is it the role of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to be looking at their registrants and how they’re performing? I think, when we saw the report from the Auditor General, the office challenged the ministry to look at how we put performance measures on compensation for physicians.

There’s a lot of discussion about this across jurisdictions — how you get quality and value for money. It’s a very difficult thing to do in health, with the system that’s been essentially adopted from the 1960s and hasn’t changed a lot since then.

If the member’s point is that knowing how the prescribing habits of physicians is a good thing, I would say yes, I agree. The question is: is it the role of the ministry, is the role of the college, or is there potentially a partnership that can be developed to allow us to do that? I think all of those options are on the table.

A. Dix: I want to assure the Minister of Energy that we’re talking about a different Auditor General’s report. I was making no comment on him.

I would say that the EQIP was essentially cancelled, and access to that, not because people didn’t think the work and the collaboration was valuable; it was cancelled in the wake of the Health firings scandal. That’s what happened. The ministry didn’t decide to wake up in 2012 and say: “This six years of collaboration wasn’t going well. We’re going to cancel it.” They decided it because of things that occurred in that time.

I want to ask the minister…. He referred to this when we had our little discussion last week about the impact of the Health firings scandal on the study related to Accutane, which is a very serious issue and an important issue. The minister said at the time…. I don’t want to take up too much time of the House today. Part of his response was essentially to say: “We weren’t targeting Accutane. We cancelled all the access to data for a while or we delayed it.”

He said that there were some 20 information-sharing agreements. I’m not going ask the minister to list off the 20
[ Page 12716 ]
information-sharing agreements. Just during the estimates, if it would be possible for the ministry to make available the names of those 20 information-sharing agreements that were affected by the Health firings scandal.

Hon. T. Lake: I’d be happy to provide them at a later date. But I do want to take exception to what the member said, that the program, the education for quality improvement in patient care program, was cancelled in the wake of the Health firings. That’s just not true. You said “in the wake,” insinuating that it was cancelled because of what was going on.

The contract ran from September 1, 2009, to August 31, 2012, and expired in the midst of that investigation. I just want to correct that for the record.

I’d be happy to provide a list to the member of the studies that were suspended as we did what we were asked to do by a consultant and by the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner, which was to ensure that we had secure practices to ensure that patient confidentiality was secure in the Ministry of Health.

A. Dix: Well, that day, August 31, 2012, was a significant day. Other people’s agreements with the ministry were expiring that day, as well, as the minister will know. Is the minister saying, with respect to EQIP, that there were not discussions about the extension of EQIP at that time and that that extension was not affected by the investigation?

I think it pretty clearly was. In fact, the EQIP contract was expiring August 31 of 2012. The Health firings were leaked to the media by the government on September 6, 2012. Individuals who were involved in EQIP were suspended in August, 2012, so clearly it’s not an inference.

If the minister is saying that “wake” and “midst” is the question, let’s concede that it’s in the midst of the scandal. The EQIP program was cancelled and has never been resumed. It was moving to be renewed at that time within the Ministry of Health and was cancelled because of the Health firings scandal.

Is that not a fair inference? Is the minister saying it was cancelled, it was going to be cancelled anyway, and that the Health firings scandal had nothing do with that cancellation?

[1820]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the member said that it was in the midst of the investigation. That is correct. It expired in the midst of that investigation. It wasn’t cancelled; it expired. It wasn’t because of the investigation; it expired. Contracts expire all the time, and ministries make a decision whether or not to continue on, revise, seek a different provider. All of those things occur on a regular basis.

In this case, the contract expired; it has not been renewed. It is not because of what was going on at the time. There are many reasons why ministries and governments take the decisions they do. I’ve said to the member that there can be discussions, and will be discussions, with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, with the Doctors of B.C. We do a lot of projects with the Doctors of B.C., through various committees, through the physician master agreement. We decide together with them on programs we want to move forward with. Perhaps a quality assurance program around prescribing will be one of those programs. These decisions are made over time.

As the member well knows, in the ministry there are imperatives that you focus on. I can tell you that this team behind me has been working overtime in the last year on treatment of hepatitis — how we were going to procure hepatitis C treatment drugs at the best possible value for taxpayers, how we would cover that under PharmaCare, working with all the patient groups, working with all the specialists.

There are only a limited number of people in the ministry, and there are imperatives that come up. The opioid overdose situation right now, you can imagine, is consuming a lot of energy on the part of Dr. Kendall and his team in the ministry, whereas at other times they could devote their energies to something else that is important as well. Things rise to the surface, and we only have so many resources, so many people to work on different policies, different objectives. So these decisions do vary over time.

A. Dix: Well, I mean, it was a six-year program. They were looking to extend the program. The health firings scandal happened, and they didn’t. They haven’t done anything since then. In 2003, the minister will know, the drug use optimization branch was also terminated. This was work that the ministry was doing. It was regarded as successful work. It ended on August 31, 2012. The minister continues to think it’s good work, but it ended at that time.

I don’t think I’m making an extraordinary conclusion when I say they’re negotiating to renew the contract, the contract expires, it’s not renewed on August 31, 2012, and it was linked to the health firings scandal. I’m not making an astonishing leap of logic there. That’s what happened. It happened as a direct result of it, and the result is that since that date, B.C. physicians have not been receiving that feedback from their prescribing. I think most people would say that, in addition to initiatives such as academic detailing, has real value.

What I am advocating to the minister — I think this is not an unreasonable thing to advocate, given that we’ve now lost those six years of momentum in the four years as a direct result of those events — is that he reconsider that. I think that’s a reasonable request, given the value of it, given the reports in the past and given the value of the work that the minister himself described.

I don’t want to get stuck on this point with the minister. My colleague from Vancouver Island is about to hold
[ Page 12717 ]
forth on some important issues that she has for the minister. I’m just saying that that’s clearly a disagreement. I’ll leave the floor to my colleague from Esquimalt.

M. Karagianis: I’ll try and keep my questions brief. I wanted to talk about a constituent of mine. The minister, I hope, is aware of this story. A letter was sent to him. Debbie Waldron is a parent who’s been through quite an ordeal. Her daughter, Nicole Waldron, died in the emergency ward at St. Paul’s. This may ring a bell for the minister.

[1825]

Debbie was not notified of her daughter’s death until many days later, when she received a call from the coroner and was asked to come and identify the body.

The coroner’s report into Nicole’s death found that she had suffered a seizure while in the waiting area of the emergency department, and staff had not realized that she had died until several hours later. It’s a bit of a horror story, certainly.

The coroner writes: “This case highlights a potential gap in service for those patients who have been stabilized in the emergency department but who may require further supervision.” The coroner also says that following Ms. Waldron’s death, a breakdown in communication occurred. It is standard practice for social workers to contact the police to assist with notification of the next of kin in the event that the hospital efforts fail. This practice was not adhered to. There is no documentation that the task was passed on to other shifts or that initial attempts to contact the family were made. This delay in notification resulted in significant psychological stress for Ms. Waldron’s parents, as you can well imagine.

A letter was sent to the minister, November 5, 2015, and was responded to December 11, 2015, by Doug Hughes, assistant deputy minister.

The director of risk management at Providence Health Care, St. Paul’s Hospital, wrote to the parents. The director wrote that an action plan to address deficiencies identified in a review of Nicole’s death had been implemented, but he also wrote, and I quote here from his letter: “We do not believe these changes represent a solution without a new hospital — probably ten years away or more — more beds or increased community resources. We were unable to identify any change that would allow us to reliably say this could not happen again.”

My constituent is, of course, extremely distressed by the series of events, by the fact that she was notified of her daughter’s death only when the coroner asked her to identify the body. Then, of course, upon investigating and asking some questions, she discovered that her daughter had died in very disturbing circumstances, left in the emergency room waiting room for several hours before her body was discovered.

I’m hoping that the minister could give me some message to take back to the Waldron family about this. They are, at this point, the time frame…. They’ve received no apology for the circumstances around their daughter’s death. There are still some personal items of their daughter’s that have been lost and/or mislocated during that episode that they have not been able to recover, including a purse that contained the last mementoes or personal information or identification of their daughter.

I want to ask the minister a couple of things: if he’s aware of the case; what, if anything, he may be able to do to make sure this doesn’t happen again — some kind of assurance on that. Really, I guess, what is being done to address some of the deficiencies identified by the coroner in the process that took place?

I’m happy to turn all of these letters over to the minister if he doesn’t have them in his possession. Having met with the family many times, they are under a great deal of stress. The mother is…. It’s changed their lives, the circumstances around this — certainly their daughter suffered from a number of challenges, lived on the Downtown Eastside, but just the whole manner of her passing, of her death, and the way that they discovered it and the loose ends that they’ve been left at since then.

I’m hoping the minister would take it upon himself, at the very least, to perhaps reach out to the family to apologize, but maybe look at how the procedures at St. Paul’s occurred. The coroner has identified a whole number of procedures that were really lacking and just a breakdown in the system altogether.

I’ve got two other short questions after that, but I’m hoping the minister might be able to make comment.

[1830]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I just can’t imagine what the family is dealing with, to lose their daughter that way — in any way. I have been made aware of the situation, and I understand that Ms. Waldron wrote to the Premier. My ADM Doug Hughes responded on behalf of the Premier and me. At that point in time, the Coroners Service had not concluded the investigation, so I do not have the coroner’s report.

In these sorts of situations, of course…. Well, first of all, everyone knows that the health care system is confronted every day with situations in which people are very much at risk. The health care providers do their very best, but they’re not machines. Sometimes things happen that we obviously wish did not happen. We want to ensure, if it is preventable, that it is prevented in the future.

But we need information. While I can, as a father of three daughters…. I certainly can understand how the parents feel. We need to get information to know how to prevent it from happening again, so we will await the coroner’s report. We will examine the coroner’s report.

We’ve encouraged Ms. Waldron to contact the patient care quality office. All health authorities have these in place. It was this government that put those in place so that when something happens and a patient or a family
[ Page 12718 ]
feels that care was not adequate, a review is conducted and we fully understand what happened. We even have section 51 investigations that allow us to fully understand the situations. Once we have that information, we can make recommendations and changes that, hopefully, will prevent a similar thing from happening.

I will commit that we will follow up with the patient care quality office, with the coroner and determine, if we can, the facts of the situation and provide some comfort to the family that, if in fact there are changes that can be made to prevent this from happening to someone else’s daughter, we will.

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much, Minister. I will certainly…. I’m sure that Debbie Waldron will take a keen interest in our exchange here today. As you can imagine…. This is their only daughter. We’ll certainly try and assist the family in going through the next steps with reaching out to quality care and things. But as you can imagine, they’re heartbroken, and that process is not always that easy. But we’ll certainly assist. I’m sure Debbie will watch this footage of our exchange here and will understand that the minister has felt some empathy with them in this.

I would like to ask another brief question here. I know I have colleagues here who would like to get on this, so I might ask my following two questions in a row, not related to each other.

We have discussed in question period the issue of rape kits around British Columbia. We’ve had some discussion on where rape kits are available, the fact that there is, hopefully, some expansion underway within the health regions to provide rape kits in many communities, more than are available now. When the minister and I had an exchange in question period, he was made aware of the fact that UBC has to send people to the one hospital in the Lower Mainland that provides this.

[1835]

The issue around rape kits and the collection of forensic evidence is very, very important. This is a topic that young women across this country are talking about, are concerned about. There are legislative discussions going on around sexual assault and protections for women.

I’d just like the minister to maybe give me an update on where else rape kits will be available and what kind of expansion the government is undertaking to ensure that if you are raped on the Highway of Tears, you don’t have to drive four or five hours to a clinic and wait for hours to collect the appropriate forensic evidence so that you might have a chance of seeing some justice for your attacker. Any information that the minister can give me on that would be great.

Totally unrelated to this but because of the time factors…. There’s a fantastic organization on the West Shore called the Pacific Centre Family Services Association. They are undertaking an amazing project to put in place a solution to problems in the Western Communities. They are building a centre for well-being. It is attached to an existing service centre that they already have at the Pacific Centre Family Services Association.

I know that they have put in an application for capital dollars, and I’m here to just champion their cause and say that they are doing a stellar job in the Western Communities. They do a whole lot with very little money, and they’re just very rigorous in getting everything they can out of the services.

For the centre that they’re building, they’ve acquired the land. They are raising money. They’ve acquired and purchased two acres of land in Colwood. They have written to the minister. I think they wrote a letter on February 5, 2016, from Mitzi Dean of the Pacific Centre Family Services Association.

I’m here to say: please give this serious consideration. The community is 100 percent on board. They are raising money now and doing so very successfully, but certainly, having the assistance of the ministry would be terrific. They have also contacted the Housing Minister, because there is a housing component to go with this that is direly needed on the West Shore.

I’m putting my marker down on that but hoping for some information on the rape kits.

Hon. T. Lake: This is a debate of estimates of the Ministry of Health. Certainly, the member can advocate for her community by contacting the ministerial office.

In terms of rape kits, these are forensic rape kits. First of all, I want to say that anyone that suffers a sexual assault…. Any clinic or hospital provides health care for sexual assault patients at any time that they are open — so, obviously, through emergency wards at every hospital in the province of British Columbia. That includes assessment for injury, medication for pregnancy prevention, prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, assessment of HIV risk, crisis counselling, referral to community agencies and explanation of further medical forensic options that are available.

It’s really important…. When we talk about the forensic options, it is critical that expertise is utilized to collect the correct evidence to ensure that the assaulter has the best chance of being tried and convicted of their crime. And any weakness in the chain of evidence puts at risk the objective, which is to convict the perpetrator.

There are 40 facilities across the province where forensic services are available. It varies throughout the province, because we recognize that there are some areas of the province where, because of the vast distances between centres, this should be made available in hospitals in every major centre.

Across the north, for instance, I believe there are 21 facilities where forensic examinations and the secure collection of evidence is available. On the Island, they’re available at Victoria General Hospital, Nanaimo Regional
[ Page 12719 ]
General Hospital, Cowichan District Hospital, Campbell River Hospital, West Coast General Hospital, Tofino General Hospital and St. Joseph’s Hospital.

[1840]

On the Lower Mainland, where the distance between hospitals is considerably shorter, they are available at Surrey Memorial, Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Vancouver General Hospital. After the member and I had a discussion in question period, I asked Vancouver Coastal to look at UBC Hospital, given the nature of the campus community and the obvious nature of the students attending there. And so Vancouver General has extended the forensic capability to UBC Hospital during the hours of UBC Hospital. We recently extended it to Squamish General. It has been at Powell River and Sechelt Hospital. In the Interior, they’re available in Kamloops, Kelowna, Trail, Cranbrook, Vernon, Penticton, and, as I mentioned, the 21 facilities in the north.

We feel that the last thing that a victim of an assault wants to do is to travel great distances to ensure that whoever assaulted them is convicted and to maintain that chain of evidence. So we have worked hard to try to minimize that travel time, that waiting, that anxiety, as much possible.

B. Routley: Thank you to the minister and his staff. I’m happy, because of the shortness of time, to try to lay down a couple of questions and then hear — either in writing or if there is a short comment.

I had a number of surgeons or doctors come into my office to tell me of their concern about cancellations of surgeries in the Cowichan Valley. While I’m sure this may be an issue in other areas as well, they tell me that there is no protected access to surgical beds and that they’ve had a number of situations where alternative level of care or AAP — assessed and awaiting placement — have ended up with such a large number that it’s meant cancelling surgeries.

I’m also told that Victoria has 2.3 beds per 1,000 in population, and the Cowichan Valley has 1.3 beds per 1,000 in population. I don’t know why we’re the poor cousin over the hill, but that could be…. I do get it. Maybe I’ll answer the question, somewhat, myself. I know, for example, that with a heart surgery I had, I was very appreciative of the highly skilled level of heart surgeons at Jubilee Hospital in Victoria. So there may be reasons to have some specialists in a centralized area. I get that.

But the hospital is telling me, the surgeons are telling me, that we have a 15 percent cancellation rate for things like hip surgeries and other kinds of surgeries. So my question is: is there a plan to either deal with protected access to surgical beds or to deal with the problem of not enough…? There’s clearly not enough full-time home support or assisted living or complex care in the Cowichan Valley to deal with the problem. It’s now becoming a crisis in the Cowichan Valley.

I guess question number one — again, that I’m not going to ask for a fulsome answer right now — is: is there a plan of any kind to deal with this crisis? We’re hopeful that you’re looking at the opportunity to have some protected-access surgical beds, at least, to deal with the crisis that we right now have in a large number of cancellations.

Question number two is about the Cowichan Hospital. I don’t know whether you can comment on that. For a number of years now, the CVRD and all other volunteer groups have been saving towards having a new hospital. I’m told by the doctors that they’re hoping to see that in a capital plan for 2016-17, that there have been comments made by VIHA — Island Health — about us, the Cowichan Valley, being somewhat of a priority.

[1845]

I would like to know if the minister can answer on that, whether there is some priority, given the situation — a large number of seniors and the large population, the growing population of the Cowichan Valley, and certainly the dire need and the fact that the hospital is full to often overcapacity.

The third and last issue that I would like to comment on is the…. I’ve been meeting with the seniors and their families at Sunridge Place senior care facility. They recently had a dramatic change and did away with half of the LPNs and have gone to care aides. The quality of care has been impacted. Sunridge has 160 seniors in Sunridge Place. Effective March 28, they reduced the number of LPNs from one LPN per 20 to one to 40.

In summary, I would just say that this care home with the new owner, which is Carecorp Seniors Services…. Its management has reduced everything from food to staff. Now they’ve got a new in-home pharmacy. There are a number of areas that are impacting seniors. I just want you to be aware that I’m having a large number of constituents come in with concerns, everything from Cowichan….

When we had the Cowichan Lodge, there was a report done that said there needed to be continuity of care. We’re not getting continuity of care with all these staff changes. There are complaints from the residents and their families about the quality of care.

I’ll leave those three issues with you. If you care to comment now, or if you want to write me, I’m fine with that.

Hon. T. Lake: I’ll keep my comments brief.

Hospital congestion in winter is not unusual in flu season. Now, this flu season was a little different than others in that the strain of flu that we experienced this year came a lot later. We did have congestion in a number of hospitals throughout the province, and Cowichan District Hospital was certainly one of them.

The member mentioned that the high percentage of alternative-level-of-care patients waiting for care in the community or placement in residential care was one of
[ Page 12720 ]
the factors. It points to what is often a challenge in health care, and that is flow. If one part of the system clogs up, it backs up through the whole system. If there is nowhere for surgical patients to go after surgery, then surgeries are cancelled.

I believe we have come out of that congestion period, which is good news. But then the question lends itself: “Well, how do we prevent this from happening with another flu season?”

Part of the response is ensuring that we have residential care spaces available. Part of the response is looking at the changes we’re making to assisted living to provide more opportunities for assisted living. Part of the answer is looking at the increased supports for keeping seniors in their home longer so that they don’t need residential care, and so that frees up beds as well.

All hospitals deal with that congestion. Cowichan, I think, this year more than past years, experienced it to an acute degree.

In terms of the hospital itself, the Vancouver Island Health Authority has rated Cowichan District Hospital as its number one priority. But, of course, it has to fit into the provincial capital plan. I’ll just do this very briefly because I know the Speaker is looking at the clock, as we all are.

The capital plan over just the last number of years, in terms of completions: Surrey Memorial Hospital; Lions Gate HOpe Centre; Burns Lake, Lakes District Hospital Centre; Kelowna General Hospital, Interior Heart and Surgical Centre; Fort St. John Hospital; Prince George, B.C. cancer centre; Vernon Jubilee Hospital, Polson Tower; Sechelt Hospital expansion; Nanaimo Regional General Hospital expansion.

[1850]

Underway: Vancouver, B.C. Children and Women’s; Joseph and Rosalie Segal family health centre at VGH; Queen Charlotte–Haida Gwaii general hospital; Comox Valley and Campbell River on the Island here; Kamloops, clinical services building.

Planning: Royal Columbian Hospital redevelopment; St. Paul’s Hospital redevelopment; Royal Inland Hospital patient care tower; Vancouver General Hospital operating rooms.

So the list is long. The good news is that VIHA has identified it as their number one priority. Hopefully, as the economy grows and the revenues to government increase, we can continue to increase a record capital program and address the issues around Cowichan District Hospital.

In terms of Sunridge Place, if there are concerns about patient care, we do encourage families to talk to the provider and, if unsatisfied, talk to the patient care quality office. Health care aides do a very good job, and hopefully, they will prove that in terms of the care that residents are receiving there.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present an Opinion of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner Pursuant to Section 19 of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act: In the Matter of Applications by David Eby, MLA (Vancouver–Point Grey) and Duff Conacher with Respect to Alleged Contraventions of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act by the Honourable Christy Clark, MLA (Westside-Kelowna) and Premier of British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong 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 6:52 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, TOURISM AND SKILLS TRAINING

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

On Vote 31: ministry operations, $196,234,000 (continued).

S. Chandra Herbert: It’s good to see the minister and good to see her staff. I want to thank my interns Robert and Leila for their help in preparing for this.

I’m going to be focusing for the first section, a big chunk, primarily on tourism. Then I’m going to see
[ Page 12721 ]
whether or not there are some possible responses to questions around Creative B.C. and the film industry as well. We’ll start with tourism. I’m going to do my best just to ask questions and not give long speeches disguised as questions. I know the minister, hopefully, will do the same in terms of responding.

I know one of the stated goals around Destination B.C. and indeed from the ministry is planning to lead Canada in growth in tourism. I’m just wondering if the minister is able to either provide now or commit to provide, in writing, comparative information on growth rates for other provinces so that we can see apples-to-apples comparisons. How are we leading in growth, compared to other provinces, if we don’t know what those figures are?

Hon. S. Bond: I also just want to recognize the incredible group of people that I get to work with every day. Obviously, today again I have my deputy minister, Shannon Baskerville, and the acting ADM of management services, Tracy Campbell. Joining us to help facilitate the discussion this afternoon is Okenge Yuma Morisho. He is the associate deputy minister of economic development and major investments. We also have, obviously, Marsha Walden, who is the CEO of Destination British Columbia and is doing a fantastic job.

[1455]

In terms of growth, yes, we do look at what happens in other jurisdictions. Marsha thinks and believes that on the website there is a listing of other jurisdictions and where we rate. Currently we are second in the country. We are behind Ontario, but as Marsha would remind me, we are closing that gap.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate that the minister and Ms. Walden think that the growth rates are on the website. In order to say if this is the year we’re setting as a baseline to get to the next year and years going forward, it’s always important to be absolutely sure that we know what that baseline is.

So if it’s not on the website or in a kind of an easily understandable form, could I get the Minister’s commitment that we can get those baseline data and the figures of where we are in terms of growth so far, if we are indeed catching up. It would be helpful to have that commitment.

Hon. S. Bond: Of course, if the information isn’t in the format that he would prefer, when we look at the website…. We’ll also take a look at it and make sure that it meets the format that he would prefer.

We did set a baseline, though. It started basically with Gaining the Edge. Our target is actually a very ambitious one. It is a 5 percent growth a year — and, obviously, in these last couple of years, substantial growth.

We’re very excited about what this year and next year hold. In fact, Gaining the Edge really did talk about an aggressive strategy. So, yes, there are baseline numbers.

British Columbia is doing very well. I look forward to closing the gap even more between us and Ontario. We’d love to be the leader in the country.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes. I, too, think we should all go all in for tourism so that we can really be number one. We certainly, at least in our hearts, are number one. I think when people come to see our province, they agree.

It does give me hope, but at the same time, I’m concerned. I did rough estimations — fairly accurate estimations, I think — of what the growth rates were.

For example, overnight arrivals. I did January to November 2015. In B.C., we were up, I think, 7.7 percent. Ontario was up 9.2 percent, so they were doing better than us. U.S. residents by auto — B.C. up 11.1 percent, which is great. Quebec’s up 12.5. U.S. residents by non-auto — B.C. up 7.3 percent; Ontario up by 10.7 percent.

At least from January to November, we were not outperforming Ontario. Indeed, I looked at the numbers past that. I just didn’t do the percentages. We still haven’t caught up there.

What is it going to take? Why have we not overtaken them yet? Clearly, I think we could do so much more than we are.

[1500]

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we are obviously encouraged. There are some factors that we need to consider when we compare, to make sure we recognize that there is not really an apples-to-apples comparison. There are some significant differences when you look at drive access, for example, and the population that you would consider.

It takes a lot longer to drive from California to British Columbia than it does from New York to eastern Canada. Those are factors. We have to work to try to attract, obviously, the significant population we have in Washington, Oregon and California. That’s what we concentrate on.

Probably one of the biggest issues and one that we have been arguing and leading the national file on for years is the issue of air access. When you’re in Toronto or Montreal, you have, frankly, a lot more access. That is one of the driving factors here. We are very excited about the work that YVR is doing. They have reached out. We’ve seen a new direct flight, for example, from Paris to Vancouver. We recently saw the Airbus arrive. It was phenomenal. I actually happened to be arriving when the Airbus was. It was an amazing, amazing plane to see.

We have flights from Mexico. We have new flights coming from China. That is absolutely essential to the growth of tourism. I think it really validates the position we’ve taken with both the previous government and this government. That is that tourism is an economic issue, and air access is a critical feature of that. So air access, drive access.

Shared concerns from other jurisdictions would be visa issues for sure. There are other sorts of operational
[ Page 12722 ]
things that we could certainly look to improve. Those are federal issues. From British Columbia’s perspective, I think the work that’s being done right now in terms of branding and marketing British Columbia is exceptional. That kind of influence will make a difference with those numbers.

S. Chandra Herbert: I agree the air access is a huge challenge for us. I have optimism, of course. One direct flight the minister didn’t mention, but I know she would have, would be, of course, from New Delhi to Vancouver as well. That will really help, I think, in developing even stronger relationships with India and helping to find ways that they can come to our country and, of course, we can visit theirs. I’m excited about that.

One issue the former critic raised — I’ve come back to the tourism file after three years away on other files — is the question of the virtual reality television headset, the commercials. I understand it was about $500,000 in costs. I’m just curious. What business could be directly attributable to those headsets? What could we directly say was the benefit of that large expenditure?

[1505]

Hon. S. Bond: I think one of the things that’s critical…. I think it’s a good reminder from Marsha to me, as well. When you’re marketing a destination, you can’t separate out each of the elements and attribute our success to one or the other. In fact, a great marketing strategy is about a combination of things that gets people’s attention.

One of the things we’re really pleased about is the virtual reality. There was a very specific targeted group, and it started with making sure we were reaching out to travel trade and travel media. That’s absolutely essential.

A really good example of how popular that is, is one of the largest, if not the largest, travel trade shows in the world, in Berlin. There were 10,000 people on the trade show floor, basically competing for business. We were the ones that had the lineup, and it was because of the virtual reality equipment.

In a more tangible way, since the launch of the virtual reality video and headset, we’ve had coverage in 200 editorial articles by prominent news and travel outlets, including USA Today, Time, Outside, Lonely Planet and the Wall Street Journal. Those articles alone had a potential reach of over 65 million impressions.

We also were the first to use the VR video, which counts itself among VR leaders such as Thomas Cook, South Africa and Marriott hotels. It has since been adopted by many other organizations.

The Wild Within, which I’m sure the member has seen, has been showcased through all major trade shows and media shows and events that are globally attended. In fact, over 800 clients have experienced the VR experience.

We’re also now using YouTube, and we’re very excited. We’ve just, in fact, launched a 360 skiing experience shot at Whistler. We think that will also make a difference. One of the things that’s important about YouTube is that the videos are now available to people through their desktops and mobile phones.

Again, it’s about expanding our reach, sharing the story of British Columbia, doing it in a way that connects people to the experience. We certainly think the investment was well worth the resources that it took, and we’re seeing some very good outcomes.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, of course, it takes multiple asks, multiple ads, impressions, friends, etc., before people make a decision on where to go and where they’re going to spend their travel dollars.

I know that some marketers, and I know B.C. has done this in the past, will use tag lines on ads — “Say Jeff told you to call” or a little code or a special number that you have to call — just to see if the ads are working. When you’re spending millions of dollars on TV ads, you want to know that it’s breaking through in a real way. That’s challenging, I understand. Sometimes people may not make a decision for a while.

I noticed last night, I think it was Global I had on, and in the space of a couple of minutes, there were two Wild Within ads advertising B.C. There wasn’t really a tag line in terms of being able to see the impact of the ads, and I wondered what tools Destination B.C. is using to measure the tools.

I get that “dial this phone number” may seem a bit outdated, but it’s one of the direct ways. At least, the marketers I talk to say it’s one of the key ways they know if an ad actually got through. They don’t run it in every ad, but they are able to test the effectiveness that way.

[1510]

Hon. S. Bond: We’re having a hearty discussion over here about changing patterns of how people make decisions about where they’re going to go. One of the metrics that Destination B.C. uses is we actually use survey methodology outside of British Columbia to measure people’s intent to travel and whether or not that changes, whether or not there’s been an influence to move them in the direction of British Columbia. So there is a methodology used outside of B.C.

What we’re grappling with, I think, in every industry, but in tourism in particular, is that the majority of people now make their own travel plans. They go on line. They google. They try all these varieties of things. The way we used to do things isn’t as relevant anymore, so it is harder to measure. But I can tell you that one of the hashtags we’re using…. I’m actually going to make a shameless plug here. We’re going to be encouraging our MLA team of soldiers, all of us here in this place, to really think about the use of the hashtag #explorebc.

When we look at how many impressions we’ve had…. Is “impressions” the right word? Uses. We’ve had a mil-
[ Page 12723 ]
lion uses, for example, since we started using the hashtag #explorebc. That tells us people are engaged.

[1515]

I think methodology, or the thing that is working most effectively…. That’s why The Wild Within is so important. It’s about inspiring and having people share their stories. Obviously, Explore B.C. is encouraging people to tell their story, to share photographs, all of those things. So I think a different way of measuring.

I think the member is correct. If you invest money, we should be able to find ways to measure its success. I think we’re doing that in a number of ways — simply not, perhaps, the way things have been measured in the past. We’re looking at how we do this in the era we live in today.

S. Chandra Herbert: Again, it’s a generational thing, maybe. That’s helpful. Certainly, hashtags are one thing. I think maybe half of the million hashtags come from the minister herself, sharing about exploring B.C. Maybe I’ll take the other half. We’ll see. But no, it does help for sure. Staycations and all those kinds of arguments that we can make for B.C. — it’s a good thing.

I think maybe I should follow up after, just to get a sense of how we’re measuring the success within B.C. Focus groups outside B.C. or various other impressions are useful, but within B.C. would be useful as well.

One of the areas that I’m interested in is the visitor centres. Now, folks like myself — I’m not generally one to always go into a visitor centre because I often plan on the Internet and look other ways. But I do go in on occasion. Maybe the phone’s out of juice; maybe I just want to talk to somebody locally because I don’t know what to do. I think that’s the case for many people still.

I’m just curious: are there any plans for closing any of the gateway visitor centres or divesting them or giving them to somebody else? I’m thinking of Peach Arch, Golden, Mount Robson, Osoyoos.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite — certainly, his participation at a visitor centre is not at all uncommon. I don’t think it’s a generational thing; I think it’s people’s travel pattern. The way they manage their travel is very different today.

We are seeing the number of visits drop quite dramatically in some places in terms of the actual visitor centre and what goes on at the visitor centre. We originally did…. Marsha and I have had many discussions about the utilization of visitor centres.

There will not be arbitrary closures of visitor centres. But are there discussions going on with communities about the use of a visitor centre? Absolutely there are. One of the things that I’ve said to Destination B.C., to Marsha, is that we want to understand what communities think about their visitor centre and how it can best be utilized. We have seen pilot projects where rather than having a static visitor centre, we have roaming ambassadors or pop-up visitor centres or mobile ones.

In terms of the infrastructure, we made it very clear that we were not going to close them arbitrarily. But I have encouraged Marsha and her team to discuss with communities, with potential partners: what does it look like today? What could it look like? How do we have, I think, a thoughtful discussion about that?

[1520]

I should say that we did close one that was considered a visitor centre. It was at YVR. YVR is exceptional at what they do in terms of customer service, and that’s really what was happening there. I was in another large Canadian city recently. Their visitor centre was completely absent of people the whole time I was there. I think we saw there an evolution of that service, that we could partner with YVR.

To the member opposite: there will be no arbitrary closures. There could be evolution, there could be partnerships, but it will be done with a community-by-community approach, in discussion, looking for what we hope would be a better, more relevant model for today.

S. Chandra Herbert: Are there any visitor centres that the minister could list specifically now that are looking at having a change in the next year, whether it’s termed as an evolution or…? I guess maybe the physical building could close, but something else might happen.

Hon. S. Bond: I just wanted to double-check that I was correct. We’ve obviously discussed this file a number of times.

Three that come to mind where evolution, or some discussion at least…. One of them is at Mount Robson. I’m obviously pretty biased about that one. I love it. It’s an amazing place — a creative way, I think, of making sure we keep visitor services there. We now have an MOU with Parks to provide some of the information so that we actually have a partnership in the Mount Robson Park visitor centre. So a new management model there, but the services will still be provided.

The other two communities that have wanted to engage in a discussion are Golden and Merritt — again, preliminary. Certainly, I don’t anticipate closures, but those are where there may be some active discussions going on. In the case of Golden, for example, they came to us and said: “We’d like to think about where it’s located and how it works. What do we do?” I think those are important discussions.

As to the others, at the moment, there are no active change discussions going on. But I am acutely aware of the numbers that are continuing to drop. I don’t think it’s an issue that we can simply suggest there will never be change. The way people do their travel these days, things are changing. We’ve got to think of how we see services evolve, not disappear.
[ Page 12724 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ve seen it variously reported that through changes made at Destination B.C., there has been a savings of about $4 million, which can then be dedicated directly to advertising. But just looking through the budget, it looks like — this is 2014 to 2015 — advertising has gone up about 14 percent, salaries and wages 14 percent, professional services 14 percent and travel 25 percent.

I just wondered if the minister had any thoughts about that. I had thought that doing various things like selling the British Columbia Magazine — the Beautiful British Columbia magazine — and other things like that were all directly related to just putting more money into marketing. But it doesn’t look like the vast majority of that money has gone to marketing.

[1525]

Hon. S. Bond: We actually can’t line up DBC’s budget to the numbers that the member has provided. I’d be happy to receive something from him. We’ll walk through that and look at the numbers. What I can tell him is that, in fact, travel and staff counts are both down. They’ve actually been reduced.

The $4 million, since the commitment was made, is not necessarily going into ads. It’s gone into the marketing budget. We are spending $4 million more on marketing. That money is going into marketing — not all of it specifically to ads.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, we can follow it up. The source that I was using was the Destination B.C. annual report 2014-15, and comparing it to the previous year, I guess — 2013-14 — where I saw those increases.

Now, listening to the minister’s answers, I could see the case made that “professional services” could be determined to be part of advertising and marketing — or, I guess, marketing, rather than just advertising. I certainly would be interested in just a better understanding because, at least from the numbers that I pulled, it looked like there’d been sizeable increases in a couple of other areas. That would be helpful to understand in a better way.

One of the important things around an organization like Destination B.C., of course, is industry stakeholder satisfaction — making sure they’re happy with their marketer. I understand that under the previous Tourism B.C., the actual industry stakeholder satisfaction was about 7.9 at the last measurement, at that time. I’m curious as to why the targets for industry stakeholder satisfaction are so much lower than what was accomplished by Tourism B.C. Instead of 7.9, we’re down to 6.6.

[1530]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: That is actually a good question, because we need to explain why the number is lower. I’m a person who believes in stretch targets, and I would rather see them go higher than lower. Marsha is correct. The Tourism B.C. organization precedes both Marsha and me, so I can’t speak to the methodology of the number that was reflected there.

What Destination B.C. did was they actually measured the satisfaction rates of six different partners or stakeholders. Businesses would be one. Destination marketing, other destination marketing organizations…. There are six separate groups whose satisfaction they measured. What they did, in terms of the target that was set, was take the one that is most challenging.

The reason that the target is lower than the one that was included previously is that they chose the group that has the lowest satisfaction — the toughest one, from their perspective, to actually move up the dial — and made that their target, because it’s a really tough one for them to move up. The understanding is that the other partners have a higher degree of satisfaction already, so they took the more challenging one, used that and set a relevant target for that group as their challenge to tackle.

S. Chandra Herbert: It was an interesting comparison. At least, my understanding is there were six groups, and quite possibly, it’s the same groups that the minister referred to. Boards of directors, DMOs, RDMO sector, primary sector associations, travel trade, delivery organizations and businesses were the ones that Tourism B.C. used to look at.

If it’s helpful, I can provide that information, but I know in the Tourism B.C./Destination B.C. archives, vaults, there’ll be more than enough information about where it was at, I think, up till about 2008.

If it’s possible, I really would be interested. I know they’re not directly the same. But looking at the calculations, I had some help with folks who know how these were measured, and they compared them to how DBC is measuring them now. Their suggestion was that the equivalent would be 7.9 out of ten. That would be where it was at in 2008.

[1535]

I know that in the intervening years, the confidence in Tourism B.C. was battered to an extent, as it was brought in-house, so it’s possible that the figures we’re looking at are from a lack of satisfaction as opposed to when the folks were really excited and really engaged with the organization.

I would encourage the minister to look back at pre-bringing Tourism B.C. in-house — to those figures — because I think we can have an industry much, much more satisfied with their marketer. I would encourage a stretch goal back to when it was even more positive than previously.

I want to move on to a few other areas. If I run out of time, as there’s only so much time in estimates, I may read a number of questions into the record. We’re not there yet.
[ Page 12725 ]

I’ve been speaking with the B-and-B guild, the bed-and-breakfast guild. I talked to the Lodging and Campgrounds Association. I talked with TIACBC and Walt Judas and quite a few people. One of the key things that they raised with me as a problem and as a challenge to the tourism industry in B.C. is Airbnb. Not taxed. Not regulated.

Here in Victoria I’ve talked to Tourism Victoria. They think that there’s a need for a new hotel here, but it’s hard to convince hoteliers to invest if there’s an unregulated hotel market not paying taxes in a city like this.

I’m very curious what actions the government is taking to try and deal with this issue. It’s a big problem in Whistler. Big problem in Tofino. A challenge, as I mentioned, in Victoria. In Vancouver, we’re having real challenges with housing affordability, in part because of Airbnb, even though it’s illegal, technically, in Vancouver under the bylaw.

Can the minister inform me what action she’s taking to deal with this challenge?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly the emergence of the shared economy and the issue that that brings to governments like ours is a relevant one. People like to make choices and they like to have choices.

Obviously, there are tax implications here, and that’s also important from a taxpayer and government perspective. I have asked my staff some time ago to look at the impacts of Airbnb. I obviously have met with stakeholders as well. They do bring this issue up, usually in the context of concern about accommodation for a workforce. That is really how it comes forward.

All of them, I think, understand competition. The key issue is a level playing field for them. But I think, as the member correctly points out, much of it is about “where do I accommodate my workforce?” in communities like Tofino or Whistler.

My staff is currently just looking at bringing me the information in a thorough way around the impacts of Airbnb. What are the challenges? What are the options available to government? That work is underway.

S. Chandra Herbert: What is the timeline for that work?

[1540]

Hon. S. Bond: I would expect that probably within the next month or two, I will get the information back. Anything, of course, that we think about when it comes to the shared economy, especially Airbnb in my case, would need to be done in partnership, obviously, with the Minister of Finance. It really is the taxation issue that most concerns people, because of the level playing field issue.

I think it’s a very relevant question. It’s an issue that…. I’m interested in discovering what the actual impacts are. I think all of us are also believers in choice. It goes back to our earlier discussion. People do tourism differently today. They book their own accommodation; they find their own flights. They do all of those things. I think the shared economy is a current and relevant issue. I look forward to the information, probably within the next month or two.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate that. I think the call for action is strong. I hear from B-and-B owners — not Airbnb owners but B-and-B owners — who went through the regulations, dealt with the government, paid their taxes, invested a lot of money in their business and are finding that somebody sets up next to them, pays no taxes, does no regulations and flouts the law in a number of cases, and everybody turns a blind eye. So their business….

They’re good, hard-working people. They’re getting penalized for following the law. They’re being undercut by people who are breaking the law. I know that it’s popular to call it the sharing economy, but it doesn’t sound a lot like sharing to me if somebody’s taking and not giving anything back.

Yes, it’s nice for us as visitors to have a choice to stay in a nice accommodation, but if you’re choosing to stay in a place where they’re not paying taxes or following the rules and not staying in somebody’s home or a B-and-B where they are, that’s not sharing to me. I think we need to act. You know, the app is great — being able to go on line, being able to search and all those kinds of things. But you can do that for B-and-B owners, who are following the rules, right now.

I’m not suggesting that this should end and that Airbnb should just disappear — or VRBO or any of these other style of things — but we’ve got to get a handle on it. Good business people are finding their small businesses under threat from people who are not operating businesses, technically, because they don’t have a business licence, and they’re not following the laws and not paying taxes.

I would urge the minister to get active on this soon. I’m happy to hear a report is coming in a month or so to her desk and that it will take some action with the Finance Minister. But there are people who are saying to me: “Why should I bother following British Columbia law at all, if you can do this kind of activity and there are no penalties? You make profit without paying any taxes.” I understand that frustration.

It’s surprising to me it’s taken this long for it to become such a big issue. But the minister is absolutely right. It’s a workforce housing issue. It’s a fairness issue. In my community, it’s about low vacancy rates, people not being able to find rental housing. They might not work in the tourism sector. They just want rental housing. If somebody can make a couple hundred bucks a night renting out a suite on Airbnb, that housing is being taken out of the rental pool, and we’ve got a rental housing crisis as it is.
[ Page 12726 ]

Is the minister able to share, would she be willing to share with me in a proactive way, a survey of the scene that her staff are doing of best practices in other jurisdictions? I don’t need the recommendations. That, of course, is up to her — what she wants to do with it. But it would be helpful, as the opposition critic or advocate, to be able to have the same access to that good-quality information.

[1545]

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to be careful. I’m not expecting a big report with a pile of recommendations. I’m happy to arrange for a briefing with the member to walk through the work that our staff does.

I’ve certainly met with the same stakeholders. All of them have understood the need for government to take a bit of time to sort through what the implications are, and that work is underway.

S. Chandra Herbert: A question, just coming back to B.C. Magazine. I love that magazine. I’m a subscriber. I know now it’s being published by a company, I think, in my constituency. I’m curious: what was the value — what it sold for? What were the proceeds to government or DBC, and who owns the back catalogue of that magazine?

[1550]

Hon. S. Bond: Destination B.C., in many ways, made a difficult decision. The magazine is valued by a certain percentage of the population. It was very expensive to publish. They were able to sell the magazine. It included all aspects, by the way. Future sales, catalogue — all of that — went with it. The decision was to use what is a generally accepted practice in the industry, which is to look at future value of subscriptions. The revenue that was generated and that Destination B.C. received from that was $875,000.

S. Chandra Herbert: My understanding was that the subsidy to support the magazine was around $100,000. Is that correct? Was it a loss-leader in a sense? Or was it actually breaking even and then some?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. I do not have the amount of the subsidy over the years. Actually, in this year’s estimates, there is no subsidy, because we don’t have the magazine. But the member is correct. There were at times a range of subsidies. I think the thing we were sort of reminiscing about was that in its heyday it was an amazing contributor. There is still a very loyal following. I think the big concern that we had — Destination B.C. did come and talk to me about this — was that we wanted to give the magazine life.

[1555]

Yes, there was a subsidy. There is no longer. I think Destination B.C. turned to My Passion Media because they’re very good at what they do. They have capacity. They have scale. So it was, I think, a very nice fit for them, and it did remove that subsidization of a product which, in its prime, was excellent. But I think that was a prudent move. I think it will continue to have life. And yes, there were subsidies.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m glad that it still lives on. Certainly, it does bring in visitor traffic from across the globe. Even at a subsidy rate, that, effectively, was buying advertising, in a sense. I know that’s why the government continued to do that, because it did bring business to B.C.

This is the important question. It’s a question I’ve been asking for years and years and years, back to when I was the Tourism critic and Tourism B.C. was blown up and brought into government and then brought back out to become Destination B.C.

I know it was supposed to happen in 2014, and it’s now 2016. Will we be seeing formula funding this year or next year for Destination B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite: the work continues. I know that he will eagerly canvass this question with the Minister of Finance.

From my perspective, it is important work. It is something that we had a conversation about. I do want to, though, on the record, remind people. I know that whenever I meet with the stakeholders, this is the part of the discussion they are not really that comfortable about.

There was, obviously, a discussion about the funding formula. It was also…. The caveat that was added in that commitment was that the move will not impact government’s fiscal plan. There has always been a caveat. But I can assure the member opposite that I am in regular discussion with the Ministry of Finance about the importance and the previous discussion about this matter, so it will best be canvassed with the Minister of Finance.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just so that I can understand the caveat of “it will not impact the government’s fiscal plan,” is that a suggestion, then, that basically, we can have formula funding as long as it doesn’t go above the amount of money that’s currently being dedicated to tourism marketing?

For me, the argument for formula funding has always been that, yes, it does come up, and it does go down periodically. But if you’re doing well and you’re doing your job well, we’re going to get more resources so that we can continue to grow the sector. Is that what the minister means by not impacting the fiscal plan?

Hon. S. Bond: The member’s observations are correct. Obviously, it’s based on a percentage of annual sales tax activity. If it goes up, it goes up. If it goes down, it goes down.

I’ll just read the quote so that we’re clear here. “For the first year of operations, the Crown corporation will receive full funding that government has used for tourism
[ Page 12727 ]
marketing. After that, funding will be based on a percentage of annual sales tax activity. This move will not impact government’s fiscal plan.”

[1600]

Again, that work is underway, ongoing. I know that the member has brought this up, and I respect that. There has been no resolution. That work continues.

S. Chandra Herbert: I will certainly canvass it with the Minister of Finance. It just seems a little confusing to me that, in one breath, we’re saying we will go to a percentage of annual sales tax activity, but in another, saying that it can’t impact the fiscal plan.

Basically, it seems like what I’m hearing is that it will be flat at this amount of money, as what we have now. If they make more money, that money goes back into government general revenue. But if they make less money, then the marketing budget gets cut. It doesn’t sound like it makes much sense to me, but I would certainly follow that up with the Minister of Finance.

If that’s not the correct characterization, I apologize. I would certainly ask the minister to help me understand it better, if that’s not the correct characterization of how it is to work.

I’m going to move on to the Mid-Coast B.C. Ferry Working Group — a group of organizations, First Nations leadership, tourism leaders, who came out with quite a list of specific things that could be done to help in the midcoast area to grow tourism. Obviously, aboriginal tourism in B.C. is a success story. Huge growth. I know that the minister met with a number of the representatives.

I want to understand, if the minister will help me understand — lots of understanding required here today. If the minister might help me with what she is planning to do in response to the organization’s number of arguments, whether or not it be about ferries, whether or not it be about marketing, etc. If she can help me understand where she’s going in response to their report.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to commend this group. I know that, certainly, they have faced some challenges in terms of the transportation issues that they have faced. They’ve done some really, really great work.

I met with them, and I was very enthused by some of the concepts they have for First Nations tourism. One thing we do know is that aboriginal tourism is the fastest-growing component of tourism, and we want to be supportive of that. I think what’s critical to me is that we are supportive of much of the work that’s been done. We were very positive about the tourism vision that they have for the region, and we want to continue to support the working group. I’ve made that clear to them.

Destination B.C. is committed to making sure that the Bella Coola Highway 20 corridor will be one of the first planning areas in the destination development program. We’re very pleased about that. That program will roll out this summer. Destination B.C. is also very prepared to facilitate planning and a number of other things to work alongside them. I’ve also agreed to make sure that they are able to continue to work together, to support that part of their process.

We work collaboratively with the minister and his Ministry of Transportation. They are also part of this. I think we’ve made it very clear to the group that there will be a new ferry. Obviously, it’s going to be a much larger vessel, and there will be significant capacity increases compared to the original ferry.

However, my role in this working group is to facilitate the discussion about the tourism vision. It will need to be based on the new ferry capacity. I think that the most challenging discussion is around the resumption of the route. We’ve had those discussions. We need them to now concentrate on what is possible with the new ferry and also look at working with Destination B.C.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I found the report really refreshing, in that it involved many different stakeholders. I know that Chief Slett and others have worked very hard on it.

[1605]

Of course, the ferry is a pretty key part of that. We can do all the best product development in the world, but if you can’t get there, as we were talking about earlier in reference to airlift, you can’t get there. That’s been a huge challenge. Aboriginal tourism has grown so much faster in other parts of B.C. than in this region due to, really, the ability to get there.

I encourage the minister to continue on. I know she will, and hopefully, we can convince the Minister of Transportation and his ministry to provide better access to that region than they have now — much better access to that region.

I wanted to ask a few questions here. What is the annual turnover rate for employees in Destination B.C., and why wasn’t it included as a performance measure for the organization?

Hon. S. Bond: The turnover rate is 7 percent. It certainly is a mix of very-long-term employees, and there have recently been some retirements, so there’s a healthy refreshing going on there. But specifically to the member’s question, the turnover rate is 7 percent.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand the previous turnover rate had been about 3.5 percent, a few years back. I understand that there are retirements and so forth, but it’s just something I think we need to watch. There was a lot of great wisdom in Destination B.C., what was Tourism B.C. I’m hopeful that we will have many long-term employees and can drive that number down, because 7 percent compared to 3.5 percent matters in terms of longevity and keeping the history of an organization, for sure.
[ Page 12728 ]

The resort municipality program. I understand “wraps up” might not be the correct term, but in 2017 it’s either up for review or…. Any thoughts in terms of: will that program be extended? What is the minister planning?

Hon. S. Bond: We’re very proud of the outcomes of the RMI program and obviously of the communities engaged in that program. It is a very critical program. There certainly were discussions about the funding for that program. It has settled out to be just over $10 million a year. It is a capped fund. Actually, I think the participants have been pleased that at least there is a fund, so that’s a good thing.

I did extend the program to the end of 2017, making sure there’s certainty. In the meantime, I asked the communities to actually have a discussion about: how does RMI benefit them now? What are the strengths of the program? What are the challenges?

My commitment is to look very carefully at the future of the RMI program. I know it’s provided valuable…. It has made a big difference, especially in the shoulder seasons. The member would know that so well. We want to see our resorts operating year-round where that’s possible, and we’ve seen such great work in places like Tofino, Valemount, Sun Peaks and certainly Whistler, which obviously needs to compete with the best in the United States.

I can assure the member opposite that I do recognize the value, the merit, of the program. I think we’re in a state of certainty at the moment, until the end of 2017. I’ve asked them to go away, to have a look, have some conversation, come back and tell me about the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Then I will certainly give careful thought to what a future program might look like.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m going to move over to Creative B.C., film work, at this point. When we wrap, I will list a few other questions I haven’t got to on the tourism side, if that’s all right. I see the critic in the room, and I’ve got to get moving.

[1610]

I’m curious. Creative B.C. — obviously a fairly small budget in comparison to the Ontario Media Development Corporation, which I think would probably be the best example of that similar style of organization. I’ve often argued that we need to invest more in terms of the domestic film and TV sector. It’s doing well right now, but I think when you compare the size of our industry on the domestic, indigenous side compared to Ontario…. We’re minuscule compared to what Ontario does in that field. If the dollar rises, my concern is that we may be back to the days of Save B.C. Film, of thousands of people out of work, companies picking up and moving to Ontario, as occurred in that time.

One thing they told me then and continue to tell me now in the film and TV world is we need a stronger domestic sector, because that can anchor a lot more activity here. I’m wondering what sort of supports the minister might be considering to grow the domestic sector. I think, whether it be the tax credit, whether or not it be direct investment in Creative B.C., as we used to have…. The budget is actually less in Creative B.C. for local film development than it was back in 2008, I believe, or 2005, and, of course, that’s not even considering inflation.

So I think that sector has to grow, and I’d be curious what the minister is doing to support that.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, it’s timely that we have the Chair that we have at the moment, because I want to thank the Chair for her hard work and her advocacy and help in understanding and looking at the creative economy in British Columbia. She’s done a great job — a great partner.

I think the strongest message that I can give the member opposite is that we did not impact the domestic basic credit. It’s at 33 percent. And I have every confidence that we won’t return to a campaign to save film in British Columbia, because every single studio is operating at full capacity. We have an incredibly talented workforce. We have changed the way that we relate to the creative sector in our government.

One of the things that I am very proud of is that the creative sector was moved into the economic ministry. I think that’s exactly where it needs to be. The areas like tourism and technology and the creative sector are actually driving the economy of British Columbia at a time when global commodity prices are a challenge for us.

Creative B.C. has laid out a five-year strategy, in essence, to look at how we grow and support the B.C. creative industry, including film and digital and animation, all of those things that really matter, but also the music industry. Looking at book publishing…. I’m a big supporter of the great publishers we have. In fact, tonight, I think, Orca Books is releasing its new children’s releases for the year. I’m excited about that, as a grandma who purchases lots of them. So I’m looking forward to that.

[1615]

I want to assure the member opposite that I think there’s been a significant degree of work to, first of all, better understand the industry. One of the most important compliments that we received, in a difficult decision to reduce the foreign tax credit — and, of course, DAVE, slightly — was the fact that we sat down with the industry in a meaningful way and really spent a lot of time. I give a great deal of credit to the staff that were engaged in that process to understand the industry.

I think there is a general view that the industry will remain competitive. The most important signal to the domestic production is the fact that we did not touch the basic credit.

S. Chandra Herbert: Certainly, I can understand that right now, with the dollar being where it’s at, we’re not
[ Page 12729 ]
going to see a mass migration. I think the reality, though, is that neither the minister nor myself control the dollar. Certainly, the conversations that I’ve had with producers, and I would imagine the minister has as well, as the Chair has as well…. If the dollar goes up, people start looking elsewhere. They like our crews. They like our locations and all those things. When you’re looking at the difference between saving a couple million dollars in one jurisdiction versus another where you don’t, sometimes the decisions mean they go elsewhere.

I would say that I don’t think that we have solved the problem of that issue, nor do I see that we’ve really dealt with the issue of the domestic sector yet. I’ll leave it at that.

I do want to ask why the creative economy strategy was not produced from this ministry but was produced pretty much…. I think it was a two-page document — big, glossy pictures and a really large font. That was the creative economy strategy released by this government but not by this minister.

Why was the decision made not to produce a creative economy strategy out of this ministry?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the connection that I have to that is that, obviously, I’m the economic minister, and I have a role to play in terms of the creative economy. We share the work with the minister who is responsible for cultural development. One of the things that I’m very interested in is making sure that the creative economy is considered in the event-type structure, which is more in the mandate of the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

It’s a cross-ministry effort. I rely on the expertise of Creative B.C. to actually drive the agenda. As a government, we invest over $2 million in Creative B.C. In fact, we’ve now deposited with them to manage a music fund of $15 million. So I think it is a cross-government initiative, and certainly when you have cultural development in your title, that is a connection to the creative industry.

I just recently have reviewed with the CEO of Creative B.C. their strategy for the next five years, talked about the things that I think are important, endorsed the directions that are being taken there. I think there is some very good work being done. But in government, dealing with the creative industry is not solely my responsibility. It’s a joint effort. My job is to focus on the job creation, skills training and the economic side of that.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister, I would hope, would agree that it is a little confusing that the Cultural Development Minister created the creative economy plan, while the minister who is responsible for the creative economy did not create that plan. It’s a two-page document. I don’t think anybody could really call it a strategy. It’s some rhetoric without a baseline of how we’re going to grow, from where to where. It does not really include the film and TV world, which is such a vital part of the creative economy.

[1620]

While I’m glad that Creative B.C. has its plan, what I don’t understand is why we don’t have one cross-government plan that involves the minister and her ministry, which is very important, of course, in the economic side of this question — and the Cultural Development Minister on the cultural development side. It’s about two pages.

When I asked the Minister of Cultural Development about it, I said: “There’s discussion about how we want to grow the sector.” The minister couldn’t tell me: grow from where? What is the baseline? How do we tell if the strategy is a success? There are no baselines in the strategy to show where we need to get by when. There’s no sense of if we’ll even know if this is a success. It’s broad on rhetoric and not on facts or real baselines that can be measured.

I wonder if the minister might consider working with her colleague, working with Creative B.C., to bring those different visions together into one place, one real strategy that could be worthy of that name.

Hon. S. Bond: I didn’t want to misrepresent to the member opposite. Obviously, I partner with the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. I think it’s important that we work across ministries to find the best way to bring support to the creative industry.

I think the best outcomes are the fact that today in this province the film industry is working at full capacity. We’ve just created a music fund with $15 million that is going to support B.C. artists and look at development of an even more flourishing economy from that perspective. We’re seeing technology in gaming and digital animation. All of those things, absolutely, are actually showing a great deal of success.

I think our government has paid a great deal of attention to the creative industry. I think we’ve included it in our jobs plan, in fact. That’s how important it is. We know that the key to success for jurisdictions today is having a diverse economy. My job is to look at how we grow the economy and train the workforce necessary. I couldn’t be more excited about the future of the creative industry in our province. I’ve learned a lot, and I’m grateful for the great teachers that I’ve had in the sector.

I take the member’s comments. I know they’re sincere, and I know how much he cares about the sector. I can assure you that we’re going to continue to find ways to knit the strategies together to ensure that the sector grows and receives the credit that it deserves here in the province.

S. Chandra Herbert: When we talk about the $15 million for music, I just wonder if the minister might be able to share where that request came from and what the business case was to decide to make the $15 million decision to fund that program.

[1625]

Hon. S. Bond: We’re very excited about the potential of the music fund. I think the member might be aware that there has been a substantive discussion with Music Canada, and that’s where the recommendation came from. In fact, I’m very confident in saying that the recommendation was for a much larger sum of money than $15 million.

I think when we looked at the potential for the return on investment…. When you invest $15 million, what will that do for British Columbia? The Music Canada report came forward. Many of us met with representatives of Music Canada to talk about how, from my perspective, it could help drive the economy, create jobs and support a flourishing industry.

The decision was made. As I said, I’m sure there are people who would’ve loved to have seen a much larger sum of money, but it was based on the recommendation brought to us by Music Canada. Our decision was to create a fund with $15 million to be distributed — obviously, administered through Creative B.C. I’ve already had discussions with Creative B.C. about the next steps in moving the fund forward.

It’s important to me that we start to take action, based on four major principles: supporting increased activity in the music sector, diversifying our economy by stimulating foreign direct investment, enhancing music tourism and supporting job creation and retention in the creative sector — all things that are relevant to my ministry. The initiative came to us as a result of a February 2016 Music Canada report.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m trying to understand. February 2016, the report came. The budget, of course, was already in the bag. That’s why the $15 million doesn’t appear in any of the service plans. Where did the $15 million come from?

Hon. S. Bond: The money came as an approval out of contingencies. When the report was presented to us, there was a view that it was critical that we be more competitive with the Ontario circumstance. As I said, I think many people view our contribution as modest. We view it as very significant. We were able to approve and move that forward, and I think it’s going to show great support, particularly for B.C. artists.

[1630]

S. Chandra Herbert: Just so that I understand, the report was made public in February. I know there was a public…. Maybe it was Michael Bublé or Bryan Adams — I can’t remember — who was at the event the Premier was at where the report was made public. When did the government first get a copy of the report? I know the minister has said it kind of sprang from the February 2016 report. But surely the decision couldn’t have been made right that moment at the press conference.

Hon. S. Bond: I don’t have the specific date we received the report. Music Canada was in discussions with many ministers. I met on numerous occasions to talk about the importance of this industry, to talk about the importance of this sector in particular. The good news is we announced a music fund of $15 million. I think it’s going to have incredible benefit for the province.

[S. Hamilton in the chair.]

S. Chandra Herbert: Is it possible for the minister to provide some of the background documents which led to the decision to fund the $15 million? I only ask that because I know the report was made public in February, but it seemed to be very quickly decided to do this, at least in that sense that it wasn’t in the budget. It would help me to understand the decision-making process on spending the money.

Of course, we, in the estimates process, need to know that the money was spent for the right reasons, that there was good work done to decide whether or not this should be how it was spent. If she can help me understand or get me the documents which led to the decision…. I’d also ask if she might be able to provide me with a timeline of the decision. When did she as minister decide that this was the correct area to put the money?

Hon. S. Bond: It’s rare in this House that we’re ever accused of doing things too quickly, so it’s a refreshing change. The decision was based on the document that was provided to us and the recommendations by Music Canada. The return on investment…. The opportunity that came before this government to support B.C. artists was one that we welcomed and seized the opportunity to do that.

So yes, it was a very quick turnaround. I’m very pleased that it was. I think the information provided to us…. The most compelling thing for me, as the economic minister, is I want to be competitive with Ontario. I want to make sure that B.C. artists have a chance to be able to succeed here in the province like so many of the fantastic artists that we have.

As I said, the report came to government, and in addition to that, there were meetings with a variety of people. Music Canada was not shy about making sure that people in British Columbia, including mayors and others, knew about the importance of focusing on the music industry. As I said to the member opposite, we used the document as an opportunity to look at where we could invest in a significant way. The announcement was made, and the fund has now been started at Creative B.C.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just to be clear, there were meetings with the minister from Music Canada, just talking about ways that they could support the music industry. But the minister made the decision based on the report
[ Page 12731 ]
that was provided to the government is what I’m understanding.

Hon. S. Bond: I think, as I’ve made clear several times here, that our job as a government and mine as a minister is to look for opportunities and places we can grow the economy and create jobs in the province. I saw this as a perfect opportunity to be supportive. Obviously, my colleagues shared that view. It’s not a decision I make by myself unilaterally. After discussion, consultation, discussions with stakeholders and others, the decision was made to support the music industry in this province.

S. Chandra Herbert: I was glad to see a decision to support the music industry. I think the concern that I had and that I continue to have is making sure the money is well spent and making sure that it’s not just going to fund activities that are already going on but that it’s actually going to allow the sector to grow in a sustainable way. Certainly, I’m sure the minister and, I know, Creative B.C. have received many questions about where the money is going and how we will judge it a success.

I have to wrap the estimates process at this point on these files. I know my colleague has been very patient with me. But I just wondered if, after this, the minister might — either through a briefing or, ideally, in writing — be able to share what will be…. Is there a review after this money was spent to understand: did it grow?

[1635]

How are we going to judge whether spending $15 million, which I know for some might not be enough, but for British Columbians is a lot of money…? Compared to the minuscule budget of Creative B.C., it kind of dwarfs the budget of Creative B.C. in a big way. I’m just wondering what the process will be. I don’t need that answer now.

I do want to thank the minister and her staff for their time today on tourism and on creative economy, both files that are very near and dear to my heart. I will continue to work in the best way I know how, collaboratively on behalf of the New Democrat caucus, to grow those sectors in B.C.’s economy and in our communities. Thank you to the minister.

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to thank our CEO of Destination B.C. in particular, Marsha Walden, for her really great work and for her leadership in this file. We’re doing some fantastic things, and the world is noticing. I’m really proud of that.

I do want to comment on the final point. I, too, want to be sure that $15 million of taxpayers’ money is wisely invested. I think that making sure that Creative B.C. is making those decisions…. It won’t be me who decides how that money is spent. How it will be spent, though, is really important, and the four principles were laid out for the public to understand. I know that Prem Gill, the CEO, is very conscious of the need to have targets in place, measurements and metrics so that we can have a baseline and demonstrate growth in the industry.

I do appreciate the member’s interest in these files. I know that it’s very personal for him. I do thank my staff for their support today. But I do thank the member for his thoughtful questions today.

S. Simpson: Thanks to the minister. We are going to go into some questions now around skills training and ITA and performance and those areas for the next little bit of time. If we’re doing a shuffle here, we’ll wait for the shuffle to happen before we get started.

I just want to get into some questions at this point around the ITA and around performance and how some of that’s going. We are going to have limited time this afternoon and about an hour tomorrow morning, so we’re on a bit of a tight timeline. We’re going to get down to some of the stuff that we want to talk about. I’ll keep the questions down if the minister keeps the answers down.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: It has more to do with when the Chair turns. But that’s another story.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: You’re doing well, Minister.

I’m interested in the performance around the ITA. I’m looking at the performance measurement report updated to December 31, 2015. Could the minister tell us a little bit…?

A couple of numbers here kind of jump out at me. I see that in terms of industry engagement, employer sponsorship or apprentices, the numbers stay pretty consistent, around the 10,000 mark. They were up a little bit for the 2015-2016 service plan target. Year to date results show that they are kind of getting close, and they may or may not have made that in the last little bit. They were looking for 10,500 and came in about 10,057.

One of the things that jumps out at me a little bit, though, is that it says, on goal 2: “Align funding for apprenticeship training investments and services to meet labour market needs and jobs in demand.” It then says “the number of credentials issued.” Maybe the minister can explain this. It seems like the numbers…. When I look through the previous years, it’s 8,000, 7,000, 7,500, and then the projection for ’15-16 was, again, about 7,500. But the year to date showed at about 5,800, a little less than 5,900.

[1640]

That seems like that’s a bit of a jump to get it back in consistent with what looks like fairly flat numbers for a few years. Can the minister talk about, maybe, where that number ended up, if she’s aware of that, for the end
[ Page 12732 ]
of the fiscal year? Was that a decrease for some reason in that particular year?

Hon. S. Bond: The Chair spun very quickly there. All right.

The member opposite’s numbers reflect…. We report out quarterly, so that would have been the number to December 31.

Though the numbers are not published yet, I can assure the member opposite that when we get to March 31, those numbers will soon be published. The number of credentials issued is actually 7,640, and it exceeds their target of 7,500.

S. Simpson: When I go to the report and go to the next page, which is new apprentice registrations, and look at the list, I see that for fiscals 2012-13, ’13-14, ’14-15, they ran 15,400, 15,600 — pretty consistent, all kind of in the mid-15,000-plus range.

Then I look down through the list through December 2015, which would be three-quarters of the year. It’s just under 10,000. But I look at those numbers, and I see that they tended to be about 1,100 or so a month. That was about the number, 1,000 to 1,100 — a little bit more, a little bit less — in each of the months.

If I assume that that stays consistent through January, February and March to get to the end of the fiscal year, you end up with a number that looks a lot more like about 12,000, 12,600 or maybe 13,000 at best, a couple of thousand — 2,000, 2,500 — lower than what’s been the last three years, if that’s consistent. Maybe it wasn’t. Maybe there was a spike in January, February or March. But if I extrapolate that out based on the monthly numbers that we see in the monthly totals and, let’s say, add three months that are in that same ballpark — maybe 3,500 or so to the list — the numbers come out a couple of thousand lower.

Is that accurate? Is there any explanation why the registrations would be down?

Hon. S. Bond: Registrations are down. That is obviously a concern to us.

The greatest link is to the commodity cycle that we are facing. There are fewer apprentices being registered, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to figure out why that would be the case. The number — I can give the member opposite — at the end of March was 13,240.

S. Simpson: I see, too, when I go back and I look at other measurements here around completion rates…. I know a lot of work has been done on that, and the ITA has done a lot of work. Again, when I look at the numbers around completion rates in the performance indicators, it shows at about 38 percent for the current year to date, which is up a little bit over what had been about 33 percent numbers for the last three years.

[1645]

Could the minister talk about that number a little bit — her feelings about 38 percent completion and about how we get that number up? It does seem to me that we can’t be satisfied with 38 percent. I’m sure everybody wants to get this up well over 50. So if the minister could talk about that and about what her expectations or approaches are to begin to raise that number for completions.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite would be correct about the fact that it’s not just British Columbia; it’s across the country where we all need to work together. It’s one of the issues we bring up when we meet nationally. We do need to improve completion rates. There’s absolutely no doubt about that in my mind. It’s been something that we’ve spent a lot of time discussing.

We’re doing a number of things. First and foremost, we want to make sure that we give students more options and preparation as they work their way through foundation courses so that when they finally get to be in the apprenticeship stream, they are better prepared and more convinced that that’s a particular outcome they want — to complete apprenticeship.

We’ve just, for example, announced a series of integrated youth training programs to try to improve the flow of students into the program and to try to increase the completion rates.

I’ve also asked the ITA to look at innovation and how apprenticeship training takes place. We’ve seen some very impressive models. When you look at projects like Rio Tinto and others, you see that people who are working on a jobsite are there for a long period of time. They might as well be doing some of their apprenticeship study at the same time.

We’re looking at innovation. How do we improve and make more relevant the actual training processes? How do we encourage young people to participate but give them a sense of experience before they simply jump into the apprenticeship stream?

I can tell you that the completion rates, as we speak, are higher. They’re at 40 percent. Now, that is not something I…. I think that there’s room for improvement. That’s a fairly obvious statement.

I think there are a number of things we need to do. I think those actions are underway, but I do want to put it in the context that it’s not just British Columbia that wants to see improvement; it is an issue that other jurisdictions face as well.

S. Simpson: I know there are some challenges around placements and around how people move forward. We’ll get to talk a little bit about that.

My understanding is the latest service plan of the ITA showed that about 56 percent of the folks who complete their foundation program enter into an apprenticeship. I’m happy to be corrected here. Somewhere between that 56 percent who go in and…. The minister says about 40
[ Page 12733 ]
percent is the completion rate. I think she said in her answer that’s where the completion rate is now around apprenticeships.

Has there been an assessment of what happens to that other fairly big block of people who move on? I think there are about 39,000-or-so people in the system right now, give or take. That’s a pretty significant block. What’s happening to that 15 percent or 16 percent of people who are moving from foundation into an apprenticeship and yet somehow not getting to completion?

[1650]

Hon. S. Bond: As much as we want to make this expeditious, these are complicated numbers and a complicated system. The bottom line is that we see 56 percent of students completing a foundation program moving into apprenticeship. First of all, that’s an issue in and of itself — why are there not more moving on? — and we look at those things.

When you get to apprenticeship completion, the fact of the matter is that there are students who opt out after they are partway through, or secondly, they actually go to work. They don’t complete the apprenticeship. They take their foundation program, and eventually they get a job offer, and they go to work. Those are two of the factors that influence the completion rates.

S. Simpson: One of my further questions was going to be — and it will come in a second — about: how come only 56 percent of the people who complete the foundations end up in some form of apprenticeship — and what the thinking is there?

Going back to follow up on the question that I asked…. So 38, 40 percent of folks are completing that. If we could get a qualification on this: is that 40 percent of the 100 percent of people who are in a foundation program? You’ve got 100 percent of people who are in foundation programs, 56 percent of them move on to an apprenticeship, and then 40 percent, roughly, complete. Is that 40 percent of the 100 that started the foundation, or is that 40 percent of the 56 percent who actually entered the apprenticeship after foundation?

Hon. S. Bond: There is no correlation between the completion rates of foundation and those moving into apprenticeship and who graduate. If 100 students start an apprenticeship, wherever they come from, 40 percent of them complete, as of today.

S. Simpson: If I’m correct here, I believe that the latest numbers showed about 39,000 people in apprenticeships right now, give or take. Roughly that’s a number? With that number, maybe the minister could tell me a little bit about…. If that’s the number and that number has stayed reasonably consistent, is the completion rate the 40 percent of that 39,000 who are moving forward and will complete in the six years? I’m just trying to find out what number we are dealing with here, because there’s a bunch of different numbers involved.

[1655]

Hon. S. Bond: The 39,000 apprentices in the system refers to apprentices across years 1, 2, 3, 4. The 40 percent completion rate would be directly related to the cohort that started in 2009-2010. In essence, the graduating class from that cohort shrinks to 40 percent, but in totality, there are 39,000 people in the entire apprenticeship system at some point in the four-year program.

S. Simpson: I know that the minister talked about some reasons for that number. Some people get a job; some people leave for other reasons. There’s a variety of reasons there.

Could the minister tell me: what kind of measurement tool does the ITA use in order to figure that out and determine who’s staying and completing, who’s leaving and why they are leaving? Are those questions asked as best they can be? I know that they can’t always be asked. People aren’t always going to participate. But to the best degree possible, are people being asked why they chose to not complete — since the completion number is not ideal — and then responding to that with how the program may be adapted?

Hon. S. Bond: First, let me give the answer to how we determine why there is a lower-than-ideal completion rate. Very recently a survey has been done, and it would be my hope that that type of feedback process continues. A survey was done in ’15-16, to ascertain some of the reasons why individuals were not completing. Then what I can provide for the member opposite….

This is a concern for me. I think that I’m an enormous advocate for apprentices and apprenticeship in the province. In fact, I made the decision that we would look at having apprentices on public projects, for example. We’re leading the country with that initiative, because it’s that important to us.

Some of the reasons would be: formal certification is not required by some employers, so they can get a job without finishing their certification; loss of a sponsor due to the economic downturn — of course, that is a real challenge; the inability to attend or access technical training, which can be financial or geographic. Those are areas that we are concentrating on very significantly.

I referenced earlier the whole issue of innovation. How do we do this? How do we help make it easier and improve success? For change in life circumstance, certifications have no impact on their income. In other words, they can make as much money as they would if they had certification.

[1700]

They may choose the challenge pathway instead of apprenticeship. Non-completers may still be fully employed and attached to the labour market. So we can’t also make the assumption that because they’re not completing an apprenticeship, they’re not working. That doesn’t turn out to be the case.

We’ve now designed, through the ITA…. They have been working very hard to line up remedies to support better completion rates. For example, we now have apprenticeship advisers on the ground that work with employers and directly with apprentices providing on-the-ground support, those kinds of things. We’ve identified what some of the challenges are, and we are working on the remedies to improve those rates.

S. Simpson: I don’t need the specific numbers right today. I’m wondering, in terms of that survey information and the percentage breakdown — the minister named a number of categories — whether that information goes deep enough to say what percentage of people in category A or B chose to not complete their apprenticeship because of some other option or a life circumstance or whatever.

Is that information available so that we can better understand what these choices were from the survey? I would hope the minister would encourage the ITA, if this is the measurement tool being used, to make it a regular occurrence, an annual review or survey or something so that we actually have data moving forward.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, I think the expectation should be that each cohort that we move through has this kind of survey and information.

There is the potential to look at the percentages. We don’t have that information with us today, but I think that’s something we could certainly provide in a further briefing. What I’ve asked the ITA to consider, and they’re working very hard at this, is to look at innovation pilots that would line up against some of these very concerns that have been expressed.

I think it’s fair to say that one of the biggest challenges…. I mean, it’s obviously intuitive. The employer sponsors…. It’s the release of that person from work that turns out to be one of the biggest challenges — the fact that they have to be away from their job for a period of time. One of the ways we remedy that is by innovative training models so that that doesn’t have to be as dramatic.

I can speak to that as a northern MLA. Certainly, it’s better now — I’ve been here a while — but in days past, you often had to leave Prince George for a period of time — six weeks from your job, your family. In this day and age, we should be able to find a better way to do that.

Those are the kinds of things we’re working on to drive that number up. The good news is it’s moving up. It’s not as much as we would hope at this point, but work is certainly intensively being done to match up remedies for the various reasons that people provide.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that answer, and I would encourage as much transparency as possible about these issues. We know that there were serious questions and challenges in the McDonald report. It helped to provide a bit of a pathway forward, a road map forward, to address some of that.

Work has been done, and I know there’s been work around that in a variety of areas. I think that the more transparency around having people who have an interest…. To be able to get the information and understand the progress and understand the challenges that go with making the progress — that would be a good thing. Anything that can be provided on that would be helpful.

One more question just around that. The minister talked about advisers and moving to the model of advisers. Could the minister tell me how many advisers there are currently, and is there any plan to increase the number in the coming year?

[1705]

Hon. S. Bond: There are currently 15 apprenticeship advisers. They are spread out across the province of British Columbia. For example, we have them in the central Interior, the north Island, the northwest, the northeast, the southeast, Vancouver, Richmond, Fraser Valley. They’re located regionally. There are 15.

Their primary responsibility is to provide regional support to apprentices and employer sponsors. There are six of those apprenticeship advisers that have an aboriginal focus, and again, we know how important that is. There is not an intent at this point in time to create more.

We also have one manager and one coordinator — I believe is the title — so in total, 17 individuals that are providing that sort of specific support for apprentices and employer sponsors.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could elaborate a little bit on kind of what they do. If I just think about the number, I think: 15 advisers, 39,000 people in the program. That’s 2,000-whatever, if you just do simple math. I’m sure that’s not how this works. So just a little understanding about what these 15 people do when they potentially have this humongous caseload of apprentices and of sponsor employers to deal with.

Hon. S. Bond: I should have been more broad, perhaps, in my first answer. The actual apprenticeship, the people that provide support directly to apprentices…. There are other supports as well. We have a customer service centre, for example, where people can email, call in — and believe me, they do that. We receive thousands of phone calls and emails. There is actually a team of 20 people at the customer service centre, where an appren-
[ Page 12735 ]
tice can call in and get the kind of help or support, as can the employer sponsor.

In addition to the on-the-ground support provided by these apprenticeship advisers, there are obviously the people at post-secondary institutions or training organizations that provide support. The employer sponsor also has a responsibility. In essence, these advisers are, in many ways, the glue that holds everything together. They also have expectations around the number of apprentices that they make contact with over a period of time.

[1710]

I think it’s part of a support network. There are other parts of the system to provide the support across the 39,000 people.

S. Simpson: If I get an opportunity to get a bit of a further briefing on what’s going on, maybe we can get a little better information or some understanding of the support structure in addition to these 15 people and how that supports the large number of both apprentices and the 10,000-odd sponsors who are in play as well.

In last year’s estimates, the minister talked about her interest in pursuing strategies around how to engage small business in skills training and meeting their needs. I believe she talked about new approaches to meeting small business people’s needs around skills training and that.

Could the minister talk a little bit about what work has been done in that area and how we are making progress in supporting the needs of small business people around skilled workers?

Hon. S. Bond: In order to keep the questions flowing, I won’t…. We could spend a long time talking about this piece. There are a number of initiatives underway.

First and most importantly, it’s understanding the needs of small business. We have, for example, held round tables across the province, talking about what the needs of small business owners are, how we better support their training initiatives.

We’ve made a number of funding streams available to assist them with training as recently as today. We have a special dedicated stream for small businesses, recognizing how challenging it is for them to pay the cost of training. We are working across a number of sectors with the round tables, developing specific strategic plans. So there’s been a great deal of work done.

From an ITA perspective, they currently are working with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. There’s an MOU in place. There are some particular communities that will receive some…. Kamloops comes to mind, in terms of a pilot project where they’re working with Kamloops under an MOU to talk about the needs of small business to provide the supports that are necessary.

So a great deal of focus on analyzing what the needs are, meeting with the sectors, providing the funding that’s necessary, and ultimately, hopefully, seeing more people move into jobs in the small business sector.

[1715]

I should point out that the MOUs are really around promoting apprenticeship and skills training with small business, so the ITA is partnering with the B.C. chamber and other chambers in the province.

S. Simpson: Just so I understand the minister’s answer correctly, what I think I heard is that there is a fair amount of preparatory work being done and engagement and discussion and, presumably from that, the crafting of some programs or responses that might meet the needs. But at this point, programs aren’t in place, outside of the signing of MOUs. There’s no on-the-ground programs for small business today. There’s a lot of preparatory work being done.

Hon. S. Bond: No, there is far more than preparatory work being done. I was simply pointing out some of the work that we are enhancing as recently as this afternoon. When I look at the Canada job grant numbers, for example, as of today, we’ve already had just under 700 small business employers take advantage of the Canada job grant for training purposes. That would add up to $1.33 million that is out in the field, having been used by small businesses, business employers, across the province.

Now, 16 percent of our Canada job funds grants, which we take…. We have to, obviously…. As we talked about yesterday, we provide information to the federal government on our outcomes. So 16 percent of the grants have been provided to employers with one to five employees.

[1720]

When I look on the Industry Training Authority side, in fact, when we look at the number of employers who have apprentices, 60 percent of employers have at least one apprentice. So when you look at the numbers, there is significant action underway.

If you look at the Small Business Ministry, we have an entire ministry responsible for the work of small businesses. Our part of that, in terms of training support, would be the Canada-B.C. job grant, providing funds, as I mentioned. There’s the aboriginal BEST fund, a partnership between us, the Canada-B.C. labour market agreement and Vancity credit union. We’ve supported Junior Achievement of B.C. to make sure that young people are being educated about business and how they could potentially follow in that pathway. The list goes on.

A great deal of effort and action has taken place, and we are committed to ensuring that our work continues. The major issue for us is: how in the world do we make it easier for, especially, small business owners with relatively few employees…? How do we make training, hiring and being successful easier? That is the main focus of the work that we’re doing.
[ Page 12736 ]

S. Simpson: Are there targets in this process? Are there targets for numbers or percentages of small business engagement that the ministry or the ITA is looking for?

Hon. S. Bond: Rather than focus on targets specifically for small business, I think the initiative that we have undertaken across ministries, five of them, is actually looking at labour market data and making sure that whether you’re a small, medium-size or large enterprise, you have the workforce you require moving forward. The majority of our work has been designed to understand the labour market. Whether you have one employee or 1,000 employees, what are your needs, and how do we custom and tailor the work that we’re doing?

In fact, we’re making it pretty clear. We’re targeting funding. In the case of post-secondary, for example, 25 percent of their funding has to be lined up against in-demand jobs. The biggest shift has been looking at the labour market in that way. Small business is, obviously, an important component of that bigger program. But the general shift we’ve made is that we’re going to target programs and target funding to where the demands are. Obviously, we consider the needs of small business within that broader umbrella.

S. Simpson: I’m going to move to another topic. I know we’re going to take a break here in a couple of minutes.

Last May legislation was passed around publicly funded capital projects and apprenticeships. Could the minister tell us where that’s at today and what progress has been made in getting apprenticeships into place on those projects?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, it’s a policy initiative that is very important to me. I am a big advocate for…. If public dollars are engaged and used, we should have apprentices as part of those projects.

The member opposite would know that very shortly…. I think it’s actually next week, but I have to live through this week first. I’m actually going to Ottawa with the building trades to talk about the policy process in British Columbia and to talk to other jurisdictions, including the federal government, about adopting a similar principle. I had a very preliminary briefing just last week.

For the member opposite’s information, these are early days. As he would recall, our policy relates to projects with a threshold of $15 million and above. At the moment, I think we’re tracking on three of those projects because of the start date. So I am at the place now of having very early data.

[1725]

I don’t know the specific numbers of apprentices attached to those projects at the moment. I do know it’s complicated to count them in terms of the phase of a project, because there are times when there may be more or fewer on the project. What I can assure the member opposite of is we have a very rigorous program where anyone who takes on a project of that magnitude must present a training plan that shows that they are engaging apprentices. They are monitored regularly and frequently.

So I think that the process is in place. It’s early days in terms of the actual outcomes, but I can assure you that I’m going to remain very vigilant. Just recently, I met with a group of employers and made it very clear that if they do work in our province, they will be required to demonstrate a significant commitment to apprentices on those public projects.

S. Simpson: I know that the minister has not put any specific percentage or numbers on these. I understand all projects tendered after July 1 last year would fall under this policy and the decision made here.

Is it the minister’s intention to make public information about numbers of apprentices — I don’t think that that affects people’s business situation, particularly in public jobs — on projects that would fall under this policy?

Hon. S. Bond: I know it’s soon going to be time to have a break, because I have to make two corrections to something that I said to the member opposite — not on the one answer. Luckily, it was two different questions.

I will correct this one first. It’s six projects that would currently fall under this threshold. One of them is actually voluntary, which I am very encouraged about.

But the member’s question…. I very much appreciate the way he phrased it. There is complexity in how we report out about a contract, about contract details. I’m sure the member can understand why. We don’t want to see project costs being elevated, those kinds of things. But what I can assure him of, and I’m sure my staff would validate this…. This matters a great deal to me. While I resisted a quota of 25 percent, it is very important to me that this be meaningful and that it be applied and implemented properly.

We are trying to figure out what we can say publicly that will not impact contracts that are being let, all of those kinds of things. Business has cautioned us about that. We need to be careful how we measure, how we talk about it publicly. But I can assure you…. Just last week, I said to my staff: “I want to be sure that we understand the data, that we can make public…. Or at least give me the ability to share as much information as possible about this, because it’s a significant public policy decision we’ve made.”

It is something constantly on my radar screen. It’s important that we bring credibility to the policy by ensuring that people are adhering to the policy. I can tell the member opposite that training plans come in with contract bids. They are reviewed rigorously, and they are
[ Page 12737 ]
monitored to ensure that they are followed. At the end of the day, if they do not meet their training plan, which has been part of the bid process, we have the ability to withhold payment at the end of a project — at least part of that.

I appreciate the question. I am very interested in transparency. I have to do that cautiously, understanding within what limitations I might do that.

S. Simpson: Just on that…. I appreciate the minister’s comment. The minister will know that I’m a supporter of quotas and setting the bar. We differ on this view.

[1730]

One of the advantages of doing that is that then you can say, “They all met the bar,” and you don’t have to say much more than: “The bar has been met with these projects.” But with the position the minister has taken, which is a more flexible one, about this, it then becomes even more important for those who say that there’s a big difference between 20 and five, or whatever. I know the minister’s keenly aware of that. I would encourage the minister to look for ways to provide information so we can all be satisfied that the program and the policy is meaningful in how it’s proceeding and moving forward.

I have one last question in this area, and then I think we’re going to take that break and then come back. I have one other quick area, and then my colleague from Kensington — I will get her constituency right this time; my apologies —will ask some questions.

My question on this is around this initiative. It says projects tendered after July 1. Would this include tendered contracts — I know there are a number of them to come — on Site C after July 1?

Hon. S. Bond: Before I answer that question, I just want to correct something that I misspoke earlier. The ITA actually reports out monthly, not quarterly. I apologize for that. They report out monthly. My brain knew monthly, and my mouth said quarterly, so I apologize for that.

Yes, it does include Site C. I can tell you this. It’s all public sector projects plus B.C. Hydro. I can tell you they have been very supportive of apprenticeship broadly and are certainly partners in looking at how we increase the number of apprentices in British Columbia. So yes, it does apply.

The Chair: With that, I will call a recess for approximately ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:32 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister and staff for the opportunity to raise some questions around the issue of temporary foreign workers in British Columbia within the context of jobs here in B.C.

I’d like to start off…. If the minister has an update in terms of what are the current numbers of temporary foreign workers in B.C., as well as the general categories that they’re in.

Hon. S. Bond: The numbers that we have in terms of B.C. work permit holders…. The temporary foreign worker program — I should tell the member opposite that the numbers we have are for the year 2014. We have not had a report for 2015 yet, because of course, the member would know that these numbers come from the federal government.

[1750]

In the TFW program in 2014, the work permit holders were 21,755, and coming through the international mobility program, 62,336. In that class of work permit holders, the total number was 84,091, but specifically to the TFW program, the number was 21,755.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister. Do you have a further breakdown in terms of the 21,755 with respect to the categories — I don’t know if you do have it — the three main categories of caregivers, under the caregiver program, previously known as the live-in caregiver program; the seasonal agricultural workers; and then under the temporary foreign worker program? Then specifically with respect to the temporary foreign worker program, the categorizations, generally, around the skill level?

Hon. S. Bond: If the member has another question that isn’t related directly to this number, rather than waste the important time that she has, we’ll get that. We’ll break it down, and we’ll get back to you, but I would be happy to entertain other questions in the meantime.

M. Elmore: Sure. Not particular to specific numbers, but it seems that 84,000 certainly is an increase from what I have in 2012 — 74,000. Just an interesting pattern in terms of the increasing numbers, seemingly a bigger increase around…. Is it attributed to international students? Generally, I would presume.

Also within the context as well, some of the federal changes came into play in 2014, bringing increased restrictions in terms of the percentage of workplaces that were able to avail of temporary foreign workers, those changes — so would expect a decrease in that.

Just a general question. There were some regulatory changes in 2014 that changed some aspects of the program. The rationale for the temporary foreign worker program has been claimed to fill short-term labour needs and skills shortages of a short-term nature. Can the minister comment on that — and specifically with respect to the claim that now the top occupations seem to be not necessarily of a temporary nature but are long-standing shortages?
[ Page 12738 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, there was a very significant shift at the federal government level under the previous government’s mandate. That has not changed, although the new government, I think, is beginning a study, doing a consultation on the whole role of temporary foreign workers. Once we have the numbers, I will be in a better position to articulate for the member whether there were increases or decreases. The numbers I did quote were from 2014.

[1755]

One of the major observations we had was that once the temporary foreign worker program was changed, we saw a significant number of people move over to the permanent resident–type status. We saw the number of applications for temporary foreign workers actually drop quite significantly when the changes were made through the federal government.

Our premise has always been — and I have not seen a shift in that thinking from the federal government’s perspective — that temporary foreign workers are necessary for use in limited circumstances. That’s the principle that we have, particularly when there are peak construction periods, very specialized work, and the federal government, at this point, has not made a shift from that thinking.

In our view, it’s British Columbians first. And, if necessary, after looking regionally, provincially and nationally, then we should be contemplating a potential temporary workforce, but only when it’s absolutely necessary.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister. Certainly, that’s been the rationale and the genesis, the development and the involvement of the temporary foreign worker program. Originally, it had been addressed to meet high-skilled needs in the ’70s and really only changed dramatically within the last ten years. We’ll see what steps the federal government takes in terms of that consultation process underway.

The minister knows some of my concerns with respect to the program. It creates precariousness for workers, puts them in a vulnerable position, particularly because of the structural inequalities. They don’t have access to permanent residency and are reluctant to come forward if there are difficulties or challenges. Certainly, that remains a core concern. You know, the premise that Canada is a nation that was built on immigrants, being able to immigrate and become citizens if they chose and become part of the community…. I think that’s still an outstanding principle, and we’ll see where the federal government comes down in terms of the consultations with respect to some of those changes.

I’d like to ask about the issue of…. What’s the experience of the minister with respect to…? One of the regulatory changes that came in 2014 or previous to that was the four-in, four-out rule restricting temporary foreign workers from being able to work in Canada for four years and then having to leave and increasing the precarity, and also, what I’ve heard as well, increasing numbers of workers out of status, undocumented workers.

Have you had much experience or heard much about that in terms of growing numbers of undocumented workers in B.C.?

[1800]

Hon. S. Bond: The four-in, four-out principle still is in place, obviously, with the current federal government. One of the things we did was to ease the anxiety and concerns during the transition year. We did work very hard with the federal government to make sure that people who were at risk of having to leave before having permanent status had an opportunity to apply and make their home here in British Columbia. We did that in 2015.

The numbers, though, are, as the member well knows…. And I know these files matter a great deal to her. The numbers that we have, in terms of PNP nomination, simply would not allow us to do that for every person whose permit might be expiring.

A number of the things that we’ve done. First of all, encourage the federal government to increase our portion of PNP nominations. I’m not alone in that. Obviously, other ministers across the country have asked for the same thing. British Columbia is known for a great system and the utilization that we have. We use all of our nominations every year. In fact, I always ask the minister responsible: if there are any extras, we’d be happy to take them, and we’ll get through that process quickly and efficiently.

One thing that we did do, to the member opposite’s point, is we did close the PNP program for a period of time to better align the nominations that we have with the workforce we require. So there is a process now which is very similar in its management to the federal government system. It’s now a point system, and it works similarly to how the federal government manages it.

I think our experience was that during transition we tried very hard to support those people who would imminently have to leave British Columbia and then be out of the province for some time. I think the most important thing we’ve done is to continue to lead the charge across the country to increase our ability to influence the number and who comes to British Columbia.

M. Elmore: Certainly, the provincial nominee program is the specific program where the province has the ability to process permanent residents in British Columbia.

I just wanted to raise the issue of undocumented workers. I’ve been hearing more of these and also raised them with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education. Stories are coming to me in terms of individuals who are out of status. They try and access health care. They’re reported, and it’s interconnected. They’re detained and deported.
[ Page 12739 ]

Some of the movements we’re seeing to address this: the adoption of a sanctuary city in Toronto and, I believe, Hamilton and discussions in Vancouver to deal with the increasing numbers of individuals who find themselves in this situation, as well as the growing concern around their children, who are not able to register for school if their parents don’t have adequate identification.

I think that’s an issue we’re going to be hearing more about, just by the nature of the decision of the federal government to impose the four in, four out. It’s something that our jurisdiction will have to tackle. I know there’s a national campaign to call on the federal government to provide amnesty for these individuals. That’s kind of in the federal realm but just a reality we’re going to be seeing and hearing more about in our communities across the province.

I’d like to also talk about…. Part of the challenges for temporary foreign workers, besides their temporary status and lack of immigration status, is the nature of the fixed work permits and limiting and restricting the mobility and the ability to move between employers when difficulties arise or they’re having problems in their worksite. That’s a challenge, as well, and one of the recommendations is to issue open work permits.

The other area that I’m concerned about and feel that we can improve and that has been identified as being very problematic is the reality of temporary foreign workers, migrant workers, paying illegal recruitment fees to agencies, either employment agencies, recruiters, labour recruiters. It’s a loophole and it’s a reality. Practically…. Well, the majority of temporary foreign worker coming to B.C. are paying these illegal recruitment fees. I’d just like to ask if the minister is aware of that and possible steps to address that.

[1805]

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to touch base on the three points that the member raised. First of all, undocumented workers. I think it’s an appropriate heads-up from the member opposite.

We have very little data, obviously, about undocumented workers. But I can understand how it happens when you have lived here and worked here and then suddenly you’re threatened with having to return home. One of the things that we are really working on with the new federal government is the exchange of data. We really need a better information system for all three of the issues that the member opposite brought forward.

[1810]

I do appreciate it. I will be meeting with the Immigration Minister and the Minister of Labour, the federal ministers, shortly. We’ll certainly have that discussion about undocumented workers.

I appreciate the heads-up about the amnesty campaign. I don’t know about the details there, but I can certainly raise the issue of undocumented workers.

In terms of open work permits, the agreement we signed in March actually gives us the ability…. We worked hard to negotiate an agreement, and in fact, it does allow us to actually look at the transfer of a person’s employment.

Now, there’s a process there. If a person comes forward and there are issues, we do have some — I’m advised — additional flexibility now within our new contract to actually deal with the issue of how we support that person and potentially find a new work placement for them. I think that’s progress. It’s certainly something that we have discussed numerous times with the federal government, so I think we’ve made progress there.

In terms of the illegal recruitment fees, the member is correct. There is an employment standards issue here, obviously, and in section 10, it clearly outlines that a person cannot be charged recruitment fees. It is a complaint-driven system, so the person does have to come forward. It can be an anonymous complaint, though, about that particular recruiter, and there are very clear guidelines in section 10 about what they cannot do.

You cannot pay for immigration assistance as a condition of being placed in a job, post a bond or pay a deposit to ensure they will finish a work term or pay back any costs the employer paid. There’s a series of things in section 10. It is complaint-driven, but if employment standards were to receive a complaint and make a determination that there had been an illegal fee charged, there’s actually the ability to fine.

Again, one of the things that’s really important to us is that flow of information from IRCC so that we are made aware of employers who have work permits, for example, then have issues so that we can be very clear about who is in that position. One of the things we’re working very hard to improve with the federal government…. And there’s a willingness to do that. I think the minister has been quite open to that discussion.

Three important points raised by the member opposite. Work taking place in all of those areas, and in particular, I think we’ve found at least a mechanism where we can be more helpful to those workers who may need to find another employer.

M. Elmore: Just to follow up with respect to the illegal recruitment fees. It’s prohibited in the employment standards.

One of the challenges the minister mentioned is that it’s complaint-driven. Just by the nature of the vulnerability of the workers, generally a proactive approach in terms of enforcement investigation and employment standards is more supportive.

Does the minister have data or knowledge of how many, either employers or recruiters were…. How many
[ Page 12740 ]
complaints were filed with employment standards on that? And fines flowing from that?

Hon. S. Bond: We don’t have the breakdown in terms of the determinations that have been made at employment standards. We can look, and we will certainly ask whether there is an actual breakdown. I’m happy to do that and return that information to the member.

I think the one caveat I would have there, because I’d want to be very careful about those numbers…. There are people who use the self-help kit, resolve an issue, and we would not have a tracking of that, obviously. The reason it’s called self-help is because they sort it out. The number of determinations might be smaller than actually the issues that have been solved through other mechanisms.

M. Elmore: To follow up with respect to the challenges of enforcing the law that’s embedded in employment standards, with respect to charging of recruitment fees, which is illegal.

[1815]

Part of the challenge around that…. Other jurisdictions and provinces have seen to take it upon themselves to pass specific legislation explicitly putting in place a requirement. Manitoba has done it, and Ontario and other provinces as well — put in measures, passed legislation to require employers who use temporary foreign workers to register with the province before they’re able to access the federal temporary foreign worker program and, also, for labour recruiters and employment agencies to be licensed to ensure that there’s oversight.

The other piece, as well, that is recommended is for each of those to put up a front-end bond — $10,000, $15,000, $20,000. In the event that there are cases or settlements that come forward, workers are able to be reimbursed. But also, it provides an incentive for incenting that for legitimate…. Most companies and the majority of recruitment agencies, I think, do follow the rules and the law. But it’s to address, as is always the case, individuals and companies who look to circumvent it.

I’m wondering if that’s a consideration — that the minister would consider addressing what I think is a very serious problem in B.C.

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly have made some progress in terms of how we created a regulation-making authority. We actually took legislation through the House. It is not our intent to create a registry. I think we’ve had this discussion before.

[1820]

In our view, the federal government has a process. Through our regulation-making authority, we now have the ability to talk to the federal government about sharing more information between the two jurisdictions about the very issues that the member opposite has raised. We committed, I think, to having a discussion with the member about that as we proceed through that process. We remain committed to that.

I think the only other point I would like to make is that employment agencies in the province are required to be licensed. They don’t post a bond, but they have to pay a $100 fee a year to be licensed in the province. In fact, the employment standards branch is actually the body that manages that process.

M. Elmore: Is there any data or information in terms of the number of recruitment agencies who have had their licences revoked due to employment standards violations?

Hon. S. Bond: We’ll add that to our to-do list and commit to bring back the information for her. We don’t have the specific number here.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister. I just have a couple of last questions to wrap up.

One is: do you have or collect information…? Certainly, in terms of the academic sphere, I’m interested in one of the dynamics, as well, of the makeup of not only workers under the temporary foreign worker program but generally in our workforce. The majority are racialized workers and certain sections…. Certainly, caregivers, under the caregiver program, are racialized women. Research has shown that racialized workers, particularly racialized women immigrant workers, earn less than Canadian-born, non-racialized workers.

Do you have any information along those lines?

Hon. S. Bond: Unfortunately, it’s an answer that I don’t have a lot of detail about. I think it’s an observation, which the member makes, that is important. It’s a very complex issue. What we could do, I think, is…. We have people who specialize in our data analysis, and we could sit down and have that conversation. Our view is that we want all workers in British Columbia to be treated fairly and to be compensated appropriately.

I can’t specifically speak to the issue or the numbers related to the question that the member asked.

[1825]

M. Elmore: It is a complex issue. Often the results…. One term refers to it as…. Our labour market is colour-coded. That’s been long-standing.

I would be interested, if there’s an opportunity, to sit down and get some access to the data. Certainly, it’s a structural issue and a challenge in British Columbia and Canada. So I’d be interested for the opportunity to sit down and have a conversation about that. I would appreciate that.

My last question has to do with the concern of precarity, particularly of women workers under the caregiver program. It was changed from the live-in caregiver pro-
[ Page 12741 ]
gram. The anecdotal report — I don’t have the numbers — is that those women who are in a precarious situation, often working in an employer’s home, are subject, as well, to…. One of the hazards that they face is sexual harassment, and those cases coming forward…. Is the minister familiar with that, and have you seen that come forward in terms of complaints at employment standards — and just steps to address that challenge?

Hon. S. Bond: Any worker who is paid in British Columbia would take a complaint like that to WorkSafe B.C., in fact.

We actually are the government who brought Bill 14 through the House, through the Legislature, giving us the authority to compensate for mental health disorders, including bullying and harassment. We are seeing claims both on the bullying and harassment side and also the mental health disorder side. We actually brought the legislation for that very reason — the concerns that the member opposite expressed.

We don’t have the numbers, obviously, here with us today. But what we did was…. The legislative authority allowed us to direct WorkSafe B.C. to create policy around bullying and harassment for anyone who is employed in British Columbia. That would include the kind of live-in caregivers, nannies and others who the member opposite references.

There is a process in place. There is a 1-800 line where a person who is in that position would call, deal with WorkSafe and be able to work through the process under the policy that we asked WorkSafe to create.

[1830]

M. Elmore: I appreciate that response. I just heard some anecdotes on that from some of the organizations. I’ll probably be following up with that and have some more dialogue. I appreciate that.

I’d just like to conclude my comments and thank the minister and the staff for the answers and look forward to the opportunity to sit down and talk about some of the issues. I’ll be handing it off to my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings.

Just to conclude, when the minister is meeting with the federal Minister of Immigration and the federal government has a review to look at making changes to the temporary foreign worker program, I hope the minister brings forward the perspective of encouraging the government to return to the principle of people coming to work and stay and live and build their family and build their lives here in Canada, based on permanent residency for all workers — to address those main challenges. So I hope that the minister would bring forward that perspective. Thanks for the opportunity.

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to conclude by making the commitment to the member that our team would be happy to sit down. These are important issues, and the perspective that I have taken consistently to the federal government is one related to pathways to permanency. I think there need to be more options. I am in complete agreement that this is a country and a province built on the basis of immigration. It’s one of the things I am most proud of. My community is very diverse and welcoming. I certainly will be taking forward the message around pathways to permanency.

My comments around temporary foreign workers will very much be related to “only if absolutely necessary” and after assessing whether or not there is a requirement, whether we need that. Canadians, British Columbians, should obviously come first. So I’m happy to sit down. We will be following up on the items that the member asked about and that we did not have the information for as well.

Thank you for the time this afternoon.

S. Simpson: I have a question related to temporary foreign workers, and it relates to the pending or proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. I’m not interested in debating the merit of this trade deal, but the specific question is around temporary foreign workers. I was interested to hear the minister say that it’s her priority that British Columbians were available to get work in this province in terms of what goes on. I appreciate hearing that.

The question that I have is: what assessments has the ministry done about the potential impacts of temporary foreign workers within the TPP? When I look at the agreement, the section in there states, in relation to this: “Canada shall grant temporary entry and provide a work permit or authorization to professionals and technicians and will not (a) require labour certification tests or other procedures of similar intent as a condition for temporary entry or (b) impose or maintain any numerical restrictions related to temporary entry.”

Now, a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and International Trade said in the Globe and Mail last year that Canada would retain the right to regulate professionals and technicians under the deal. But one of the challenges with many of those is that in British Columbia — and it comes back to skilled trades — we don’t have compulsory or mandatory trades any longer in the province. So we don’t put those limits in place to say: “In order to be a carpenter, you must have a Red Seal.” We don’t say that any longer in British Columbia. So there was some question here about whether, in fact, we have the ability to regulate in the way that was suggested by one of the federal representatives.

So my question to the minister is: has the ministry looked at that particular aspect of the TPP? I know that the Premier has spoken very favourably of the trade agreement and has encouraged its passing, I believe.

The question I have is: what work has been done within this ministry to ensure that we don’t face a situation
[ Page 12742 ]
where the doors are opened by that agreement in ways that are not favourable to British Columbia workers as we look at projects moving forward?

[1835]

Hon. S. Bond: We have had some very preliminary discussions with the federal government. The understanding we have would be very similar to the opinion expressed or the views expressed by the representative that the member repeated here in the House.

Our view is that Canada wants very much to retain the ability to regulate and manage the entrance to Canada. So from our view, it would be…. We’ve had preliminary discussions. We support the view that Canada should retain jurisdiction and be able to look at the workforce entering the country. We’ve had preliminary discussions with the federal government on that topic.

S. Simpson: Hopefully, we’ll learn more about that as those discussions proceed.

What I want to do at this point…. We don’t have much time left today, and I’ll just kind of lay out for the minister how I’m planning the last bit of time today and an hour tomorrow or whatever we have in the morning before we’re done.

I have a couple of questions left today — one that will relate to ITA matters and one that relates to other matters. We’ll see how that goes. In the morning, I’m going to focus what time we have on jobs issues. The labour code and that is just going to fall by the wayside, and I would hope that I can put some questions in writing to the minister. I’ve got a few questions on that. I hope I can put them in writing to the minister and can get a written response on those matters.

A question that I have is one that relates a little bit to employment standards and things, and then we’ll ask the question about issues a little bit about the labour market priorities board. I have had concerns raised to me in regard to the hotel industry and gratuities in the hotel industry. These relate largely…. I’ve talked to people in the unionized sector and the non-unionized sector, and I’ve had a number of people come to me.

[1840]

The position essentially is this. When hotels do large events — banquets, those kinds of things — on an increasing basis, obviously, they build the gratuity into the overall price for the event. What appears to be happening is that those gratuities are not making it to the workers. They are not, in a variety of ways. I’ve heard this in a variety of places, including challenges from the unionized sector, where they have great difficulty in determining price, gratuity, what’s paid, what should appropriately be distributed and where.

I’m wondering whether the ministry — maybe it’s through employment standards — has heard those complaints about gratuities in the hotel sector, the food and beverage sector, on the big events. It’s not about when I go in, have dinner and put my 18 percent down when I leave; it’s when 500 people come to dinner. I’d be interested to know whether there’s been any discussion around that and whether there’s any plan to ensure that everybody’s being treated fairly here.

Hon. S. Bond: We have not and my staff have certainly not heard about that issue directly. We’d be very interested in it. If the member opposite would like to come and sit down with a member of the staff, I’d be happy to arrange that.

One thing I should point out is that while the Employment Standards Act covers wages, gratuities are not captured under the Employment Standards Act. If that practice is taking place…. I don’t like that either. I think that’s not an appropriate circumstance, for sure.

We could at least grapple with who might deal with that issue. What I’m advised is that it isn’t an employment standards issue. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a conversation about it. I’d be happy to set up an opportunity to hear more about that. If there’s a specific circumstance, again, I’m happy to hear about that.

And just to cover off, of course, written questions — we’d be happy to respond and get back to the member.

S. Simpson: Just a comment on this, a follow-up comment, and then I’m going to ask a question around the labour market priorities board, and we’ll finish up here in the next few minutes.

What appears to be happening…. I’m happy to do that. I will talk to some people in the sector who certainly have a better understanding of this than me. It’s a highly competitive business. The market and the price point…. When some of those hotels are bringing their price point down, they’re doing it around the gratuity, which is incorporated.

They have no obligations to provide information, even including to the union under collective agreements. So nobody has any idea, necessarily, about what’s actually happening around the dollars exchanged and what’s reasonably expected.

In collective agreements, I think there is some expectation around gratuities. I know it’s essentially a common expectation. I think that’s reflected in the minimum wage, in the fact that servers’ minimum wages are lower, and that’s because there’s an expectation that there’s a gratuity which makes up a portion of a person’s income.

[1845]

I’ll talk to some other people and be happy to get back, because I think that some of this is going on, and the workers are basically paying for the competitiveness without realizing any benefit. I will leave it at that.

The question around the labour market priorities board. I know they’re setting the standards for the sectors. When I look at the ITA…. I looked at the top ten occupations, mostly all in skilled trades — carpenters, heavy
[ Page 12743 ]
equipment operators, etc. How does the ministry and the ITA determine how those demands are made? What assumptions are made, particularly with the changed economy in Alberta and the collapse, at this point — maybe it’s going to change — of the oil industry?

We know significant numbers of skilled workers there who now are no longer employed, many of them coming home. Many of them were British Columbians who went to work in Alberta, and now they’re coming home.

How does the assessment work? What are the tools to determine what is going to happen a couple years down the road, when we know that workforce is not the same as it might have might have been three or four years ago, yet we have this set of workers? How does that work?

Hon. S. Bond: I really appreciate the question. I have described often the labour market process we go through as art more than science, although we try to make it science. There are a number of ways. We have really reshaped the ministry and the way we do things across ministries.

When we’re looking at labour market data to put into the labour market outlook…. We will be, obviously, publishing another one in not too long. I can’t remember the sequence at the moment, in trying to get this done quickly, but we look at a number of things where, actually, the data reflects those changes.

We look at retirement rate, real GDP, non-residential investment, major projects, participation rate and net in-migration. Before we actually produce the information, we take a look at all of those factors, and we monitor them regularly. So the numbers that we produce actually look at all of these factors. In addition to that, the ITA’s role, through their sector advisory groups, is actually to have real-time, on-the-ground data from those various sectors. In essence, we ground-truth the data.

Yes, it is an evolving document. Do we capture it perfectly yet? No. It’s something that I’m constantly pushing the ministry to do better, but we are way better at data analysis and creating the outlook than we ever have been before.

I’d be happy to sit down and have this discussion with the member at some point. I think it’s really important that we all understand how that data is created and what influences the numbers. It is an iterative document. What it says in one year will be different in the next one, because it’s based on all of these factors. I realize that’s a very quick answer to a much broader question.

With that, hon. Chair, and noting the hour, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:50 p.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada