2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th 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 25, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 1

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Addiction recovery program

M. Dalton

Asian Heritage Month

M. Elmore

Immigrant entrepreneurs

R. Lee

Bob Beckett

J. Horgan

Resource roads

B. Bennett

Women's involvement in video game sector

M. Mungall

Oral Questions

Government changes to harmonized sales tax

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

Impact of harmonized sales tax reduction

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

Government changes to harmonized sales tax

C. James

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Donaldson

J. Kwan

Petitions

J. Horgan

Notice of Motions

Government response to reports by Judges Compensation and Judicial Justices Compensation commissions

Hon. B. Penner

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

J. Brar

D. Donaldson

S. Chandra Herbert

M. Sather

H. Bains

K. Conroy

V. Huntington

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development

Hon. I. Chong

H. Lali

V. Huntington

S. Fraser

K. Corrigan

G. Gentner

S. Chandra Herbert

M. Sather

[ Page 7373 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: We're joined in the chamber today by two friends, Jack and Jean Robertson. Now, members will know that I have great respect for anyone who has taken the step of tying the knot and embarking upon the matrimonial journey. I stand in awe of any couple that has taken that step and stuck to it for 60 years, which is what Jack and Jean celebrated this past weekend — 60 years of matrimonial bliss.

They are here today with two friends who are visiting from Scotland, Tom and Muriel Lind, and I know all members will want to make the diamond jubilee couple feel very welcome today.

B. Routley: We have in the House today a longtime friend of mine and working buddy. Brian Butler is here today. He's currently the first vice-president of Local 1937 of the Steelworkers. But when Brian and I started out back in the '80s…. Well, for Brian, it was early '90s. He came out of the Cowichan Bay mill, a hard-working steelworker that represented forest workers on Vancouver Island and now represents forest workers all the way from the border in Washington State right up to Alaska.

With that, I would ask that you join with me in welcoming my buddy and brother, Brian Butler.

J. Yap: I have a number of guests in the gallery I would like to introduce to the House. First of all, two good friends and constituents, Pius and Cindy Chan, are here with us. They are accompanying a delegation from China, from Jiangsu province specifically.

Chairman Huang Dong Feng is here, leading a delegation to attend a venture capital conference in Vancouver. He is the chairman of the Jiangsu International Trust Corp., which is the investment arm of the provincial government of Jiangsu province. Chairman Huang is also a vice-minister in the provincial government of Jiangsu province.

With Chairman Huang are Tang Ning, Lu Zhen Dong, Lin Hong and Paul Leavitt, all from Nanjing in Jiangsu. Would the House please give a warm welcome to our guests.

Hon. T. Lake: Two of our colleagues from the Ministry of Environment have come over to the Legislature today to watch today's proceedings — their first time in the House — and they're very excited to be here for question period.

I'd like to introduce two gentlemen: David Lawes, the head of the community waste reduction section, environmental quality branch; and Jim Standen, another Kamloopsian, who is assistant deputy minister of environmental protection and assurance division.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the Speaker's gallery today is Professor Paddy Smith. Paddy is a distinguished professor of political science at Simon Fraser University. He has also for several years now been the academic director and has done a terrific job with the legislative internship program. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

R. Austin: Joining us in the gallery today is a young lady returning for her first visit, Angie Riano. She was a legislative intern here last year, helping us on the opposition side. She's now studying the law at the University of Alberta, and this is her first visit back. So give her a warm welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ADDICTION RECOVERY PROGRAM

M. Dalton: I recently had the privilege to attend the seventh anniversary of Celebrate Recovery in Maple Ridge. Celebrate Recovery exists to serve the communities of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge and meets every Friday evening at St. John the Divine Anglican under the auspices of the Ridge Meadows Ministerial Association.

[1340]

Celebrate Recovery provides a safe place for people from all different economic and cultural backgrounds to grow in their recovery by working through eight recovery principles and 12 steps while recognizing Jesus Christ as their higher power and restorer from the devastation of addiction, depression and dysfunctional relationships.

Celebrate Recovery's small groups meet weekly for those who struggle with a similar hurt, habit or hangup. Groups are led by trained facilitators and offer a safe place for people to be honest about areas where they hurt or experience defeat. Anonymity and confidentiality are basic requirements of the group.

Celebrate Recovery support groups are located across British Columbia and around the world and have their origins in the Saddleback Church with Pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life , an all-time bestseller.

[ Page 7374 ]

Celebrate Recovery is a place to share. It's a refuge and a place of belonging where many experience a turning point in their lives. Numerous volunteers have kept Celebrate Recovery strong, including program director Carol Keating and her husband, Barry; Mike and Bernadette Sleeman; Paul and Micheline Surridge; Linda Lambie; Susan Kaliczak; Cheryl Cloutier; Lorne Havisto; and other newer team members.

They provide a labour of love in a ministry that has been a source of healing for so many. Would the House please join me in expressing appreciation for the work of Celebrate Recovery across this province.

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

M. Elmore: May is Asian Heritage Month, and the month of May is officially recognized as such, a month dedicated to acknowledging the long and rich history and continued growth of Asian Canadians. We celebrate the diversity within the community and the contributions made by Asian Canadians towards creating the Canada we know today and the new Canada of tomorrow.

Asian Canadians have been instrumental in contributing to the areas of arts, sciences, business, environment, government, strengthening the ethnic cultural capital and so much more. Across B.C. many communities hold festivals and events in honour of this month. The Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society is hosting the explorAsian Festival, inviting the wider community to experience the diversity of Asian-Canadian life and explore Asian-Canadian arts and culture.

While we celebrate the many achievements and accomplishments, there also remain many challenges to overcome — regressive changes to Canada's immigration laws, justice for temporary foreign workers and the need to improve the recognition of foreign credentials in order to address the full economic and social integration of newcomers in Canada.

As May comes to an end, there are still several events being held to further educate and celebrate Asian Heritage Month. I encourage you all to come out and enjoy a cultural presentation or artist exhibition and really experience a unique facet of British Columbia's diverse population.

IMMIGRANT ENTREPRENEURS

R. Lee: On Wednesday, May 18, the Ethno Business Council of B.C. hosted the 18th annual New-Canadian Entrepreneur Awards in Vancouver. We all know how important the contributions of new immigrants are to our economy and cultural diversity here in B.C.

For 23 years the council has provided a place for new Canadian entrepreneurs to share information, create awareness and work together to support each other. The New-Canadian Entrepreneur Awards commemorate the importance of small and medium multicultural businesses in B.C., celebrating the achievements of new Canadian entrepreneurs.

This year's winners are a very noteworthy group of people. Don Yuen, the founder of Fairway Market, was the winner of the Lifetime Achievement award. Don started working in the grocery business in 1950 and opened his first store in 1963. His ten stores are now located from Victoria to Port Alberni.

The winners in other categories were: in manufacturing, Azar Moayeri for her business Parissa, one of the top natural brands in the world; in export, Joshua Huen for Dr. Battery, a brand which is in 25 countries; in retail, the Karim family for InnHouse Group of Companies, one of the top-ten fastest-growing companies in B.C.; in service, Mohammed Yasin for M. Yasin and Co.; in technology, Riaz Pisani for Contac Services; and in wholesale, John Llewellyn for Celtic Distributors.

[1345]

These entrepreneurs have contributed to our society with their innovative ideas, financial investments and excellent services, creating many jobs in B.C. for B.C.'s families. I encourage all members to join me in acknowledging the impressive contributions of these individuals, who've shown excellence in their businesses, personality, leadership and community involvement.

BOB BECKETT

J. Horgan: All members have individuals in their community that just give that extra bit, that go that extra mile. Here in the capital region CFAX 1070 acknowledges those community leaders every year, and this year's community leader is from my community, Chief Bob Beckett, the fire chief in the city of Langford.

I want to rise today and speak a little about Mr. Beckett. Many members of this place will know him. He started his career abroad and then became a firefighter in the city of Waterloo in 1974. From there he became a volunteer in other communities. He's been a paramedic in war-torn Sarajevo and came to the city of Langford in 1996.

When tragedy struck in New York on September 11, 2001, Chief Beckett, along with Const. Bruce Brown from the RCMP detachment in Langford and Mayor Stew Young visited New York and brought money that had been raised on the West Shore to assist families of Americans killed during that tragedy.

Bob has been instrumental in the success of cooperative efforts between Rotary clubs, the Canadian military, the city of Langford and Langford Fire Rescue in bringing much-needed equipment and expertise to Kabul and Kandahar during the activities in Afghanistan. It's things like that that separate Chief Bob Beckett from others in our community.

[ Page 7375 ]

Most recently he's returned from his fourth visit to Haiti, where he and others have been building a new orphanage so that those that were affected by the earthquake last year will have a roof over their heads and a bed to sleep in.

I want to raise my attention and the attention of all members to individuals like Bob Beckett in the city of Langford and people like him right across British Columbia who continue to give and give and give and who are, as CFAX 1070 acknowledged this year, truly community leaders.

RESOURCE ROADS

B. Bennett: I am speaking today about B.C.'s 400,000 kilometres of resource roads and the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who use them and enjoy them — British Columbians who prospect for minerals, ranch, fish, hunt, hike, trap, guide, photograph, mountain-bike, berry-pick, mushroom-pick, camp, geocache, quad or snowmobile, and probably for many other purposes as well.

Resource roads are mostly built by the forest industry, with some important exceptions, mostly in the northeast. When the company is using the road, it is responsible to maintain the resource road. When the company no longer needs the road, it is typically obligated to decommission the road.

If there is a solid environmental reason why the road should be decommissioned, then of course I support that. However, too many resource roads are being destroyed unnecessarily. Resource roads have evolved into platforms for broad rural economic growth, such as nature-based tourism, mineral exploration, trapping, guide-outfitting, outdoor recreation.

British Columbians are very passionate about their mountain-biking, their horseback-riding, their hiking, their hunting, their fishing, their camping, their quadding, their snowmobiling and their berry-picking. When the road to your favourite trail or favourite fishing spot is closed for no apparent environmental benefit, British Columbians are…. Well, let's just say they're disappointed.

This recreation has a significant economic value as well; 270,000 freshwater anglers from B.C. spend over a half-billion dollars every year, and 70 percent of that is spent in rural British Columbia.

ATV use — 12 percent annually and increasing. The average ATV recreationalist spends seven nights in rented accommodation each year. In the Valemount-McBride region, where the Solicitor General is from, 20,000 to 25,000 snowmobilers — tourists, actually — bring their Alberta dollars to this region each winter, and they use eight resource roads.

The point is that the public use of resource roads has changed dramatically, and our approaches to managing these roads needs some review. I'll be looking forward to working with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to ensure that our management of resource roads supports the diversified use and enjoyment by British Columbians.

[1350]

WOMEN'S INVOLVEMENT IN

VIDEO GAME SECTOR

M. Mungall: Well, like many girls in the 1980s, I was glued to my Atari playing Ms. Pac-Man. By the time I was ten years old, Tetris was on the scene, with Nintendo entertainment systems and Nintendo Game Boys. You can bet that my hand-held game device was called a Game Girl.

Despite many gamers being female, we are still the minority, not unlike in this House. Of no coincidence, most video games are developed by and for boys. Not only is this totally unfair and absolutely not much fun, but it impacts girls' future interest in the tech sector, which is a growing part of our economy.

Never fear, though. We have two superheroines to rescue us from this drab situation for girl gamers. Brenda Bailey Gershkovitch and Kirsten Forbes are Silicon Sisters Interactive, Canada's first female-owned and -operated video game company.

This past April they launched a video game for girls. School 26 is the duo's first release and is now available for iPads, iPhones, PCs, Macs and Android phones.

The game's main character is Kate, a student whose nomadic family has made it difficult for her to maintain long-term friendships. As she enrols in her 26th new school, she and her parents strike a deal. If Kate makes good friends here, the family will stay put. Now the player must help Kate use intuition, empathy and strategy to build friendships and navigate the moral dilemmas of high school.

Last month I visited with the Silicon Sisters and played my first game of School 26. Now, while designed for girls age 12 to 16, I know any woman would enjoy the opportunity to go back to high school with all that she knows now. So here's to girl gamers and girl power and to the Silicon Sisters for making us a video game.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT CHANGES TO

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Finance. I don't know which of the troika of economic destruction he is today, but in any event, this is a straightforward question to him. He'll know that Premier Clark said on March 21…. I know that was early in her reign.

[ Page 7376 ]

She said: "We aren't going to be talking about trying to reduce it by a point or two" — referring to the HST — "before the referendum. I mean, I think people will see that as buying them with their own money."

It's been a long two months.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: I almost feel like reading that quote again.

Will the Minister of Finance not agree that that's exactly what the government is doing today?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, what this Premier has done is make sure that we follow through on her commitment to raise the minimum wage, which has been done as committed.

[1355]

This Premier followed through on her commitment to move forward the referendum date from September to June, which has been done. And this Premier directed myself and my colleagues to engage in the largest listening exercise ever held in the history of the province of British Columbia.

The result of all that is that we listened, but didn't just listen. We responded by committing to march down the HST rate to 10 percent to improve it for every family in every income bracket in British Columbia. That's what we did on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: I just don't think the minister heard my question at all. I don't think he heard it at all. He said in the leadership campaign…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …that Premier Clark had a ready-fire-aim approach to policy-making.

You know, he is the Minister of Finance. I know he's the Minister of Finance and all. He's managed to spend the forecast allowance in the contingency fund for four years today. That's what he did. That's what he did today.

Can he possibly explain, given all that he's said over the last little while, this extraordinary set of gimmicks and magic today that he's produced? Can he possibly explain to the people of B.C. why he's attempting to buy votes in a referendum campaign, when he should be acting responsibly in the interests of the people of B.C.?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's remarkable. We engage in a consultation process. Over 275,000 British Columbians participated, and one of the common threads of that discussion was a request from the public to make sure that we reduce or minimize the impact of HST. Not only did we do that…. We not only eliminated the $350 cost for average families; we actually improved it, to the point where they're $120 ahead, on average, for British Columbians.

You know, for this Leader of the Opposition, who was chief of staff to a government that ran eight successive deficit budgets, missed every single budget target they set, stopped producing budget plans because they were so embarrassed by their record…. For him to talk about fiscal credibility is truly the highlight of this question period.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has further supplemental.

A. Dix: The 2009 election. The Minister of Finance and all of them over there said: "We're not going to bring in the HST." A year later they brought in a budget. They said that every penny, every centime, every peso, every ruble will go to health care. Every ruble will go to health care. That's what they said.

And now, hon. Speaker, can you believe it? Can you believe this nonsense?

The people of B.C. had the largest consultation ever on the HST. They signed initiatives. It's their referendum. Why doesn't the Minister of Finance admit today that he's trying to take that right away from them, trying to buy a referendum with public funds? Why doesn't he withdraw the HST?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just wait, Minister.

[1400]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, this is ridiculous. We not only are not taking away the right to vote….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm glad to see them applaud so heartily on their own ridiculousness. I'll figure that one out later.

Nevertheless, let me just say this. I get that this might be uncomfortable for the Leader of the Opposition. I get that he doesn't like the fact that we listened to British Columbians.

We've improved the HST, and I have no doubt that he is entirely uncomfortable with the fact that he is going to be advocating and campaigning on a 12 percent PST plus GST. We are campaigning on retaining a tax

[ Page 7377 ]

that every independent expert says is the right way to go, and we're marching it down to 10 percent. That is the clear difference.

I will also say this in closing on this question. I am quite happy to put our record of fiscal accountability and our triple-A credit rating up against eight consecutive deficits, multiple credit-rating downgrades and the disaster that the NDP government was in the 1990s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

IMPACT OF

HARMONIZED SALES TAX REDUCTION

B. Ralston: Let me turn once again to another recent quote from the Premier during the B.C. Liberal leadership campaign.

"Cutting the HST by 1 point is more than $800 million out of the budget this year and every year after, $1.6 billion for a 2-point cut, and we need to ask ourselves where we're going to get that money, because we're either going to have a $1.6-billion-bigger deficit, or we're going to get $1.6 billion fewer heart operations, special needs teachers, school facilities, hospital emergency rooms. I mean, that's where the money comes from, ultimately. So yes, the government could cut it, but at what cost to citizens?"

So British Columbians are now warned to expect program cuts, but the question is when. Will those announcements be made before the House adjourns? Will they be made before the next election or, probably more true to form, hidden during the next election campaign?

Hon. K. Falcon: The Finance critic was actually at the lockup today and got to listen to exactly how that is going to be done within the context of a balanced budget. But what I find very interesting is that what he did not talk about is their own option.

You see, the NDP preferred option is to go back to a 12 percent PST plus GST, knowing full well that that has an over $3 billion hit to the fiscal plan negatively just within this three-year period. That's the NDP opposition plan.

I can tell you that what we demonstrated today very clearly is that an improved HST — even marching it down to 10 percent, even with the transition payments that will be going out to families with children and low- and modest-income seniors — is still financially much more responsible, much more sound than going back to the NDP's preferred option of a 12 percent PST and GST. That's what we demonstrated today.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, it's clear from the answer of the Minister of Finance that he'll do anything, say anything to avoid defending his own Premier.

Mr. Tostenson, the CEO of the Restaurant and Foodservices Association, said today that the fix that was announced today doesn't help his members. He said, referring to the B.C. Liberals: "I think they are mad at us." On top of this, the government is increasing taxes for small business.

Why is the minister asking small business to bear a disproportionate burden of covering up this government's lies and deceptions?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Before we continue, I want to remind the member to choose his words more carefully.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, now we are going truly into the area of bizarro. The fact that this member is asking that question is unbelievable.

Let's just recap for a moment the choice that British Columbians have. The choice is a prudent, responsible marching-down of the rate to 10 percent and transition payments for families with children, $175 for each and every child — a typical family has two children; that's $350 — and, of course, $175 for low-income and modest-income seniors, up to $40,000. That is one choice.

The other choice is the NDP, so let's recap their option. Go back to a 12 percent PST plus GST. Reimposing the PST is one of the most damaging things that you can do to the business community. That's number one. We also know from the Leader of the Opposition's previous comments that he wants to roll back tax rates to 2008 — that means an 80 percent increase in the small business tax rate, a 20 percent increase in the general corporate tax rate — and reimpose the PST on small business. That is a recipe for economic devastation.

This is a sound policy that I believe British Columbians will support, as opposed to the thoughtless, ridiculous option that the NDP leader is putting forward for British Columbians.

GOVERNMENT CHANGES TO

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

C. James: For this Finance Minister to call this B.C. Liberal direction on the HST sound fiscal policy would be laughable if families weren't being hurt every day by this tax in this province.

Families in B.C. are going to take a look at the B.C. Liberal record on the HST. They told the public that they wouldn't bring it in before the election. In fact, they even put it in writing. What happened after the election? They brought in the HST. They said it would be revenue-neutral. Well, now it's not going to be revenue-neutral anymore. They told consumers that they would save dollars, and now they're paying more.

[ Page 7378 ]

It's clear that the B.C. Liberals can't be trusted, especially on the HST.

To the Finance Minister: why should the public trust them now?

Hon. K. Falcon: As you know, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill was in this Legislature when we canvassed the fact…. In the fall 2009 budget update, it was stated very clearly: initially revenue-neutral, but growing revenues in the future. Budget 2010, Budget 2011 — they all said the same thing.

I am very interested in the fact that the members just a week ago were hitting us over the head over the independent panel report. They were quoting from it, pointing out correctly that the independent panel pointed out that the average family will see a $350 average annual cost as a result of the HST.

What she conveniently overlooked in her question was that, under the plan that we put in place today, that turns from a $350 cost to a $120 benefit for every family, on average, in British Columbia.

[1410]

I will also point out two additional things. It includes transition payments to families with children of $175 for each child, and it also includes maintaining the $230 rebate that we provide to every low-income British Columbian. In spite of the reduction of the HST, that still maintains that $230. Lower-income families, in particular, are even further ahead under this approach.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: Didn't anyone on that side of the House, didn't any B.C. Liberal, learn anything from bringing in the HST? The public wants the truth. The public have had enough of the B.C. Liberal spin.

The government is trying to convince the public that a bad tax is good for them, using the public's own money. Well, the public has had enough of the HST. They've had enough of the B.C. Liberals. They've had enough of that spin.

My question to the Finance Minister: when will he stop playing games with the referendum?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, what we did was we went out and we listened to the public, and we responded to what we heard from the public — 275,000 British Columbians taking

part in the largest listening exercise in the history of the province. I'm proud of not only undertaking that exercise at the direction of our Premier but also responding to what we heard, and what we heard from British Columbians is that they want us to minimize the impact of the HST.

We've not only minimized it; we've eliminated it. We've made it better for every family in British Columbia, regardless of income bracket, and in particular, for lower-income British Columbians. The approach that the NDP want to do and will be campaigning on is going back to a 12 percent PST plus GST with no rebates for children and only a $75 PST rebate for adults. They can go ahead and campaign on that. We will be going forward with what we heard from the public: improve the HST. We've done that.

D. Donaldson: Well, we hear talk of listening. Let me tell you that the people of the province are listening right now. All they're hearing from this government is a desperate attempt to save the HST at any cost.

First, it was no HST before the election. Then they all voted for the HST after the election. They said it would be revenue-neutral; now it's not. Then it was going to save the economy. Today we learned from the Premier's desperate announcements that it will cost billions to the people in this province — billions to buy their vote on the HST with their own money. One thing is clear: families will be paying for this government's deceitful behaviour on the HST for years to come.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: Given that they are grasping at ways to save their tax at any cost, would the Minister of Finance agree that his B.C. Liberal government cannot be trusted on anything they say about the HST?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, by the very nature of that question, it demonstrates very clearly that the member for Stikine has not even read some of the most fundamental elements of the information that was presented today.

[1415]

When that member talks about impacts in the billions of dollars, he actually is referring to his own preferred plan of going back to the PST plus GST — a $3 billion hit, a negative hit, to the provincial finances under that member's preferred option.

Now, I am quite happy to compare our record of fiscal credibility, our triple-A credit rating, that we have on this side of the House — the fact that we meet our budget targets, the fact that we delivered on 37 percent income tax reductions in British Columbia that they voted against, on the fact that we marched the general corporate tax rate from 16½ to 10 percent, the fact that we took the small business rate from 4½ to 2½ percent.

They voted against every single one of those tax reductions, and now they're going to push for an option that is going to see a 12 percent PST plus GST. Well,

[ Page 7379 ]

I would gladly put our improved HST up against that any day of the week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Well, the minister brings up the economic record. The Conference Board of Canada today says: "B.C.'s economy is in a lull." We are "the exception," they say, "to an otherwise strong economy across western Canada." Now we hear today that the gimmicky announcements that are announced by this government are going to cause small businesses to pay more than $280 million a year in taxes. It's a chaotic tax policy made up on the fly in the last few weeks.

Considering our economy is in a lull, can the Finance Minister explain how billions of dollars in costs they announced today in a desperate attempt to save the HST is an example of good financial management?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, first of all, the member talks about a lull. Let's talk about: in the tank in the 1990s, when we actually became a have-not province, for the first time in our history, under your government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll be charitable to the member. I don't believe the member for Stikine actually understands what the leader of his own party has said with respect to his business tax plans. He has actually said…. Here, let's recap what the NDP want to do: (1) they want to move back to a 12 percent PST plus GST, (2) they want to raise small business taxes by 80 percent, and (3) they want to raise the general corporate tax rate by 12 percent.

That is an economic trifecta that will devastate and demolish confidence in the small business community from one end of this province to the other. I will put our record of economic accomplishment up against the NDP's any day of the week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: It is actually the Minister of Finance who doesn't understand what his own Premier is doing. Let's just actually review her words. Premier Clark said in March that she's against buying people's votes with their own money. That's what she said. Now today, of course, the government announces the fix to the HST. So with the fix today, the Premier is trying to buy people's votes.

[1420]

Will the Minister of Finance just admit that the B.C. Liberals are trying to buy B.C. taxpayers' votes, or is the Premier just misleading British Columbians once again?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, this is a Premier that moved forward the referendum date from September up to June. This is a Premier that oversaw the largest listening exercise with British Columbians on how we might improve the HST. This is a Premier that always made it clear that any improvement would have to be done within the context of a balanced budget. That's exactly what has been delivered today.

What I find so fascinating is that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, one of the architects of one of the worst governments in the history of the province of British Columbia, wants, for her constituents, to go back to a PST plus GST of 12 percent, ignore the improvements that a lower rate of 10 percent would provide for every single British Columbian, especially low-income British Columbians, and the rebate that is provided under HST which disappears under the PST. I find that fascinating.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Actually, this is a Premier who said she that was against the referendum vote and wanted the B.C. Liberals to vote against the HST in this Legislature, in the House. Oops, oops. That was then, and this is now. Then, of course, she said: "Oh well, we don't want to buy British Columbians' votes with the HST." But that was then, and this is now.

Let us just look at this for a second. After the 2009 election the B.C. Liberals misled British Columbians about the HST. Premier Gordon Campbell — what did he do? He actually….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: Premier Gordon Campbell then tried to buy British Columbians' votes with a 15 percent tax cut after the election. Guess what. That worked like a lead balloon. Here we are once again, the same playbook.

Will the Minister of Finance just admit for once that the Premier is trying to mislead British Columbians once again, and will he also just acknowledge that British Columbians will not be fooled once again?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, this is a Premier who followed through on her commitment to increase the minimum

[ Page 7380 ]

wage. This is a Premier who followed through on her commitment to restore gaming grants. This is a Premier who followed through on her commitment to move forward the referendum date. This is a Premier who followed through on her plan to put forward a bold improvement to the HST, to improve the HST based on what we heard from British Columbians. And this is a Premier that said we would do it within the context of a balanced budget.

I will put this Premier's record and this commitment to march that rate down to 10 percent with transition payments for families, with transition payments for seniors up against the NDP plan to campaign for a 12 percent GST plus PST, with an 80 percent increase in the small business tax rate, a 20 percent increase in the general corporate tax rate any day of the week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we didn't hear the bell, but it did end question period.

[End of question period.]

J. Horgan: I'd like to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

J. Horgan: I have a petition signed by 116 residents of the Lower Mainland concerned about the health effects of the results of using wireless technology. The petition calls on the government to repeal those sections of the Clean Energy Act currently mandating smart meters for B.C. residents until such time as the Utilities Commission can deploy wired, smart-meter systems standard using wired connections and communications of monitoring.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Notice of Motions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO REPORTS BY

JUDGES COMPENSATION AND JUDICIAL

JUSTICES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONS

Hon. B. Penner: I rise to advise the House…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. B. Penner: …that I have tabled today a notice of motion in my name containing the response of the government to the final report of the 2010 British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission accepting eight of the 15 recommendations and rejecting the balance, as well as a document setting out the reasons for the government's response to the report.

I also tabled a notice of motion in my name containing the response of the government to the report and recommendations of the 2010 Judicial Justices Compensation Commission accepting four of the ten recommendations and rejecting the balance, and a further document setting out the reasons for government's response to that report.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think I can make the next little piece as exciting as what we just viewed.

In this House I'm sure the critic and the minister will actually raise the bar this afternoon, as the Ministry of Health continues its debates in the big House. In Committee A we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

[1430]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $15,566,169,000 (continued).

Hon. M. de Jong: When we were engaged in the discussion yesterday, one of the hon. critic's colleagues — I believe, the member for Stikine — posed some questions about the situation in Dease Lake, about the airport. Maybe I'll wait to see if the member for Stikine arrives, and if he does, I'll take advantage of the opportunity to alert him to what we have discovered.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments, and we will make sure that the member for Stikine has an opportunity to hear.

This afternoon some of my colleagues will want to continue on from yesterday where we were talking about facilities. Colleagues will be doing that. Then we'll go back to the main critic-minister discussion.

With that, I know my colleague from Surrey-Panorama — no, Surrey-Tynehead…. Oh, Fleetwood.

[ Page 7381 ]

The Chair: I recognize the member for Surrey-Fleetwood, but thanks for your help.

J. Brar: I would like to ask a question about the out-patient facility being built in Surrey. Actually, the Minister of Health fell in love with the city of Surrey for quite a while, for quite some time. I know that the minister goes to the city of Surrey every Friday to deliver a talk show, and I'm sure the minister understands very clearly the health care needs of the people of Surrey.

I would like to ask very brief questions. The first question is around the out-patient facility. In 2005 the Fraser Health Authority submitted a report to the Minister of Health. A key recommendation in that report was to build a new out-patient facility to meet the health care needs of the people of Surrey. Subsequently the then Minister of Health went to Surrey and embraced that recommendation, saying that the government actually will work on that.

Subsequent to that, the Premier went to Surrey and made the announcement that the government is going to build the out-patient facility. My understanding is that that facility is quite ready and that there may be a ribbon-cutting ceremony in the near future. I would like to ask the minister: when will the new out-patient facility be ready for operation, and what are the staffing requirements to run that facility?

Hon. M. de Jong: Madam Chair, I happily see the member for Stikine. A moment ago I indicated that we'd received some additional information on the matter. If the member for Surrey will permit me, I'll relay that information to his colleague so that he can get on with whatever other obligations he may have.

[1435]

Here are the facts that we have been able to determine. Over the past three years the following number of patients has been medevacked out of Dease Lake. In '07-08 it was 33; in '08-09, 18 patients; in '09-10, 23 patients medevacked out of Dease Lake at the airport.

The no-night-flight announcement that is the subject of our discussion today and yesterday took effect on March 23, 2011. Whilst physicians have some experience in how to manage through those restrictions and, of course, in Dease Lake are confronted by some other meteorological challenges, we understand the concern relating to the more limited use of the airport.

Ultimately, the responsibility for maintenance at Dease Lake rests with the local airport authority, and that's under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada. I have been assured by staff from the B.C. Ambulance Service that Transport Canada and Northern Health have been working to try and solve the issue for the last number of weeks and are continuing to work closely with the Stikine Airport Society and municipality to ensure that supports for the provision of emergency air transport for Dease Lake residents are met.

That's probably a rather long-winded way of saying that all of the relevant agencies seem to be working together to try and address the issue and the impediment that has been in place since March 23.

That's the update I have for the member today, and we'll endeavour to keep him informed as progress is made.

D. Donaldson: I thank the minister for the update and the staff who provided him with that information.

I know that the minister would agree that regardless of the number of flights in and out of there, the fact that no night flight service is currently available could mean a matter of serious injury or life and death for people, and since the province is providing air ambulance service to that region, it's acknowledging that there is a need for that kind of service.

I look forward to a prompt resolution, and I will follow up with the minister and with the authorities he mentions because, as he likely knows, we're entering a very busy period in that area.

Economically, it's very important for the rest of the province. A lot of exploration work will be occurring in the next few months — and mining activity. So the importance of the night flight availability is even heightened by that, let alone for the residents.

Thank you for the answer, and I'll be following up with the minister and the other authorities.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: I have, as I indicated yesterday, some appreciation for the extent of the isolation that members of the community feel. It is important.

By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition that one of the underlying tenets and objectives of the economic policies that the government is endeavouring to follow and promote is to make sure an airport and a community like Dease Lake become even more busy, which of course heightens the measure of importance to ensuring the facilities can be properly utilized. We'll keep one another informed.

The member for Surrey-Fleetwood has asked a specific question. You know, my roots to the member's riding stretch back further. I attended my first day of elementary school in a school located in his riding. So check the records, but not too closely.

I'm just going to take a moment to get some detailed answers around the dates for completion, and staffing, I think, was the second area that the member posed a question about.

[1440]

The member will know that construction commenced on the project we are discussing in September '08. The objective was to have patients receiving treatment and

[ Page 7382 ]

service by June of 2011. We are on target to meet that, starting next month. In fact, if he hasn't received notice, I can give him notice today. I believe there is a formal ceremony scheduled for early next week commemorating completion of the work and commissioning. I'll be happy to provide him with more details about that.

J. Brar: I would like to just go back. The promise which was made to the people of Surrey was that the completion would be done by 2009, initially, and then it was delayed. I understand that, but I think even then I would like to say that it will be a victory for the people of Surrey once this facility is up and running.

At this point in time…. I didn't hear anything about the staffing requirement. I know the building is up and ready. I still don't know what the additional staffing requirement is to operate this facility. Is there any information about that, or will that come later?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm actually pleased that the member has asked the question because it provides an opportunity to emphasize and highlight an important aspect of these major capital projects.

We tend to, for understandable reasons, become fixated with the cost associated with the construction of the building, whether it's several hundreds of millions of dollars down the road at Surrey Memorial…. I think it's the largest single capital investment in the history of the province — over half a billion dollars in the expansion at Surrey Memorial.

That represents but a small proportion of the ultimate cost associated with the operation of the facility. In the case of the Pattison outpatient care and surgery centre, I am advised that upwards of 190 physicians — that's just 190 physicians — will be based at the centre and providing service to patients.

I'm going to get some additional information for the member relating to the myriad of important support staff and health care partners: the nurses, the technicians, all of the other folks that actually represent the soul of any kind of a health care facility.

[1445]

So when you consider the operating costs associated with the centre, we're actually not talking about an investment of several hundred millions of dollars. We're talking about an investment that exceeds a billion dollars — in fact, over the life of the project several billions of dollars. It is significant. I believe that the people of Surrey and surrounding area are going to receive a state-of-the-art facility with a quality of service that is unrivalled anywhere.

It's good news, but the member is quite correct to point out that it is ultimately the people that deliver that service. There will be many hundreds based at this facility, in addition to the 190 physicians that we estimate will call this their professional home. I'll get some additional information for the member about some of those other professionals and partners.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for the response.

I understand that this is an out-patient facility adjacent to Surrey Memorial Hospital, and I understand that there will be doctors who are now working at Surrey Memorial Hospital working at the out-patient facility.

What I didn't get the answer to is…. I'm asking about the net additional staffing to operate this facility. I would certainly, keeping in mind the time, appreciate it — if the minister has that information to provide — if there's any information as to what the additional requirement is to run or to operate this facility on a day-to-day basis in addition to the staff we already have at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

That's what my question is, if there's any clarification at this point in time. If the information is not available, I wouldn't mind getting the information a little later.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member that in addition to the physicians that I referred to a moment ago, upwards of 600 additional staff will be based in the facility. Now, some of those, in fairness, will be reassigned from other facilities in the health authority. The number I will endeavour to get for the member is what the net increase in the staffing component will be for the operation of the Pattison centre.

J. Brar: I do have one more question. I would probably leave this question at this point in time. I was certainly still not satisfied with the answer I got. I'm asking…. I understand that 160 — I don't exactly remember; a hundred-something — physicians will be placed in that building, but my understanding is that those are not new physicians completely. Those are physicians who are already working at Surrey Memorial. So I would certainly expect the information coming in the future.

The second question I have is about the Surrey Memorial Hospital emergency room. I think the minister is well aware that that was the second promise made by the B.C. Liberals in 2005 — that there will be a new emergency room to meet the growing population needs of the city of Surrey.

The promise was made to complete the building, complete the construction, by 2010. Subsequently that was delayed to 2014. I know the construction is on, but it's due in 2014, which is almost three years from today.

I would like to ask the minister this final question. The minister is well aware that the emergency room at Surrey Memorial Hospital is one of the busiest emergency rooms we have in the province. A few days ago there was news in the newspaper, which was the Province , May 17. The headline is "Woman's 19-Hour Wait in ER Prompts Probe." I just want to read from that news very briefly to the minister.

[ Page 7383 ]

"Fraser Health is launching an investigation after a Surrey woman's agonizing 19-hour wait at Surrey Memorial Hospital's notorious emergency ward. The ward is chronically overcrowded, often unable to cope with the ever-increasing demands of one of Canada's fastest-growing cities while a much-needed and much larger emergency ward is being built.

[1450]

"In a damning letter to both Fraser Health and the Minister of Health Marine Montani describes how she was forced to sit and then stand for her overnight stay as 65 people crowded into the ward. Montani was advised to go to the emergency ward when she described her symptoms after phoning the 811 provincial medical help line. 'I would rather wither away and die than go back there,' said the 63-year-old after her overnight horror story."

That's what we hear on a regular basis.

My question to the minister is this. I understand the new ER is being built, but that will be ready in three years down the road. So in the meantime, what steps is the minister taking to reduce the wait-times at the Surrey Memorial emergency room in the short run, if there are any?

Hon. M. de Jong: Going back to the issue we were canvassing just a moment ago. Happily, the ever-efficient officials have been able to advise me that of the approximately 600 new staff — which, because of some part-time and job-sharing, is about 517 FTEs — at the Pattison centre, there are approximately 110 transfers from other departments and other facilities and just over 400 new people that will be employed by the health authority and servicing patients in various capacities at the new Pattison centre.

The question that the member has asked relating to Surrey Memorial, of course, highlights a challenge that we face in many places in the province with either a growing population or an aging population — or, in some cases, both. As I indicated a few moments ago, Surrey Memorial represents at present the single largest investment in health care infrastructure, in hospital expansion.

The ER — the emergency room and the emergency department — is designed to roughly quadruple the capacity that is presently there. That is necessary because of the numbers and the visits that already take place. The project has been arranged and configured in a way that will see the emergency department completed first, or at the front end, and become commissioned and available for use in advance — I think approximately a year in advance — of some of the other important components of the project.

There will be pressure, ongoing pressure, in the meantime, and there's no question that staff will continue to feel that pressure. In the ebb and flow that characterizes an emergency department through the seasons, over the next year or two they will continue to feel that pressure.

I am hopeful, though, that just as was the case in what was previously the largest single investment in health care infrastructure, the replacement of the old Abbotsford Hospital with the new regional hospital and cancer treatment centre, the fact that improvement is at hand will provide those dedicated personnel with some comfort and the understanding and appreciation that better days lie ahead.

There is, as many, many health care professionals have told me, something very special about moving into a new facility and being amongst the first to treat patients in that facility. It's a little ways off in the case of Surrey Memorial and the emergency department, but with construction well underway, people arriving at work can now look at that site and measure in months the length of time before they will be moving into that facility and all of the improvements that that will represent.

I thank the member for raising the questions around Surrey Memorial.

[1455]

S. Chandra Herbert: It's a question I've raised with the minister before and a question I've raised with previous ministers, but I just want to get it on the record. I wanted to ask the minister if he is committed, as a previous Health Minister with the B.C. Liberals — the now Finance Minister — was committed, to keeping St. Paul's Hospital in the downtown core, in the West End, with its current capacities. That's the first question I've got on St. Paul's.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's a good opportunity to reaffirm on the record what I indicated to the member in previous conversations, and that is that the work that is presently being undertaken to examine the various options for the redevelopment and evolution of the St. Paul's Hospital presently does not contemplate a relocation of that facility.

I know that the member will canvass further the status of those redevelopment plans, but I will, as I think I said previously, point out that I will not be in a position today or tomorrow to indicate imminent construction on that site. But this will be a good opportunity to hear from the member about what he and some of his constituents think about the matter.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks to the minister. I'm glad to hear that the government is not considering moving St. Paul's Hospital out of our community any longer. That is a real win for our community, and I'm really glad that we were able to have that confirmed and reconfirmed today.

As the minister knows, St. Paul's has been in and out of the news for years — consideration of whether it would move but, also, just very importantly, one of the most recent news stories, of course, being that the power blew. An old generator failed. An electrical output line connected to the hospital failed, plunging it into darkness.

[ Page 7384 ]

Of course, we know that the elevators are an ongoing concern. Those are the small pieces, of course, of a much more complex and bigger facility with incredible education opportunities, incredible research, etc., for diabetes, AIDS, heart disease, and on and on. We know that St. Paul's is a leader with great staff but substandard facilities.

We know that it won't stand up in an earthquake, and of course the ministry has had a report on its desk since 2004 which states this very clearly — that it needs urgent replacement and that some of the buildings are in extreme need of repair.

Providence has prepared a plan that was ready last fall. It was public last fall. The previous minister had said that we would look to get to the project board, get to the business case this spring. Then there was going to be a meeting in March with the former Health Minister. That got cancelled. Now we've got a new Health Minister, and I understand he's just coming up to speed on the file.

But that doesn't change anything about the fact that, of course, it's urgent and that there has been a need documented since at least 2004 yet very little work to fill that need, aside from the good work in the emergency room. But that's, again, one small piece of the wider hospital — a very important piece but a small piece.

The question to the minister would be: what's taken so long? We've known since 2004 that we've got to do this work. How many more reports or studies are needed before we actually get action for our hospital?

[1500]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it is, happily and characteristically, a direct question from the member, and that's fine. That's what we're here to try and deal with — direct questions and maybe, occasionally, a direct answer.

I think the short answer is the money. I'm not going to quarrel at all with the argument around the urgency for a facility that represents one of the…. It's not just older but, in a limited sense, a heritage structure.

The challenge, of course, is that in the context of two or three hours of debate, I have had a discussion with the member's colleague from North Island about a roughly $600 million project, the member's equally passionate colleague from New Westminster advocating for a billion-dollar project. Add to that a project that, according to the concept plan, I think is estimated to come in at somewhere in the neighbourhood of $600 million. Probably by the time it moves forward we'll be talking about something closer to $700 million.

So $2.5 billion in relatively short order and finding a way to manage that and balance it off, recognizing that there are — at VGH, at Children's and Women's, at Surrey Memorial, at Vernon Jubilee — literally billions of dollars in additional new construction and renovations taking place. There is an element of where do these projects fit in the queue.

I guess sometimes, if I think back on my role as an opposition MLA, as a member of this chamber and a member of the community, some of the frustration, I think, derives from: "Look, tell us where we are in the line. Then at least we'll have a better sense and try to draw some timelines around the management."

I'm sure that the member is going to have more to say, and I'll try to highlight the fact that investment at St. Paul's has not disappeared or dried up. There is a concept plan. I am interested to know, at some point during the course of this discussion, the member's general response to the concept plan and whether or not…. I think he has seen it. I think it was widely enough distributed.

It would be, I suppose, as part of this discussion, helpful to know whether there are elements of that plan that he believes are non-starters or elements of the plan that he thinks are worthy of support. I don't want to put him on the spot, but if, at a general level, he has ideas, this is as good a time as any to hear them.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, the minister is right, of course. Money is always a challenge. Of course he's right. Not always will I say that, but in that context for sure.

Of course, my constituents will pass by B.C. Place and see, you know, the nearly comparable choice to spend approximately $563 million there, versus the choice of spending it on our local hospital. That is a choice that a government has made, and that's one question that I know does come up in the constituency now and then.

The concept plan I think is exciting. It's one that we had a town hall on, actually, in the fall, where Providence Health Care was able to come and speak about what they were planning and hoping for, taking ideas back from the Save St. Paul's Coalition, the West End Residents Association and wider community interests.

[1505]

I've got a letter here that I will be passing over to the minister just for his information. It's a letter calling on the government to proceed with the facilities redevelopment, with the St. Paul's renewal, urging significant capital dollars, as the former minister spoke about, to address the revitalization of it.

It's signed by AIDS Vancouver, A Loving Spoonful, Positive Living B.C., Coal Harbour Residents, the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation, the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association, Friends for Life, Gordon Neighbourhood House, Health Initiative for Men, McLaren Housing, Mole Hill Community Housing, Performing Arts Lodge community, Robson Street Business Association, St. Paul's Anglican, St. Paul's Coalition, West End BIA, West End–Coal Harbour Community Policing Centre, West End Neighbours, West End Residents, West End–Coal Harbour Community Centre, the Yaletown Business Improvement Association and myself as the local MLA.

[ Page 7385 ]

There's widespread community support. That's a huge number of local organizations that represent the downtown core who are very excited about the ability to renew St. Paul's. They're more than ready to go. St. Paul's Hospital Foundation has the ability to raise a good number of dollars — I believe they've stated somewhere between $50 million and $100 million — to go towards the project. Providence Health Care is also very excited about this.

One of the reasons why it's exciting is that a new hospital there will give us the opportunity for greater efficiencies. Instead of having two places you go to, to get your blood work done, you can get it done in one location. Instead of going to multiple places for testing, you can get that done in a single location. So there are opportunities for better mental health capacity in the hospital there, opportunities for greater integration with services like the Dr. Peter Centre offers, and I think it's well past time to make this happen.

I wonder: is there money in the current budget of the Health Ministry to pay for a business case that would then go on to Treasury Board?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has, I think, accurately described what the logical next step would be. We are in the midst…. The member saw me consulting with staff. I'm just trying to get a sense. It's the next step. It's an important step. It does cost a significant amount of money. I can't and won't pretend to stand here today and provide an undertaking that that step will be taken in the next few days or even the next few weeks.

My purpose here is not to be clever or try to trap the member — not that I expect I could — but I will ask this of the member as we have this conversation, and I asked the same question of the member's colleague from North Island.

There is, as he has undoubtedly surmised, competition for finite capital dollars. There's competition for finite operating dollars as well. He knows the government that I serve has approached these large-scale capital projects from a certain perspective, and candidly, as a minister and member of the government, I share the belief that we have maximized the benefit to taxpayers and patients by, in a number of cases, employing a particular approach to procurement.

[1510]

So whether we're talking about the ambulatory centre at VGH, Surrey Memorial, the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre or Vernon Jubilee, we believe that there has been merit and draw on reports from the Auditor General and others to buttress our argument that the public-private partnership has on these larger-scale projects proven successful.

I will say candidly to the member that in advancing a particular project I suppose it would be useful to know that members representing the service area were prepared to at least consider where a case can be made, were prepared to consider that procurement approach as appropriate. Studies, of course, have to be conducted.

In some cases we have been confronted by — dare I say it? — a rather ideological opposition to that approach, but since we are exploring with one another ideas about how to move a project like this forward, I am at least interested to know what the views are of the member, as the representative for the area, with respect to the possibility, at least, of a project of this magnitude proceeding on that basis.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the minister is very clever. He said that he wasn't trying to be clever, that he wasn't trying to entrap somebody, do something like that. He was almost successful in changing the channel so that we wouldn't talk about if there are the dollars for the business case.

The previous business case that was done by this government in its attempt to move the hospital out of the West End cost anywhere from $2 million to $3 million. My question is: is it a priority of this government, of this minister, to see a business case for this site, and will it dedicate the funds to do so?

We know that there's a vacant lot sitting which the government is covering the taxes on — a couple of million dollars so far. So the money is there. It's just a question of priorities.

Again to the minister: is he willing to go forward with a business case for St. Paul's Hospital so that we can take it to the next stage? Certainly, when I talk to constituents, they are concerned around privatization of health care and really like the good job that the staff do at St. Paul's Hospital and wouldn't want to see them lose jobs, wouldn't want to see them no longer doing that work in the community.

I would like to again restate the question: will the minister make St. Paul's a priority and put the money into the business case so that we can take it to the next stage?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the letter, and I hope he'll pass along my appreciation to the agencies that have written for their communication and their message.

Yeah, I understand the pointed interest. I'm not able to offer the direct assurance that I think the member would like to leave the debate with, because within a finite budget there are finite planning dollars and, quite frankly, establishing a priority between St. Paul's, Royal Columbia and Royal Inland is not something that has been done and I'm not proposing to do on the floor of the Legislature during this debate.

Whilst I appreciate the member's comments, I had no illusions about trying to change the subject or avoid the question.

[1515]

[ Page 7386 ]

I am genuinely interested to know to what extent there is preparedness to entertain some of these procurement options. It's the opportunity for the member to ask me questions, not the other way around, and I understand that. It is helpful to know whether or not, in individual circumstances, there is a preparedness to examine some variations in the procurement process that may or may not assist in funding the overall project and therefore potentially, I suppose, make it even that much more attractive.

I do want to assure the member of this. There is a clear understanding of the need, a clear understanding of the fact that the facility has faced some challenges. I also, though, for the benefit of those who have taken the time…. I'm always grateful for any citizen or group that takes the time to write, and perhaps they are watching these proceedings.

I don't want to leave the impression that people have thrown their hands in the air around St. Paul's and that there is no appreciation for the challenges that staff and patients are confronted with there on a daily basis.

Investments continue: $2.3 million in the cardiac services and ambulatory redesign; $4.6 million, site consolidation project; hemodialysis machines; a cardiac MIS suite for $3.3 million; emergency department renovation, which I think the member has probably seen himself, close to $15 million — a total of almost $60 million in investment. Again, it pales in comparison to the $600 million or $700 million that a full site redesign is likely to cost. Yet where I come from, and I'm sure where the member comes from, $60 million is still a significant chunk of money.

Those investments continue. There is obviously a much larger project looming.

M. Sather: I have a constituent that I wanted to talk to the minister about. He's been to my office a number of times to talk to me about a health issue he has. He has a rather severe chronic condition that requires him to get weekly massage therapy treatments. On a yearly basis he's paying $998.40 HST on his massage therapy.

Even if the Premier rolls the HST back a couple of percent — which, given her variable responses to the HST, I don't think can be taken to the bank — by my calculations he would still owe $838.76. I wanted to ask the minister if he felt that it was acceptable that British Columbians like my constituent have to pay that amount of money in HST to get a very needed health service.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. There is an awareness of an inquiry having been made. I must confess that I'm at a bit of a disadvantage to refer specifically to the case the member has raised.

[1520]

Based on the numbers, if I rely upon the numbers the member has provided and can extrapolate, I guess we're talking about someone who is accessing massage therapy treatment to the tune of $8,000 or $9,000 over the course of the year, which is in and of itself a significant amount. Of course, even under the regime that would have been in place previously, he would have been responsible for just about half that amount under the GST. I suppose it's that remaining amount of money that we are talking about. I'm not really in a position in the course of this debate to make specific comments about this specific case.

The member has heard at length the government's rationale for both the HST and more recently, as recent as today, some changes that are being proposed to the HST that in our view would lessen the burden significantly felt by families — in fact, under the analysis that has been conducted by independent bodies, lead to a situation in which virtually every family finds themselves ultimately better off.

I understand that that is a position that the member and his party take issue with. We can have that discussion here, but it…. Well, we can have that discussion here, or we can, I'm sure, have the discussion in a different forum, and one will present itself shortly.

M. Sather: Yeah, that's fine. It sounds like we are going to have another forum to discuss the HST further, so I'll leave that and move on to ask the minister some questions about Ridge Meadows Hospital.

In 11 Lower Mainland hospitals less than 55 percent of patients admitted to hospital get a bed within ten hours. In Ridge Meadows it's only 35 percent of patients who get a bed within ten hours. I wanted to ask the minister why the admission rate for getting a bed is so low at Ridge Meadows Hospital.

Hon. M. de Jong: Could the member repeat the numbers? I want to make sure we're comparing apples to apples here.

M. Sather: By all means. The information I have is that in 11 Lower Mainland hospitals less than 55 percent of patients admitted to hospital get a bed within ten hours. Ridge Meadows, I think, is on the lower end of that with only 35 percent getting a bed within ten hours of being admitted to hospital. I wanted to ask the minister why it seems to be so difficult to get a bed at Ridge Meadows Hospital.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think he is referring to some targets that have been set. We are, as we speak, trying to confirm the numbers that he has presented, and then we'll move on to a discussion about them.

[1525]

The objective, of course, is to get every patient a bed assigned within ten hours. We haven't obviously realized that objective yet but are making progress. If the

[ Page 7387 ]

member can bear with me for a couple of minutes, we'll see if we can get the data and an explanation for that as it relates to Ridge Meadows Hospital.

M. Sather: Well, according to Fraser Health public affairs director David Plug, the problem, in part at least, is that there are so many seniors and acutely ill occupying beds in Maple Ridge.

I wanted to ask a specific question, which I asked Fraser Health, and that was: what are the minimum and maximum times for a senior in Ridge Meadows Hospital waiting for placement in a residential care facility? Part of the problem here is that we have a lot of seniors that should be in residential care.

Now, the information I got from Fraser Health…. They gave me the minimum time, but I didn't get any maximum. What is the range, then? How long are seniors having to wait at Ridge Meadows Hospital to get into a residential care facility?

Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to confirm with the member. I think his question relates to that issue we hear about from time to time and one that has been a significant issue. It seems to be diminishing somewhat. It's the notion of bed-blockers — seniors that are in an acute care facility when where they actually need to be is in supportive housing.

We've got the data for Fraser Health, but I think the member has received that. What I'm going to try and get is something more particular to Ridge Meadows. I don't have it at my fingertips. The officials you see are endeavouring to get it. If the member is agreeable, we'll try to track down something that is a little more particular to Ridge Meadows, because all we'll have at our fingertips right now are Fraser Health Authority numbers.

M. Sather: Another constituent told me something recently that really astounded me. He said he'd been admitted to hospital at Ridge Meadows with a broken bone — I seem to recall it was an ankle — and he didn't get it set for four days. I was astounded at that, but I've since learned that this does happen more frequently than we would like. I think that must be unacceptable to the minister. What's he doing to ensure that my constituents, and other residents in the province, don't have to wait four days to get a broken bone set?

Hon. M. de Jong: Just to back up for a moment. This is a very general number, but I should remind the member that ten years ago the median wait time for access to residential care was up to just about a year. Today the median wait time is about 90 days.

[1530]

Now, that can still pose challenges in individual facilities, but it is much improved from where it was.

The member's next question relates to, again, an individual constituent and both diagnosis and treatment. Of course, we do on occasion hear stories about patients who receive their treatment in a timely…. Well, actually we don't hear about the 98 percent that receive their treatment in a very timely way. We tend to hear about examples where it has taken longer than many of us would think reasonable.

What do we do about that? Well, we try to train more professionals. We are training over twice as many more physicians in British Columbia today than was the case ten years ago. We try to train more nurses, more health care technicians. We try to ensure that there are more professionals on site, available to treat our citizens.

We try to make sure the facilities are there that can accommodate people as they come in the door when they submit to injury or illness, all of it complicated by the fact that as our population grows older, more and more people are seeking access to medical treatment, to health care treatment. So it would be disingenuous of me to suggest there is that one thing that you can do to guarantee that no person ever again is obliged to wait longer than most people in this chamber and most citizens would think reasonable.

I will say this. On balance, I think very positive progress has been made. But that doesn't mean that there isn't more work to be done, and that doesn't mean that the demand on the professionals that we in society rely upon day in, day out to attend to our health care needs won't continue to grow.

H. Bains: My questions…. I think my colleague from Surrey-Fleetwood asked a few of those questions. I just want to expand on those questions.

It's the expansion of the facilities at Surrey Memorial Hospital. The physical space is one thing. I understand that the ambulatory unit is opening in June sometime. The expansion of the emergency ward — that project is delayed until 2014. If this is still the date, the minister can correct me on that.

I think the question that followed from the member from Maple Ridge is the same, and I think the minister tried to answer some of that question — some of the issues that it's brought up and why that is the case. In Surrey Memorial Hospital, being there on numerous cases, you hear….

First of all, the emergency room itself. I was given a tour just the other day by one of the professionals, and they talk about how in Royal Columbian Hospital…. Physically you're in Tim Hortons, but come and take a look here. So yes, you know, in every hallway leading from the emergency ward all the way up to the restaurant there were patients, in some cases, on both sides of the hallway.

They were complaining that they don't have the facilities where they could call for help if they need their

[ Page 7388 ]

personal needs addressed, and I think that those are some of the things…. They have to wait for somebody to come and physically show up there, because they don't have those emergency buttons that they can do. There are no oxygen links in that area.

[1535]

That's a physical space limitation issue, and the date is what the date is. I think the other part that emanates from there is that even once you are admitted, the issue, as was mentioned by the member from Maple Ridge, is that the health care professionals are not there. They're ready for surgery. Sometimes they actually put you through fasting to prepare you for the surgery, but a nurse is not there, an anaesthesiologist is not there, or some other member of the team is not there, so it is postponed again.

I was talking to someone yesterday — same situation. A nurse wasn't there that was needed to perform the surgery, to help with it. So it's postponed. Those are the issues.

The other question that comes out of that is — and the minister tried to answer in the previous question: what about the staffing? What are we doing to increase the staffing? I mean, even if you are expanding the facilities, how are you going to deal with that particular issue?

One is training more professionals here, but have you looked at utilizing or helping those who are already here with some qualifications? They may need some upgrading. They may need some help in dealing with the issue, which is foreign-trained professionals. Many of them are actually Canadian-born kids studying outside. They're coming back. They're doctors, but they are having huge difficulty coming back into the system to use their skills.

Ontario and Manitoba have brought in some legislation to deal with that issue, although it covers the entire professional organizations. But on health care alone, I just want to ask the minister: is there any attempt being made to help those who already have those credentials? They could be Canadian kids who left the country and are coming back here. How do we help them and assist them to get back into the system so that we do have those professionals when we need them?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we touched on this briefly yesterday, but I think it's a very important and interesting component of the health care equation. You can separate it out into a couple of different compartments, if you will.

First of all, in general, the realization that we need more health care professionals — physicians, nurses and technicians, the physiotherapists, the respiratory therapists; all of these folks, the whole suite of professionals that, for lay people like most of us, we tend to categorize as a doctor or a nurse. There's this whole suite of professionals that make up the team of professionals that we rely upon.

Training more of them — well, we're doing that. In the case of physicians, of course, it takes upwards of eight or nine years from the time they enter university to when they graduate, complete their internships and are actively serving patients on a full-time basis — in an emergency ward, for example.

There is that domestic aspect to this, but also how we utilize the people that are trained. The member will know, I think, that there are challenges arising as we develop new categories within the conventional designations. We have nurse practitioners now. They are, if you will, registered nurses with a significantly enhanced level of training.

Are we utilizing nurse practitioners to the degree that I think, ultimately, we should? I don't think so. Some of that, by the way, is the responsibility of government, some of it is the responsibility of the health authorities, and some of it, quite frankly, is attributable to some resistance within the traditional professional fields to change — a little bit of concern around turf.

[1540]

Licensed practical nurses and the opportunities that they have, with correct training and appropriate training, to fill in, in areas that historically registered nurses…. I mean, these are specialized areas within which there is debate on the part of those. By the way, this is not unique to medicine. You can have an interesting discussion between lawyers and notaries on matters relating to professional behaviour and scope of practice. That's an area that I think requires ongoing attention and work.

Then the area that the member has referred to, this phenomenon where we have people…. Some of them are foreign nationals who choose to come to Canada with training, and some are Canadians who have gone abroad, received training and come back here. We still have some impediments, in my view, to capitalizing on those skill sets as quickly as we should.

Now, I think we're getting better. Yesterday we discussed the fact that in our foreign credentialing for physicians, we've tripled and gone from six to 18. Those are still pretty modest numbers.

I think the member also knows that for whatever reason, I have a particular interest in this not just as it relates to health care but on an economic basis. We tend to think of some of these countries…. The member, I think, traces his ancestry back to India. We have this preconceived notion of countries that formerly fit into the Third World categorization. That is not the case today.

You go to India, and you see these…. I toured a facility, the Apollo Hospitals chain. It's incredible, with skilled personnel. There is a lingering element of arrogance on our part to suggest that someone who has received training in some of these centres isn't qualified to come here. Yet we are cautious because we feel this

[ Page 7389 ]

obligation to say to fellow citizens: "Fear not. We have standards, and we are ensuring that they are being…." It becomes very bureaucratic.

It's a combination of government and of governing bodies in the professions themselves breaking through that in a balanced and responsible way, preserving our ability to say to citizens: "We are capitalizing on that international skill set, but we are also doing so in a way that ensures you are being treated by someone who is qualified to provide that treatment." That's the challenge. As I say, we're making progress, but I think there's more we can do.

H. Bains: I think there are a couple of areas in there. I think Manitoba, as I mentioned, and Ontario…. I understand the protection of their jurisdictions. All of the professional organizations have their own in-house bylaws on how to govern themselves. I understand that, but I think to overcome some of that, Ontario and Manitoba, as the minister probably knows, have come down with legislation.

You know, they appointed a fairness commissioner, whose role is to make sure that when changes are made, they are in line with the government direction that the government wants to see in all of those professional organizations. We're zeroing in here or talking about the health care side only. If the minister had a look at that model…. There is something where the government's leadership is needed to make those changes, to bring them to the table and say: "Look, we need to utilize these skills that are already here."

There are two components; I agree with the minister. We have professionals who were trained in countries previously called Third World. But there are Canadian children who were born, raised and educated here — UBC and other graduates — who couldn't get into the medical school here because of limited seats. So they've gone over to England, to Ireland or to other places — countries that we previously depended on for professionals. Now we're not even allowing them to come back and enter into our system.

[1545]

The other part that perhaps the minister and the staff can clarify is: how is it that a special arrangement was made with the doctors from South Africa who could come in and practise here in B.C. without going through those same impediments, as the minister has said, as those who were trained in England or Ireland or even some of the other European countries? How does that work? If the minister could explain that — why there are two different approaches to it.

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I'm always gratified to receive information that we can follow up on, and I will, with respect to the approach that he has described out of Ontario and Manitoba.

I can do two things. I can alert the member to the fact that based on the approach in place at the moment, we believe that within a few years there will be upwards of 134 international medical graduates in training at any given time in B.C., which represents a fairly significant expansion. I want to assure the member that he will encounter no philosophical quarrel from me about finding the most efficient and appropriate ways to recognize credentialing to facilitate the flow of internationally trained medical graduates.

I will ask this, though. And it is not, again, to turn what I am finding to be a very useful and enlightening conversation into something else. But we also try to facilitate the flow of professionals within the country. So when the member talks about legislating…. In fact, the government did that with TILMA. It signed an agreement that was dedicated, in part, to facilitating the freer flow of professions within the country. Now, is there the potential for flaws and issues? But that is the underlying principle.

So I would suggest this. I would only say this to the member. I in no way quarrel with the proposition that says: let us find ways to facilitate the entry and full participation of internationally trained medical personnel.

But I apply that same standard and that same philosophy to facilitating the entry of Canadians who may receive training elsewhere in a range of professions. We're talking about health care here, and I understand that. But I apply a similar approach and attach similar importance when it comes to removing some of those domestic hurdles that continue to linger in our country.

[1550]

H. Bains: I think I also asked a question about the difference between the South African doctors coming in and practising here compared to, say, doctors coming from England or from Ireland. Why is there a different approach to it?

The other

part I may want to mention to the minister is that you do need a national strategy on this issue — you know, like we had a Red Seal approach for the apprenticeships. Those are the types of things where we could show some leadership, when the ministers from all the provinces and the federal government sit down and come up with a strategy.

I'll leave that for another day. Our Health critic probably will follow that one as well, but I just want to talk about the different approach given to professionals trained in different countries, and South Africa is one of the examples that I used.

Hon. M. de Jong: I didn't mean to divert us off into another realm of argument.

I can't say this for certain, but I can advise the member that the national College of Family Physicians, for

[ Page 7390 ]

example, recognizes a current system of certification as equivalent to Canada's in a number of medical schools in the United States, in the U.K., in Ireland, in Australia. Actually, I think that in large measure that represents the most efficient way of doing this.

What I don't have on my list, by the way, is South Africa, but my expectation is that something similar exists there, because there has been quite an influx of physicians from South Africa.

At the end of the day, having agreements in place that recognize the credentials of the program itself and, therefore, those who graduate from those programs is probably the best way I can think of to facilitate the entry of an internationally trained student. With a certified program, we are saying in advance that if you attend this school and if you graduate from this program, you are qualified and your credentials are recognized as being comparable. That strikes me as an eminently sensible way to approach this.

M. Farnworth: I thought I may as well enter the debate at this particular point, because this was a topic that I had intended to address later. My colleague has raised it and raised some interesting points, and the minister has responded. I would like to carry this a little bit further so that we don't have to come back to it later on.

The minister and my colleague have raised, I think, some really important points. One is the issue of foreign credentialing and the process we go through in this province, and I agree that there are some real challenges.

The minister made some comments about the ability within the country to practise, and I think that absolutely that is a real issue. If you're trained in Ontario, you should be able to practise in British Columbia. If you're trained in British Columbia, you should be able to practise in Ontario. The last time I checked, the arm bone connected to the wrist bone is still the same in this province as it is in any other province. Blood still circulates through arteries and veins, and it doesn't change. How you do a kidney transplant is no different in British Columbia than it is in Ontario.

I think there are a lot of things that do need to change. Here's where I take not issue, but where I want to go with the minister and just explore a little bit, because I think it's important. One is the issue of a national strategy in terms of…. It's one thing for a province to work with another province to say okay, and I'll use TILMA as an example, on medical professionals. I actually think we need to have a national strategy that recognizes the importance of health professionals right across the country and a national strategy in terms of training physicians and health care professionals not just in British Columbia but in Ontario and all the other provinces.

[1555]

My question is: is the ministry or minister engaged in those discussions with provincial and federal ministers to move to that type of system? We're not talking about doing a deal with one particular province, but we're actually trying to get a national agreement on the ability to work right across the country if you're a physician or you're a nurse.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Really, two tracks — the question relating to the level of national engagement. It exists in two ways, I am learning and discovering. On the professional level — and the hon. member may recall this from his days in this particular seat — the individual colleges from the provinces staff the accreditation committee of Canadian medical schools. That's the professional body that makes decisions around the means by which recognition is going to be granted.

I think the member's question related to the second track, which is at the political level. I am advised that there have been ongoing discussions at the deputies level about the extent to which we can improve the recruitment of international health personnel. I am also reminded that it is a topic for discussion at the upcoming federal-provincial Health Ministers meetings, which are scheduled for the end of the summer.

I could go on and pretend to know more about the status of those discussions than I do. I won't do that, except to say that it is an area that I am keenly interested in and, as I am reminded by the deputy, an ongoing phenomenon that frustrates the heck out of people who can't understand why folks who seemingly have the talent are not allowed to put that talent to work.

[1600]

I will say this, though. It doesn't take very much for the pendulum to swing in the other direction when an allegation is made about a health official, be it a technician or someone else who has received training, who's then accused of not having met a certain standard set in Canada. The public becomes justifiably concerned about that as well. So it's a problem that most people would conclude has a logical and seemingly straightforward solution but, as we discovered time and time again, is filled with complexities.

M. Farnworth: I want to stick with this a little bit because it has been — what? — 12 years since I sat in that seat — a long time ago, and much of that time you forget. But there are certain things that do stick in your mind, issues that you remember, and this is one of them.

I remember being Health Minister and meeting with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and others and going through these very same questions and being told that if you're from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa before the change,

[ Page 7391 ]

it's real simple to practise medicine here in British Columbia. But if you're from France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Scandinavia or anywhere else, it's very, very difficult, even though…. And it struck me back then that that was a rather archaic, to be charitable, way of viewing the world and the way it's changed and skills and training.

What strikes me is that I'm not sure that we've moved that far in the 12 years in terms of expanding the recognition — you know? India is no longer the Third World country that's…. Quite often there was an arrogance and a paternalism that I think was applied to…. Their doctors are now trained just as highly as they are in our own country. So that is one issue, the issue of recognizing foreign credentials, and I think it's an important one that we have to do.

I do think the minister is right in that it doesn't take much to swing the pendulum. But I do think there are unnecessary hurdles and red tape put in the way of us being able to take advantage of the use of the talent that is coming to this country through immigration, which the federal government is encouraging and we as a province are encouraging because we benefit from that. There's tremendous economic and social benefit from that.

I am pleased to see the increase in the number of spaces that…. People will be able to access credentials. That's one aspect, and I know that's going to be ongoing for quite some time.

I'm glad to see that it's being addressed at the deputy level and, the minister says, at the ministerial level. I just hope that we are further along now than we were 12 years ago. Somehow I have a feeling that we're still talking about it when what we need to be doing is making some real, concrete changes.

Within that, I think there is another issue that we have a responsibility to do — and that's why I feel strongly about the issue of a national strategy — and that is…. There's an ethical question. We are too often, I feel, encouraging…. Well, the best way to put it is we strip-mine countries sometimes of their best and brightest health care professionals, countries that can't afford to lose their talents. It sometimes has been easier to bring them here to Canada as opposed to training our own. I think that's an issue that needs to be addressed at the national level.

That's why I raise the issue around national strategies in terms of training the health care professionals that we need, ensuring, of course, that immigration will continue to play a

part in that, but also being mindful that sometimes we've made it…. We take health care professionals from countries that invested an awful lot of money in training their own to provide services and the brain talent that they need to develop, and we're too quick to take them, to poach them.

[1605]

I think there's a real question when we, a nation as wealthy with the people and resources that we have, do that. I think that's something that needs to be addressed by the provinces and the federal government in terms of a health-care human resource strategy in this.

I don't necessarily expect an answer from the minister on that. I think it's a question that really I find particularly…. I think it's one that we have to address, because there's a real issue there that in many cases has been ignored. It's too tempting sometimes in communities that can't get health care professionals to say, "Oh, we can bring someone from somewhere else" — from a place that needs just as much as we do, and they don't have the ability to train their own and we do. I think that's something we need to address.

So that little not rant but sort of venting of a frustration that I see within our system aside, one of the questions that I've got for the minister on the issue of credentials and the mobility of health care professionals is: has the minister had meetings with the professional bodies since he's become minister — it may be a little soon — in order to push this issue and get a sense of where they feel change can or can't be made? Or has he encountered…? Is there a resistance to broadening the scope or the ability and ease of movement within the country and the credentialing of people from outside the country?

Hon. M. de Jong: The discussions…. Well, let me back up because I thought that the remarks that the hon. member made a few moments ago were relevant and important.

Raising the ethical question in the way that the member did is, I think, appropriate. I think we do have to be cognizant of the fact that as other nations develop and acquire expertise, our role is not to roll in and simply relieve them of that developing talent. We have the wealth, and if we have the will, we should be able to train the majority of those people that we need here.

[1610]

I will say this. The government is proud of the fact that we now have an expanded medical school presence. We train just in excess of twice as many doctors today as we did. It's expensive — medical schools, by definition — but the fact that we are doing so and that we are doing so, for example, in Prince George, soon in the Okanagan, in Victoria…. Of course, the added advantage of training in a place like Prince George is that the ability to attract physicians to stay in those communities and surrounding areas is enhanced.

[ Page 7392 ]

I'm just now reminded of the in excess of $105 million spent on postgraduate medical education as well.

The national component to this is important, and that work has been ongoing. It exists in the context of physicians, but I mentioned, for example, TILMA and the work that has taken place between Alberta and British Columbia around nurse practitioners and licensed practical nurses.

What we have begun to see is that when all of the jurisdictions are sitting around the table at times and trying to find the magical solution to make this happen all at once, that head-butting goes on and on and on. Our experience with TILMA has been, quite frankly, that we did it with our neighbour jurisdiction, and now other provinces are signing on and saying: "We want a part of that."

So in many ways we have led, and other provinces…. There's an element of: "See? That didn't hurt." Yeah, it's technical. Yes, it can be challenging. But part of what we did with TILMA was to say to the rest of the country: "We are not going to wait for everyone to decide this is the right thing to do."

To paraphrase what the hon. member has said, we are a country. We are this huge country with a relatively small population, and we cannot afford to duplicate all of these processes in every single provincial jurisdiction. It doesn't work. It's too expensive.

So the assurance I can give the member is that the passion he has expressed for seeing this elevated to the national stage as a priority is one that I share, and I hope, as the present occupant of this office, to be able to give expression to that passion and interest both in advance of and during the discussions that will take place when the provincial ministers and the federal minister get together. I'm hopeful, as well, to have an opportunity to speak with the newly reappointed federal minister in due course.

The member also asked about conversations with some of the professional groups here in British Columbia. I've had an opportunity to make an initial acquaintance with the B.C. Medical Association, the B.C. Nurses Union, the health sciences professionals. That's why I'm working my way through the menu of various boards, colleges and commissions.

I have to say that without exception I have been impressed by the willingness on the part of those representative bodies to engage in a discussion around how we can all work together to try and do this better for the citizens. That's a good place to start.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his response.

I raise it in the sense that…. The health care system and the challenges that we face — one of the key components of that is around human resources, and it's not just doctors and nurses. It's the people who run…. It's the health care professionals that run your MRI and your CT scans and do the tests and diagnostics and all those things.

One of the things that has struck me in our effort to ensure that we've got the right number of people in the right places to do the work that's required and to provide the services that are required is that it's a combination of training our own and of people coming in from outside the country.

[1615]

I'm glad the minister recognized the ethical question. I mean, India is one thing. But in other places, there's much smaller…. I think it's a much different story.

It's also where we get into a game ourselves, as provinces, where we end up poaching from other provinces. We raise benefits in this province to make it more attractive. Then other provinces do the same thing. I think that's something that we need to be mindful of.

Again, to me, what it comes back to is that health care is a provincial jurisdiction, but many of the challenges that we need I think require much more of a national approach than we have seen to date. Particularly on the human resource side of the equation, I think that that's crucial.

I'd be interested, when the minister has his meetings, in hearing how they go and how that issue plays itself out, because I think it's an important one. It's an important practical — but also, I think, philosophical — issue that needs to be dealt with in the health care system.

The minister indicated he's just meeting with officials from…. Again, I'm not expecting him to have all the answers, and he's getting a sense of where issues are going. But when it comes to…. We've talked about physicians.

What has been his reaction from meeting with, for example, nurses and looking at issues around expanding the scope of practice? What room does he see for initiatives and improvements in that area? Is the ministry undertaking any particular initiatives in terms of dealing with some of those issues around expanding the scope of practice amongst the different health care professions, and can he give me the status of any initiatives that are under way?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, this, too, is an important part of the puzzle that is the delivery of health care. I think the member has asked for examples of situations in which these kinds of discussions are taking place. I have alluded a few moments ago to one example, and that is the advent and introduction over the last couple of years of nurse practitioners.

I will say that my initial observation is that there have been some growing pains associated with properly and fully utilizing nurse practitioners. We are fully engaged in discussions now, sitting down in a very candid way with the parties. The essence of the position of

[ Page 7393 ]

the government is that we established this enhanced level of training and this program for a reason, and we'd like to see these professionals put those enhanced skills to work.

[1620]

The member will know that recently there has been some discussion and debate around the use of licensed practical nurses and their ability, capacity, to participate, to provide immunization. There's another example of a discussion within the family of nurses about how we can fully utilize folks who have received a certain measure of training. One actually presented itself in a public way on the weekend — opticians and optometrists.

So as technology evolves and we say, "All right, how do we safely and responsibly employ that technology? Which are the professionals that are capable of doing so, and quite frankly, how do we maximize the fiscal benefit to the citizen, the people that are paying the bills…?"

Pushing up against that is the concern and potential criticism from a professional body that says: "Well, I'm concerned (

a) about the safety of the patient, but (

b) what are the fiscal consequences for me as a professional when guidelines are amended or changed to allow someone else to participate in a way that historically hasn't been the case?"

We have — and I suspect this has not changed in the intervening 12 years — tables in place that are designed to bring people together to have those discussions. Sometimes they result in a compromise that all of the parties can agree upon, and sometimes they result in an agreement to disagree and a requirement for the government or the minister or the cabinet to make a decision and say: "Well, this is the decision as it relates to this scope-of-practice issue."

The first scenario is preferable; the second is often required. But those are three examples of where that debate is ongoing. What I have tried to communicate to the various groups with which I have met is that the instructions to our senior officials are that the government wishes them to be fully engaged, to participate in good faith in the discussion and, to the extent the government may have a predisposition or a position, to lay it clearly before the parties so that they have an opportunity to respond candidly.

I hope that helps somewhat.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his response. At this time I'd like to move on to seniors issues. I'll come back with some final questions on that. I know we've got some more time, but I have committed to my colleague that we would spend a good bulk of the afternoon on dealing with seniors health care and long-term health care, so I will turn it over to her right now. She has some thoughts and comments that she'd like to make.

K. Conroy: I want to thank the minister and his staff for the opportunity this afternoon, and I also want to acknowledge the staff out in the hinterlands that help all of us in our constituency offices with so many issues and help us to resolve issues. So I'd like to thank them.

I'm going to take a few hours to go over the big pictures of seniors issues — including residential care wait-lists, funding the long-term-care rates, licensing, regulation and enforcement, hours of care, retention and recruitment of staff, home support and hospice, just to name a few of them. We'll see what we get through.

Then other colleagues want to ask questions. It will be later in the day, except for our colleague from Delta South, who would like to ask some questions right now, so I'm going to turn it over to her.

V. Huntington: I thank the critic for seniors for giving me this opportunity, because I know she has a great deal on her plate this afternoon.

[1625]

I've had a number of questions here related to facilities and the issues that they're experiencing in their relationship with Fraser Health, and I suspect it's more or less a general relationship throughout the province. I won't be able to ask all of them, but I thought one was particularly interesting given the earlier conversation between the minister and his critic with regard to the foundation. As you said, the foundation has been laid for pan-Canadian purchasing opportunities, and it probably would be worthwhile exploring those.

The same situation exists provincially, and what I have learned is that a number of the extended care facilities, private and non-profit, are not able to access the systems within, I'll say, Fraser Health, because that's what I know of, but it could be everywhere. Their feeling is that they're called partners but are not treated as partners within the system.

One of the issues that arose was the lack of access to the purchasing group. They felt that the whole system would be relieved of a fairly significant financial burden if they also could access the provincial health purchasing group. I'm not sure what the name is. Similarly, they found they don't have access to intranet. I don't know whether that's an issue that has another implication to it, but for whatever reason they were disappointed that they couldn't access. Nor do they have access to the maintenance authority group within Fraser Health.

All of those issues would enable them to reduce their costs substantially and relieve the pressure on Fraser Health to continually look at raising the care rates. I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether he would take a look at those issues on behalf of the extended care facilities and perhaps at least look at where they could share the opportunities to maximize benefits.

[ Page 7394 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for Delta South for her participation in the discussion today. I want to make sure I understand the question because I'm intrigued by it. I want to make sure that as we do what we do over here that we're pursuing it from the right perspective.

What I think the member is alerting me to is the fact that there are seniors care facilities that are run by non-profit societies or privately owned and that provide care to seniors but that the joint purchasing and procurement processes we've set up within, for example, Fraser Health, presumably to purchase bulk and achieve savings as a result…. The member is saying they are precluded from participating in that process.

She will appreciate that all of what she said interests me. When she got to the part about reducing costs, I became particularly interested. If that's, in essence, the nature of the question, I'm going to see what I can ascertain right now, but the short answer is that I'm very interested. If there is a way for us to partner and achieve savings on the part of the folks we call partners in the delivery of seniors care, then we should be doing what we can.

Let me see what the status is, and I'll get back to the member in a moment.

[1630]

I have heard nothing to dissuade me from the position I just articulated. It's something we should pursue, and I have a suggestion for how we might want to pursue it in a way that is manageable, measurable and might actually see us achieve something.

The member doesn't have to do this in here, in the chamber. But if she would like to provide the name of an organization that fits the bill, and I'm sure she has a couple in mind — if she wants to do it in here; it's fine, too, if she wants to provide it to me by another means — and let's use that as an example.

I will say this. The notion of taking the order through the joint purchasing agency is something that makes a lot of sense to me. The one caveat I would attach is this. I don't think there is the capacity or the desire to acquire additional administrative responsibilities for managing the purchasing process. So if this is purely a case of needing X supply of linen and we can capitalize on the reduced costs that come from the joint purchasing agency, I think we should pursue that. If the member wants to provide an example of an organization that is prepared to work and help us realize that objective, I'm interested to know it.

V. Huntington: I have a lot of organizations that will be very pleased with that response. I don't know if there's a specific central organization I can refer to the minister, but certainly, it's every extended health facility in my riding. I have recently met with them all as a group, and that was one issue that was raised.

Similarly, if the minister would take under consideration allowing them, perhaps after discussion with them, access to the health authority's maintenance division, again, it would be an ability to lower costs.

One of the other issues is access to the health authority systems. Similarly, I was told that they have no access to the policies and procedures upon which their licences are judged, and it would be of great benefit if they could access those too.

Now, if the minister would consider taking those under consideration or discussing them further with me or other organizations, I'd appreciate that, and I can go on to another question.

Hon. M. de Jong: Can I ask the member, just with respect to the development of applicable policy: is there an example? I do know, and have had it reaffirmed for me, that there is actually access to the policy manual and a measure of access in the developmental stages, but maybe there is a specific example that the member can point to where organizations within her constituency have expressed frustration at how a particular policy has emerged or perhaps taken them by surprise.

V. Huntington: I'm sorry. I can't be more specific with the minister, but I can certainly find out. The comments made to me are that the system will not share policy and procedures and that while they're judged on licensing requirements and guidelines, they have no access to procedural requirements. Now, I can't go further than that, but I will be glad to find the information out for the minister.

My other question, among many, has to do with taxation of these care facilities. It's very inconsistent.

[1635]

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I just want to make sure that we have properly understood. The frustration seems to be that facilities are subject to inspection, which is an important component of our desire and our objective of delivering a quality of care to citizens and patients, and there is frustration that policies and procedures are being applied which some of these organizations say they are prevented from seeing. The member is indicating that that's the case.

The note I have indicates that all of the health authorities have adopted the long-term care standards from Accreditation Canada. What I suppose we should endeavour to ascertain is whether or not the health authorities apply additional regulatory requirements or policy requirements.

I will say this. If you're going to ask people and organizations to adhere to a certain standard or policy, it's important that they know what that standard or policy is. To the extent that there seems to be a breakdown between the policy and people knowing what the policy is,

[ Page 7395 ]

again, I have discovered over the years that one of the best ways to try and resolve this is to have a specific example, which the member may be able to provide. If we address that, we may find that we are solving or eliminating a broader problem that may or may not exist.

V. Huntington: I'll certainly provide that to you, and if I can't, I will apologize to you. One of the indications that I was given was that there is an inconsistent application of the licensing guidelines. That causes problems, too, but I'll provide some specifics on that.

The other issue that I'd like to just comment on, on behalf of these facilities, is the issue of taxation. The hospitals and health authority facilities do not pay HST, for instance, and most of the non-profit providers are rebated, but the private providers have to pay the HST. There is an inconsistency immediately at that rate. The issue was whether at any point there could be an exemption for the private providers considered.

Secondly, there's the issue of property tax, which is applied inconsistently throughout the province. Non-profits are usually tax-exempt. The private providers pay the property taxes, yet some municipalities and cities — for instance, Surrey — exempt private providers from their property tax, along with the non-profits. There's a very inconsistent and unlevel playing field there, which is an expensive one, as you can imagine, for the private providers. I wondered if you had any comment or interest in that issue.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think we'll deal with the second question first, and we'll get back to the other one. I can appreciate that if a private care facility is located in a jurisdiction that has chosen not to provide the kinds of exemptions the member has alluded to, they will feel aggrieved and disadvantaged.

[1640]

The potential solution…. In fairness, I'm not sure that the member has called for this. I think she asked for my thoughts as opposed to suggesting a particular course of action.

A potential response, I suppose, would be for the Crown — and the right of the province — to legislate away those discrepancies and those inconsistencies. But that would represent a fairly significant intrusion into the jurisdiction of local government. I am certain about what the reaction would be from organizations like the UBCM and local government were the provincial government to do that.

The member has raised a point about the inconsistencies and discrepancies. All I can tell the member at this point is that I haven't, and I don't believe the government has, contemplated, to this point at least, stepping in statutorily to remove that inconsistency. But I'm certain it is an aggravating fact, especially in a situation, as the member describes, where an operator may exist on one side of a provincial boundary and be, in a sense, competing with someone that is paying a significantly different property tax rate.

I'll need a moment, though, to consider my response to the member's first question. The first question related to the application of the HST as it relates to for-profits and the comparison with non-profits. I can't remember if the member was here for a previous comment.

Unless the member or another member wishes to, I'm not proposing as a part of this discussion to embark on a wholesale discussion around the HST, because there will be other opportunities. I accept that there is a difference of opinion between the members of the government and the members of the opposition, and this member will undoubtedly have her own views on it.

What I can tell the member, though, for the purpose of this discussion, is that in February of 2010, I am advised, the Ministry of Health directed the health authorities to keep their contracted, for-profit residential care providers whole with respect to the HST. There was funding provided for that purpose. So that is the expectation on the part of the ministry.

If a circumstance has arisen where that has not occurred, then I am interested to hear about it. Again, I won't necessarily ask the member to disclose that example during the course of these proceedings, but if she wishes to do so…. The ministry is operating on the basis of the instructions that were provided to the health authorities in February of last year to keep tho