2009 Legislative Session: First 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)

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Employment and training of blind people in B.C.

L. Popham

Mount Washington Alpine Food Festival

D. McRae

Access to government information

D. Routley

Mountain-biking-trail project in Burns Lake area

J. Rustad

Paramedics labour dispute

M. Karagianis

Henry Leland House and supportive housing in Kamloops

T. Lake

Oral Questions

Report recommendations on protection system for victims of domestic violence

C. James

Hon. M. Polak

M. Karagianis

M. Elmore

Hon. K. Heed

L. Krog

Government action on violence against women

D. Black

Hon. K. Heed

Orphaned Wildlife Rehabilitation Society funding

V. Huntington

Hon. R. Coleman

Mining exploration permit in Flathead Valley area

R. Fleming

Hon. B. Penner

Release of report on outbreak at Nanaimo Hospital

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Routley

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Ferry Commission, annual report for fiscal year ended March 31, 2009

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act (N o . 2), 2009

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Hansen

Hon. K. Falcon

S. Herbert

Hon. K. Krueger

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. R. Coleman

S. Simpson

S. Herbert

M. Sather

M. Farnworth

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range (continued)

L. Popham

Hon. P. Bell

N. Simons

B. Simpson

N. Macdonald

B. Routley

[ Page 799 ]

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I have ten guests to introduce today. Nine of them are part of our 13,000 blind people in B.C. The other guest is a guide dog named Hilly. It's Meet the Blind Month in October, so I would like you to meet Elizabeth Lalonde, Jeff Lalonde, Erin Lacharity, Miriam Yusefi, Oriano Belusic, Doris Belusic, Shane Baker, Frederick Driver and Kyla Berry. Please make them feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

OF BLIND PEOPLE IN B.C.

L. Popham: Members of the Canadian Federation of the Blind have joined us in the House today to help me announce that October is Meet the Blind Month. Given proper training and opportunity, people who are blind can work in competitive jobs, pay taxes and participate fully in community life.

However, because of lack of proper training and opportunity, the unemployment rate of blind people is exceeding 80 percent. There are approximately 13,000 legally blind people in B.C. Among those people, there are approximately 3,000 to 4,000 working-age blind.

[1335]

One huge barrier to blind people getting ahead is that there is no publicly accountable funding for their rehabilitation in this province. There is funding in the system for persons with mental and physical disabilities to receive rehabilitation, but this does not exist for persons who are blind. If you became blind, where would you go for training in essential blindness skills?

There are three highly successful world-renowned blindness immersion centres in the United States. Elizabeth Lalonde, one of our guests today, has received a $45,000 grant from the National Federation of the Blind sister organization in the United States to attend one of these training centres. She will be leaving tomorrow for nine months of intensive training.

This type of training and funding we should be offering in British Columbia. It is essential blindness immersion training.

Elizabeth has joined us today with three other blind British Columbians who want and need to go to this type of centre. Their names are Shane Baker, Miriam Yusefi and Erin Lacharity. They need to go as soon as possible so that they can get the skills they need for life and employment. Rehabilitation is a right, it is a necessity, and it is the only humane answer to the problems faced by blind British Columbians.

Hon. K. Falcon: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the gallery a former executive assistant of mine is here with her husband and her new baby boy. I would like the House to please make her welcome. She was on leave for her pregnancy and, obviously, the successful birth of a very beautiful young boy. Corrie Delisle, her husband, Dave, and baby, William Delisle, are here. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MOUNT WASHINGTON

ALPINE FOOD FESTIVAL

D. McRae: On Labour Day weekend I had the honour of meeting Peter Gibson, general manager of Mount Washington Alpine Resort, to attend the annual Mount Washington Alpine Food Festival. The event is a celebration of culinary excellence, a chance for participants to learn cooking techniques from expert local and guest chefs, and visit an incredible alpine market that showcases food products from both the Comox Valley and Vancouver Island.

The event began on Friday night with emcee Corbin Tomaszeski, host of the Food Network's Restaurant Makeover show, introducing attendees to a variety of fare, with guests noshing on products ranging from locally brewed Surgenor beer to bison sliders from Island Bison located in Black Creek. Guests were given a chance to meet three local best-selling cookbook authors.

On Saturday guests had the opportunity to attend a variety of cooking classes taught by local and guest chefs. The chefs taught participants how to cook recipes ranging from chanterelle mushrooms to a chorizo, chicken and shellfish paella. All the restaurants highlighted local products located on Vancouver Island. On Saturday evening people sat down to an eight-course gala dinner located in Mount Washington's lodge, and the chefs paired B.C. wines with exquisite courses.

On Sunday the alpine market was open and gave visitors a chance to sample products. My family and I sampled the rich dark chocolate from Dark Side

[ Page 800 ]

Chocolate, located in the village of Cumberland; the smoked oyster spread from Fanny Bay Oysters, located in Baynes Sound. Halstead Farms organic poultry was barbecued to perfection by barbecue king Rockin' Ronnie Shewchuk. Locals Restaurant, located in the city of Courtenay, steamed fresh mussels to perfection, and there were a variety of cheeses from Natural Pastures Cheese Co., who have won world championship gold medals for their products. There were many more.

Celebrating and valuing locally produced food products has never been as important as it is today. This resurgence has encouraged people to support their local agriculture industry and eat products that are both better for us and better for the environment in which we live.

I wish to compliment Mount Washington for the venue, the economic development society for making agriculture a cornerstone of its focus, the food producers of the Comox Valley and Vancouver Island and the people who have, by buying locally, helped grow a vital industry in the province of British Columbia. Bon appétit.

ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

D. Routley: Next week marks the Right to Know Week in British Columbia. This is a very important week. We won't be sitting, so I would like to refer the members to it today.

In 1822 James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, said: "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and the people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power, which knowledge gives."

Our own information officer, Mr. Loukidelis, says that access laws are of fundamental importance to open and accountable government. Without a right of access, citizens are unable to use the information they require to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and to hold politicians and bureaucrats accountable to the citizenry.

[1340]

Mr. Madison's most distinctive belief was that government required checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority. We have an obligation in this House to those principles.

People across this world struggle for the right to know — the right to know about products, the right to know about their governance. In this digital age, in this age of international trade, we as citizens can feel small — a small part to this equation. It is our duty to maintain vigilance over this right to know. We have an obligation to it, to those who elect us, to knock down the barriers to our right to know, not to place new walls between the people and the information needed for a healthy democracy.

I ask all the members in this House to recommit, on this day and next week, to the right to know, to the right for all of our citizens to have the information it takes to have a healthy democracy in the name of our province, British Columbia.

MOUNTAIN-BIKING-TRAIL PROJECT

IN BURNS LAKE AREA

J. Rustad: Rural B.C. is filled with people who have a dream and, through drive and determination, make it a reality. Such is the case with Kevin Derksen, Pat Dube, Dave Sandsmark and the entire Burns Lake Mountain Biking Association. Their passion for mountain biking — combined with the great terrain of Boer Mountain, the Burns Lake Community Forest and the willing hands of the community — produced a world-class facility.

Through their determination, the association, in partnership with the Burns Lake Rotary Club and the Minister of Tourism, were able to access a grant for more than $400,000 through the job opportunities program to enable the bike association to expand their existing trails and their dreams. Professional mountain downhill biker Jay "Hoots" of Norco Bikes and the Gravity Logic trail crew helped design an unbelievable course.

With their vision and expertise, Burns Lake will encompass a variety of the unique and technical aspects of biking that have put British Columbia on the North American trail-riding map. The quality of the trails rivals the world-renowned Whistler Blackcomb and North Shore mountain trails. They're truly a marvel and well worth the trip to Burns Lake to explore and compete.

With over 4,000 hectares in area, this park is scheduled to include over 100 kilometres of cross-country trails, 15 kilometres of intermediate and expert trails exploring the mountain, a skills park with 20 drops and five jumps, and an extensive network of downhill and free-ride routes — all of which connect to the beautiful and challenging Kager Lake trail system, a network flowing through three different lakes and further excursions of breathtaking wilderness on the doorstep of Burns Lake.

Please join me in extending an invitation to the world to come and explore this great site, as well as to congratulate Burns Lake Biking Association on their achievements.

PARAMEDICS LABOUR DISPUTE

M. Karagianis: Today I rise in the House to pay tribute to a remarkable group of men and women who serve my community and communities right across British Columbia, saving lives every day with exceptional dedication and expertise. Whenever we have needed them, they have been there, just a 911 call away. They are the amazing paramedics of British Columbia.

[ Page 801 ]

Provincewide the B.C. Ambulance Service employs about 3,500 of them, and they provide emergency pre-hospital care to the 4.3 million B.C. residents and those who visit our great province. Last year they responded to more than 525,000 calls for help.

Despite their vital role in our health care system, B.C.'s paramedics are underappreciated by government. The British Columbia Ambulance Service has fallen from a world leader in pre-hospital emergency care. Now, due to a continued lack of funding, the system is stumbling under a shortage of ambulances, paramedics and related infrastructure.

On April 1 members of the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C., CUPE 873, went on strike. Even though they are on strike…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: …they have continued to provide essential services to our communities, showing their enormous dedication to their job of saving lives. Yet nearly six months have passed since the strike began, and there has been no settlement.

Our paramedics know the system is not functioning properly, and they're standing up to improve ambulance service and save lives. That takes courage and dedication, and I applaud them for it. This dispute could have been avoided, yet it has dragged on needlessly.

[1345]

I am hopeful that a resolution will be achieved very soon. My community and communities across British Columbia need to know that our lifeline is secure. Paramedics must have the proper training, equipment, compensation and working conditions they deserve. It can make the difference between life and death.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members — and the member — that in the spirit of the two-minute statements, they're meant to be non-partisan.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

HENRY LELAND HOUSE AND

SUPPORTive HOUSING IN KAMLOOPS

T. Lake: On a cold January night in 2007 Henry Leland, a homeless person in Kamloops, died from exposure. Last Friday, along with my colleague the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, I was honoured to attend the opening of Henry Leland House, a 28-unit supported-housing development in downtown Kamloops that will help ensure that this kind of tragedy is prevented.

I live in the neighbourhood, and I have watched this B.C. Housing homelessness initiative project redevelop what was a run-down boarding house into this modern, energy-efficient, well-managed building that provides supports for residents at risk of addiction. I was humbled to listen to Randy DeWitt, the last person to see Henry Leland alive that cold January night, talk about his own struggles with alcohol and his experience living under bridges for the past three years after being evicted from the very building that would now provide him with a safe and supportive home.

Randy invited Mayor Peter Milobar, the minister and myself up to his room to join him for a cup of coffee, and we learned how he was now taking classes through Thompson Rivers University, how he was managing his addiction and how he hoped his new life would continue in a proper direction.

The Henry Leland House is managed by the AIDS Society of Kamloops and the Kamloops branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association. It illustrates the remarkable community cooperation to reduce homelessness in Kamloops. This cooperation involves the provincial and federal governments, a city council that has long been a leader in providing incentives for social housing, and non-profit organizations that work closely with each other and with the community.

The Henry Leland House continues to build upon the development of several other very successful housing initiatives in Kamloops — such as the Bedford Manor, the Victory Inn and Georgian Court, all operated by the John Howard Society. It should be noted that despite some neighbourhood concerns about these social housing initiatives, no negative impacts have occurred. In fact, people report an improvement in the neighbourhoods in which they are located.

There's no question that these Kamloops initiatives are changing people's lives for the better, and I want to congratulate Bob Hughes and all the other members for making this possible.

Hon. B. Penner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Penner: I have the honour to introduce a young couple that I had the pleasure to have an interesting lunch conversation with just a few minutes ago. We are joined by conservation officer Kevin Van Damme and his wife, Coleen, who live in Clearwater, British Columbia.

Kevin is the recipient of the Conservation of the Year award, which is an award given every year to the conservation officer who has been recognized by his or her peers for having gone above and beyond the normal call

[ Page 802 ]

of duty to exemplify the values of the conservation officer service — namely, integrity, public service and protection of the environment.

Mr. Van Damme is recognized for his outstanding commitment to the ministry and the people of British Columbia, and I ask that the House please make him and his wife welcome.

Oral Questions

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

ON PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR

VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

C. James: In 2007 the Premier made a commitment to address domestic violence. Here's what he said. "Eliminating violence…will require a long-term, concerted effort, and our government is committed to leading the way in North America…."

Today B.C.'s Representative for Children and Youth tabled her report on the tragic death of Christian and his family, and this is what she said: "There is no coherent policy framework for responding to domestic violence in B.C., and children exposed to violence are not adequately supported."

Yet as we know, this government continues to underfund and neglect the Children Ministry. So my question is to the Minister of Children and Families. Today, as we all remember this tragic loss, will the government make a commitment today to support families exposed to domestic violence?

[1350]

Hon. M. Polak: The report that the representative tabled today takes us back to a horrible crime, what is truly an unspeakable event. For those who have had a chance to read the report, I can tell you that it is one that is not only difficult to read, but it is difficult to comprehend how anything like this could ever happen in a family.

We are absolutely committed to resolving the issues that the representative has raised in this report, and I am proud to say that work is already underway. We certainly owe that to the memory of this family.

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

C. James: I'd like to quote again from the report. "The tremendous risk of harm to Christian was not fully appreciated by those who were in positions of authority because the necessary structural components to do the work of assessing and protecting were not in place. We failed Christian."

I hear this government talking about leading the way, but let's look at the reality. Fewer staff providing services, budget cuts, fewer supports for children.

Again, my question is to the minister. Will she explain how fewer staff and budget cuts will help strengthen supports for families?

Hon. M. Polak: It's clear from the representative's report that there were quite a number of people who were working very hard to try and do the right thing for Christian and his family, to try and protect him and his mother. Sadly, they were working in silos. They weren't integrated in their approach. They weren't collaborating.

I'm quite confident that every one of those people who were working with that family thinks probably every day about things that they could have done differently, choices they could have made that would be different.

Our task now is to learn from this report, to learn from our own review, to learn from the eventual report of the coroner's inquest and to move forward to provide the services that are needed.

But I want to remind the member that we are at a time now when we are seeing an increase in the number of social workers around our province, when we are seeing an increase in the amount of funding that is going to our ministry. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the efforts of all those social workers and the efforts of us as we take a look at the funding we have…. Those efforts are going to be directed toward providing the very best in support and service for children.

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

C. James: We've heard these kinds of words before. We've heard these kinds of words before from this government without actions and follow-up and without the resources to put the necessary services and supports in place to ensure that these kinds of things don't ever happen again.

The report has called on this government to take responsibility for B.C.'s families. The report says that "the key ingredient for success is political will. It can be done, because it's being done elsewhere, and it should be done immediately."

So my question again is to the minister. Will she agree to do what needs to be done and today — today in this Legislature — make a commitment to this House to implement all of the recommendations in this report?

Hon. M. Polak: We are absolutely committed to resolving each and every one of the issues that are raised in this report. We are already working together — between the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Attorney General's ministry and also Public Safety and Solicitor General — to review our current practices and services, to identify any potential barriers that may exist and to determine how and when we will be able to remove barriers that exist even now that prevent women

[ Page 803 ]

from reporting abuse and prevent women from seeking help.

It is important for us to recognize that with a report of this nature, what is drawn to our attention is the very complex nature of domestic violence — the fact that this isn't something that can only be dealt with by social workers or by police or by courts.

I want to quote from the representative's report, because she makes what I think is a very important statement and one we should all be paying close attention to. "The onus cannot be left on child protection workers. Awareness must be raised amongst not only police and criminal justice workers but the general population. Friends, neighbours and family all play a role."

We all have a role to play in ending domestic violence.

[1355]

M. Karagianis: Glacial — that is how the children's representative has described the progress that this government has made on previous recommendations, because in fact, there have been other reports before this.

Today in her report, the representative noted that Christian Lee's death may have been prevented had there been consistent tools, and trained and coordinated front-line staff.

Again, this is not the first time we've heard these recommendations for this government, and yet the government is cutting staff and key supports — the things that British Columbia's most vulnerable need to escape family violence. How will cutting these supports help vulnerable families, and how will it help women and children escape from violence in their homes?

Hon. M. Polak: Once again, we're confronted by a horrible crime, a terrible tragedy, and something that brings before all of us the question: what more can we do to help end domestic violence? But it is absolutely incorrect to say that we are cutting staff in the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

We agree that there was an uncoordinated approach. We agree that there was a need for integration. We agree that the police, the social workers — all of those trying to do their best for this child and his mother…. We agree that with all of those people, there needed to be a different type of response.

That's why we have already put in place a step-by-step protocol with the Saanich police department, the Oak Bay police department and the Victoria police department. Not only have we signed that protocol with them, which was developed jointly, but we have also completed training for the police departments and for MCFD staff.

As we work together between our three ministries, we will continue to identify ways in which we can strengthen the services that we provide to women and to families.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province promised that this province would lead the way in protecting victims of domestic violence. In fact, the record has been abysmal and has shown anything but.

The B.C. Children and Families Ministry is going to be hit with cuts, despite what the minister is saying here — cuts to budgets, cuts to front-line staff and a plan to serve fewer children in the future. So it seems to me that it's time for this government to actually step up and show some leadership here and put in place resources that will protect the most vulnerable.

I would like the minister today to commit to following every single recommendation that came out of this report and to reporting back, as is recommended in that, to this House on how the progress has been on implementing every single recommendation. I'd like that commitment today here in this House.

Hon. M. Polak: The member well knows that this is a complex and thoughtful and constructive report that has been given to us by the representative. We are pleased to have the opportunity to learn from the kind of extensive review that she's able to do because of her broad powers that were granted to her by this Legislature.

Together with my counterparts in the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and the Attorney General, we will be conducting a thoughtful and comprehensive review of this report as is warranted by its nature. We will be then providing our detailed report, with respect to response to this, to the committee — which, again, the member well knows is the appropriate place for that.

M. Elmore: Two days ago the Solicitor General said that cuts to funding for domestic violence programs are just an administrative cut. But that's not what the executive director of Family Services of Greater Vancouver believes. At a meeting last night Teri Nicholas made it clear that these cuts will prove damaging for women and children escaping violence, and these cuts are core to the services that are desperately needed.

[1400]

To the Solicitor General: how does cutting supports for the most vulnerable live up to the Premier's commitment to address this serious problem?

Hon. K. Heed: Thank you for bringing your concern forward, member opposite. I sympathize with these victims of domestic violence. I sympathize with what the Lee family also had to go through. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the representative for her work on the tragic crime that took place here.

We want to make sure that we deliver our services in the most coordinated fashion possible, in the best way

[ Page 804 ]

we can at the time and when it is needed for victims of violence, so we can prevent tragedies of this nature from taking place.

We are truly working on integrating and coordinating our services and taking the lead in our ministry to deal with those. We are working with service providers to ensure that we meet that goal of better coordination and better integration so we can truly deliver a meaningful service.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: The representative said today that we need action and not words from this government on this issue, and support is needed now for these women and children. This Premier and this government pledge to make addressing domestic violence a priority through a long-term, concerted effort. Now the Solicitor General is cutting $440,000 this year and $1.2 million next year in funding for precisely the programs meant to protect women and children.

To the Solicitor General: is cutting over $1.5 million in critical supports for women and children his definition of a long-term, concerted effort to address domestic violence?

Hon. K. Heed: We have actually increased funding to deal with victims of violence by $2.4 million to $43 million. We are also investing $32 million into the operation of 24-7 transition houses in British Columbia. We have a 24-7 VictimLINK program in place with multi-language capabilities.

We have domestic violence response units in this province that pair police officers with social workers with the resources that we need in order for us to ensure that we are increasing counselling to these victims, increasing our outreach to these victims and increasing support to the victims when it's most needed.

L. Krog: I'm not entirely sure that the Solicitor General gets it. Increasing support for victims is all well and good, but we have a long history of reports in this province: Honouring Christian Lee , 2009; Keeping Women Safe , 2008; the Hughes report on children and youth, 2006 — report after report pointing to serious gaps, and a government that doesn't seem to understand the problem, doesn't seem to realize that prevention is key here.

So my question to the Solicitor General is simply this. How many reports will it take before this government realizes it has to make domestic violence a genuine priority, and will this government put its words where its mouth is and provide genuine resources for women and children?

Hon. K. Heed: Our government takes domestic violence very, very seriously — our prevention efforts in domestic violence and our response in this domestic violence. We look at reports that do come forward. We work with those reports and learn from the reports.

The report that the representative has brought forward has several recommendations. We will review the report and work on ensuring that, once again, we keep domestic violence at the top of our priority list.

[1405]

We are investing more. We've invested $2.4 million more into dealing with victims of violence. We want to ensure that we have meaningful responses when the victims are most in need.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, saying this government makes it a priority doesn't make it a priority. It's actually doing something. Cuts to the women's ministry, elimination of zero-tolerance policies, cuts to women's centres all across this province — that has been this government's response.

Now the Solicitor General will be making cuts that will strike at the heart of the most critical programs meant to protect victims of domestic violence. It's time for this Solicitor General — and he is the person there responsible — to stand up and ensure that the resources go where they are desperately needed. So will he agree today to implement the report's recommendations?

Hon. K. Heed: Thank you for bringing your concern forward. Again, I want to thank the representative for her report. We're in the process of reviewing that report. We have met with the representative. We are ensuring that we have the technical aspects looked at as a result of that. But I want to assure the members opposite that domestic violence is a priority in this province and will continue to be a priority in this province.

We are ensuring that we have 24-7 transition houses available to people here in British Columbia. We're ensuring that we have VictimLINK, the phone service available in multi-languages, for people in British Columbia. We're ensuring that we have victim safety units operating in the province. We're ensuring that we have domestic violence units in British Columbia, that we have court support here in the province and that we have enhanced support for newcomers here in Canada. At the end of the day, we all have a common goal to deal with domestic violence in the province of British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

D. Black: I have a very simple question for the Solicitor General. Could he tell this House: how does cutting $440,000 right now to transition houses, to counselling

[ Page 805 ]

services for children and women match up to his stated priority that violence against women is a priority of this government? Can he answer that question today?

Hon. K. Heed: Again, thank you for bringing that concern forward. And again, we are working with service providers here in British Columbia. We are ensuring that we have programs available for victims of violence, that we are keeping our transition houses open 24-7. We are working with them to determine what we can do to make our services better at the time when it's needed — to have those meaningful services to people when they need them.

Matter of fact, I have met with several of the service providers with respect to what we can do. Staff has been working with the service providers to determine what the best practices should be and how we should go about accomplishing them. We will continue to do that. We'll work through our problems together, and at the end of the day, we will ensure that we have the front-line services available to victims of violence.

ORPHANED WILDLIFE

REHABILITATION SOCIETY FUNDING

V. Huntington: Yesterday I was advised that Delta's Orphaned Wildlife Rehabilitation Society, known to everyone in this House as OWLS, was refused funding. This internationally recognized organization provides rigorous volunteer training for youth at risk. Its education program reaches thousands of students. It is certified by Thompson Rivers University for its vet technician practicums.

Would the Minister of Housing and Social Development please tell the people of Delta and this province why OWLS doesn't fit his own priorities for funding?

[1410]

Hon. R. Coleman: As I've said previously in this House, this year, with the community gaming grants, we had to set some priorities. As we set those priorities, some categories had to be either reduced or eliminated.

On the side of environment, which this category of application would have fallen into in this quarter, the only applications under environment being funded are bingo affiliations or three-year commitments.

V. Huntington: Delta has Canada's highest concentration of raptors. The OWLS flight cages are across a ditch from the Boundary Bay raptor management area. The government uses the OWLS 24-hour call-out line, its officers use OWLS volunteers for rescues, and it places seized and injured raptors in OWLS's care.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Environment: will he exercise his duty to the wildlife of this province and ensure that OWLS receives funding so that it can get on with the job of saving B.C.'s injured birds of prey?

Hon. R. Coleman: Difficult decisions were made on the grant program. There will be food banks funded this year at a higher level than perhaps in the past. There will be some other social programs. We decided to protect the things like public safety with regards to search and rescue and meals for children in school. As a result of that, we didn't have enough money for every category.

The reality is…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …these are annually applied-for grants that are taken on their merit on any given year, and there's no guarantee of funding from year to year. What we've done is make the right choices on behalf of the children of British Columbia.

MINING EXPLORATION PERMIT

IN FLATHEAD VALLEY AREA

R. Fleming: The United Nations has sent a mission here on a fact-finding expedition to assess threats to the Flathead River Valley. They're conducting their work this week.

The question that is on the minds of people in that region and the fact-finding mission itself is: will the provincial government — will the province — make it possible for the Canadian government to respect its commitments that are contained under the world heritage convention by agreeing to finally protect the Flathead River Valley, which is adjacent to the Glacier World Heritage Site?

My question for the Minister of State for Mining, in addition, is: will his government…? Will he in this House, in the spirit of transparency, table documents related to the approval of Max Resource Corp.'s mining exploration permits today?

Hon. B. Penner: I would gladly compare British Columbia's environmental record to that of Montana's any day of the week. In fact, maybe the member missed it, but just this morning I introduced legislation that…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: …I hope the House will approve, which will establish even more protected areas in British Columbia, including a new class A provincial park in the Okanagan.

[ Page 806 ]

If that bill passes, we will have established 58 new parks, 143 new conservancies and one new ecological reserve, representing 1.9 million hectares of additional protected area in British Columbia since 2001.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

RELEASE OF REPORT

ON OUTBREAK AT NANAIMO HOSPITAL

A. Dix: Freedom-of-information documents show that the Vancouver Island Health Authority, for corporate and political reasons, withheld a damning report of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control about the C. difficile outbreak at Nanaimo Regional Hospital for ten months.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health whether cabinet ministers, including the former Minister of Health, also received a copy of that report in August or September of 2008. And did they approve of the decision to withhold the release of that report until after the May 12, 2009, provincial election?

[1415]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, actually, the allegation and the basis of that allegation are false. The fact of the matter is that the Vancouver Island Health Authority obeyed the law that is clearly spelled out under the freedom of information and personal privacy act. If the member is alleging that that wasn't the case or in fact, indeed, if anyone is alleging that that wasn't the case, there is an appeal mechanism available under FOI. I would encourage them to follow through on that.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: I think the Minister of Health is stuck in the same parallel universe as the Minister of Education. They receive a report on an important public issue in Nanaimo — a damning report, an independent report. They stick it in a drawer for ten months. They don't show it to the public.

It's something of interest to everybody who works in that hospital, everyone who goes to that hospital. It's not about the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. What those documents show is that the only consideration of the government, of the B.C. Liberal government, was political — their political and corporate interests.

Why did the government put this report in a drawer? Why did it hide it from the public for ten months? That's the question.

Hon. K. Falcon: To borrow from the previous Minister of Health, it doesn't take long for this member to climb the grassy knoll and engage in one of his massive conspiracy theories. Sadly, it is backed up by everything but fact. It is backed up by everything but fact. The fact of the matter is that…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: …the Vancouver Island Health Authority undertook two reviews, a review by their medical health officer and a second review that was undertaken by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. Both those reports came in at different times in the new year.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I recognize it doesn't fit into this member's particular political calendar. I apologize to the member that it's not working for that member's political calendar.

But the fact of the matter is that both those reports were presented to the executive, presented to the board, and the board reported out on them.

D. Routley: This minister's response is irresponsible. It is an insult to the people of B.C.

That outbreak killed three people. It infected 90 people. Many of them were my constituents, and they had a right to know. This government, whose access to information has been condemned roundly as a failure of the public interest, suppressed that information from the people we all serve.

It's not up to them to decide the political expediency of when we should have information that's vital to public safety and public health. It's up to them to protect the people of B.C. They failed.

So I want to ask this minister: will he stop avoiding difficult questions and difficult truths? Will he do his duty to the people of B.C. and the people of Nanaimo? Why is my community's right to know secondary to this government's right to protect its political interest?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's just classic for that member to make completely baseless allegations, to try and make allegations against professionals that every day are working to provide a top-level quality of service.

You know, I just wish that for once, before the member opposite starts beaking off with information like that, he actually reads the reports. If he actually read the report from the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, he would know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 807 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: It's your time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

I would advise the minister, first, to be careful in the language that he uses.

Continue, Minister.

[1420]

Hon. K. Falcon: For the member to make those kinds of allegations against professionals that work in the system, who do an outstanding job every day, is outrageous.

The fact of the matter is that if the member had read the report, the member would know that one of the things that is apparent nationally and internationally is that the C. diff outbreak….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: I table the British Columbia Ferry Commission annual report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and Range.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT (N o . 2), 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

section 1.

B. Ralston: This

section proposes an amendment to the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. This

section was amended within the year. It proposes to substitute the authorization to project a deficit in the main accounts of the province from "2009-2010 fiscal year and the 2010-2011 fiscal year" and substitute "2009-2010 to 2012-2013 fiscal years."

Can the minister explain why he's any more confident that this projection is a reasonable one, given his profound and deep assurances when the legislation was most recently amended that indeed that was what was required?

Hon. C. Hansen: Hon. Chair, you know, it's true. I think in February, if I had been asked, I would have been very confident that we would have been able to get this province back into a surplus position within the two years that we had allocated in the previous amendment. We have certainly relied on the best expert advice that we can seek from not only our Economic Forecast Council but the other financial indicators that we rely on as we build our budgets.

This has truly been an absolutely unprecedented year in terms of the volatility of the global economy and the subsequent impact that has had on the province of British Columbia and our revenue projections. As we have put our budget projections together for this coming five-year cycle, which is outlined in the budget documents, we again have relied on the best advice we can get. But nobody has a crystal ball. There are certainly those economists who are predicting that there is at least the potential of a double dip in the global economy, even though we're starting to see some signs of the economic recession starting to bottom out at least, or at least be approaching the bottom.

I guess the short answer to his question is that there is nobody who can give him or any of us 100 percent assurance that we would not see significant further deterioration, but all of the indicators are that the budget plan we've put forward is a responsible one. We've built extra prudence into that budget and made some very conservative estimates of budget revenues going forward. We have every expectation that we will be able to once again deliver a surplus budget within the time frame that's set out in this amendment.

B. Ralston: In Ottawa in the federal budget, the federal Finance Minister made a similar prediction about the year in which the federal deficit would be retired. I believe it's 2015.

The independent budget officer is an office that exists in Ottawa. An attempt by myself to raise that issue here as an issue for discussion and consideration by the government has been rebuffed by the minister. But what that independent budget officer did say was that in his independent examination, the government's projected date for retiring the deficit was erroneous.

Again, what assurance does the minister give — beyond a bit of by guess and by golly, given the track record over the last 18 months — that indeed this fiscal year 2012-2013 is accurate?

The difficulty with this legislation is that it appears to require constant revision. It engages all the mechanisms of the Legislature in an exercise which is really not

[ Page 808 ]

terribly productive, because it simply takes time to confirm a change in legislation when circumstances change. Will the minister consider revisions to this legislation that are more accurate, in the sense that they consider that there is a budget cycle and that occasionally, in the course of the business cycle, governments will go into deficit despite the best efforts of governments of any political stripe?

Hon. C. Hansen: What we've seen in terms of the global economy over the last 12 months has been certainly unprecedented in our lifetimes, and the balanced-budget legislation as we had established it, I believe, serves this province well in virtually all times — this year being an exception because of the impact of what has been an unprecedented global recession.

[1430]

I believe that governments need to put a high value on balanced budgets, to ensure that we don't pass forward the debts of today onto the backs of the children and grandchildren yet unborn. With the exception of these very, very unusual economic times, this is the kind of approach to legislation that serves the province well.

B. Ralston: Again, back to this proposed amendment. Does the minister really think that his government would behave differently, in terms of endeavouring to keep the deficit to a minimum, if this legislation did not exist? Isn't it more the case that this legislation exists for purely rhetorical and political purposes than serving any function in guiding government operations?

Hon. C. Hansen: I believe that governments should run deficits in only the most unusual of times, and we are certainly in very unusual times, given the global economic recession that we've seen over the last 12 months.

But as I pointed out in February, when we came before this House with the first amendment to this legislation that was proposed at that time, I believe that if governments are going to run deficits, they should actually come before this chamber and ask for this chamber's authority to run deficits; that if it were not for this legislation being in place, then governments would be able to run deficits without having the specific and time-limited consent of this chamber. That is the principle that I think is important to uphold.

B. Ralston: I hate to disagree with the minister, but surely the budget document itself is the vote that gives the government the authority to run a deficit or a surplus, and surely that's the paramount process. This is a secondary piece of legislation that offers rhetorical guidance to the process. But is not control of supply — since, I think, the Magna Carta forward — the prerogative of the assembly or the parliament? That's the ultimate authority on whether the government runs a deficit or not.

I don't quite understand how this particular legislation — given that it's obviously capable of and susceptible to legislative change; it's been changed now twice in a year — really adds to the process. Is it not the prerogative of the assembly to decide, the ultimate decision of the assembly in passing a budget, whether there's a deficit or not?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think both legislative requirements are important.

B. Ralston: I suppose the minister is not going to answer my question on that point. Given that this legislation has now been changed twice in a year, the minister is expressing an understandable amount of caution about whether or not the inherent prediction in this legislation that the government will return to a surplus by the budget year 2012-2013 is contained in this legislation. He's expressing skepticism.

What is the point of the legislation — given that it's subject to change, it's unreliable and the minister himself is expressing a great deal of caution about it? What purpose does it serve, beyond rhetorical and political ones so that the government can wave it around and talk the language of avoiding deficits when the government has now run the two biggest deficits in the history of the province in 2003 and this year?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I said earlier, I think that if governments find it necessary to run deficits because of very unusual global economic circumstances which are beyond the control of a provincial government, it's incumbent upon them to come before this chamber and seek the specific permission of this chamber for those deficits.

B. Ralston: The minister mentions the best advice available in crafting this amendment. So can he specify…? I understand that the forecast council….

[1435]

I haven't had a chance to review the comments on the forecast council that are contained in the Enns report, which was released by the minister about two hours ago, but it came to my attention just after noon today. I wasn't afforded the opportunity of an advance notice that it was being released today, but we'll leave that aside.

Given the comments about the forecast council in the report, can the minister advise — when he says that the best advice of experts in crafting this amendment was consulted — who he consulted on this prediction that's contained in this amendment?

Hon. C. Hansen: Just to correct the record, actually I tabled the Enns report in this chamber at ten o'clock this morning.

[ Page 809 ]

The ministry, first of all, has some excellent internal staff who do modelling and projections around revenues based on information they collect from a variety of sources. I think we are very well served by the ministry staff.

I think one of the things that is pointed out in the budget review panel, both in 1999…. Their express view in the 1999 report was that the process of developing budgets needed to rely on that independent advice and should not be manipulated by the politicians. Certainly, we have entrenched those principles as a government, and we rely on that information that we get. The officials in the ministry, in turn, rely on a variety of sources, including the Economic Forecast Council as one of those sources.

B. Ralston: In crafting this amendment, the minister mentions the forecast council and speaks of the forecast council. But isn't there another way of manipulating — to use the minister's word — the results of the forecast council? That is by refusing to meet with them when they wish to meet with you to convey different information from that which they have previously conveyed a short time ago. Isn't that the process that the minister engaged in prior to the February budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know the member has said that on several occasions, and I will tell the member right now that that is categorically false. I have never once, as the Minister of Finance, refused to meet with the Economic Forecast Council. Every time they have requested a meeting, I have met with them.

B. Ralston: In crafting this amendment, has the minister relied entirely on the forecast council or on any other advice?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will repeat what I have now already said two times in the very short course of this debate. The ministry staff rely on a variety of sources of information, one of which is the Economic Forecast Council.

Some of the other sources that I could point to, for example, would be…. As the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources does a forecast in terms of what natural gas pricing will look at, they actually look at about 25 separate indicators that are private sector forecasts that the private sector itself uses when buying future contracts for future delivery of natural gas. So that is a very good private sector–driven indicator in terms of what natural gas pricing may be next year, the year after or the year after that.

It's not always accurate, as we have seen this year. We have seen natural gas, just since the end of May…. Instead of climbing, as many forecasters were anticipating, it actually took a very sharp dive in price which, of course, had some significant impacts on our budget revenues.

There is a multitude of different pieces of information that we use in developing our revenue projections over the course of either the three-year fiscal plan or, in this case, the five-year outlook that we have put in the budget, which shows how we will return to a surplus within the five years.

Section 1 approved on division.

section 2.

B. Ralston: This

section amends the process by which the ministerial portion of pay that members get…. Obviously, ministers are paid more than ordinary members, and there's a separate remuneration for the ministerial portion of ministers' salary. This makes some changes to that.

[1440]

Can the minister explain what the effect of this amendment is and what impact this will have on the salaries of his colleagues in cabinet, if any?

Hon. C. Hansen: The effect will be exactly the same as the policy and requirements that we have followed to date. So if you go back to the original intent of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, it was that ministers had to ensure that they were spending within their ministries within approved allocations of funding.

We've seen lots of examples from previous decades where ministers overspent their approved allocations, and we felt there should be a penalty that would be imposed on the minister. In this case, it would be that all ministers have a 20 percent holdback on their ministerial salaries, and they will only get half of that returned if government as a whole ends a fiscal year with a surplus or a balanced budget.

Ministers over this four-year period will, in fact, lose that half of their 20 percent holdback because we are not projecting that there will be a surplus at the end of those fiscal years. If by chance we can actually get back to surplus faster, then they would obviously get that half of the holdback returned. But in the case of the other half of the holdback, it is to ensure that there is a responsibility and an onus put on the ministers to ensure that they stay within their appropriation.

In the past what we have done is reflect the appropriation in the main estimates. If through other approvals the minister gets the consent within the framework of appropriations that have been approved by this chamber, then they should still have the obligation to ensure that they don't overspend those appropriations.

But for government, every time there is a supplemental estimate, to come in and do a specific amendment was not in keeping with the original spirit of the act. The original spirit of the act was to make sure that the incentive was there, not so that ministers had to stay

[ Page 810 ]

within the estimates as tabled with the spring budget, but to stay within what had been approved in accordance with votes that flow from this chamber.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister can just help me then. I had understood that the process of supplementary estimates was no longer going to be followed, and that the ministry was going to rely on contingencies to deal with unexpected and unforeseen overruns in budgets, such as a firefighting budget.

Traditionally in the past, the way in which this

section was dealt with was to bring before the chamber a number of supplementary estimates, adjust the budget of individual ministries accordingly and deem that the minister had therefore spent within the allocated limit by virtue of the fact that the supplementary estimate boosted the budget for that ministry. No individual minister ever suffered a financial penalty because the supplementary estimate process wiped that away.

So given that change, at least as I understand it, perhaps the minister can guide me through it and make sure that I've understood it correctly.

Hon. C. Hansen: What this amendment will provide for is that ministers are still required to stay within appropriations that have the authority to this House and to votes in this chamber. If they exceed that and they end the year and it shows that their ministry has spent more than has been formally approved, then they will not receive the remaining half of that holdback after public accounts are tabled.

So this provides for appropriations, approvals that would flow as a result of the main estimates. It would be approvals that would flow as a result of any supplemental estimates which — while we have no intention of bringing in supplemental estimates at this point; there are none planned — they would still technically be authorized or available to government until such time as we are back into surplus again.

[1445]

The third area where funds can be appropriated or provided for, for a minister would be through contingencies. That's a perfectly appropriate way for governments to allocate funds that may be over and above what had been anticipated.

Then the fourth area is with regard to statutory authority. So in areas such as the emergency programs or forest fire fighting, for example, there is approval that flows from votes that have been taken in this chamber to provide for the necessary spending authority in the case of those statutory appropriations.

B. Ralston: Again, just so that I understand this. The example of the Ministry of Forests and Range is a good one. Typically, despite the attempt to estimate what the forest-fire-fighting budget might be in any given year, this year was a very dramatic overrun of that budget, obviously, given the fire conditions that were out there. How that has been dealt with in the past is through the process of supplementary estimates, as I understand it. That's the way it came before the chamber, as I understand it.

The minister now refers to statutory authority. So in the example that I've given to the Minister of Forests and Range, the statutory authority would be what — as opposed to a supplementary estimate?

Hon. C. Hansen: To correct the impression that the member has, in the case of forest-fire-fighting budgets, that is not provided through supplemental estimates. We recognize — and it's the principle that was…. It was approved by this House when the statutory authority was provided. When a forest fire breaks out, we have to go in and fight it, especially if it's obviously threatening communities or people or significant infrastructure.

The legislation provides the authority for government to spend what is necessary to fight forest fires, and it does not require a specific appropriation, either through main estimates or through supplemental estimates.

B. Ralston: Just again on this section. Is the minister aware at this point — given that in the unusual circumstances of this year being an election year, we're well along in the budget year for which we're proposing the budget as opposed to the process that's ordinarily followed where the budget is adopted in the spring — of any likelihood that any individual minister will be seeking authority to bring supplementary estimates before the House?

Hon. C. Hansen: No.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

B. Ralston: This is an amendment to

section 6 of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, which adds a new subsection, (1.2), and that's referred to in the

section we just passed. Can the minister describe the effect of making this amendment by adding this subsection?

Hon. C. Hansen: This amendment is just in the interest of more transparency and accountability. It's actually interesting. We were discussing this on the date that the budget review panel report was tabled. While this isn't sort of something specific from the panel's deliberations, it's certainly in keeping with the kinds of recommendations that come from the panel.

This does provide that if there is supplementary estimates used at any time in the future, along with the

[ Page 811 ]

tabling of that legislation, we need to provide for a statement of the revised minister's accountabilities that would hence be the target that the minister would have to stay within if the supplemental estimates were approved.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

B. Ralston: The minister explained this in his introduction at second reading — that this was to accommodate the Olympics. I'm sure there'll be some public interest and certainly interest among members.

[1450]

Working back, then, when would be the proposed date of the Speech from the Throne? I understand that the minister also mentioned that he expected there would be an opportunity to deal with the budget briefly in March, and then there would be a further adjournment of the House to accommodate the Paralympic Games.

In the interests of informing members of the House and those members of the public who might be interested, how does this then look as a timetable for the conduct of the main government business in the spring — the Speech from the Throne and the budget debate?

Hon. C. Hansen: The only one I can speak to is the budget date itself, which is what's reflected in this particular amendment. Through the Government House Leader or the Premier, I'm sure there will be appropriate decisions made regarding the date of the throne speech and with regard to the spring sitting dates and the spring sitting calendar.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

B. Ralston: This is an amendment proposed to

section 10. This amendment changes the date on which the quarterly report can be tabled. Is there any wish or appetite, given the timetable that quarterly reports are given, to consider more frequent reporting?

Certainly, in what the minister has described as the unusual circumstances of the last year, it's my view that the public, in the budget process and an ability to understand declines in government revenue, would have been assisted by more frequent reporting. As I understand it, in the Parliament of Canada the Department of Finance reports monthly. Is there any appetite on the part of the minister or his ministry to consider more frequent reporting?

Hon. C. Hansen: This amendment actually provides for the authority to table the third quarterly report two days later than would normally have been the deadline for that. So the legislation currently provides for it being tabled not later than February 28. This allows us the additional two days so that it can be tabled along with the budget, which is the normal practice in this House over the last eight years.

There is a considerable amount of work that goes into the preparation of the quarterly reports. I'm sure, as the member appreciates, there is a lot of detail that is pulled together for that report, and it is actually very time-consuming to do that.

At present we certainly feel that the quarterly reports are adequate. I can't say for certain that the Budget Review Panel deliberated on the specific question that the member has asked, but certainly in their report they have not made any recommendations to change what is our current practice.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

B. Ralston: As the minister, I'm sure, is aware, and I'm sure he's prepared to answer this question, Mr. Loukidelis, who is the independent Information and Privacy Commissioner, a legislative officer, has provided a letter on these proposed Continuing Care Act amendments. I believe those are in this

section and the next section.

He says in his letter dated September 22, 2009…. I know it's addressed to the Minister of Health Services, but I'm assuming the minister is prepared to answer this question. If not, I'd be prepared to stand down briefly for the appropriate staff support, if that's necessary.

Firstly, he's concerned about the broad and vague wording of the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of Bill 2, and we're dealing with

section 6 now. "A greater precision is surely possible and desirable."

His second what he describes as his main concern is: "The government is proposing to use these amendments to authorize the collection, use and disclosure of sensitive health and financial information of continuing-care clients and their family members in a way that fails to use an existing statutory vehicle that would enable the necessary flow of information while appropriately protecting privacy."

He goes on at some length to talk about the E-Health (Personal Health Information and Protection of Privacy) Act, which he stresses he's been supportive of.

[1455]

Given the concerns that are raised by the Information Commissioner about the vagueness of the drafting of these sections and his concern that an existing legislative mechanism isn't being used, which would better protect the privacy of those clients of continuing-care services, can the minister respond to the concerns that have been raised by the commissioner?

[ Page 812 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the Minister of Health Services was going to join us for this portion of the discussion on this act. I think we've got to this

section a little bit faster than we had originally anticipated. I guess for a detailed response, I may have to defer to my colleague.

As far as a high-level response, we certainly are anxious to make sure that the privacy issues are properly addressed. This type of provision is in keeping with other initiatives like this which we have undertaken, where we're required to get access to income information from Revenue Canada. It is my understanding that this

section has been worded accordingly. For a more detailed response, I may have to wait until the Minister of Health Services is here.

The Chair: If the committee would like, we can wait for five minutes for the Minister of Health Services to arrive, if he's scheduled to arrive.

B. Ralston: Thank you to the Chair for that suggestion. I think it's a matter of sufficient public concern, given that the commissioner thought it appropriate to write this letter, that we, with all due respect to the minister, get a more detailed response. I know he's understandably not prepared to answer that. It's more properly the province of the Health Minister. Perhaps we could stand down and wait for the Health Minister to arrive.

The Chair: The committee will recess for about five minutes until the Minister of Health Services can join us.

The committee recessed from 2:57 p.m. to 2:59 p.m.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

B. Ralston: I will repeat my question for the benefit of the Minister of Health, who has kindly joined us to deal with this

section of the bill. My question is based on the letter that's directed to the Minister of Health Services dated September 22. He expresses a concern about sections 6 and 7. We're dealing with

section 6 at the moment. His concerns expressed in his letter were two. First, he was concerned about the broad and vague wording of the provisions. "A greater precision is surely possible and desirable."

[1500]

His second concern, which he describes as his main concern, is:

"The government is proposing to use these amendments to authorize the collection, use and disclosure of sensitive health and financial information of continuing care clients, and their family members, in a way that fails to use an existing statutory vehicle that would enable the necessary flow of information while appropriately protecting privacy."

He's referring there to the E-Health (Personal Health Information and Protection of Privacy) Act.

He stresses that he's been supportive of that act, and his suggestion to the minister and to the government is:

"For these reasons" — I'm quoting from page 3 — "I urge you to withdraw these CCA" — Continuing Care Act — "amendments and instead use the robust, balanced statutory provisions of the E-Health Act, which offer a proper legislative framework for the sharing of personal…information necessary to verify income for subsidy purposes and for minimum reporting requirements."

So given those comments by the commissioner, I'd ask that the Minister of Health Services please respond.

Hon. K. Falcon: The regulation that allows and governs us to undertake the information and gather the information that the member is referring to under

section 5 has actually been in place and been part of the continuing-care regulation for many, many years — in fact, probably about a decade. In fact, the information that we are putting in place here actually mirrors what has been under the health insurance act for many decades — probably at least 30 years.

So what we are seeking here is actually just a confirmation of the statutory authority to back up the regulatory authority that's been in place for many, many years. This clarifies that that regulatory authority, which we've been undertaking for many years, is now backed up by the appropriate statutory authority.

I think that was a gap that was identified by the legal drafters, or the legal people, in government. The intent of this legislation is to close that gap and make sure that we are consistent with the exact same method of asking and acquiring that information as we do, as I say, under the Hospital Insurance Act and under other acts, like information required for shelter allowances or for assisted-living spaces too.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the response, but I note in his letter that the commissioner says — and I'm looking at the bottom of page 2…. He seems to be referring to other statutes — I think one of the statutes that the minister is referring to.

"I acknowledge that

section 7(1) of the Hospital Insurance Act authorizes the ministry to collect personal information regarding the delivery of acute care services. This provision predates regionalization of the health care system and enactment of the E-Health Act.

"In my view, this provision should be repealed in favour of designating the existing discharge abstract database as a health information act, thus subjecting it to the protections now offered by the E-Health Act."

He goes on to say:

"Section 7(1) of the Hospital Insurance Act should not, in other words, be seen as a precedent that supports the CCA amendments described above."

So while the minister says that he's seeking statutory authority to confirm what has been, I guess, regulatory practice, it would seem that the point of the commissioner is that the E-Health Act has superseded those other acts. He's offering or suggesting that the minister consider making amendments that are consistent with

[ Page 813 ]

the E-Health Act, which seems to me, on the face of it — not having the access to the wide range of capable senior public servant advice that the minister has access to — that that's a reasonable suggestion.

I suppose my concern is that this is the one opportunity that we have here in the Legislature to address these provisions.

[1505]

If they're simply passed, the likelihood or the incentive — in the busy

schedule of the minister, the cabinet, the government and the Legislature — that this problem that's identified by the Information Commissioner will ever be addressed, I suppose, is unlikely.

I'd like the minister to consider the mild admonition and suggestion of the Information Commissioner and seriously consider whether he's prepared to entertain amendments that would address the problem that he raises.

Hon. K. Falcon: Obviously, I think it goes without saying, but it's sometimes better to say it — that the privacy and protection of personal information has got to be the utmost concern in the Ministry of Health Services. And it is.

The issue here, where we have a bit of an honest disagreement with the commissioner yet are still willing to work with the commissioner…. The nature of the honest disagreement we have here is the fact that the intent of the e-health legislation is to focus on the databases that are related to the electronic health record.

It was never the intention of the e-health legislation to take all the databases within Health and make them part of that electronic health record. That is something that we have expressed to the commissioner. We've made it clear to the commissioner that we're willing to work with the commissioner, but we have underscored the fact that the E-Health Act was created, as I say, to implement the electronic health record.

It certainly was not the intention, nor would it be appropriate in the view of the considered staff of my Ministry of Health, that every data system which contained health information should be made part of a health information bank.

B. Ralston: Well, surely the focus here should be, as the commissioner has expressed it, on continuing-care clients and their family members. I understand in general terms what the minister is saying, but why wouldn't the provisions of the E-Health Act be brought into operation to protect the privacy in the way that the person who knows a lot about it and is delegated and asked as an independent officer of the Legislature to provide guidance on it…? Why wouldn't we simply follow that advice?

I note in the E-Health Act at

section 4: "A designation order may authorize the collection and use of personal health information only for one or more of the following purposes…(

c) to identify a person who is providing health services; (

d) to prevent or manage chronic conditions, at the individual or population level; (

e) to facilitate…." It goes on.

There are a number of categories. Continuing-care clients would seem to fall broadly within 4(

a) probably.

Then: "(a)…an individual who needs or is receiving health services." It would seem to me that that falls within the potential ambit of the E-Health Act. I'm not quite sure why the minister would resist on this point.

Hon. K. Falcon: Ever since the Continuing Care Act was brought into place in 1997, this has been the practice that has been undertaken in the Ministry of Health through, actually, governments — not just our own but previous governments.

[1510]

One of the reasons why the family members are mentioned in there is that in order for the government to (1) determine eligibility and (2) determine what the individual should be paying, they often need to determine whether, for example, the individual is being looked after by family members currently. Or is it a situation where family members live 5,000 miles away?

All of that kind of information, which we have been utilizing and have been since 1997 when the Continuing Care Act came into place, is information that — in the case of the legislative changes being proposed here — will be statutorily backed up.

That really is the issue here. The regulatory authority has always provided us the ability to do this, but the legal drafters determined that there's a gap between the statutory authority and the regulatory authority. This closes that gap.

To the issue of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Certainly, we always have to listen carefully to what the Information and Privacy Commissioner is suggesting. But the suggestion that the commissioner is making — that all of this information should form part of the e-health legislation….

In the view of the professional civil servants within the ministry, that is not viewed to be practical. Nor is it viewed to be consistent with the past practices that have taken place, as I say, since this legislation came into effect — and indeed prior to that. We will continue to work with the commissioner and let the commissioner know that we have a sincere but honest disagreement about the direction he wishes to go.

The member is correct to point out that the letter we received was on September 22. Obviously, that is not necessarily time for us to conclude and continue the discussions we need to have, because they are important discussions for the purposes of the Ministry of Health Services.

[ Page 814 ]

B. Ralston: Again referring to the letter, page 2, he says: "On February 27, 2009, a ministerial directive was issued by your predecessor" — the Hon., and then he gives the name of the Health Minister — "compelling health authorities to disclose this personal health information in individually identifiable form. It is apparent that the CCA amendments are intended to authorize this indirect collection of personal health information by the ministry and, thus, supersede the ministerial directive, the statutory authority for which is not apparent."

That seems to be a relatively serious suggestion. I'm wondering if the minister might take the advice of the senior public servants who are there and respond to that suggestion, which is troubling.

[1515]

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct that the former Health Minister did indeed send a directive to the health authorities setting out minimum reporting requirements. That was as a direct result of a report that was undertaken by the Auditor General on the home and community care sector. The recommendation of the Auditor General was that the ministry should do exactly that — have minimum reporting requirements that are available to the Ministry of Health. The directive was sent out in that regard.

Obviously, we have, on the one hand, the Auditor General making it quite clear what he expects from the Ministry of Health Services. We've got the Privacy Commissioner, another independent statutory authority of the Legislature, who has a different view. So this is not an easy issue, but it is one that we are attempting to work out.

In this case, what I can assure the member of is that what we are putting in place is nothing new. We are actually going to continue doing exactly what we have done. In fact, I can tell the member with some confidence that in the decades that we have undertaken this procedure of dealing with this information, we've not had a complaint that I am aware of.

We will continue to ensure that we look after that information in a manner that is respectful of people's privacy while, at the same time, working through some of the competing demands of different officers of the Legislature.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister's point about reconciling competing interests, but I would respectfully suggest that the next paragraph in the letter endeavours to reconcile the need of health authorities to have information to support evaluation and planning, yet offer protection for personally identifiable health information. Indeed, that's what he says in the letter.

"Information is needed in order to support evaluation and planning, including as regards continuing care services, but I am concerned that the minimum reporting requirements, supported either by the ministerial directive or the CCA amendments, would compel disclosure of personally identifiable health information without the protections offered by the E-Health Act.

"I strongly believe the E-Health Act, not CCA amendments or ministerial directive, should be used to acquire personal health information for planning and evaluation purposes. The privacy and transparency afforded by the E-Health Act are needed here as well.

"Further, as I've previously told ministry officials, personal health information acquired for planning purposes should be provided in linkable form and de-identified, thus reducing privacy risks while still enabling planning and evaluation activities."

That would appear, in my view, to address the concern that the minister raises about conflicting directions being raised by two separate independent officers.

He also goes on to say:

"The ministry is, by pursuing these CCA amendments, resorting in a piecemeal approach that avoids the transparency and privacy protections offered to the E-Health Act. It may be argued that designation of health information banks is complex" — I think that's the argument the minister was making — "but no evidence to support such a claim has ever been offered. The tools are there under the E-Health Act, and I would urge you to ensure they are used, rather than the expedient of piecemeal amendments to other statutes."

That's fairly self-explanatory.

Again, I'd invite the minister's comment. These sections of the letter appear to address the concern that the minister raises.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite is right to recognize those concerns that were identified in the September 22 letter, but I can't underscore more that we have a real fundamental concern with the recommendation that the freedom-of-information commissioner is suggesting.

The intent of the e-health legislation, as I say, was to focus on databases that were related to the electronic health record. This was never the intention to try and incorporate every other database in the Ministry of Health Services.

I would say to the member that this is not a problem that I can tell you I am willing to fix on the floor of this Legislature, because I do believe there's an important principle here that we have to make clear to the Information Commissioner. We may ultimately end up agreeing to disagree, but nevertheless we are not willing, certainly at this time, to make a decision to include it as part of the e-health legislation, which was never contemplated to include other databases — including the ones of which we speak.

[1520]

B. Ralston: Again to turn to the letter, it would seem — and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — that the kind of information that's being gathered is information that would augment the personal health record, if I'm not mistaken. But the minister can correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm reading again from the letter: "I'm aware that the ministry has been collecting clinical information of individual continuing-care clients of health authorities in identifiable form, including information disclosing their

[ Page 815 ]

medications, medical diagnoses and cognitive states, for the purposes of program monitoring and performance evaluation."

His concern is that that should engage the e-health privacy provisions. Subject to the minister's comment, it would seem that that would form part of the individual continuing-care patient's personal health record.

I'm not quite sure why the minister is making the objection he does that this was not intended to be included when the e-health legislation was passed. When I look at the E-Health Act and review it, it's certainly very, very broad. In

section 4, as to what a designation order might apply to, there are, I think, over 20 areas within the system where it's possible to make a designation order authorizing the collection and use of personal health information.

Perhaps the minister could respond to those comments.

Hon. K. Falcon: I do think it is important to recognize the kind of information that is being asked for here. It's information of a financial nature to determine income levels of the individuals so that the appropriate rate can be applied to those individuals. We fundamentally disagree that that kind of private, personal financial information should form part of your personal health record. We just fundamentally disagree with the commissioner with that regard.

Remember what the e-health legislation was all about. That was making sure that doctors would have access to your personal health record so that it would be easier for them, when you're visiting different hospital rooms or different doctors' offices or what have you, to have access to your personal health record. It is not there to allow them to have access to your personal financial information.

We just have a fundamental point of departure here with the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner. We will continue to work with the commissioner, but we're not prepared to go along with his recommendation that this information should form part of your personal health record.

B. Ralston: The minister mentions personal financial information. What the commissioner says here is — and I'll repeat it: "I am aware the ministry has been collecting clinical information of individual continuing-care clients of health authorities in identifiable form, including information disclosing their medications, medical diagnoses and cognitive states, for the purposes of program monitoring and performance evaluation."

Is the minister saying that the commissioner is wrong — that that information is not being collected, because he refers only to financial information? This is what is in the letter that the commissioner has prepared and provided to the minister. I want to clarify that. Is the commissioner wrong that information in that form is not being collected by the ministry?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, I wouldn't say that the commissioner is wrong, but I would say that the commissioner…. We believe we need to be able to provide him with the information to understand that we have data-sharing agreements in place with each of the health authorities that very specifically define the collection, transmission and use of personal information.

I would remind the member that this is actually a function and a process that has been in place since, in fact, the Continuing Care Act came into place in 1997 — without complaint, I might add. In fact, prior to the Continuing Care Act, there was also a similar transmission of information.

[1525]

I think that at the end of the day, we'll continue to work with the commissioner, but we do have a disagreement with the commissioner in terms of his recommendation in this regard.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear. I'm not sure if the Minister of Health has had a chance to meet with the commissioner yet, given that it's only a couple of days ago. That may not be the case, and that's understandable.

I'm going back again to his letter — because the minister seems to be focused on financial information — on the first page, where he expresses his main concern as: "The government is proposing, through these amendments, to authorize the collection, use and disclosure of sensitive health and financial information of continuing-care clients and their family members."

Is the minister's position that these amendments are only to facilitate the collection of financial information and that there's no collection of health information? That certainly seems to be contrary to what is being said here. He offers a ready-made solution, the legislative solution that exists, and is recommending it to the minister. Is that what the minister is saying — that he is content with what the commissioner describes as piecemeal amendments, since it is only financial information that's being collected?

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, in addition to financial information, of course there is medical medication information, etc., that would need to be gathered to make the appropriate assessment for the individual. That is a practice that has been carried on for many, many, many years in British Columbia.

In terms of meeting with the freedom-of-information commissioner or staff, I can assure the member that not only have meetings taken place; there was a meeting that took place as recently as yesterday. There are further meetings that are scheduled as early as tomorrow, and that will continue. Our staff will, and always does, try to work with the Information Commissioner to ensure we are doing everything we can to protect the privacy of individuals.

[ Page 816 ]

Again, I want to emphasize that what we are doing here is actually just confirming the statutory authority behind a regulatory authority that has been in place for many, many years in this province — with, I would argue, very great success and without complaint.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm going to conclude shortly on this area, because I think we've had a good exchange on this problem.

It seems to me that the minister seems to be unwilling to acknowledge or at least agree, perhaps, with the point the commissioner is making that whatever past practices have been, it has certainly been superseded by more elevated concerns about privacy and by the fact that the E-Health Act and that legislative mechanism exist to balance the concerns he raises.

I'm sure there will be further discussions, and I'd invite the minister — if he should change his mind or, as a result of discussions, come to agree with the commissioner — that the appropriate amendments come back before the House, if that's required or, if it can be done by regulation under the E-Health Act, that that be done expeditiously.

Perhaps on that point I'll conclude on

section

Section 6 approved on division.

section 7.

B. Ralston: Just for the record, we had discussion on the previous section, so I won't ask any further questions. But my comment and objection remain the same.

Section 7 approved on division.

section 8.

B. Ralston: Can the minister confirm that this amendment is an amendment of the

section that was amended just several months ago?

[1530]

L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. Hansen: It is simply an amendment to the

section that was amended in February, to give the member a direct answer.

Section 8 approved on division.

section 9.

B. Ralston: This proposed amendment amends the Financial Administration Act to authorize private members on the government side to sit as members of Treasury Board. Perhaps the minister can clarify for me, because I understand that the practice in the past has been that private members have sat as members of the Treasury Board, both with this government and with previous ones.

Is the purpose of the amendment to authorize those members to be members of Treasury Board as voting members? Is that the purpose of the amendment?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, it is.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain why that's necessary, given that the practice in the past was that private members sat as members of the Treasury Board and presumably had voice but no vote — provided input, participated in the discussion. Why was it felt necessary to formally authorize them to be able to vote?

I suppose my concern — I think I expressed this at second reading — is that while individual ministers are accountable through the legislative process and through question period and estimates, although not necessarily as members of Treasury Board per se, a private member doesn't…. There's not the same level of accountability, since there's no mechanism to question them.

It does appear to be a little bit anomalous in terms of accountability. Can the minister comment on that, please?

Hon. C. Hansen: Private members have participated in Treasury Board over the last number of years, and because they were not full members, one might say, the member is correct. They would not have a vote, but they would also not be able to be considered in making sure that quorum was present at a meeting, for example.

Members of Treasury Board who are members of executive council are accountable to this chamber in their specific ministerial roles, but they are not accountable to this chamber as a result of their participation in Treasury Board. That accountability is through the Minister of Finance, who chairs Treasury Board.

[1535]

B. Ralston: Is the purpose, then, to accommodate the more bureaucratic requirement, I suppose, of making it easier to attain quorum? As I understand, the intent of the legislation is that even if private members were members of Treasury Board and there to enable the quorum to be achieved, the majority of voting members would still have to be members of executive council in order for the Treasury Board to be properly constituted and to be in a position to make decisions.

Hon. C. Hansen: As is currently the case, 50 percent of the members of Treasury Board would constitute a quorum. This would mean that the majority of members of Treasury Board, under this amendment, would have to be members of executive council and 50 percent of the members would constitute a quorum.

[ Page 817 ]

B. Ralston: I'm not sure it's a major point, but then could you be in the situation there where the majority of members present were private members and not cabinet members, and is there any significance to that?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, it's possible.

B. Ralston: Obviously, that's a possibility that has been considered by the drafters. I'm not sure that there need be any concern. But is there any concern? Or is that something that is anticipated would be a rarity, given the propensity of the schedulers of cabinet ministers to make sure they get to their meetings?

Hon. C. Hansen: Treasury Board is always well attended by both the private members and by cabinet members, and it is only on rare occasions that quorum becomes an issue.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

B. Ralston: Yes, this amendment begins…. I think there are some intervening amendments, but there are a series of amendments which deal with Tourism British Columbia. My colleague the member for Vancouver–West End is here. I believe he would wish to ask some questions related to Tourism B.C. We could deal with them here if the minister is so inclined, or there are subsequent sections 14 and 15. So if the minister is inclined to take the questions now?

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Very well, then.

This

section simply deletes Tourism B.C. from the Financial Information Act, so perhaps we'll have the debate little bit later, then, on sections 14 and 15. I know that my colleague is anxious to ask a few questions.

Perhaps I'll sit down, and we can move on.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

B. Ralston: Yes, this is an amendment to the Hospital Insurance Act.

Some Hon. Members: That's 12.

B. Ralston: Oh 12. Pardon me. Yes, I skipped over that.

Similarly, this is a housekeeping amendment on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy, deleting Tourism B.C.

I'll sit down, and we can have the vote.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

B. Ralston: This is an amendment to the Hospital Insurance Act,

section 29(3), to add a paragraph. I'm looking at

section 29(3). It talks about "provision for…payment by or on behalf of a beneficiary...." Can the minister explain what the purpose of this amendment is?

Hon. K. Falcon: I can. Actually, what this does, Member, is harmonize and make this act consistent with the Continuing Care Act, the one we just were debating a few minutes back.

The reason is that the Hospital Act…. Many people just consider it to be acute care facilities, but it also includes some residential care facilities that are often associated with the acute care facilities. So what we want to do is make sure that there is consistency so that you haven't got some residential care facilities in the province being governed by sections of the Continuing Care Act and others under the hospital act that are being governed by a different set of standards. So this harmonizes, and the wording you'll see is exactly identical to what is there under the Continuing Care Act.

B. Ralston: Yes, the amendment itself makes no reference to any other act. I have the Continuing Care Act. I hadn't reviewed it with that in mind.

[1540]

But the minister is then saying that this proposed amendment, (a.1), is identical with which

section of the Continuing Care Act?

Hon. K. Falcon: I just love reading legislation. The sections under the Hospital Insurance Act, (a.1) and (b.1), cross-reference back with

section 6(3)(a), (

b) and (c).

B. Ralston: I understand the minister is referring to the Continuing Care Act and says 6(3)(a), (

b) and (c). I have a copy of the Continuing Care Act taken from the Legislative website that says it's current to September 16, 2009, which is when I was looking at this act. I don't see that there. Perhaps the minister could explain that.

There's a

section 6 called "Fees and charges to clients." There's a subsection (1) and (2), and that's it.

Perhaps the minister could just explain that. Perhaps that's confusion on my part.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member was right. It's

section 6 of the Continuing Care Act, the new amendments that we just previously debated, (3)(a), (b), (c), subsections (

i) and (ii). Have I got it right? I hope I do.

[ Page 818 ]

B. Ralston: I'm going to need some further guidance from the minister. I'm lost, I'll confess. That's sometimes easy to do, and if the minister's effort was to lose me, he succeeded. But I'm sure that's not the case. I'm not clear what

section he's referring to.

[1545]

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, referring, as you were, to the Continuing Care Act…. If you got it off the Web, it would be page 3 of five, under "Fees and charges to clients,"

section 6. You'll see there's a section (1) and (2) that are identified.

What we did is just debated the additions to that, a few minutes back, that added subsection (3)(a), (

b) and (c).

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, exactly.

What you'll see here under (b.1) is the same language you will see under the previous one, under (3)(c)(ii). In that case, it's exactly the same wording. In (a.1) you will see the same wording reflected in (3)(a), (

b) and (c).

B. Ralston: I think I have it now. Then, the comment that's made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner would appear to apply to this proposed amendment as well. Given that the wording is identical, he describes it as broad and vague and makes the objection that it could be designated under the E-Health Act.

Is the minister prepared to acknowledge that, in his discussions with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, this amendment may be the subject of discussion, as well, for the same reasons that he set out in his letter?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is exactly right. It would certainly be my expectation that this would be engendering the same discussion with the commissioner as we will be having on the previous section.

Section 12 approved on division.

B. Ralston: Perhaps if I could introduce my colleague, who will deal with the next several sections on the issue of Tourism B.C. and its untimely demise.

section 13.

S. Herbert: I'm here to ask a couple of questions about

section 13, the Hotel Room Tax Act.

I wanted to ask the minister. Obviously, this is a big deal — to be eliminating Tourism B.C., which was established in 1996 and is very well-regarded in the industry. Certainly, I'm sure the minister has heard — as has this House, as have the members on our side — the extreme concern from the tourism industry about the elimination of Tourism B.C. — whether it's the Council of Tourism Associations, which has grave concerns about this and is calling, basically, for the re-establishment of an entity pretty much the same as Tourism B.C….

So it's a big deal for this House to be considering, and I think this elimination of Tourism B.C. is one that I look forward to hearing cogent arguments from the minister about — why this was necessary, why the minister believes this was a good thing to do and some facts to back this up.

I'll start this with a question. Why does the minister believe that we should be amending the Hotel Room Tax Act by taking the revenues from Tourism B.C. and just putting them into the general idea of promoting tourism, rather than having it dedicated to Tourism British Columbia?

Hon. K. Krueger: To begin, I'd like to introduce the officials who are with me. On my right is Shauna Brouwer, the ADM of management services for the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts. On my left is Cheryl Hall, the manager of Crown operations for the ministry.

I thank the member for his question. I'd like to suggest with regard to a lot of discussion about the move of Tourism B.C. into the ministry that we might be best to cover those questions in the estimates debate that's upcoming, but I'll certainly give him an answer to his question.

[1550]

Bill 2 before us contains provisions to ensure that the promotion of tourism is maintained and that responsibility is transferred from Tourism British Columbia to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts.

The Tourism Act provided the Crown corporation with powers and authorities to promote development and growth in the tourism industry in B.C. The Tourism Act provides the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts with powers to encourage development of the tourism industry, to provide information services for tourists, to promote tourism, to encourage the motion picture industry in British Columbia and to reflect tourism interests in land and resource use and management decisions.

Integrating these powers and authorities is intended to better coordinate the province's tourism marketing initiatives. Amendments are being made to allow for a seamless transition of Tourism British Columbia to MTCA and eventual repeal of the act. Specifically, sections 2(2), 2(4) and 2(5) provide specific reference to board composition. These are to be repealed effective August 14, 2009.

The requirement that the chair is to be recommended by the board is repealed effective August 14, 2009, also.

[ Page 819 ]

The remaining amendments provide for the repeal of the act; the dissolution of Tourism B.C.; and the transfer of its rights, property, assets and obligations to the government effective April 1, 2010.

Several other acts require amendments to integrate Tourism British Columbia into the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts.

Those are the Financial Information Act, to remove reference to Tourism British Columbia, effective April 1, 2010; the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to remove reference to Tourism British Columbia on the same date, April 1, 2010; the Hotel Room Tax Act, which we're discussing here, to change reference from raising revenue for the purposes of Tourism British Columbia to raising revenue for the purpose of promoting tourism, also effective April 1, 2010; and the Tourism Act, to authorize the minister to sell tourism-related products, advertising, and so on, or to authorize a person or organization to do so, and to establish the prices at which the products and services are sold, also effective April 1, 2010.

The reason that the government made the decision to dissolve the board, repeal the Tourism British Columbia Act and consolidate the human resources and financial resources that were part of Tourism British Columbia was to attain the synergies and the administrative savings that are available in this lead-up time to the Olympics by ensuring that the staff of the ministry and the staff who had been working with Tourism British Columbia would work very closely together, assuring that there were no duplications of effort or duplications of use of financial resources for similar purposes.

Any savings that we thus achieve will be directed to marketing itself. We think this is important to capitalize on the huge opportunities that are presented by hosting the Olympics, coming to us very quickly now.

Our government's focus for years has been on the benefits that can and will accrue to British Columbians and our economy after the Olympics, particularly as a result of the huge marketing opportunity that the Olympics present and the fact that three billion people around the world will be watching the opening ceremonies and much of the Olympics themselves. Our focus for many years in preparation now has been to make sure that we maximize all of those opportunities for British Columbians and our economy after the Olympics.

I think that that covers the member's question on this specific section.

S. Herbert: I'd like to thank the minister for that answer. I find it interesting. A couple of the things that are troubling to me are the discussion of synergies and no duplications. "Oh, we'll get these great savings."

I guess the challenge I have is that I'm wondering — we can, of course, take this further in the estimates process — if there were these problems for the last eight years under this government, why it didn't act sooner if it truly believed that. I don't believe these are the real answers here. There's something else behind this, which we'll get to later in the estimates process.

[1555]

The way I understand it here is the minister, by eliminating Tourism B.C., is going to take the hotel room tax revenue and put it into the general purpose of promoting tourism.

In tough economic times funny things, bizarre things, baffling things are known to happen, as we've seen with governments of all political stripes. I think the elimination of Tourism B.C. is one of those things.

I'm curious if the minister might be able to share with me what qualifies as promoting tourism in terms of where the funding goes.

Hon. K. Krueger: Again, in the interests of time, I'd refer the member to pages 5 and 7 of the Tourism British Columbia's service plan, which refer to the core programs of Tourism British Columbia: attracting more visitors; maximizing growth through partnership marketing, and a number of means are set out there; enhancing world-class visitor experiences; and providing value to stakeholders. All of these programs, 146 of the 147 people who worked for Tourism B.C., their corporate culture and their plans, initiatives and goals are all within the ministry presently, and none of that is lost.

S. Herbert: I understand that basically this money, the minister says, is for attracting visitors. There's a range of things that Tourism B.C. did.

Can the minister assure this House that this funding is dedicated to that task, or is it possible that something can change, a Treasury Board decision could change where that money goes?

Hon. K. Krueger: Again, in the estimates debate we'll be able to go over the ministry's budget. The numbers are set out there. We actually have a very substantial lift in the budget this year focusing particularly on the post-Olympic marketing opportunity. That's a $38.6 million lift. So the sum of $92.6 million is set aside this year for these purposes.

S. Herbert: I wasn't asking what the size of the budget was. I was asking, as many tourism operators are as well, what assurance do they have that this is dedicated funding? When they knew it had to go to Tourism B.C., they knew Tourism B.C. had it. It was theirs. It wouldn't be touched.

[1600]

I'm wondering, now that it's within this ministry for the vaguer vision of promoting tourism — which,

[ Page 820 ]

arguably, could be many things — what assurance do they have that it's dedicated and it can't be touched by Treasury Board to take it to some other pot of money if they so desire?

Hon. K. Krueger: The incoming funds are, of course, managed by the Ministry of Finance. The Minister of Finance and I have, separately and together, met with the Council of Tourism Associations, which the member referenced.

We stand on our record of having increased funding from $25 million per year when we became government to $65 million per year presently and, as I earlier mentioned, a lift in this year as we approach the post-Olympic marketing opportunities. We stand on that record. We certainly intend to continue using the portion of the hotel room tax for the marketing of tourism.

S. Herbert: I hear the minister say he would stand on his record. Unfortunately, when I talk to tourism officials, they say to me that that's not good enough. They need to know that the funding is dedicated, that it's locked in, that they're going to know they're going to get it next year and know that money is the year after, and that they can do that long-term planning.

It's concerning to me that the minister is unable to say that the funding is dedicated, because we all know…. We've seen it happen before with any number of taxes, where originally they're brought in to say, "This is dedicated for this" — as we've seen, for example, with gaming moneys. "This is for community charities." Now we're seeing the government dip into that pot, taking $77 million out for their own purposes, and the charities are very upset because it was supposedly dedicated to them.

I'm wondering: would the minister explain to me why he won't commit and the government won't commit to dedicating the funds as they were before under Tourism B.C.?

Hon. K. Krueger: I'd refer the member to the words of

section 13, where the legislative direction is very clear: "... amended by striking out 'for the raising of revenue for the purposes of Tourism British Columbia' and substituting 'for the raising of revenue for the purpose of promoting tourism'." The amendment confers a legislative obligation to promoting marketing with this money.

S. Herbert: Would the minister think that using these funds for, let's say, cost overruns on the trade and convention centre would be seen to be marketing or promoting tourism?

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no.

S. Herbert: Okay, so the minister says it feels like an obligation. As we've seen in the past, governments say they have obligations, and they break them. Is this mandatory? Is this mandatory that this go to tourism promotion, as in marketing, or could it be used for other purposes which the government could then claim was about tourism promotion, if at all?

Hon. K. Krueger: It's the former.

[1605]

S. Herbert: So the minister is stating to me that there's no possibility that this money in any sense, if Treasury Board made a different decision, could be taken to use for something else. There's no possibility.

Hon. K. Krueger: It's very clear that the amendment makes the use of this money for the purposes of promotion of tourism a legislative requirement.

S. Herbert: Well, the minister says that. I think promotion of tourism, as it's not defined — as in, who gets to decide what promotion of tourism is except for the minister and, I suppose, the cabinet…. This money, as we've seen in years past with other funds which are supposedly dedicated, has been used for other purposes. They may try to argue that they would be for that purpose — I think of the legal services tax; I think of other taxes as well — but they're not.

I'd like to ask the minister…. If a treasury board decided that promotion of tourism included paying for cost overruns on a project interesting towards tourism — say, cost overruns for the convention centre…. Maybe this minister wouldn't be on that treasury board. Would that legally be possible?

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no.

S. Herbert: The minister is telling me that there's no conceivable way the money could be used for a convention centre. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Krueger: That answer is yes.

S. Herbert: That's an interesting one. So it can't be used for cost overruns, because it's just not possible because that wouldn't promote tourism, but it is possible that it could be used for a convention centre. So we're seeing a bit of a cognitive…. The answer is yes, that it could be used for….

Hon. K. Krueger: No, no.

S. Herbert: Okay, maybe the minister could restate his answer to my question.

Hon. K. Krueger: I want to remind the member — I thought I had his agreement when he nodded at me

[ Page 821 ]

across the chamber — that we would cover this matter in detail in estimates, but in his question, he's asking about capital expenses for a building, and we're talking about operating expenses for marketing tourism. The legislative amendment is very clearly worded.

S. Herbert: I believe it's important to cover this piece of where the money is going here, because that's what we're debating here. So I will continue to ask questions about that.

My question to the minister: for example, is it possible that this money could be used for operating expenses of B.C. Place in order to promote tourism?

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no.

S. Herbert: Could the minister tell me: are there operating expenses…? Could the minister tell me who decides what classifies as tourism marketing, tourism promotion, within his ministry? Who makes that final call?

Hon. K. Krueger: Presently the interim CEO of Tourism British Columbia is Deputy Minister Lori Wanamaker, who oversees the operation, which is comprised of 146 of the previous 147 employees.

S. Herbert: I assume that decisions your deputy minister makes are cleared with the minister.

Hon. K. Krueger: Not on a day-to-day basis. Ministers set policy, and deputy ministers and their staff implement policy.

[1610]

S. Herbert: I'm curious if the minister is concerned. The words "promoting tourism" are so broad that a future minister might read them a different way or a future government could read them a different way.

Hon. K. Krueger: No.

The Chair: And I would caution the member on the repetitiveness of the question.

S. Herbert: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I am concerned about future possibilities of this. With Tourism B.C., you knew what you got. The funding was dedicated. It had its own independent board of directors who made decisions about where that money went.

Under this change here to the Hotel Room Tax Act, basically this decision will be made by the minister with his colleagues about where that money needs to go, and his deputy minister responds to him, to his direction. So should it come to a time, as we've seen with many other taxes, that the government of the day needs to take some money to fill a hole somewhere else, I am very concerned that this minister and this government may respond that way.

I think back to the words of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the member for Saanich North and the Islands who made these same arguments when this original bill to introduce Tourism B.C. was enacted, they said very strongly that this needed to be dedicated funding that went to a group independent of government so that government couldn't basically monkey around with the situation.

This

section here,

section 3.1 with these amendments, is making it so that this can be a political decision and not an industry decision. So I'm wondering, under this section, what kind of direction does the tourism industry have? What kind of ability will they have in terms of deciding where the funding goes, or does this just rest with the minister and his deputy?

Hon. K. Krueger: The authority rests with the minister and his or her deputy. We are creating a minister's council on tourism. It is not completely finalized yet who the members will be, but two or more of them will be former members of the Tourism British Columbia board, which was recently dismissed. I say two or more because two have been approached and two have agreed to serve on the minister's council on tourism.

S. Herbert: I hear the minister state that this will be an advisory council, not a board of directors in terms of they're the ones who make the decisions. They can give advice. They can be listened to, can be ignored. The politics of the day could change the situation. It really is uncertain, when the industry has been calling for certainty, that they know how much money they will get year in and year out. They know how it will be spent because they're involved in deciding how it would be spent, not a political decision on how it would be spent.

I guess I'm curious about what would prevent a future government from deciding that promotion of tourism meant something different than what's currently laid out in the Tourism B.C. service plan.

Hon. K. Krueger: Governments are accountable to the electorate. The electorate includes the taxpayers. The revenues that flow to Tourism British Columbia are from taxpayers. They are tax revenues.

S. Herbert: I'm given to understand from the minister that, basically, it would be up to the voters to say: "Okay, you're not spending the money wisely. You're spending it in a way that it should be for." So you have to turf a government out of office in order to make these changes. I don't see that as the dedicated, consistent funding that the tourism industry is asking for, because it really can

[ Page 822 ]

change as a whim of the day under these changes the government is bringing in.

Can the minister tell me how making it more open for possible changes, whether it's a different minister…. Maybe the minister changes his mind. How can making this more flexible and not consistent, how is that good for marketing tourism to the world?

[1615]

Hon. K. Krueger: Tourism is a tremendously important industry for British Columbia. We think of it as our fourth-largest export industry, using the consideration of exports because it brings in a lot of currencies from outside of our province and outside of Canada.

The numbers spent and how they're spent is subject to legislative scrutiny in the estimates debate. I continue to urge the member to go to the estimates debate, which he and I are scheduling our sequence of debate on, for some of these answers. All expenditures will be listed in public accounts, and that's not what happened under Tourism British Columbia. Tourism British Columbia was a separate Crown corporation. So I'm not sure why the member would think that there'll be less accountability for a ministry than there was for the Crown corporation.

S. Herbert: I have concerns because the industry has concerns because people whose livelihoods rely on the industry have concerns. They knew what they got with Tourism B.C. They don't know what they're going to get year in, year out with the minister being the one who makes the political decisions under tourism promotion.

For example, I've heard people out on the streets talk about it. When they come to me they say: "Our streets are dirty. That's a bad thing for the world population to see." "Oh, it's bad for tourism. We need support to clean up the streets, and that will help us promote tourism."

There is a whole bunch of various ways that government could — and I say could — decide to spin stories to say: "This money is helping promote tourism by being used for patching up potholes so that the streets are safer to drive on. And oh, isn't this great?" And on and on and on. With this legislation, with this change, with this amendment, we've taken out the certainty and opened it up to the winds of politics for governments to make the final political decision.

So my question is: will the hotel room tax continue to be viewable, to be seen by the public — exactly how much is coming in, let's say, on a quarterly basis? Will that continue to be shown as, I'm assuming, a line item within the Tourism budget so that we can see exactly how much came in and where it's going?

Hon. K. Krueger: Under the NDP government — who, of course, were the government of the '90s — the funding of Tourism B.C. was at the whim of Treasury Board.

It was under the B.C. Liberal government since 2001 that a revenue stream was provided as a share of the hotel room tax for tourism promotion. So it's ironic that a member from the NDP would ask a minister from the B.C. Liberal Party that question.

We established this means of funding tourism promotion, and that's what we intend to continue.

S. Herbert: I appreciate the minister's history lesson. He seemed to be defending Tourism B.C. and talked about what a great organization it was. Now they're eliminating Tourism B.C. and eliminating the certainty that was provided to the tourism industry because of Tourism B.C