H1125pm 16

H1125pm 16

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, November 25, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 18, Number 16 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, November 25, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 8181 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 8181 British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89) Hon. J.

Reid Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 8182 U.S. trade policy J. Les Development of export markets R. Lee Youth restorative justice K. Manhas Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 8183 Privatization of B.C. Rail J. Kwan Hon. G. Campbell CN Rail operation of B.C. Rail freight services P. Bell Hon. G. Campbell B.

Belsey Boycott of B.C. wood in China D. Chutter Hon. M. de Jong Viability of public-private partnerships R. Hawes Hon. G. Collins Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 8186 Timber Licences Settlement Act (Bill 96) Hon. M. de Jong Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 8187 Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act (Bill 94) (continued) J.

Kwan Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail Speaker's Statement ............................................................................................................ ..................................................... 8206

8181 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members J. Nuraney: Today the Muslims all over the world are celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan, the month of fasting. This discipline has been in existence for over 1,400 years, and whilst fast- ing is a physical activity, there is a strong message of spirituality for practising abstinence and cultivating piety. I would like, on behalf of the members of the Legislature, to offer our felicitations and wish the Mus- lim brothers and sisters Eid Mubarak. [1405] Hon. G.

Plant: We have in the gallery today some hard-working advocates for the legal profession and the public interest in the administration of justice in British Columbia. I'd ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming Robert Brun, who is the presi- d e n t o f t h e B . C . b r a n c h o f t h e C a n a d i a n B a r A s s o c i a - tion; Michael Woodward, who is the vice-president; Frank Kraemer, who is the executive director; and Caroline Nevin, who is their intergovernmental rela- tions person. I hope all members will welcome these people to the Legislature. B.

Lekstrom: Joining us today in the gallery are two friends of mine, hard-working people in the northeast part of our province who work every day to make the lives better of the people not just in northeast B.C. but in all of British Columbia. Will the House please join me in welcoming the acting mayor of Tumbler Ridge, Mr. Don McPherson, as well as the acting mayor of Dawson Creek, Mr. Alvin Stedel. Hon. S.

Bond: O n b e h a l f o f m y c o l l e a g u e f r o m Prince George North, we would ask you to make two of our friends and certainly key leaders from our com- munity welcome to the Legislature today, as they're here to celebrate incredible opportunities for the north- ern part of province. I'd like to introduce Bruce Suther- land, the president of the Prince George Chamber of Commerce, and Jim Blake, the chair of the Prince George Airport Authority. W. Cobb: It's my pleasure today to introduce the mayor from one of the great communities in my riding, His Worship Mayor Rick Gibson.

Would the House please help me make him welcome. Hon. R. Neufeld: I t ' s a l w a y s a p l e a s u r e t o r i s e i n the House and introduce someone from northeastern British Columbia. It's my pleasure today to introduce a good friend of mine, Steve Thorlakson, the mayor of Fort St. John. He was down here to listen, along with the other acting mayors from northeast B.C., to the good news about B.C. Rail this morning. Would the House please make them welcome. B.

Belsey: Joining us in Victoria, and now in the House today, is His Worship Mayor Pond from Prince Rupert, who is here to take back some very good news a n d i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t h a s b e e n p a s s e d o n t o u s i n o u r new agreement that we have with CN. Would the House please join me in making him welcome. I. Chong: Today visiting us are two exchange stu- dents attending Glenlyon Norfolk School. They've come f r o m v e r y f a r a w a y p l a c e s . W e h a v e A b i s h a L o b o f r o m India and Dineo Oliphant from South Africa. Would the House please make them both very welcome. A.

Hamilton: Joining us in the House this afternoon are 35 grades 4 and 5 students accompanied by 13 par- ents and their teacher, Mr. McLatchie, from Hans Hel- gesen Elementary School. Would the House please join me in making them welcome. Hon. J. Reid: I ' d a l s o l i k e t o j o i n i n w e l c o m i n g t h e mayors from across this province. As well, joining us today for question period is John McLernon , chair of B.C. Rail. Would the House please make him very welcome. Hon. R. Thorpe: In the gallery today, visiting Brit- ish Columbia, is the president of Fortis West, Mr. Philip Hughes.

Would the House make him welcome, as their company invests millions of dollars in growing the economy of British Columbia. [1410] Hon. G. Bruce: On this historic day in the province of British Columbia, Anneke has brought some other very fine individuals of British Columbia down here to the House. With her today is Harmina and Wayne Richmond and their son Peter, who have the 49th Par- allel grocery operation on central Vancouver Island — another independent body that does so well. They con- tribute so much to our community. Along with them are Rob and Lynn Owen.

Rob is the Owen of Owen and Sons, and in most instances when you put your money into a cash register, it's courtesy of Rob. With Rob and along with them all is my brother Garry, who runs the family business and is actually trying to find out whether I really do anything at all. Could you make them welcome, please. Introduction and First Reading of Bills BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY (REVITALIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. J. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Administrator. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The Administrator transmits herewith Bill 89, intit- uled…. Interjection.

8182 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 Mr. Speaker: Order! The Administrator transmits herewith Bill 89, intit- uled British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly. Hon. J. Reid presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. J. Reid: I move that Bill 89 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. J. Reid: Earlier today the Premier announced a new partnership for B.C.

Rail that is going to generate $1 billion of investment for the people of B.C. Our new partnership is going to deliver better services, new cars, new infrastructure, faster shipping times, lower rates and new economic opportunities for northern B.C. The legislation I am introducing will enable this partnership to move forward. First and foremost, it will legally enshrine B.C. Rail's rights-of-way, railbed and track under guaranteed public ownership. In addition, it will ensure that as a new partner assumes operations of B.C. Rail, the B.C. Railway Co. remains a provincially owned Crown corporation.

Un- der this legislation, the partner will be able to lease the right to operate over the railbed, which remains pub- licly owned by the B.C. Railway Co. Bill 89 also allows for the smooth transition of inter- company land transactions to ensure long-term protec- tion by the Crown. This bill will facilitate a new in- vestment partnership that delivers numerous benefits for British Columbians.

These include new improve- ments for the rail system; lower rates and better ser- vices, like a Chicago express; to create new jobs and opportunities in B.C.; $8.3 million a year in new ongo- ing revenues for communities along the B.C. Rail corri- dor; new passenger-tourist train services; and brand- new jobs and economic benefits as the customer base increases. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 89 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1415] Statements (Standing Order 25

B) U.S. TRADE POLICY J. Les: Last week the United States Commerce de- partment announced plans to impose new import quo- tas on selected Chinese textiles. Protectionist trade policies, whether they be quotas, tariffs or a number of other trade barriers, allow a small group of producers to enjoy artificially high domestic prices at the expense of everyone else. As British Columbians, we are well aware of the impact of American protectionist policies.

The current softwood lumber dispute has led to the closure of mills and the loss of roughly 15,000 forestry jobs and is estimated to have cost lumber producers $1.5 billion. Like advances in technology, trade liberalization allows a country to specialize in producing goods and services in which it enjoys the greatest productivity advantage. The result is greater labour productivity and higher real incomes. While import barriers may save some jobs in certain protected industries, it is at the cost of destroying jobs in other more globally com- petitive industries.

Last week Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Board, said, "The clouds of emerging protectionism raise new risks for the global economy," adding that: "It is imperative that creeping protectionism be thwarted and reversed." Tariffs on agricultural products, softwood lumber, steel, cotton and now textiles have significant conse- quences to the global economy. Protectionist policies are disruptive to the orderly development of free trade, detrimental to emerging economies, and erode the integrity of international bodies like the World Trade Organization.

The impor- tance of trade with the United States is vital to the Brit- ish Columbia economy, with more than $15 billion of exports being sent to the United States so far this year. For the benefit of citizens everywhere, we must resist protectionism wherever it rears its ugly head. DEVELOPMENT OF EXPORT MARKETS R. Lee: Recently we have heard a lot of good news in this province, but I'm most excited at knowing that in October over 30,000 new jobs were created in British Columbia. It shows that the economic policies of this government are working.

One important component of our economy is export, which accounts for one in five jobs in this province. This month I had the opportunity to participate in two trade missions: the trade mission to China and the trade mission to northern B.C. In China the delegation promoted the advantages of British Columbia for its products: education, high- tech and tourism. As a result of this mission in Shang- hai, the University of British Columbia reinforced its relations with the Jiao Tong University, and our Pre- mier broke ground for the $12 million Dream Home China project.

In Guangzhou our Premier helped foster collaboration of SARS vaccine research between Guangdong and British Columbia, two sister prov- inces. In Beijing our Premier spoke in the World Eco- nomic Forum. With the hon. member for Oak Bay– Gordon Head, I witnessed the Premier signing agree- ments with the Chinese Minister of Education for fur- ther cooperation and with the Chinese Academy of Forestry to find new uses for fire- and beetle-affected

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8183 wood. We also witnessed the signing of 14 MOUs be- tween BCIT and its various partners in many cities of China. Right after the trade mission to China, together with my colleague the hon. member for Prince George North, SUCCESS and the organization Export Prince George, we brought a group of Chinese Canadian in- vestors and exporters from the lower mainland to Prince George and other central interior towns. This visit went extremely well, as it brought together the investors and exporters with the lumber producers to establish trade relations.

For greater prosperity in British Columbia, we must continue to make a concerted effort in developing our export markets to create more jobs for our families in this province. YOUTH RESTORATIVE JUSTICE K. Manhas: Studies show that many individuals caught up in criminal behaviour at a young age will continue reoffending upon release. All too often this marks the beginning of a lifelong pattern of criminal activity and returns to the court system. Youth restora- tive justice can help break that cycle.

It puts them face to face with their victims, and it reinforces the idea that society suffers as a result of their crimes. But most im- portantly, restorative justice ensures that youth learn from their mistakes. Effective restorative justice is an important tool in fostering responsibility and a sense of connection to the community. It teaches youth boundaries and expecta- tions, building assets among youth who need help and attention the most. These are the same kinds of assets the Youth Matters! initiative has been working on building in my community.

The result is a safer, more connected community and a better quality of life. [1420] Restorative justice acts firmly but recognizes that youth are mostly good kids who have made bad deci- sions and that every young person has potential. This work is spearheaded in the Tri-Cities by the Fraser- Burrard Community Justice Society and supported by the three municipalities. In coordination with the Co- quitlam RCMP, they provide an alternative to the court process for youth who have committed criminal of- fences and their victims.

To date, 107 victims, 124 young people, 149 support staff and family members have participated in the program and benefited greatly from their services. They provide guidance to commu- nity members affected by crimes and help them work with their offenders to reach a mutually satisfactory and fair resolution to the conflict. Programs like the one in the Tri-Cities reduce the strain on the justice system and the police system, as time and resources allocated to police officers and courts are freed up.

It's also worth mentioning that 98 percent of the young people processed through the Fraser-Burrard program have upheld their agreements to their victims. Last week we marked youth Restorative Justice Week in British Columbia. I'd like to salute at this time the Fraser-Burrard community youth justice program in my community and all the organizations, individu- als and volunteers across the province who dedicate their time and effort to support restorative justice. Thank you for believing in all of B.C.'s youth. Oral Questions PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL J. Kwan: Today the B.C.

Liberals and every Liberal MLA from the north have officially broken with their constituents. They were elected on a promise not to sell or privatize B.C. Rail. They put that promise in writing, and they campaigned on it hard. Now their personal integrity and credibility are in tatters, sacrificed in the service of the Premier's frantic attempt to pay for his failed tax cuts. To the Premier: how can anyone… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: … who t o o k t he P re m i e r at hi s wo rd a nd believed him when he said he would not sell B.C.

Rail trust him now — now that he's broken a fundamental commitment he made to the people of the north? Hon. G. Campbell: The answer to the question is simple. We did not do any such thing. What we've done is protected the ownership of the right-of-way of the rail for the people of British Columbia so that re- source communities throughout the north will know it is in public ownership for the long term in this prov- ince to meet their needs.

More important than that, what we did was re- flected on the advice we received from northern may- ors and community leaders across the north of this p r o v i n c e f r o m l a s t y e a r , w h e n t h e y s a i d t o t h i s g o v - ernment that their recommendation "would be for the province to retain ownership of the railbed and rail tracks and to offer their partner rail freight and passen- g e r s e r v i c e s . " W e h a v e d o n e t h a t , a n d i t w i l l m e a n nothing but good news and jobs and investments for the entire north of this province. Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: The fact is that B.C. Rail has lost control of everything. The Premier admitted outside in the hall that B.C. Rail has no control — no control — of the railbeds. The Premier can talk all he wants about the supposed benefits of this deal, but it changes nothing. B.C. Rail is gone. Hundreds of jobs are lost. So, too, is the faith of British Columbians. Interjections.

8184 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor. [1425] J. Kwan: So, too, is the faith British Columbians put in this Premier to keep his word. The Premier simply can't buy that trust back. The process that led to this deal stunk — leaks, angry bidders, letters of protest, withdrawn bids. The Premier had broken a fundamen- tal promise to British Columbians. How can British Columbians trust a deal that's signed under a cloud of scandal, secretiveness and suspicion?

Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. G. Campbell: I think the member opposite should understand this. I know it will be difficult, but she should get this. The British Columbia Railway Company is a provincially owned Crown corporation. That provincially owned Crown corporation owns the right-of-way, the railbed and the rails. More important than that, Mr. Speaker, it is time this Legislature and this province responded to the voices and the advice of the people of the north. That's exactly what we've done.

That's why we're getting jobs, that's why we're getting investment, and that's why they can count on a long-term rail system that will meet their needs. CN RAIL OPERATION OF B.C. RAIL FREIGHT SERVICES P. Bell: My question is to the Premier as well. Critics have attempted to frame this B.C. Rail partnership as an unnecessary sell-off of a valuable provincial asset and a betrayal of our commitment to northern British Colum- bians. Today the critics are silenced by this agreement reached with CN that brings countless benefits to Prince George and the rest of British Columbia.

Can the Pre- mier please explain how this partnership with CN makes Prince George a new continental gateway, creat- ing new economic opportunities for the north? Hon. G. Campbell: The B.C. Rail Investment Part- nership does something very important for Prince George. It opens it up as a new continental gateway to the north. It helps establish, for decades ahead, Prince George's pre-eminent position as that gateway. There will be a $135 million northern development initiative housed in Prince George. It will be driven by northern- ers so that they can take full advantage of northern opportunities.

The government today has committed a $4 million investment in the Prince George airport expansion… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Campbell: …which will create 75 direct jobs over the next three years and 300 new jobs in the region. Because of the integration of the rail systems that we have just been able to announce today , goods from Prince George will get to the continental market- place in Chicago two days earlier than they used to. There will be a $1 million private sector investment in a state-of-the-art wheel shop that will bring jobs back to British Columbia and back to the north. B.

Belsey: M y q u e s t i o n i s a l s o t o t h e P r e m i e r . F o r weeks now, critics of the B.C. Rail agreement have been spreading misinformation about the deal, saying there will be thousands of jobs lost. Clearly, these dire pre- dictions are not coming to pass. In fact, the recently announced agreement with CN Rail looks to be very promising to the residents of northern British Colum- bia. Can the Premier please provide this House with details of how the CN partnership will open up the north coast to new markets in Asia and around the world? Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker… Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1430] Hon. G. Campbell: …unlike the last government, which didn't even bother to put the port of Prince Rupert in their brochures, this government has put the port of Prince Rupert and that great northwestern op- portunity front and centre as we move forward. The government has agreed to invest $17.2 million in a new containerization and terminal facility in the port. It's important to note that the private sector will be investing $15 million to improve track.

It's impor- tant to note that there is a request for proposal out right now that will encourage hundreds of new jobs through the development of tourism opportunities and rail touring opportunities across the north and up and down the line. More important than many of these things, I think, is to point out that when we do focus on the great op- portunities of that northwest gateway, we provide ac- cess to Asian markets that's one and a half days sooner for our prairie farmers and our Peace River farmers in this province.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8185 Finally, had the members opposite decided to lis- ten, they would have heard CN say that they have just got an opportunity that will provide additional jobs, additional coal shipments from the heart of the conti- nent to the Asian marketplace. That's what Prince Rupert can do, and that's what this agreement does. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. BOYCOTT OF B.C. WOOD IN CHINA D. Chutter: My question is a…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Please sit down.

The Chair will not tolerate outbursts like that. If you wish to wait for your turn in question period, please wait. D. Chutter: My question is a public written ques- tion from Mayor Chris O'Connor from the village of Lytton to the Minister of Forests regarding the minis- ter's responsibility for international trade or forest products markets. Unelected, unaccountable environmental groups…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Come to order, please, member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. J. Kwan: Shame. Mr. Speaker: The member for Yale-Lillooet has the floor, and, hon. member, the word "shame" is unpar- liamentary.

I don't want to hear it anymore. D. Chutter: Unelected, unaccountable environ- mental groups, led by the Forest Action Network and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, recently staged a press conference in downtown Vancouver… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. We'll wait till the member comes to order. We'll wait. D. Chutter: …promoting a boycott of B.C. forest products in China.

To the minister: what actions will the provincial government take to counter this act of economic treason, and what can resource communities do to fight the boycott and promote our sustainable forest industry worldwide? Hon. M. de Jong: To the member and to Mayor O'Connor of the village of Lytton. I think millions of British Columbians were disappointed, frustrated and actually outraged when they saw the actions of the Forest Action Network.

On the very day and week that the Premier was in China trying to find new markets for the products that British Columbians produce, these folks are telling our potential customers not to buy. What they're really saying is: "Put British Colum- bians out of work." It was irresponsible, and it out- raged a lot of people. Sadly, I have to say to the member and to Mayor O'Connor that it hasn't stopped there, because yester- day we learned that these same people have now gone to Japan and are telling our Japanese customers not to purchase products from British Columbia. Here's what the government is going to do.

We are going to…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Hon. members, let's have some order and decorum in this chamber, please. At least, let's be civil to each other. [1435] Hon. M. de Jong: We are going to continue via the market outreach network, via trade missions led by the Premier and others, to tell the world about our world- leading forest practices in British Columbia. We are going to continue to tell our customers around the world about our leading-edge forest products made right here in British Columbia.

We are going to press ahead with projects like Dream Home China, which the Premier unveiled just a few weeks ago in China. I hope every member of this House and every leader of every political party in British Columbia will denounce the kind of irresponsible behaviour that Mayor O'Connor refers to in his question today. VIABILITY OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS R. Hawes: My question is to the Minister of Fi- nance. Our government has made a commitment to the people of B.C. that we will actively pursue partner- ships that make the best possible use of every tax dol- lar.

Recently the Canadian Centre for Policy Alterna- tives released a study that concludes that P3s actually don't save money; they lose money. In the health sector they may result in a loss of up to 10 percent. Can the Minister of Finance tell the people of British Columbia if this is going to change our policy and our approach on seeking partnerships?

8186 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 Hon. G. Collins: It's important to note that the Ca- nadian Centre for Policy Alternatives was given about a $200,000 grant, I think, by the NDP as they were go- ing out the door and cleaning out their desks just prior to the election. I expect this is the kind of study they're putting that money into. In fact, I believe the study was about seven pages long. It's a lot of money for seven pages. It was alleged to be an economic impact study, which I don't think it came anywhere close to.

I think it's important to note that there are values and benefits from partnerships around the public sec- tor that are there to be accrued. I think the Abbotsford hospital is going to be a stellar example of that. I think it's also interesting to note that in Ontario recently the new government made changes to their partnerships to restructure them so that the public continues to own the asset, which is exactly what we've been working on in Abbotsford all along. That's a great project. The peo- ple in the valley have been waiting for it for a long time. The economics are there; the benefits are there.

It's going to be a huge benefit to the people who live in the Fraser Valley. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading debate of Bill 96. Second Reading of Bills TIMBER LICENCES SETTLEMENT ACT Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 96 be read a sec- ond time now. Bill 96, Timber Licences Settlement Act, as I indi- cated during first reading of this bill, clarifies the intent of a 1995 statutory amendment to the Forest Act that passed through this House, I believe, in June of that year, which removed the royalty method of timber pricing.

I should take a moment to explain that for a num- ber decades in British Columbia there were two mechanisms by which timber pricing took place. One is the conventional notion of stumpage, wherein the methodology has changed, but it is a particular classifi- c a t i o n o f t i m b e r p r i c i n g . T h e s e c o n d i s t h e r o y a l t y method. [1440] In '95 the government of the day phased out royalty rates that were established statutorily for timber li- cences. Timber licences — and the terminology here is significant — represent the oldest form of forest tenure in British Columbia.

The last timber licences were actu- ally granted in 1907. Most have since expired or been consolidated. A few remained in 1995, and a few con- tinue to remain. Royalty rates, or the rent the Crown collected for the sale of the timber rights, were set in legislation. Since 1907 average royalty rates have been significantly lower than average stumpage rates. In the mid-1970s Dr. Peter Pearse commented on that inequity in a report he produced in a royal com- mission, actually, that he chaired. He commented on what he termed the inequities inherent in that histori- cal anomaly.

I should say that nothing came of that recommendation, and yet it was his. In the 1990s the NDP government of the day com- missioned Mr. Brian Scarfe to conduct an independent review of timber royalty rates in British Columbia. Af- ter conducting an exhaustive consultative process, he did recommend that the royalty system or the royalty methodology by which timber pricing was calculated be removed. That gave rise to the introduction and passage of an amendment to the Forest Act in 1995 to remove that historical anomaly.

It was and is clear to me that the intention at that time was not to pay com- pensation to corporate interests which, in the view of those who had conducted the report, had benefited from that historical anomaly between the methods for calculating timber pricing. I've also reviewed the debates that took place at the time and the commentary, and I did want to alert members of the House to a portion of Mr. Scarfe's re- port. I am quoting now from page 49 of that report, wherein the author, Mr. Scarfe himself, quotes from a subsequent or additional report prepared by Mr.

Schwindt and also references the Pearse recommenda- tions. I'll quote that. This is from page 49 of the Scarfe report: "There is no question that royalties have historically been below stumpages. There is also no question that the Crown could have brought these charges into line and that many think the Crown should have done so. This, in fact, was the key recommendation of the 1974 task force which inquired into this issue. While amendments to the Forest Act were passed in 1974 by the Legislature to accomplish this end, they were never proclaimed.

"From the perspective of compensation policy, any expectations about the relationship between royalties and stumpages must have been tempered by the knowledge that this could have been changed at any time. Furthermore, there is scant evidence to suggest that investment-backed decisions were made on the basis of expectations that the relationship would not change. The commission has no knowledge of mills that were constructed on the basis of access to cheap, royalty- bearing wood.

In short, timber licences do not explicitly confer the right to low-cost timber, and there is no compelling evidence to suggest that investments were made on the basis of such an expectation. As a result, the commission recommends that uncollected resource rents not be factored into any compensation for the taking of timber licences." Finally. "The reason Commissioner Schwindt has been cited at length is because there is a relationship between my recommendations and those of Schwindt when it comes to the taking of a resource interest embodied in a timber licence.

In principle, I fully agree with the Schwindt position that no compensation should be payable…." [1445] The report continues on other matters. With this bill we are, as a government, making it clear that the roy-

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8187 alty system is gone and that companies will not be compensated for the loss of any benefits that they en- joyed from the historical anomaly that I have just de- scribed. That is the case for all purposes, including, as I said yesterday, any present or future litigation. The mechanism by which that is achieved is set out in the seven sections of the bill that are before the House. Those would be my comments at this time, insofar as second reading of the bill is concerned. Motion approved. Hon.

M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 96, Timber Licences Settlement Act, read a sec- ond time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. [1450] Hon. R. Thorpe: I call committee stage on Bill 94. Committee of the Whole House HEALTH SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS AGREEMENT ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 94; H. Long in the chair. [1455] The committee met at 2:56 p.m. On

section 1 ( continued). J. Kwan: Picking up from the morning session on my questions to the minister on

section 1. The minister advised, when my colleague the Leader of the Opposi- tion, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, asked the minister about the Abbotsford hospital and the rele- vance of this Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, and how it relates to the Abbotsford hospital development…. The minister gave her an an- swer. I'm interested, though, on the question around the need or how…. Let me rephrase this. Does the minister anticipate that those groups who may be putting in their bids for the Abbotsford hospital…?

With this piece of legislation, is it the government's intention to facilitate a process where — even for the Abbotsford deal, the subsidiaries of the subsidiaries of the subsidi- aries, as is outlined in the

definitions

section — it would allow for each of the bidders to drive the bid- ding process in terms of work environment and the wages that would apply, perhaps, to the very bottom end? Are there any ramifications with this bill and its application in the way the health sector partner is de- fined, which would cause that to happen? Hon. G. Bruce: Let's just understand what we've got here, because I can see the piece being complicated.

You could take this in one way if one doesn't fully ap- preciate and understand how we're going to do public- private partnerships in the province. [1500] There's a fundamental difference, and this comes back to the phrase I'm using. As that concrete of the footings is actually poured, that becomes the property of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

So by virtue of the construction of that hospital floor by floor, with all that goes into it, at the end of that construction you have a hospital owned by the province of British Columbia, with a licence for what I call the private co — that is, the public-private company — t o b e a b l e t o d e l i v e r , where they have them, non-clinical services to that operation and only to that operation. Then, bestowed upon them are the same rights as what was within Bill 29. You have Bill 29, which applied to your public hos- pital, your health authority, all of the rights of Bill 29 under a public health authority.

When the health au- thority is now a partner with the private sector, we're making sure the same rights that were employed there with the public hospital are there in the public-private facility — that facility being now owned totally by the taxpayers of British Columbia. So what we've actually done is mirrored what is there in the public sector in the public-private sector. J. Kwan: The only trouble with the minister's an- swer is that in Bill 29, it didn't apply in its definition

section the broad scope which this Bill 94 extends — that is, the subsidiaries and subsidiaries and subsidiar- ies. So it is more than Bill 29. The government has opened a big hole by inviting the subsidiaries of the subsidiaries to the table to become the employer, which we will define and debate later on, in

section 3. So the scope is much bigger than Bill 29 and what the minister lets on. Hon. G. Bruce: Do you want me to answer that? J. Kwan: Well, the minister wants to answer my issues. Sure. Hon. G. Bruce: I'd just like to explain it. You're quite right in respect to the scope as it applies to sub- contractors. I appreciate that. What we're actually do- ing is trying to craft a new way in how we're going to build these facilities.

In actual fact, this private co that has both the public and the private sector involved in it is probably made up of three or four others to become a conglomerate that delivers other types of services. They've actually put equity, investment, into the con- struction of this facility.

8188 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 Then with what they have, through the auspices of Bill 29, they have the right to subcontract out if and where it is necessary, because that's what's bestowed in Bill 29. Now, you're absolutely right. It does go one step, two steps below, from the standpoint of, first of all…. Keeping in mind that the conglomerate, the con- sortium that's made up of a number of companies…. Some of them will actually be delivering some of the non-clinical services. That's one component.

They may wish to contract some of the other non-clinical services to other smaller companies there in and around the community, and they have that as their right, as well, to contract out. But what you must understand…. If they subcon- tract out to another company in that community that's doing business, which is certified — and, quite frankly, it could very well be that they are a unionized com- pany — any of the application of Bill 29 is only specific to the work and service that's delivered to that one facility.

Then if 5 percent of their work is what's around, in this instance, the Abbotsford hospital, and the other 95 percent of the work is perhaps for hotels and other types of delivery through the community, none of that which is applied through Bill 29 reaches beyond onl y the work they d o for the public sector of that particular facility. So where the member has mentioned that it is broader, it is in that sense, but it is contained specific to that facility. That would be the case in any of the others that we may, if government chooses, undertake through British Columbia. [1505] J.

Kwan: Well, the minister says it's contained only within that facility, but within that facility the extension is much broader, as the minister has ac- knowledged. It is much broader in terms of its appli- cation, which we'll get into under

section 2. So it is substantively different from Bill 29. It's not just ex- tending the rights that the government had legislated under Bill 29 to other facilities. That's not true. It goes beyond that. By the way in which the health sector partner is defined, which allows for subsidiaries and subsidiaries, etc., to later on be included as a defini- tion of the true employer, then the layers of moving beyond who the employer is into the subcontracts and the subcontractors are phenomenal.

It's a long list — a long list of people who could line up and all of a sud- den become the so-called true employer under this definition. I just want to be clear around the implications of this definition, the health sector partner, in terms of the ramifications of it. Later on, Mr. Chair, I'll get into the issues pertinent to that around its application, the contracting-out situation, because it is misleading to suggest that the act affects only a public-private inter- face.

The allowance of it to go into subsidiaries and subsidiaries then effectively, through this act, allows the government to delve into the private and private interface at the contractor and subcontractor level. We'll get into that when we get into sections 4 and 5. I want to just cover for a moment the questions around non-clinical services in this definition. In the debate of Bill 29, the Health Services minister admitted that this refers to just about everything, with one ex- ception. That is the acute care area.

Quoting from the Bill 29 debate dated January 27, 2002, the Leader of the Opposition stated: "By this language in the collective agreement, a patient could be admitted to an emergency ward in a bed but not part of an in-patient ward. Therefore, that emergency ward can be a contracted service. By this legislation, emergency ward delivery of patient care can be contracted out.

Is that the minister's understanding as well?" Response from the Minister of Health Services: "The intent of this legislation — and the examples the member is using — is simply to give flexibility in terms of how to best meet patient needs in communities throughout British Columbia. We have singled out non- clinical services as a way of identifying the in-patient services that are protected from contracting-out. "It's simply around flexibility and getting options that will allow us to meet patient needs in the most cost- effective way.

That's the best explanation I can give." Then the Leader of the Opposition goes on to say: "Oh, now I'm disappointed, because the Minister of Health Services is sounding like the Minister of Labour with just that mantra. "I was looking for some answers. Can an emergency ward be contracted out under this legislation — yes or no?" Minister of Health Services: "Technically, yes." Then Hansard g o e s o n t o r e c o r d t h e L e a d e r o f t h e Opposition: "Wow! Unbelievable! What about pre-admission procedures?

You know; that's where nurses greet patients at the front entrance and do the lab services or provide for the lab services, etc. Sometimes it even gives you radiological services, etc. Is that able to be contracted out under this legislation?" Minister of Health Services: "As the member will be aware, we're looking at a reform around primary care. It is an initiative that is really across Canada and certainly British Columbia. We'll be trying to play a leadership role in that.

"There clearly are opportunities for some new models that will actually do a better job of meeting patient needs in communities around B.C. Today we have a lot of pre-admission assessments done by physician's offices which are private operations. They are private sector operations. There are some opportunities in terms of primary care reform which could make better utilization of some of those services in a way that's actually more accessible to more British Columbians in communities throughout the province." [1510] My question to the minister is this.

The application of non-clinical services, and the way in which it's de- fined and understood under the debate when Bill 29 was debated — is that something that the Minister of L ab o u r ag re e s w i t h? T hat i s t o s ay , e m e rg e nc y c are i s deemed to be non-clinical services in its definition. T h a t i s t o s a y , w h e n y o u a r r i v e i n a h o s p i t a l , p r e - admission procedures, as an example, would be deemed to be non-clinical services. I would like the

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8189 minister to be very specific about the full range of non- clinical services that would be included and be applied to for Bill 94. Hon. G. Bruce: The Minister of Health Services was correct in his definition at that time. As I mentioned, what is there in Bill 29…. We are only extending the same to Bill 94. As the member so aptly quoted from Hansard, those would in fact be the same comments of the Minister of Health today and what we're doing. B. Locke: Mr. Chair, I seek leave to make an intro- duction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members B.

Locke: It is my privilege on behalf of my col- league from Surrey-Cloverdale to welcome Bibleway Christian Academy to the chamber. This is a group of students and their teacher and leaders, and their t e a c h e r i s M s . R a m o n a C l a r r . A l s o w i t h t h e m i s M r . David Dar, Ms. Kay Dar, Shaun Maloney, Janet Ma- loney, Genevieve Daricia, Melody Stahl, Judy Florent and Gail Kemper. Will the House please make these leaders and their students very welcome. Debate Continued J.

Kwan: I want to be very cl ear so that the public understands what non-clinical services mean, because the way in which this government puts out the infor- mation, you would think it's just laundry services. You would think it's just the people who cook and those kinds of services, albeit those services are equally im- portant as the other ones that I think are also consid- ered non-clinical services by this definition under this government. Would radiologists be considered as non- clinical services? Psychiatric services? Therapists? Counselling?

Maybe the minister can give the House and the opposition a full list of who would be included as non-clinical services. Hon. G. Bruce: It was interesting with the an- nouncement there that private schools…. I just sort of forgot to mention that. Private schools are actually a form of P3 in British Columbia today, in a different way but a similar instance.

Just coming back to the question at hand, Bill 29, as the Minister of Health Services so aptly put it and as the member opposite was able to reflect on again here in the House as to the definition of non-clinical services and what that may or may not entail, that is there. I don't think I need to canvass every single situation that applies, but I think it's important, as is stated in this act, that the Canada Health Act takes precedence. Re- gardless of how we go about providing facilities or how we go about providing services, all of that must be done under the auspices of the Canada Health Act.

The member should rest assured that what we're actually focused on here in all of this is a different model of how we're going to provide facilities in the province, utilizing a public-private model to gain the extra efficiencies that we think are there. This is to be able to put back those efficiencies — and I'm speaking in this respect of dollars and cents — into the provision of good health care, patient care for the very people we're trying to look after in this whole health care sys- tem.

So it is that we would go and find or try and util- ize a new system to develop a manner of construction of facility that would affect those efficiencies. I think it's prudent of government to look at all that's available and to try to find a way to bring that into play so, as I mentioned to the member before, we can take those limited dollars that are there for capital and have them available for the delivery of actual health care ser- vices.

If it's the definition of non-clinical services the member wishes to canvass, the statement of the Minister of Health made during the debate on Bill 29 a year and a half ago, that is the statement. Clearly, the member is fully aware of what that entails and doesn't entail. [1515] J. Kwan: Well, I wanted to make sure British Co- lumbians know what "non-clinical services" means as it applies to Bill 29 and as it applies to Bill 94. The way in which this government has been spinning the informa- tion, I don't think people do know. I don't think so.

From time to time you would even see Liberal gov- ernment MLAs trying to muddy up the issue. Basically, "non-clinical services" would apply to any- thing in the health care sector where a patient is not at- tached to a bed. That is perhaps the simplest way to de- scribe it. You could go in for radiology treatment, and that would be deemed to be a non-clinical service. The radiologist giving you that treatment would fall under the category of non-clinical service. A psychiatrist who gives you therapy — or you go through a session with a psychiatrist….

That psychiatrist could be deemed to be non-clinical in this definition under Bill 29 and therefore, by extension, Bill 94. Let's be clear. The scope of this bill and the

definitions in it are very far-ranging. The minister raised the question around private s c ho o l s . I t ju s t c am e t o hi m that i t 's s o rt o f l i k e d o i ng that. Well, no, it isn't, because we don't have

an act or legislation that allows for the overriding of collective agreement rights in the public education system — if there were such a thing as a public-private partnership in the school system. Interjection. The Chair: Order, please. J. Kwan: What this legislation does is above and far beyond any legislation that has been in place. The reach in deeming…. Well, I should just say that its ap- plication and the broad nature of its applications to the various different facilities and the ability for this piece of legislation to override collective agreement rights are unlike any other legislation in the history of B.C. It's nothing like what is going on in the education system,

8190 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 even if the minister wants to say the private sector education system. Hon. G. Bruce: The member opposite is quite cor- rect. Radiology and psychiatry today are actually pretty much all done in the private sector. I don't think there's anything new…. Interjection. Hon. G. Bruce: Pretty much. Pretty much. That's okay. We don't need to debate fact. We can stick with the fiction, because it's way more fun. I can play the fiction role… Interjections. The Chair: Order, members. Let the minister talk. Hon. G.

Bruce: …with you for days and days and days if we want to deal with fiction. I'm happy to. That's fine. Interjection. Hon. G. Bruce: No, actually, I'll make it up where y o u m a k e i t u p . I h a v e t o a n s w e r w h a t y o u ' v e m a d e up. If there's no fact to it, I've got to come up with some fiction to be able to play to your fiction. The Chair: I would remind the members, please, to go through the Chair. Hon. G. Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're absolutely correct. Let's come back to the fact of the matter of what's in this bill. We were actually dealing, I thought, with

definitions, which would be

section 1. Through the course of this discussion, which I'm happy to go through, we've now pretty much canvassed all sections of the bill. We've talked about true employer; we've talked about contracting-out. We've talked about a number of other things —

section 3,

section 5,

section 8. I'm quite happy to focus in on any of the

definitions, but perhaps we'd like to move on to

section 2. J. Kwan: Maybe the minister should focus a little bit, because what we were talking about was non- clinical services. Then he started to go on to say: "Well, you know, most of these services that I talk about are already contracted out. They're already in the private sector anyway." The minister knows that there are ser- vices, such as psychiatry services, that are not in the private sector and that are included under this non- clinical services definition. The minister knows there are radiologists who fall under this category. The min- ister knows there are counsellors that fall under this category.

The list goes on. [1520] The minister can fabricate, at least in his own mind, and make up stuff as he goes along. Why not? Virtually every other minister in this House does that, so why not him too? He may as well join the club. Otherwise, he'll be an outcast. Anyway, it would be unparliamen- tary if I actually said what I was thinking, so I won't. Interjection. J. Kwan: I was asking questions on the

definitions

section of this bill around non-clinical services. The minister, by his own admission, admitted that a full range of services that go far above and beyond laun- dry, cooking and security services are deemed to be non-clinical services — s e r v i c e s t h a t i m p a c t p a t i e n t care directly. All of those would now apply under Bill 94 and the reach that is provided for under Bill 94. I just want to close with a statement. The opposi- tion will be voting against this section. I want to be very clear and say why that is.

The reach which is be- ing allowed in defining the health sector partner to include subsidiaries and subsidiaries and subsidiaries is far too broad in its scope. The measure which the government is allowing for the application of Bill 94 is unbelievable with the

definitions section. The opposi- tion is not in support of how health sector partner is defined, nor are we in support of how health care fa- cilities are defined in this bill. [1525]

Section 1 approved on the following division: YEAS — 57 Falcon Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Cheema Hansen J. Reid Bruce Santori van Dongen Barisoff Roddick Wilson Lee Thorpe Hagen Murray Plant Collins Clark Bond de Jong Nebbeling Stephens Neufeld Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Nuraney Belsey Bell Chutter Trumper Johnston Bennett R. Stewart McMahon Bray Les Locke Nijjar Bhullar Wong Bloy Suffredine MacKay Cobb K. Stewart Visser Sultan Hamilton Hawes Kerr Manhas Hunter NAYS — 4 Nettleton MacPhail Kwan Lekstrom [1530] On

section 2.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8191 J. Kwan:

Section 2 deals with the application of this act. According to this bill, there are three tests. Bill 94 applies wherever the following three conditions have been met. Where a health sector partner, which was defined under the

definitions section, has entered into a contract with a private sector partner to either pro- vide capital or equipment — that's condition No. 1. Condition No. 2 involves non-clinical services. That is as defined in Bill 29, as I tried to canvass earlier, which is why I was asking the minister for a list of the non-clinical services, which the minister refused to provide. That definition extends all the way through the other sections of this bill, and it was important to lay that out clearly so that people know and under- stand what context we are talking about.

I must add that as it is defined in Bill 29, non-clinical services in- clude emergency room services in hospitals. That's condition No. 2. Condition No. 3 is that the facility has to be desig- nated by the cabinet, by regulation. According to this bill, Bill 94 extends not only to a private partner that builds the facility but also to any sub-subcontractor who slaps on a coat of paint. If that's not correct, I would want the minister to rise up in this House to outline for us what are deemed to be substan- tial renovations under…. Actually, it doesn't even say substantial renovations.

It just says "renovating a health care facility." Maybe the minister can advise to what extent would a renovation be for it to be deemed to qualify under this section. [1535] Hon. G. Bruce: We're talking about a sizeable capi- tal here in respect of the type of…. That would be one part of the criteria for being designated under the P3 and then finding that the extension of Bill 94 was ap- plied to them. We were clear on the fact that it would have to be substantial capital we're talking about. We're talking about a new facility or a very substantive renovated facility.

We're saying that to begin with, of course, there has to be a partnership established with a health authority. That means there's a public-private component to that and, as the member quite rightly pointed out, the provision in this instance of non- clinical services. The final part of all of that is that it has to be designated by cabinet as an acceptable project. There are those kinds of limiting factors around this, but it's clear to say it's got to be what one would call capital, not maintenance. J.

Kwan: The minister says and uses the terms "sizeable" and "substantial." What is deemed to be size- able and substantial? Can the minister give a dollar figure? Hon. G. Bruce: It could very well vary project by project, so to define a dollar figure on it at this point is not going to give the clarity. The clarity I suspect the member is concerned about is: if it's work performed such as maintenance, would that be deemed as capital investment or substantive renovation or a new facility? No, it wouldn't. We're talking about a new delivery of a facility through the public-private partnership. J.

Kwan: If the minister can't give a dollar figure or a range, how would we know, then, what would be deemed in the minds of this cabinet and this minister as substantial or sizeable? Nobody would know, be- cause those decisions — the designation — will be done behind closed doors in cabinet. The public wouldn't know. How would we know the criteria, other than these broad strokes written and spelled out in legislation here? Let me ask the minister this question.

If he can't give a range of dollars that would deem a project to be sizeable or substantial and therefore qualify it to be applicable under Bill 94, maybe he can give a percent- age of the capital investment that has to be in place for it to be considered substantial or sizeable. Hon. G. Bruce: I can quite understand, by the ques- tioning of the member, Mr. Chair, that you'd like me to come out and say it's X number of thousands of dollars. But I can't do that, because the different facilities or whatever that may come along could vary.

The point is this: we are trying to find cost- effectiveness and cost-efficiencies in the delivery of these new facilities, so it takes plans, it takes time, and it takes effort. Clearly, it's going to be a substantive amount of money before it makes economic sense to be able to proceed with a P3. If it's a question of changing the door jamb and painting the walls, that's mainte- nance. That's work currently done by a health author- ity. We're really talking about the type of project that is much larger than that, and we're talking about either substantive renovations or new facilities.

As we move through on this, more and more of those types of things…. As you build them through, it will become clear what the threshold is of the actual dollars and cents to even bother with it. Clearly, little amounts of money wouldn't make any sense, because you'd have all sorts of staff time and legal time and others in trying to put the whole deal together, which would nullify any cost advantage of moving into a P3. [1540] J. Kwan: T h e m i n i s t e r s a i d h e w o u l d n ' t b e a b l e t o give a ballpark figure or a range that would deem a project to be substantive or sizeable for this

section of the act, because the different projects may vary. I ask the minister for a percentage. Is it 5 percent? If the renovation cost is 5 percent of the total operating cost of the entire facility, would that be deemed to be sub- stantive? Is it 1 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent? What is it? What can the public expect? The public, I think, has the right to know and should know, if they want to hold this government accountable, so that they have an understanding of what would apply to cause the government to desig- nate a particular facility under this act. Perhaps the minister can explain to us what kind of percentage we

8192 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 are looking at in terms of investments, whether it be capital investments, whether it be renovation costs — if it's 5 or 10 percent of the total renovation costs and even equipment costs. What are we looking at? Hon. G. Bruce: What the cabinet would look at in designating a facility or a project under this piece of legislation would probably be a range of criteria that would come into play, which we think would form that regulation — something like, first of all, that it must provide a needed and valuable addition to the health care system.

That would be important. The private sector partner must offer to provide a significant capi- tal investment in building or modifying or renovating a health care facility and, likewise, a significant capital investment if it was in providing equipment that would support services that are to be delivered in that facility. Others you might consider to be part of that criterion would see the private sector partner having to assume a significant proportion of risk that's associated with the project and, obviously, having to be commit- ted to completing the project in a timely manner.

Also, the project itself would have to be done in a manner that was cost-effective — this comes back to that issue — for the health sector partner. J. Kwan: Well, all of the criteria the minister laid out are very general. They're generalities and not spe- cifics. Take the first example the minister used — something that would be useful and needed in the health care facility. I could argue — and I'm sure someone could argue — that a bunch of wheelchairs would be needed and be useful in a facility.

If someone invests in a bunch of wheelchairs, as an example, would that deem it to be a substantive investment in terms of equipment purchase for that facility and there- fore deem that investment to qualify as a health sector partner under this act? I'm looking for specifics — a little bit more concrete here. All these decisions, in terms of the designation of these facilities, would be done behind closed doors in cabinet — secretive decisions — and the public will not have access to that information to make that evaluation for themselves.

It is pertinent that the minister lays out and clearly advises this House what will be deemed to be a substantive or sizeable investment. [1545] Hon. G. Bruce: Maybe I can offer some comments, some assurance. Let's take the Abbotsford hospital then, and let's go back to that criterion. What that Ab- botsford hospital, the MSA, will actually come in at we don't know yet, because that's still in request for pro- posal, but I think you're around the $300 million mark or so. Is the Abbotsford hospital a project that is needed and a valuable addition to the health care sys- tem?

I think that if you were to check yes or no in the box, you would check yes to that one. The Abbotsford hospital that I think we've been…. Well, it's been a long time coming. What we'd be looking for is a private sector partner to provide significant capital investment in the build- ing. Well, around that $300 million mark, I think, would probably be pretty significant. But on the yes or no for the Abbotsford project, would you check yes or no? I think you would check yes in that regard.

If the private sector partner of the Abbotsford hos- pital — w h o e v e r i t c o m e s t o b e — was going to pro- ceed with this, they would have to assume a substan- tial proportion of risk. We just made that very clear. That would fit in with how we're developing the P3 concept and as it will apply to build the Abbotsford hospital, which we know the people in Abbotsford have wanted for a long time. Now, in fact, we're going to be able to move ahead to undertake it.

Again, if you use the Abbotsford hospital, the real key one in this respect is: can the private sector partner complete the project in a timely manner? Well, it's been years in coming. We now have an opportunity to move ahead. I'm not sure how many years that's been. Was it ten years? Did the former administration actually…? I think they even announced it a couple of times. They might have even turned some sod around this project. However, we are goi ng to build it now, because to fit under this criterion, it would have to be timely.

That means when you start and when you finish, so that would be built into that process. So that all fits in there. Then the private sector partner, as it would apply to Abbotsford, has to complete the project in the man- ner that is cost-effective for the health care system. What would that mean? Well, you would call for your request for proposal; you'd put it out. You'd get all the information back in. You'd take a good look at it, as a business decision. You'd scrutinize it. You'd take the reports.

You'd critique it and decide whether this in fact is the best way to go for the development of that private sector partnership — sort of a similar process to how one might go if you were actually trying to do something different with B.C. Rail. I know you would want to rail on and on and on about the what-ifs and the maybes and the what-fors and all the calamity about how terrible this thing is actu- ally going to be, but by gosh, it must hurt at the end of the day when you see a deal come out that is so power- ful and so positive in building the province.

I mean, here is an opportunity for every small community, from one end of that rail line to another, to actually share… The Chair: Minister, are you on

section 2? Hon. G. Bruce: …in the economic activity not only in British Columbia but around the world. I can get really excited about that. The Chair: Minister, I think it's important to stick to

section 2. Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I take your admon- ishment, and we'll try to stick to the bill here. My point being this: the fact is that there are some criteria here that we've put in place, and the Abbots-

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8193 ford hospital is one that can be used as an example. Not necessarily will it finish that way, because it will also take

part in negotiations as to how we go about trying to attract those who are going to come and be part of that P3 initiative…. All in all, at the end of the day, what is it that we're actually trying to do? We're actually trying to provide, in this instance, a hospital for those people in that area, which for the last ten years hasn't been created. What are we trying to do? We're trying to be able to do that within the dollars that we have, that $10.7 billion of health care which continues to escalate at a tremendous trajectory rate. The expenditure in health care is astronomical.

Do you know, in respect of this, that the $10.7 billion, by the year 2005, could be nearing $15 billion if we don't f i n d a w a y t o b e a b l e t o m a n a g e t h e d e l i v e r y o f o u r health care in this province — different than the method that we've been on? As I mentioned to you earlier on — and I think this is a very important point to understand — that $10.7 billion…. The figure I'll use is $10.4 billion, because the additional dollars are coming in from the federal government. The statistics that I have currently in my mind are $10.4 billion.

Of that $10.4 billion, 77 percent is wages, salaries and benefits, and that's under- standable. But that then means there's actually only a small portion for facilities and equipment — the tools that we need to be able to provide the health care in the province. So it's incumbent upon government that they find the most cost-effective way to be able to utilize those dollars to provide the services to the people of British Columbia and in fact build a hospital in Abbots- ford — finally, for the people of Abbotsford. [1550] J. Kwan: You know, this minister is full of rhetoric.

I sat here and listened to him rail on about B.C. Rail — a broken promise of this government where they be- trayed British Columbians. We know today that every single one of the Liberal MLAs sitting in this House broke their promise and betrayed British Columbians and, quite frankly, said what Winston Churchill would say is an illogical inexactitude to British Columbians with that promise. They broke it today… The Chair: Order, member. J. Kwan: …and they sit around in this House and they hail and they…. The Chair: Order, member. Order, member. Order. Will the member please sit down.

Will the member please sit down. I counsel the minister to stick to

section 2. I also counsel all the members in the House that if they're speaking, we are speaking to

section 2 of Bill 94, and that's what we're trying to accomplish here today. I will request that we stick to

section 2 with all the mem- bers of the House. J. Kwan: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Chair. I did lapse for a moment, because I was simply respond- ing to the minister himself when he actually provoked that response from me. My apologies to you, Mr. Chair. Let me get back to

section 2 around this bill — the application of this act. The minister goes on and on and on about how he actually has exact and specific criteria that would apply in determining what would be deemed to be a designated facility under this act. Yet when you ask him a very specific question about the size of the investment — what that would be, what the ball- park of that investment might look like — the minister is not able to give you an answer.

He goes on to brag about what a wonderful job this government is doing, moving forward with the Abbotsford hospital — save and except that this government, including this minister, is closing hospitals all across British Columbia. You know what? The member from New West should know, because the community was calling for her resignation just days ago because of the closure of St. Mary's. Maybe the government should be looking for a cost-effective way to try and save St. Mary's and to ensure that those health care services are being pro- vided for, for the people of New West.

The Chair: Member, can I draw you back to

section 2, please. J. Kwan: M y q u e s t i o n aro u n d t hi s s e c t i o n, aro u nd what would be deemed to be a sizeable or substantive investment, the minister refuses to answer. Well, then let me ask the question in a reverse way. Let me ask the minister: what would be excluded from consideration? T h a t i s t o s a y , w h a t i n v e s t m e n t s w o u l d b e e x c l u d e d from consideration for that to be deemed as a desig- nated facility under this act? Hon. G. Bruce: It's interesting to note that today there was a news piece that came out of Britain, actually.

Britain has embarked quite substantively in the public-private partnership aspect. I mentioned that in my opening re- marks as to the fact that I think they'd constructed 40 hos- pitals and had 60 under construction, and then they had constructed something like 130 schools and had another 250 schools that were under the public-private partner- ship aspect. It accounts today for approximately 11 per- cent of investment in public services. That's about $12 billion, I believe, and supports tens of thousands of jobs in construction and related industries.

You know, one area that they've actually been very successful in…. Now, our P3 partnerships will be a little bit differ- ent than theirs because, as I mentioned to you, we are starting and maintaining those facilities, indeed, the moment that concrete is poured into the ground and the footings and the walls and such go up. We've seen what's been goo d in other co untries.

I know the wo rk of Partnerships B.C. has also been to ferret out those others that have not been consistently good and to try to build a process for British Columbia which will be truly successful and unique. [1555] A g a i n , y o u m u s t c o m e b a c k t o … . O k a y , l e t ' s t r y i t , then. Let's try this. This works. I don't know if this works

8194 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 or not, but…. Let's say we're painting the wall — okay? We're going to paint the wall of the emergency care ser- vice. That's what we're going to do. We're going to paint the wall. First of all, is that a project that provides a needed and valuable addition to the health care system, if you're using that sort of criterion? Well, it's true that the walls probably need to be painted, but they're already there, so I don't think it would probably fit. Those that were going to paint it — this would be, I guess, the contractor that's going to paint the place….

Would they be offering to provide a significant capital investment in the renovation of that health care facility? I don't know. I guess one could argue that if it was a large emergency ward…. I don't know how many gallons of paint that would be. I haven't painted for a long time, but I'm a pretty messy guy — so maybe ten, 15 or 20 gallons of paint. Would that, in fact, be a substantive investment? I don't think it would stand the test before cabinet. It might stand the test in my own home budget, but I don't think it would stand the test in cabinet. Now, we're still painting this place.

The private sector — this would be the painter again…. Do they have to assume a sufficient portion of the risk associ- ated with the project? Well, I guess there is a fair amount of risk. You could spill all your paint or not get it done on time. You could be pretty lax about it, but I don't think it would stand the test in front of cabinet. Must they do it in a timely fashion? Yeah, they would have to do it in a timely fashion, but you know, paint- ing the emergency ward…. They ought to be able to do that in a pretty down-and-dirty time frame, so I don't think that particular piece actually offers….

So you're still painting the emergency ward, and the private sector partner has to do it in a manner that is cost-effective for a health sector partner. Well, I guess you're actually haggling over 20 gallons of paint, the number of days it would take, the three people that it would take to paint it and what their whole operating costs would be. So what would that be? How long would it take you to paint an emergency ward, given that you had the opportunity to do it? Two days? I don't know. Professional painters can paint pretty quickly. Interjection. Hon. G. Bruce: Okay. Four.

Would that actually then fit the criterion of being cost-effective for the health sector partner? I know it sounds ridiculous, but this is. And it's not what we're talking about. So that's where we started. I've tried the example of $300 million, which I think would be sizeable if we were talking about the construction of the Abbotsford hospital. I think that would give you some idea of the magnitude and how the criterion would fit. I think I've tried now, on the other end, because the member asked me to try going the other way.

I've used 20 cans of paint and painting the emergency ward to see if that criterion fits, and I don't think it does. J. Kwan: You know, it would do the minister well if he actually provided answers to my question in a clear and concise way and stopped mocking, quite frankly, the questions that are being asked. I asked a simple question of the minister. If he can't give me a figure or a range of what would be deemed to be sizeable or substantive, then give me a percentage of that invest- ment, that budget — a percentage of, let's say, a reno- vation. Then we'll have a sense.

The minister just uses an example that he likes to say: "If I slap a coat of paint in my house, it requires some gallons of paint. Well, that might be a substantive part of the budget for my house, but it is not likely go- ing to pass the test in cabinet." That's what he said. He used the operative criterion for determination for his own budget, and that is that slapping a coat of paint in his own house might be substantive relative to his household budget.

Well, then the question is: what is the percentage that will deem such a renovation or capital investment to be substantive — in the health care sector, in this instance — to qualify a facility to be a designated facil- ity under this act? Why is that so hard for the minister to answer? [1600] [G. Trumper in the chair.] He can answer that question, but he likes to mock it as though asking the questions were somehow not rele- vant, or ridiculous or obscene. What we've seen so far with many decisions of this government is that the deci- sions are ridiculous and obscene.

It pushes the opposi- tion, if we're to do our job effectively and take our job seriously, to ask these questions because that informa- tion is not forthcoming from this cabinet, this minister or this government. That's why we ask this question. The minister has failed to answer the question to- day, and I will give him yet another chance. What per- centage would be deemed to be substantive within the total budget of a capital investment or renovations or equipment purchase? Hon. G. Bruce: Well, we've tried two examples, and they obviously weren't clear enough.

We're trying to explain that we are actually going about the delivery and the development of health care facilities in a differ- ent manner. Now, we think…. Interjection. Hon. G.

Bruce: Well, we are, and we think there's an opportunity, by doing it in this manner, to take what are limited capital dollars and be able to utilize them in such a way that we can get first-rate services for the patients and for the taxpayer in British Colum- bia while at the same time concentrating that very large proportion of dollars that is so very necessary to pay for our doctors and nurses and the people that work in the health care facility. You know, percentages of what? That's always an interesting discussion. There's $10.4 billion in the budget. You're not going to run percentages of that.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8195 You're looking for innovation. You're looking for crea- tivity in how we go about the delivery of new facilities. We have here today a piece of legislation that speaks to that. I've used the Abbotsford hospital as an example of what would fit the criteria. I'm sorry if the member took it as mocking. I cer- tainly didn't mean to do that, and if I did, I apologize. What I was actually trying to do was to find: okay, here you are.

There are all sorts of other ranges in between that you can look at, but what we're trying to do is de- velop that set of criteria. We know that those criteria, as we're working through looking at the construction of something like the Abbotsford hospital, would cer- tainly be ones that this government would entertain under the P3 proposal. That public-private partnership and the necessity of making sure that what the health authorities currently enjoy — "utilize," I guess, is a bet- ter word to use — in the management of a public health facility in regard to something like a hospital….

The same application can be made in the public- private, and that's what this bill does. Sorry, that's what Bill 94 does. It takes what there is provided for in Bill 29 under the public health authority side and now — when partnerships are created between the public and private — the ability to manage in that same way can be undertaken under Bill 94. Where we are at here is trying to proceed and try- ing to provide now, finally, a new hospital for the peo- ple of Abbotsford, which I'm sure the member opposite would be very excited to be part of.

I'm sure she would wish the residents of Abbotsford and the government well in the development of a new health care facility that has, like I say, been waiting for some time, been announced several times, with sod-turning by the for- mer administration. It's with that, the combination of a number of things, that we're trying to move along to utilize in the most cost-effective way the tax dollars that the taxpayers put up so that we can provide new facilities for people. [1605] J. Kwan: Y o u k n o w , t h e m i n i s t e r g o e s o n t o s a y about how Abbotsford would be excited to get their hospital built.

I'm sure that would be the case, but I am sure it is the case that the Port Alberni residents, the Grand Forks residents, the Nelson residents, the New West residents — j u s t t o n a m e a f e w — would be thrilled if their hospital services were kept intact. In- stead of building new hospitals, all the government needs to do is ensure that existing ones are not eroded and closed along the way. Maybe the minister would turn his mind to figuring out how to do that. That might be useful and helpful for British Columbians.

The minister has not answered the question with respect to the percentage of the budget for a capital investment or a renovation, modification or equipment p u r c h a s e f o r i t t o b e d e e m e d t o b e s i z e a b l e . I d o n ' t know what the minister is hiding that he's not forth- coming with that information.

Maybe, after all, the criteria that the minister will use behind closed doors at a cabinet table to determine what is sizeable or sub- stantive or what qualifies a particular investment to be included or get the designation under this act may not be based on factual information and standards that are set. Maybe what really matters is how big the cheque the investor is prepared to write to the Liberal Party. Maybe that will be the determining factor. I fail to understand why the minister would not be forthcoming with that information.

You'd think it's basic information that, when the act is drafted, the government would actually have in mind what they think would be substantive under this

section of the act. Maybe the minister would have in mind what the time frame would be for a project to be completed. He says one day or two days. He says that's likely not to be deemed substantive. But what about one week, two weeks or one month or two months? Would that be deemed to be substantive? Would the purchase of a CAT scan, let's say, for a small rural community hospital be deemed to be a sig- nificant equipment purchase under this

section of the act, which would deem that investment for a particular hospital or facility to be a health sector partner in this act and therefore receive designation from cabinet for this act to apply to them? Let me put that question to the minister. Hon. G. Bruce: Let me first of all assure the mem- ber opposite that anything that this government does will be done on a factual basis. I know that's foreign to the member's thought, because, quite frankly, there was hardly anything in the past ten years of that for- mer administration that was done on a factual basis. Interjection. The Chair: Order. Hon. G.

Bruce: I'd also like to say that when it comes to this continual harangue about government only doing things like…. I'm not sure what. It was quite an offensive comment there — that we would only be making decisions based on those that were contributing to the B.C. Liberal Party. You know, it must be very, very tough for the member opposite when there is the continued support and contribution to the B.C. Liberal Party. But we don't make decisions on that basis. The member opposite might also try and kind of understand where people are at.

In four days on Van- couver Island — the other members would be inter- ested — there were over 2,000 people who came out to two fundraising dinners, one on the north of the Island and one in Victoria. These were little people. Why did they come out? They came out to support the building of the province after the ten years of disaster that you people brought to this province, so it's a little bit of a stretch. [1610] I don't know if the member opposite knows this or not. Maybe that's how you conducted your business through the course of those past ten years. I think if

8196 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 one were to take a look and reflect on what went on, that's exactly how you conducted the business, because you certainly didn't apply any type of factual informa- tion when it came to building fast ferries in this prov- ince. In fact, you had reams and reams of factual in- formation which you continued to ignore. You cer- tainly didn't apply any factual information into how you would run a railway, because in fact what you wrote off was twice what you wrote off in the B.C. Fer- ries situation — like billions of dollars.

I can under- stand that the comment may be, "Gee, I hope there's some factual information in cabinet," because, quite frankly, in that ten years that the NDP administration ran this province or tried to — into the ground, I might add — you probably didn't apply much in the way of the factual information. Let me reassure this member and the people of the province that, indeed, when this government is working through what needs to be done for the people of British Columbia, it is done on a fac- tual basis.

Secondly, you mentioned some aspect of whether a CAT scan would be a potential facility or piece of equipment that one might look at. Well, I don't know. I mean, say you had this tiny, little community some- where, and for them it was huge and there was some way this could be factored and put together so that it would allow them…. I don't know. Pick a community. Maybe it's Bella Coola or some small, little community which would love to have the service. Somehow we could make that happen, and we could deliver that service for those people by the utilization of the P3. Are you saying: don't use it?

Is that what you're implying? I can't believe the member would say that the peo- ple in some of these smaller communities ought not to have the opportunity to enjoy the services that we're able to have in some of the larger centres like Vancou- ver or Victoria. Why wouldn't we extend those types of services to people throughout small-town British Co- lumbia? I think we ought to. But we have to be creative in ho w we 're going to do that. We have to be i nnova- tive in how we're going to apply that type of opportu- nity for them. In fact, that's what we're attempting to do. Maybe that will work; maybe it won't.

But do you k no w wh at , M ad am C hai r? I f y o u d o n't c o m e b ac k t o the types of things I was talking about and put that particular project against those things and it doesn't fit, it won't be done. J. Kwan: It is funny how, on a day that this minister and this Liberal government broke a significant prom- ise and betrayed British Columbians by selling off and privatizing B.C. Rail, he is asking for me to trust him and telling me that I should have faith in him and be reassured by what he says. His worth has just been proven by the action of this government and all Liberal government MLAs.

Their word is worth nothing, not even the shred of paper that it could be printed on. His word is as easily broken as this pencil — just like that, gone. Just like that it is worth nothing, and that's the value of this minister and this cabinet minister and this government's word. That's how much it's worth. When he says: "Trust me. We will make the right decisions in cabinet behind closed doors…." Interjections. The Chair: Order. J. Kwan: And when this minister says, "Trust me.

The cabinet will make the right decisions behind closed doors on what is deemed to be substantive or signifi- cant, or what facility will be deemed to be designated under this

section of the act…." Guess what. I don't trust him. I don't trust him, because he has broken promise after promise after promise. He has done noth- ing to earn the trust of British Columbians, and he cer- tainly has done nothing to earn the trust of the opposi- tion. After all, it was this minister who brought in legis- lation that said: "I will not rip up collective agree- ments." This Premier and this government have prom- ised they would not do it, and we are now debating legislation that extends the ripping up of collective agreements.

How can the minister stand up in this H o u s e a n d h a v e t h e f a c e t o s a y , " T r u s t m e , " w h e n "trust," in his meaning, in his definition, does not apply obviously for this minister through his actions? How can he ask people for their trust, when he has broken promise after promise after promise? There are so many broken promises.

You can hardly keep track of all the broken promises that have taken place. [1615] The minister says, according to my question, that a CAT scan could be considered a substantive invest- ment in a particular community, in a particular situa- tion — c o u l d we l l b e d e e m e d t o b e s i g ni f i c ant — and therefore designate that investor, that health care facil- ity which received that piece of equipment to have received substantive investments and therefore be des- ignated under this legislation. What about a situation like St. Paul's? I'll use that as an example.

When I was there in March, when I gave birth to my daughter, St. Paul's had one aspect of a facility that was quite frankly a godsend for women giving birth. They have individualized tubs in the room in which you're delivering your baby. For those excruciating moments, the suggestion was — and I did — to get into the tub, and the warmth of the water al- leviated much pain at least for a period of time. Not every hospital has that. St. Paul's was very unique in that they have that facility, those tubs.

For the hospi- tals, let's say, that don't have those tubs — large or small or medium-sized hospitals — if someone comes along and says, "We will purchase equipment by buy- ing these tubs for the hospital," would that be deemed to be a substantive investment? I'm trying to get a sense here of the range of the scope that will be deemed to be substantive for people to understand what would be designated, because the

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8197 criteria that the minister said are very general. There are no specifics to it. You would be hard-pressed to understand in what situations capital investments or renovation investments or equipment investments would be deemed to be substantive enough for it to be considered a designated facility under this act. Hon. G. Bruce: I might point out to the member opposite that St. Paul's, as you were commenting about…. The province is actually looking at St.

Paul's a s a n o p p o r t u n i t y , I u n d e r s t a n d , t o e n g a g e i n a P 3 t o modernize that facility. It will be interesting to see whether or not they will proceed with that. J. Kwan: Maybe the minister didn't hear my ques- tion. Maybe he doesn't care to listen to what the oppo- sition questions are and, therefore, to answer them. He has completely missed my point when I raised the is- sue of St. Paul's. Maybe he only just heard "St. Paul's" and decided that, well, here's the answer.

It doesn't matter what the question is, which certainly is the case of this government so far on virtually everything. To heck with the people with their legitimate questions. I'll just make it up as I go along and give whatever an- swer I want, even though it's not relevant to the ques- tion at all. M y q u e s t i o n w a s : i f s o m e o n e b o u g h t t u b s i n t h e maternity ward of hospitals, would that be deemed to be a significant enough investment in equipment pur- chase for it to be designated under this

section of the act? Hon. G. Bruce: Could the member opposite be a little bit more explicit? Are they white tubs, large tubs, small, short? What kind of tubs? How many tubs? Do you bathe in them, or do you stand in them? Do they have stalls? Do they have handles? Do they have soap dishes? Tubs? Did you say tubs? I need to know more detail. [1620] J. Kwan: If the minister actually listened to what I said earlier, he would have known I was talking about regular-sized tubs.

I was talking about when women go to give birth and they go into these tubs provided to them, which was an illustration I had pointed out from my own experience, having gone through that experi- ence about eight months ago at St. Paul's. Then the minister would know what I am talking about, but he doesn't care to listen. He sits and smirks, Madam Chair, at questions. He doesn't care to listen, and then he gets up and tries to make fun of questions that are asked of him.

It is absolutely outrageous the amount of disrespect this minister shows for the opposition and, by extension, to the British Columbians who want to know the answers to these questions. He might think it's funny, and he might think it's not relevant. I don't. I'm talking about the regular-sized tubs that are used in maternity wards at St. Paul's for a woman when she's giving birth.

From time to time they advise and assist a woman to get into these tubs in the rooms so that they can have some pain relief, for the warm water to relieve some of that pain and make the birthing process a little bit easier and bearable for peo- ple. Those are the tubs that I'm talking about — a regular-sized tub. If someone purchased these tubs for a particular hospital…. I mentioned small, medium- sized or large hospitals, so it could range in how many tubs depending on the size of the hospital, which is what I said. If the minister had listened to my question, then he would have known. That's what I'm asking.

In those circumstances, would that investment be deemed to be designated under this

section of the act? The Chair: I would tell both members that the de- bate is becoming a little repetitive and tedious. I would ask if we can specifically get back to

section 2. J. Kwan: We can move on a lot speedier if the min- ister would just get up and answer the question. Funny how it is that in this great hall of democracy, as they say in this chamber here, oppositions exist to ask government questions when we're debating legisla- tion. That's the purpose of why we're here. I'm going through

section by

section of this act, asking the minis- ter questions. Most importantly, I'm trying to get an answer from the minister so that not only the opposi- tion but everyone in British Columbia would have a clear understanding of what would designate a par- ticular investment, deem a particular investment, to be sizeable enough or substantive enough for it to be des- ignated as a facility under this

section of the act by cabinet. So far the opposition has not received the answer. It may be tedious for members of the House, Madam Chair, and I'm sorry about that, if members of the House find my questions tedious. As I mentioned, I wouldn't be repetitive or tedious if I got my answer. The last thing I want to do is be tedious or repetitive. But every time I rise and ask a question, the minis- ter does not provide the answer. He goes and gives his own spin of what he wants to say.

Not only that, he actually would not even listen to the question and then would rise up and ask a counter-question to mock the first question that was asked. [1625] Madam Chair, I would seek your advice as to how I might proceed to try and get some answers from the minister. I do not know how to proceed. I don't know how to make the minister answer the question and provide this important information to British Columbi- ans. In this

section of the bill, we're talking about the application of the act. Where the act is applicable to deem a health sector partner…. To be a health sector partner under the

definitions of this act, you have to meet three conditions: "(

i) provide capital for building, modifying or renovating a health care facility or any part of it, or for equipment to support services deliv- ered in the health care facility or any part of it, and (ii) provide one or more non-clinical services at or for that health care facility or any part of it, and (

b) that health

8198 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 care facility is designated by regulation for the pur- poses of this Act."

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1125pm 16
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1125pm 16
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	06796444efd74cf3428970ce72fc47ba59c05cf2

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).