British Columbia Hansard — Monday, March 8, 2004

h0308pm-09

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, March 8, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 21, Number 9 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 5TH 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.

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Children and Family Development ..............................................................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon. Linda Reid 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 Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .....................Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Immigration and Multicultural Services ...................................................................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services............................................................................ ....................................Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education.......................................................................................................... ............................................. Hon.

Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining................................................................................................... ...........................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon.

Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations ...................................................................................... ........................................Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services..................................................................... ............................ Hon. Susan Brice Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ...............................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ ..........................................Hon.

Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ...............................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development............................................................................ ................................ Hon. John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ............................ Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development....................................................................................... .....................................Hon.

Sandy Santori Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... ................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... .......................................Hon. Bill Barisoff 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 and Committee Clerk............................................................................................ .......................................... Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ...................................................................Jane Taylor 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 74; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2, Independent 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon. 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 (Ind.) ...........................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Hon. 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, Hon. Ida (L) ....................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. 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, Greg (L)...........................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

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

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 ........................................................................................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 ........................................................................... Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon.

Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale...................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .............................................................. Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ............................................................Hon.

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....................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre..................................................................Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...........................................................................Hon. Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.................................................................................... Hon. 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 ........................................................................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 ..........................................................Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Monday, March 8, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... .............................................. 9169 Speaker's Statement ............................................................................................................ ..................................................... 9170 Commonwealth Day Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 9170 Status of women in B.C. and government policies J.

Kwan French immersion in B.C. R. Visser International Women's Day B. Locke Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 9171 B.C. Rail privatization process and police investigation J. MacPhail Hon. K. Falcon Funding for B.C. women's centres J. Kwan Hon. I. Chong Sumas Energy 2 project B. Penner Hon. G. Campbell Closing of Crystal Garden Conservation Centre J. Bray Hon. M. Coell VictimLink crisis line K. Krueger Hon. R.

Coleman Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 9174 Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen V. Anderson B. Lekstrom G. Hogg Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 9213 Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) Hon. M. Coell J.

Nuraney J. Kwan R. Hawes M. Hunter J. Bray R. Stewart D. Hayer Hon. I. Chong V. Anderson V. Roddick G. Trumper

9169 MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery today some very distinguished people. One of them really is my mentor: Allan Emmott, freeman of Burnaby, former mayor of Burnaby, former chair of the GVRD and a flight lieu- tenant of the Royal Canadian Air Force. He is accom- panied by his wife, Vivian. We also have Norman Em- mott, his brother, who is a retired squadron leader of the RCAF. With them is a very distinguished gentle- man, Harry Hardy. Harry Hardy is an inventor who has invented various things for people who are dis- abled.

He is also a member of the Aviculture Hall of Fame and a retired commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force. [1405] All three distinguished gentlemen are the recipients of the Flying Cross, a very distinguished honour. May the House please join me in welcoming them. Hon. G. Campbell: I'd like to welcome the COFI members who are joining us in the House today. They are chaired by Dennis Rounsville, and their president, John Allan, is with us, with a number of members in the gallery. I hope the House will make welcome this group of leaders in the province's number one industry — forestry. R.

Sultan: I would like to acknowledge a guest in the House this afternoon who's a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants; who was a partner of the distinguished accounting and consulting firm Deloitte and Touche; who was chief financial officer of ICBC in its formative years; who was chief financial officer of the first SkyTrain — the one that actually finished un- der budget and on time; the fellow who organized the successful campaign against no-fault promulgated by the previous regime — w h i c h , o f c o u r s e , w e w o u l d never do; and, as a capstone to a distinguished career, who became the chief financial officer of my riding association.

Would you please acknowledge Gordon Adair. R. Lee: Today in the gallery we have 27 grade 7 students from Westridge Elementary School in my rid- ing. They are accompanied by their teachers, Ms. Janet Pritchard and Mr. Victor Austin, and six parents: Mrs. Crivici, Mrs. Brljacic, Mrs. Dean, Mrs. O'Halloran, Mr. Li and Ms. Jacobsen. Would the House please join me in making them welcome. Hon. I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, as you know, today is International Women's Day. This is an important day, celebrated around the world to recognize the many accomplishments of women in all areas.

Our govern- ment is committed to promoting and profiling women and their successes and creating an environment where they can pursue their goals. We are creating opportuni- ties for women by building a strong economy and safe, healthy communities where women can make choices for themselves and their families' future. Our government is committed to employability programs for women that teach life skills and job train- ing to help women enter the workforce and become independent.

To feel safe and secure, women must know that there are also safe places for them to turn to in times of crisis, and that's why we commit over $33 million a year to transition houses, safe houses, second- stage housing and counselling programs to help women who have faced violence to rebuild their lives. Our province is improving health care choices for women. We are a leader in cancer screening and sur- vival rates for women.

Government supports training for health professionals that focuses on patient-centred care for women, and government is working with the trades industry to increase girls' and women's aware- ness of careers in those areas. These are just some of the accomplishments that we can celebrate today. I had the pleasure of attending various events over the weekend to recognize Interna- tional Women's Day, and earlier today I was joined by six exceptional women to celebrate and mark this day here at the Legislature.

Today we recognize the contribution of women as mentors and learn from their protégés how valuable it is to share and celebrate women's successes. We are privi- leged to have four of these women here in the House this afternoon. Would you please join me in welcoming Dr. Rebecca Grant and her protégé, Shona Sinclair; Ms. Padi Mills and her protégé, Francesca Dappen. Would the House please make them very welcome. V.

Anderson: I ask the House to join me in welcom- ing Angelle Desrochers-Rosner from my riding, a very active parent in educational circles who's very much in- volved in concerns for literacy, particularly among young children, and here in Victoria today, privileged on her part to attend the innovation conference on education, which she has found very exciting and interesting. [1410] J. Kwan: I have wonderful information from the news. As the member for Vancouver-Hastings I'm sure can attest to, she can advise the House that life after 50 is no different from life after 20.

She celebrated her birthday this weekend, and as we will know and we will see today in question period, it will not slow her down one iota. She will engage in practising her best traditional parliamentary practice in question period today, I'm sure. Will the House please belatedly wish the member for Vancouver-Hastings a very happy birthday. Hon. P. Bell: I see we are joined today in the House by three dedicated school trustees from school district 57 in Prince George. I would ask the House to please make Patricia Wick Thibault, John Rustad and Bill Christie very welcome.

9170 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 Hon. G. Campbell: Pending question period, when I'm sure we'll see what someone who's 50-plus can do, I wanted to say that there's someone who is not nearly 50-plus, who has just been born. The Minister of Edu- cation's new son, Fraser James, has been brought into the world, and I hope we'll all wish the Christensens all the best. L. Mayencourt: I have in the gallery today three wonderful guests. They are members of my family.

I got the nomination for the Liberal riding of Vancouver- Burrard on March 20, 2000, and that little girl up there was born on that day. Her name is Olivia. She's just a beautiful little princess, and I want to welcome her to the castle. She's joined here by her father, Todd, and her mother, Tricia. Please make them welcome. Speaker's Statement COMMONWEALTH DAY Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, today is Common- wealth Day. It is a day set aside for special recognition in Commonwealth countries throughout the world.

It is a parliamentary tradition for Her Majesty the Queen's Commonwealth Day message to be read into the record in those jurisdictions where the Legislature is in session on this special day. It is my honour to read Her Majesty's message. "Building a Commonwealth of freedom. " T h e l i v e s o f m a n y o f m y g e n e r a t i o n w e r e p r o - foundly changed by a world war fought in the name of freedom. I have often reflected with pride on the huge contribution made by the peoples of the Commonwealth to that cause of liberty, in which millions perished.

In the years following the war, a succession of countries emerg- ing into independence chose to join the Commonwealth as free and equal members. As a result, the Common- wealth became rooted in all parts of the world and de- veloped into the modern organization we know today. "Democracy, national self-determination, individual liberty and human rights — all these are fundamental to that which binds the Commonwealth together. The im- portance of these principles was clearly in the minds of Commonwealth leaders during their discussions at last December's summit in Abuja, Nigeria.

Living up to prin- ciples is never easy. It can involve difficult and painful decisions, but the affirmation of those values provides common ground for the Commonwealth as a whole to grow stronger. "The Abuja meeting also made the crucial link be- tween democracy and development. Democracy is im- portant to sustain development, and underdevelopment can be democracy's greatest threat. Nowhere is freedom perfectly realized, and its enemies are not only those who terrorize and torture. They are also hunger, poverty, dis- ease and ignorance.

That is why it is important for the Commonwealth to do all it can to tackle these challenges directly, whether in alleviating poverty or in promoting education and health. "It is also essential to strengthen the rule of law, pro- tect democratic freedoms and build strong civil societies. I firmly believe that if the Commonwealth is to increase its role as a force for good in the world, strengthening democratic freedoms must remain at the heart of its pur- pose. Elizabeth R." Statements (Standing Order 25B) STATUS OF WOMEN IN B.C. AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES J. Kwan: Today is International Women's Day.

In- ternational Women's Day gives us all the opportunity to celebrate women in our lives — women who have fought for hard-won rights and freedoms and who have had a positive impact on the lives of many. At the same time, International Women's Day should give us pause to reflect on what steps need to be taken in order to achieve our ultimate goal of true equality. [1415] While today we may want to celebrate International Women's Day, there is little to celebrate here in B.C.

This spring, just one month before the government announced it would no longer retain the zero tolerance policy on domestic violence, it cut counselling funding for those convicted of domestic violence. On March 31, 2004, this government will cut funding — 100 percent of funding — to B.C.'s 37 women's centres. This government seems to believe that gender disparities no longer exist within this province. The Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services has stated that women are better off as a result of this government's policies.

However, the govern- ment of B.C. has been singled out for criticism by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. This UN committee stated its concerns about this government's dispro- portionately negative impact on women and chil- dren in areas such as social assistance, legal aid, and support for those experiencing sexual and domestic violence. This government claims that this is a new era for women in B.C. However, this new era is characterized by increasing cuts and closures to services that are pre- dominantly used by women.

These cuts and closures exacerbate the systemic gender inequality that exists within our society, a problem often compounded by other forms of discrimination. Rather than enabling women in our province to, as the government claims, turn the corner into a new era of hope and prosperity, this government has taken enormous steps backwards. Its cuts to social services and to women's centres are a sobering reminder of the fight women still must wage in this province. FRENCH IMMERSION IN B.C. R. Visser: Monsieur le President, I rise today to mark French Immersion Week here in British Colum- bia.

For the past century we as Canadians have been building a nation based on two official languages. Here on the west coast, quietly and steadily, we have been

MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9171 embracing that notion not through grand gestures or laws but through quiet action and deed. For the past 25 years, school districts have been providing the opportunity for our children to be edu- cated through French immersion programs. It started in Coquitlam, and it's grown steadily across the prov- ince to 47 communities — from small rural places like Quesnel, Smithers and Terrace to big cities like Van- couver, Victoria and Surrey. British Columbians should be proud of the fact that we lead the country in French immersion participation.

There are 33,400 students registered in the K-to-12 system — up 1,400 from last year — and we have bucked the national trend for the past four years. At this point, Mr. Speaker, you may be asking yourself why I chose to highlight French Immersion Week. There are two reasons. One is that of those 47 communities, Campbell River leads the province in per-capita participation, having just over 700 kids enrolled in their K-to-12 system. This leads me to the second and most important reason. My daughter Charlotte is one of the 90 kindergarten kids who have begun receiving the gift of a second language this year.

Studies show that the process of learning this sec- ond language can help children to develop better con- centration skills and better abilities to do separate tasks and to discover that just as there are two ways of say- ing something, there are at least two ways to solve a problem. As they advance through school, they learn to be independent, because many of their parents — and I'm one of them — are not able to really help them with their homework. Some of this is bound to rub off on the parents and all British Columbians who have kids in this system.

I k n o w , f o r m e , t h a t o n t h e l o n g d r i v e s u p n o r t h , m y fellow drivers can see me practising along with the French tapes in the car on the drive. INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY B. Locke: It is my privilege as a woman, a mother, a daughter, a sister, a wife and an MLA to rise in this House in celebration of International Women's Day. This past weekend I had the privilege of celebrating with women from every walk of life, both at my local women's centre as well as at a very large multicultural gathering of women from every corner of the globe.

Both stressed the importance of volunteers, and both recognized the importance of services to protect vul- nerable women and children in a way that is void of any political agenda. [1420] I'm a mom who drives her kids to hockey and ringette. I care about my aging mom, and I have a wonderful husband that I've been married to for 28 years. I am a woman just like many other women throughout my community and throughout my prov- ince. I work long hours, juggle family responsibilities, see friends and relations when I can and participate in my community. Lots of things are important to me.

Working to help make the lives of people in B.C. better is important to me. Coming home and finding out that one of my kids has had their heart broken at school and just wants to talk with mom — that's important to me too. At the end of the day when I talk on the phone with my husband and my kids, I hope I can say to them that I made a little difference in someone's life today, and usually that person is really close to me. I think that's what we as modern women can relate to — our friends and our family. The person who influenced me the most was my own mom.

Today, as it is International Women's Day, I want to recognize the hard work of the role models that are in homes across the province — the single moms, the career women, the girls who are learning how to grow up and be strong women, the family moms who are struggling to make ends meet and the grandmas that are lovingly caring for grandchildren. Women understand that it is not the source of ad- versity but our response to it that makes a difference, and we are women who respond gracefully, applying our strengths to better ourselves, our children and our province. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION PROCESS AND POLICE INVESTIGATION J. MacPhail: On a day dominated by news of inter- nal strife and turmoil in the government caucus, I want to focus again on one of the reasons for that turmoil — the ongoing scandal related to the police raids on the Finance minister's office and the tainted deal to sell B.C. Rail. Last week British Columbians discovered that the deal to sell B.C. Rail to CN is caught up in an influence- peddling and breach-of-trust scandal that reaches right into the Finance minister's office.

Now the government admits that it released confidential information to CN while it was negotiating to buy B.C. Rail, in direct con- travention of the bid rules. Last week the so-called fairness adviser admitted in the media that there were actually three leaks when his report only identified two. Can the Premier explain why he insists that the deal to sell B.C. Rail was fair when the police are inves- tigating and when now even the Minister of Transpor- tation admits that CN got confidential information and a leg up? Hon. K.

Falcon: You know, even though it's that member's birthday, I just have to say: is there ever a point where she cannot stop being negative about a deal that brings such positive benefits to British Co- lumbians? I just have to ask that member: is it the ex- panded runway at Prince George she's against? Is it the $17.2 million in containerization we're going to see at

9172 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 the Prince Rupert port? Is it the additional $8 million in taxes that will be seen in communities up and down the line? Could it perhaps be the Chicago express that will see goods get to important U.S. markets two days faster than they do today? I don't know what it is, but this member constantly — every day, day in and day out — tries to drive negativism on a deal that is going to be positive for British Columbians all across this great province. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J.

MacPhail: Well, I guess that minister has had a visit to the Premier's office again, because his story has changed once again. The whole deal stinks to high heaven, and the Premier knows it. The mayors of the cities along the line are worried about it. There's an asterisk in the budget that puts the deal at risk, and of course now the confidence of investing in this province is eroded as well. Criminal investigations, leaks of confidential in- formation, angry bidders pulling out in protest — for a party that promised to run government like a business, this looks more like an episode of The Sopranos.

Charles River Associates, the good folks who got paid $300,000 to rubber-stamp the B.C. Rail deal, identified two leaks. Now Charles River has said: "Oops, there were three leaks, not two, but don't worry. The deal is still above- board." That report is a joke. [1425] When will the Premier just admit that this deal to sell B.C. Rail stinks and should be stopped before any more damage is done to his government's reputation, if that's possible? Hon. K. Falcon: This member is unbelievable in the kind of accusations and allegations that she'll make without even reading the report.

In fact, if she took the time to read the Charles River report, it actually ac- knowledged what I acknowledged on the weekend. That was acknowledged back in December. This member continually tries to spread aspersions that are not based on fact. The fact of the matter is that there was an evaluation team of the highest integrity that worked on this project. The moment that inadver- tent faxing of information became available, it was made known to CN; it was made known to the fairness adviser.

All of that has been dealt with openly and forthrightly, and this member just can't help but keep trying to deny the benefits this deal will provide for British Columbians right across this province. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: Well, it was this past week that Charles River Associates had admitted that there were three leaks, despite their report. Despite their report, CP Rail still pulled out of the bid, calling it unfair.

Last week the Minister of Transportation became the first member of his government to tell it like it is to the me- dia — the first one — and got shot down almost im- mediately by the Premier's chief of staff, by his army of spin doctors. He then retreated to blaming the media. Shocking, Mr. Speaker — absolutely shocking. They probably think it's a good strategy. Given the minister's new penchant for speaking only the party line, British Columbians have no reason to believe a word this minister says when it's clear now that the deal smells worse than just the broken promise in the first place.

When will this Minister of Transpor- tation — because clearly the Premier ain't answering for anything — cut his losses, halt the deal and wait for the police to finish their investigation before he digs his government deeper into trouble? Hon. K. Falcon: I'll say to this member again: I hope this member's actually going to go up and speak to some of the northern communities and tell them exactly why she's against the benefits this deal is going to provide. I'd like you to travel to Prince Rupert and tell them why you don't want to see a $17 million in- vestment in containerization.

I'd sure like you to go to Prince George and tell those folks why they ought not to have an expanded railway. It's day in and day out of this member constantly being negative over a deal that provides enormous benefits for British Columbians. FUNDING FOR B.C. WOMEN'S CENTRES J. Kwan: Today is International Women's Day, and to celebrate, this government is forcing women's cen- tres across British Columbia to shut their doors. These centres cost the government approximately $1.7 mil- lion, less than half of what this government blew har- assing British Columbians living with disabilities.

British Columbians are pleading with this govern- ment to keep women's centres open. The UBCM passed a resolution demanding the government restore the core funding. Can the minister of state for women ex- plain to British Columbians why her government is abandoning thousands of women in need by forcing women's centres — and I repeat the words, women's centres — to close their doors? Hon. I. Chong: Across the province this govern- ment is spending over $33 million annually for direct essential services to women. That means… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. I.

Chong: …$33 million across the province for transition houses, for safe homes, for second-stage housing, for counselling programs — group and indi- vidual counselling programs for women who have experienced abuse and for children who have wit- nessed abuse. Our government is committed to provid- ing funding that focuses provincial dollars that will maintain these direct essential services to women.

MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9173 Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. [1430] J. Kwan: This government eliminated the Ministry of Women's Equality, and they cut its funding by close to 50 percent. The budget used to be $52 million, and it has been cut to some $30 million by this government. From parenting support to clothing exchanges to job re-entry programs to crisis counselling, thousands of women in B.C. — many of whom are poor or trying to escape abu- sive relationships — depended on women's centres.

The government provided each women's centre with about $48,000 in core funding. For the price of the consultant's report into the privatization of B.C. Rail that missed the alleged activity by top Liberal staffers, six women's centres could have been funded. Not only are the B.C. Liberals eliminating women's centres, they are cutting funding to specialized counselling pro- grams dealing with people convicted of domestic vio- lence.

They have rolled back the zero tolerance policy for domestic abuse, and they have cut legal aid, and they have been cited by the UN for violating two inter- national conventions on human rights. On Friday the minister is meeting…. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. member. It's time for the question now, please. J. Kwan: Here's the question. On Friday the minis- ter is meeting with the B.C. Coalition of Women's Cen- tres. Will she use that opportunity to restore every dime she's cut to women's centres in British Columbia? Hon. I.

Chong: Just so that the members opposite can hear this once again, we are providing funding of over $33 million annually for direct essential services to women. That will continue, and that will be maintained. I just want the members to know that I have heard from women, and what is important to them are jobs — jobs for their children, jobs so that their children can re t u rn b ac k t o t hi s p ro v i nc e . W e s ai d w hat we w o u l d do when we were elected. We would revitalize our economy. We would get our fiscal house in order. We would protect health care and education budgets.

We've done that so families and women can succeed. SUMAS ENERGY 2 PROJECT B. Penner: It's been about five years since the mem- ber for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman first got up in this House and asked a question about a proposal by SE2 to build a project that would seriously jeopardize the air quality in the Fraser Valley. What a long five years it's been. Last Thursday the National Energy Board ruled unanimously against the application by SE2 to build power lines into the Fraser Valley in order to facilitate their power plant.

Can the Premier tell us how much the province has spent on this project to date and what the next actions are that we can anticipate? Hon. G. Campbell: Let me first start by congratu- lating the people of the Fraser Valley communities who stood up and fought this from the word go. Let me say it was because of the leadership of their local represen- tatives, of their MLAs, that we were able to move for- ward on this. The government committed to help and intervene and try to stop SE2. Almost a million dollars has been spent on that already. We have intervened with the National Energy Board, with Washington State.

We also intervened — as you know, Mr. Speaker — with the USEPA. What's important to know is that this is not done until it's done. I will be sending a letter to the Prime Minister encouraging him to continue to reinforce the decision of the National Energy Board. I can tell you that in terms of British Columbia, we are going to con- tinue to work to maintain and improve the quality of air in the Fraser Valley. CLOSING OF CRYSTAL GARDEN CONSERVATION CENTRE J.

Bray: Recently the Provincial Capital Commission, a Crown corporation, announced that it was ceasing operations at the Crystal Garden here in downtown Vic- toria. Since that announcement I've heard from many constituents concerned both with the attraction that was happening in the Crystal Garden and with the building itself, which is a longtime heritage building in the capital region that has become synonymous with Victoria. My question is to the Minister of Community, Abo- riginal and Women's Services — if he could let me know what the plans are for this building and its pro- tection in the future. Hon. M.

Coell: As a former member of the PCC, I understand how important the Crystal Garden is to the greater Victoria area. Indeed, it's important to the en- tire province. With a new mandate and community members from around the province, the PCC is looking to ex- pand the role of the Crystal Garden in the capital re- gion and the province. They're going out to an RFP to see what people from around the province think could be done with the building. The building will not close. It will have an expanded use within the province, and I look forward to working with them in their RFP. [1435] VICTIMLINK CRISIS LINE K.

Krueger: My question is to the Solicitor General. Last year this government introduced a new program called VictimLink for victims of family and sexual vio- lence. There was some consternation in the city of Kamloops where there was an excellent volunteer crisis line, although they were encouraged to bid on the op- portunity to provide the provincewide service. But also, there was hope in the heartland communities that I represent, where people are very often far from that

9174 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 kind of professional help when they need it and there are great distances involved. I wonder if the Solicitor General could report to the House on the progress of VictimLink and the effect it's having in the heartlands. Hon. R. Coleman: For the member's information, from April 1 of last year through to the end of Febru- ary, there were 9,600 calls taken at VictimLink with regard to a whole variety of issues. I want to give you an example of the month of December, because if I give you a month, it will give you a snapshot.

VictimLink received 769 calls in December of 2003 from over 90 B.C. communities. A number of them were actually callers from isolated and rural communi- ties that before had no access whatsoever to any type of victim services or emergency services with regard to this. Thirty percent of those callers were victims of fam- ily and sexual violence. What happened? VictimLink staff have made 867 referrals with regard to that one month of the system to 48 different types of service providers in the province.

As you remember, we ex- panded the police-based victims programs and we expanded the community-based victims programs so that we'd be there for small communities when they needed it. Actually, the referrals went to police- and community- based service victims programs, the crime victim assis- tance program, counselling agencies, transition houses, and various justice, legal and community resources. We are now expanding some of our literature to take in more languages. Mr.

Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that VictimLink is providing services and contact for victims all over the province of British Columbia. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. G. Plant: I call Committee of Supply in this chamber. For the benefit of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services. In Committee A, I believe that the debates of Com- munity, Aboriginal and Women's Services are under- way. [1440] Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH SERVICES (continued) On vote 25: ministry operations, $10,404,260,000 (continued). J. MacPhail: When my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant left off with her questions around Mount St. Joseph Hospital and its future, the minister was going to provide some information. I wonder if he's had a chance to get that information. Hon. C. Hansen: There were several pieces of in- formation that I endeavoured to get back to the mem- ber with. I will try to go through those. [1445] First of all, with regard to utilization rates at Mount St.

Joseph, this is the number of gynecological services provided at Mount St. Joseph Hospital on an in-patient and day care surgery basis over the past three years. In 2000-01 there were 391 in-patients and 790 day surgery patients for a total of 1,181. In 2001-02 there were 371 in-patients and 811 day surgery patients for a total of 1,182. In 2002-03 there were 428 in-patients and 827 day surgery patients for a total of 1,255. The other question that was asked of me was with regard to a…. Actually, maybe the easiest thing is if I read this into the record for the member's benefit.

"In April of 2002, Providence Health Care gave Chil- dren's and Women's Health Centre one year's notice to end the existing lease of space at Mount St. Joseph Hospi- tal. The space and operating-room time were required by Mount St. Joseph to implement their future redevelop- ment to fulfil their new role within the Vancouver coastal health authority. "Transitional plans were developed, including strategies for C and W to determine the best way to con- tinue to meet the needs of affected patients and staff from the closure of Mount St. Joseph children's centre.

About 65 percent of the patients seen at the children's centre were from Vancouver, and the remainder from the rest of the lower mainland. Most required secondary-level pedi- atric care in that they were not too sick to be managed from home. The majority, 90 to 95 percent of these pa- tients, were admitted to the children's centre from C and W emergency room. "In-patient services — ten to 16 beds — have been accommodated in existing space on the third floor of the B.C. Children's Hospital. For the immediate future the day care surgeries previously done at Mount St.

Joseph children's centre are taking place at B.C. Children's Hos- pital. However, B.C. Children's Hospital and Vancouver coastal health authority are looking at the overall need for pediatric services within the Vancouver coastal health authority. This includes services most appropriately pro- vided at B.C. Children's Hospital and services that might best be provided and located at other hospitals — specifi- cally Richmond and Lions Gate. "Since the closure on April 15, 2003, B.C.

Children's Hospital has partnered with the Vancouver coastal health authority to re-establish the weekly newcomer pediatric clinic at Vancouver coastal health authority's Raven Song Community Health Centre, serving the same neighbourhoods as Mount St. Joseph Hospital. The asthma education service has also been re-established at B.C. Children's under the auspices of the emergency de- partment and appropriate pediatric clinics." The third one I have with me at this point is with regard to diabetes programs. "The changes at Mount St. Joseph Hospital are being undertaken with the context of a larger consolidation of

MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9175 acute care services within the Vancouver coastal health authority. Mount St. Joseph is receiving a number of new programs and services as mentioned last week, including an ambulatory program, consolidated ophthalmology program, more geriatric, psychiatric and geriatric medi- cine services and more ER doctors and operating rooms. "The diabetes education centre at Mount St. Joseph provides support and services to the Punjabi and Chinese communities. The centre has not closed, and there is no plan to reduce this service.

The diabetes education centre will be aligned and integrated with the new multiple ambulatory program at Mount St. Joseph. This integra- tion will strengthen the menu of services available to pa- tients." [1450] J. MacPhail: The opposition was informed this morning that the court date for the dispute between the Mount St. Joseph Hospital Foundation and the Provi- dence health authority or — I'm sorry; if the minister can tell me how to say that properly when he stands up next — the Provide nce governance body is po stponed until March 24. I'm wondering whether the minister has thought about how he can….

I know he made a commitment to my colleague that if it remains unre- solved, he will assist toward resolution. Given the fact that the court case has now been delayed or postponed for about two weeks, what opportunity is there, if any, for the deputy minister or the executive of the Health ministry to intervene and assist toward resolution? Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as we discussed on Thursday, this is an issue that is between two not-for- profit organizations. The Mount St. Joseph Hospital Foundation is totally arm's length from government.

I had indicated at one point that I would inquire to see, given that it was before the courts, what role I could potentially play or what the limitations may be on my role as a result. We will certainly explore that. My understanding initially, as I mentioned on Thursday, was that the issue had been resolved short of going to court, and then it was actually the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant who advised me on Thursday that in fact it was going to court. I had not been keeping track of it because, as I say, it is arm's length from government.

I will certainly explore with the deputy minister if there is in fact a role that I or my ministry can play. J. MacPhail: There's opportunity now because of the postponement of the court. The postponement had nothing to do with either of the parties; it was a court postponement. The issues still remain very, very cur- rent and very troubling, at least to the foundation side. We urge the government and we urge the Minister of Health to now get involved and try to stop this very, very troubling dispute.

I want to start by discussing an area that I had a bit of a discussion with the Minister of Finance on, and that was the Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Centre. It was in his estimates, the Ministry of Finance estimates, under discussion around the role that the B.C. partner- ships organization plays. It took a bit of questioning. It took quite a bit of prodding for him to…. Well, where the minister first started…. I'm not going to try to spin this at all. The minister first started by saying no, the health authority or the province owns the assets — both the building and the equipment.

Then upon fur- ther prodding, it became clear that the assets would be owned at the end of, I think, about a 30-year period. Could the minister tell me: what are the financial arrangements that the health authority has made to pay the mortgage on this 30-year…?

What I under- stand is that the successful bidder, after they have de- signed and built and bought the equipment and oper- ate the hospital, will have a 30-year contract with the health authority, at which time the health authority pays them not only for the services provided but the equivalent of what I like to call a mortgage payment for the building and for the about $60 million worth of equipment. How does that get budgeted? [1455] Hon. C. Hansen: The annual tariff, which is what includes all of the items the member referred to, is in the bid documents at a rate of $39.7 million a year.

That amount will be part of the operating budgets of the two health authorities involved. J. MacPhail: I'm correct, I believe, about it being a 30-year contract under the bid document? The minister is nodding yes. We have a situation where…. Forty times 30 is about $1.2 billion, I think, if I've got my zeros right. It's $1.2 billion in current dollars. The hospital itself, I un- derstand, is…. The bid now is for $300 million. The Minister of Finance sent me….

I asked what analysis h a s b e e n d o n e t o c o m p a r e t h i s t o i f i t w e r e a c o m - pletely public sector deal, both financing and operat- ing, and he said there was a sort of test one can do — public sector versus private sector — and that's part of any bid process. I actually went and looked for that in terms of what it would mean for us to do our analysis, a n d o f c o u r s e i t ' s n o t a v a i l a b l e . I t ' s j u s t s i m p l y n o t available. I wonder whether the minister could tell us: what is his assessment?

What studies has he done — or the health authorities — to show that this model, which I'm going to explore even further, is a better model than straight public financing, public delivery? Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, officials from my minis- try have been involved with the work that's been done b y P a r t n e r s h i p s B . C . t o m a k e s u r e t h a t w e a s t h e c l i - ent…. In fact, the health authorities are the client to Partnerships B.C. with regard to this particular file, but obviously that accountability is through the Ministry of Health Services. We have worked closely with them.

Partnerships B.C. has in fact been leading that evalua- tion. I'm sure the information the Finance minister pro- vided the member during Finance estimates is proba- bly more enlightening around that process than I can

9176 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 be, but I will share with the member how we evaluate the public versus the private sector — a s b e s t w e c a n try to compare apples and apples. I will read you this particular section.

"The evaluation will be focusing on the following: evaluation of the proposal against the RFP to determine how well they have met the specific requirements and to ensure nothing has been missed; assessment of value for money against the public sector comparator; full multicri- teria analysis that examines clinical operations, efficiency and design; facilities management services and human resources; construction, partnering and team integration; risk transfer; and commercial considerations." [1500] All of the above are set out in greater detail within the RFP document, which is appendix 2 of that docu- ment.

That is, in fact, a public document that is up on our website. I think if you look at this annual tariff of just under $40 million that I referred to, it is broken down into both…. There is a capital component to it, but there's also a facilities management component to it. What that $40 million covers, first of all, is the amortization of the construction costs that the private sector partner will have to incur, but also the ongoing facilities manage- ment of the building to supply all of the support ser- vices into that building.

The clinical operations will be directly provided by the health authorities with staff engaged by the health authorities. In essence, the clini- cal spaces will be run directly by the health authority within this larger facility that will be owned — or will be managed — by the partner during that 30-year term. J. MacPhail: Well, in effect, the minister didn't mis- speak. It will also be owned by the partner as well, until the 30-year payment is made, just the same way the bank owns the houses of people who have a mort- gage. It will be owned by the partner until the contract is concluded.

N o w , P a r t n e r s h i p s B . C . s a i d t h e r e w a s o n l y o n e bidder left, and I think the bid will be accepted or re- jected next month, as I recall him saying. If one has only one bid left and that bid doesn't meet the test for the government, it seems to me that the government has two options: to start negotiating with the one pro- ponent left, or to start over again and either issue a new request for proposal or decide to build the hospi- tal in the public sector. What is the backup plan if this one bidder who is left doesn't meet the test? Hon. C.

Hansen This has been a process that started out with four proponents that Partnerships B.C. was working with. The intention at the start was to go from four proponents to two and then work with those two proponents to determine a final company. The two proponents, as part of the process, had to put up a $250,000 non-refundable bond. It had to be determined that they could, in fact, meet the hurdles that were there. We're now down to one company, and they have certainly not given us any reason to believe they will not be able to meet the hurdles that are set out in the process.

We're optimistic that we will be able to arrive at a successful process and a successful partnership at the end. We are proceeding on that basis. If something were to come up, we would cross that bridge when we come to it, but we certainly have no reason to believe we will not be able to arrive at a successful contract. J. MacPhail: There are all sorts of ways one can achieve success. My understanding — and I think this is what the Minister of Finance told me — is that two bidders dropped out, and then the third one…. It is not like the ministry had control over saying: "Oh well.

We've got four bids, and now we select these two." Two bidders dropped out, and the third couldn't meet or chose not to — I'm sorry; I don't mean to besmirch their reputation — file the quarter-million-dollar bond. [1505] This hasn't been a process that's been nice and or- derly, that's been going along according to what the ministry wants. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. They had four bidders. Now they've only got one left, through no great work of the health authority or the ministry.

Yes, I'm sure there will be a successful con- tract if the government enters into negotiations and has no choice but to negotiate with the one proponent, the one bidder, left. At that point I would say that there are two ways to operate. One can say: "No, we're not going to accept what the bidder wants." Or you're so desperate and you have no other options, so then you have to accept what the bidder wants to negotiate. The bidder seems to me to have the upper hand on that point, unless there is a plan B the government has in mind that doesn't make them beholden to the bidder. That's what I'm asking. Look.

I understand that this is a situation where there are commercial interests here, where there are negotiations going on — and they're delicate — but I don't think it is against the public interest for the minis- ter to at least say that there is a plan B. I mean, that gives strength to the negotiations with the bidder as well. Hon. C. Hansen: This is not a case of us going out and buying a bunch of supplies and saying, you know, that whichever company can give us the lowest price is the one we're going to go with, and then suddenly we're down to only one company providing a bid. That's not the case at all.

This is a case where we have gone out with a very, very detailed request for proposal. It is on our website. It is a substantive document that sets out all of the at- tributes of this new facility that must be provided by the private sector partner. We also, in that, state the price we're prepared to pay for that. The member is right. We went through a process, starting with four. We actually thought we would come to a point where we would have to eliminate two of the proponents. In fact, they eliminated themselves, because they felt they couldn't meet what was set out.

We then went into a process where two companies put up the bond, the moneys. Again, one of those compa-

MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9177 nies has now determined they cannot provide every- thing that needs to be provided at the price we're pre- pared to pay for it. The fact of the matter is that one of the proponents has indicated to us that they're going to be able to meet all of these provisions for this first-class hospital, state- of-the-art facility — considerably expanded scope from where we started on this process three years ago. They have certainly not expressed to us any concerns with regard to the tariff we're prepared to pay for them to provide these services.

We are proceeding with the full expectation that this is going to be a successful process and that the residents of eastern Fraser Valley are go- ing to wind up with a first-class hospital around the end of 2007. J. MacPhail: Well, that's more information than the Finance minister was able to give. Perhaps the minister could tell me how he knows things are going along smoothly. What's happening inside the one bid that's left? What's happening between the management of this on the government side and the bidder? Hon. C.

Hansen: The project team that has been engaged to oversee this process is working with the proponent. Essentially, they're sorting out the details, and that will eventually lead to the contractual ar- rangements. J. MacPhail: That's my point, though — sorting out the details. This is more than $1.2 billion of tax money in today's dollars — $1.2 billion — so sorting out the details is pretty important. How does one sort out the details when one has only one bidder? What does the government have in its pocket for negotiations? That's what I'm asking. [1510] Hon. C.

Hansen: What we've got is an RFP that's been put out. It's about 1,600 pages. It's a public docu- ment. The bidder has to be able to respond to the de- tails in there. We've left lots of room for the private sector partner to bring innovation to the table, to de- termine the ways that they're going to avoid the kind of cost overruns we saw over the last decade in typical hospital construction. There are big savings to the taxpayer by taking this particular approach. I'm quite confident that we're going to wind up with a very successful process. I think we're well on the way now.

We have set out what we need, and we have set out how much we're prepared to pay for it. The private sector partner is responding to that. J. MacPhail: The minister himself brought up cost overruns. Let's look at cost overruns. The one cost overrun I'm familiar with in the last decade was at the Royal Jubilee, where it increased substantially in the scope. The scope increased much more substantially than did the cost overrun. Let's look at this project. This project is going to increase by about 15 percent from the original bid. Here's what the costs have gone up to.

The project cost estimate has gone up 94 percent to $1.4 billion. Yes, this is from the two auditors that did the work on this pro- ject for the Hospital Employees Union. Yes, they are a special interest. However, the government hasn't re- futed any of these figures. When I asked the Minister of Finance, he didn't refute any of these figures, although he did say that the scope of the project has increased by about 15 percent. Total project cost has risen by 94 percent to $1.4 billion from $720 million over the 33 years of the con- tract. Construction figures have increased from $210 million to $286 million.

Annual lease payments to the private consortium have increased from $20 million a year to $39.7 million a year for 30 years. These are the figures from the original proposal put forward by this government. No, this is all within their own little realm — no going back and blaming anyone else. Then there's a payout of $393 million to the private consortium. That's over and above the $1 billion in expenses and debt servicing that goes to the private consortium. That's all on the basis of a 15 percent in- crease in scope. What happened between year 1 and year 3 of this RFP process? Hon. C.

Hansen: I've got the Hansard from the Fi- nance estimates. When the member says this project has increased in scope by only 15 percent, she may be referring only to the amount of square footage. In terms of overall space, that's the increase that amounts to 15 percent. The overall scope of the project is actually quite a bit more considerable than just looking at the square footage. For example, there is a 25 percent larger emer- gency area to accommodate larger room sizes and more waiting space. There are more stringent infection control measures.

I think one of the lessons we learned from last year's SARS outbreak was the need to incor- porate a lot more in terms of infection control. There are more than 100 rooms in the hospital that will be set up as negative pressure isolation rooms. That was not part of the original design. The cardiac care unit and intensive care unit, origi- nally planned to be a combined unit, are now going to be two separate units. A child rehabilitation space has been added.

There is more advanced technology that will be brought in, including teleconference and video conferencing facilities, to allow more telehealth oppor- tunities there. There are plans now for a second CT scan procedure room to be added and a PET suite for future use. There is a whole series — I could read these all out; it goes on for a couple of pages here — in terms of the expanded scope being added to this particular project. [1515] It's not just a case of a 15 percent increase. It actu- ally is a significant change over what had been origi- nally envisioned for this particular facility.

I think what's important is that what is being pro- vided for is still within the $39.7 million fixed tariff. We have set clearly how much we are prepared to pay for

9178 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 this facility in terms of both the amortization and the annual operating of this facility for the next 30 years. J. MacPhail: No, the tariff itself has doubled as well, almost. This project morphed into this project, and then the tariff was set as $39.7 million. That wasn't the original tariff. Let's be clear. I think we need some straight facts around this Abbotsford hospital. It's the only one in Canada that's being done this way.

The Minister of Finance referred to two hospitals being done in a similar fashion in On- tario, but those two projects have changed substantially since the election of that Liberal government from the previous Tory government. This is a stand-alone model. The Minister of Finance referred me to examples in Australia. The Australian examples that I went on line to find out about…. In fact, one of the lobbyists work- ing for this consortium actually did research on the Australian models. Those hospitals have gone bank- rupt. They've actually gone bankrupt. This is a huge project — huge.

All we're trying to do is find out some details. All right. If I'm wrong on the 15 percent expansion of scope, what is the scope expansion since the original proposal? Hon. C. Hansen: If she'd like, I can read you through all three pages. The square footage of the building has expanded by 15 percent. That's where she gets that number from, because the Finance minister used that in his estimates. As I've indicated from the examples I've read out, when we talk about what's go- ing into that building in terms of equipment and tech- nology, there is a significant expansion.

The $39.7 million tariff that we discussed has not changed from before this expansion of scope. The $39.7 million was what it was projected to cost prior to this. What they realized is that they could actually do more for the tariff that had been set out. That is what is re- flected in this expansion of scope, which we announced in September of last year. J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying the tariff has been $39.7 million since day one of this P3 project? [1520] Hon. C.

Hansen: It is my understanding there was some change in the tariff to reflect additional facilities management services that were being asked of the proponent. The actual change in the scope that I talked about…. Those did not result in an increase in the an- nual tariff. J. MacPhail: What's the ministry's projection of the profit, or excess money over costs, that the proponent will have over the course of the 30 years? Hon. C. Hansen: That's basically up to the private sector proponent.

The private sector proponent has to supply the services we have outlined, and they have to do it within the tariff that we are providing. Obviously, they have to run their affairs in a way that can bring in the innovations and efficiencies. It is out of that that they will be able to determine what their profit level would be. We certainly aren't guaranteeing them any kind of a fixed profit. J. MacPhail: Well, whoa. I'm a little bit troubled by that.

I can go and buy a set of dishes at a store, know- ing that the set of dishes meets my needs, provides the service, but I may be paying a horribly high price for them in terms of quality, durability and warranty against breakage. Surely this government didn't say: "Oh, we've got $39.7 million per year that we want to give away to operate this hospital." Surely they must have some idea of what the profit is. Is the minister suggesting that he doesn't have a c l u e w h a t t h e p r o f i t m a r g i n i s , b a s e d o n t h e R F P a n d the payments he is going to make to this hospital?

What if the profit margin is 20 percent? Wouldn't tax- payers be horrified? Hon. C. Hansen: In the RFP documents that we've set out, in these 1,600-plus pages, are the deliverables. That quality assurance is there, so we will have a first- class hospital, a first-class provision of publicly funded health care services in that facility. It is the private sec- tor partner who, through their innovations, has to be able to deliver on that first-class service and meet the quality requirements that are there. Only then will they be able to realize some of the profits that they obvi- ously wish to.

I think the fact that we have gone through a process with four proponents and the fact that some of them have taken themselves out of the process probably indi- cates that they felt there was not an adequate profit mar- gin in there for them. Now we have a proponent who is working within the RFP. They have certainly led us to believe they can deliver not only on the number of ser- vices that are requested but also on the quality of ser- vices set out in those agreements. We are confident we can conclude a contract with this organization. J.

MacPhail: Based on this, I'm sure the bidder is thrilled that this government has no idea what kind of profit is available with the payment — an annual pay- ment of $39.7 million. They're probably rubbing their hands with glee now, being the only bidder and know- ing that the province is willing to pay $39.7 million regardless and has no idea how much of our tax dollars will go into the hands or into the pockets of the propo- nent or not. What does the RFP mean when it asks the bidders to search for opportunities "to enhance the value of the project through entrepreneurial development strate- gies"?

What does that mean? Those are the govern- ment's words. That's the government's words. [1525] Hon. C. Hansen: Just to give some examples, that may be some retail functions that may be off the lobby.

MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9179 It may be in the way that they can run their parking lot facility. It may be in terms of even, say, a coffee fran- chise that may be interested in having an outlet in this particular site. I also want to come back to something the member said earlier about the comparisons to the Ontario mod- els. The big change that happened in Ontario in the last c o u p l e o f m o n t h s i n t h e i r p r o j e c t s w a s t o g o f r o m a facility that would be owned by the private sector partners and only revert to public ownership at the end of the term of the contract.

What the Ontario govern- ment did is changed it so that in fact the province would own the facility from the time it is being con- structed, and that is exactly the model that we have here in British Columbia. When we start looking at it, what Ontario has done is change the nature of its pro- ject to bring it in line with the direction we were al- ready heading with Abbotsford. J. MacPhail: Let's just test that model, because that's what the Finance minister said, too, in terms of…. Here we are. We have a company, a profit- oriented company — only one left, a big consortium.

All these people who are part of that consortium are big profit-makers. They're going to build the hospital. They're going to design it, build it, operate it, and the government owns it? Are they donating it to the gov- ernment? The government is paying $39.7 million per year, a portion of which, I assume, pays down the debt servicing and capital costs. But the government doesn't own that hospital until the contract is completed. Or am I wrong? Is this consortium doing charitable work and donating to the taxpayers? Hon. C. Hansen: The health authorities will own this project.

They will own the facility for which there is debt that is carried on the books of the health au- thorities right from day one. The annual tariff to the private sector partner will basically pay down that debt and provide for the operations of the facility in terms of the support services to the facility throughout that 30- year contract. It is only at the end of the 30 years that basically the debt has been paid off through this annual tariff.

At that point the health authorities will have the opportunity either to renegotiate a new operating agreement for that facility or, in fact, to operate it themselves directly, but they will own the facility right from day one. J. MacPhail: I find that hard to believe. I find that r e a l h a r d t o b e l i e v e . H o w d o e s i t g e t b o o k e d u n d e r generally accepted accounting principles? Hon. C. Hansen: I know the member was there for the Finance estimates, but I'll just read one of the com- ments made by the Finance minister.

He says: "It ap- pears as an asset and a liability on our books because of the consolidation of the entity." It is a capital asset. It appears as our long-term debt. I know there are some people who've said that the reason we were going the P3 route in Abbotsford was in order to keep this debt off our books. That's not the case. The debt will become part of the consolidated financial statements of the province. [1530] J. MacPhail: If the health authorities miss a pay- ment, what happens? Hon. C.

Hansen: The health authorities will have an obligation to pay those, so there is not really an op- portunity for the health authorities to miss a payment, as the member says. We fund the health authorities from this budget that we are debating today, and there is really no opportunity for them to avoid their finan- cial responsibilities. J. MacPhail: I ' m j u s t t r y i n g t o f i g u r e o u t : i f f r o m day one the health authorities own this, as the govern- ment likes to make out, what's the obligation for them to make their payments? The government is really mis- leading on this.

If they're trying to say that this is ex- actly the same as the public sector model where the government borrows the money and therefore gets to book it as a government-owned asset from day one, and the only liability is the operating cost…. That's not what this model is at all. There is an obligation…. Let me ask this: is there no relationship between ownership and the tariff payment? [K. Stewart in the chair.] Hon. C. Hansen: The obligation is a result of the contract that will be signed.

If the health authority were to renege on their obligations under that contract, that would have huge ramifications in terms of finan- cial markets and implications for that health authority and indeed for government. I think the member earlier on in this debate made reference to the fact that for some reason this was like a mortgage on our house, and if we have a mortgage on our house, we don't really own our house. It's the bank that owns it, because they're holding the mortgage. If you want to look at your own home ownership from that perspective, then maybe there are parallels with this one.

The private sector partnership is in fact financing this project. They will amortize their debt, but just as I have a mortgage on my home in Dunbar and the bank owns a pretty big chunk of it because of the mortgage, I still consider myself to own that…. It's actually my wife who owns the home, but I certainly consider her to own that property, and so does city hall. J. MacPhail: Let me tell the minister what the dif- ference is between that kind of analysis — which I agree with, by the way — and what happens when the public coffers build a hospital.

The minister is exactly correct that this is a mortgage to a private operator, and the taxpayers do not own this hospital until that mortgage is paid off. They simply cannot possibly have title or deed until that mortgage is paid off. Otherwise

9180 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 it is charity for some profitable organizations, and I don't think Ledcor is providing charity to our govern- ment. I think I remember Ledcor as being part of this consortium. Just the same way that those who have mort- gages…. They do not own their house until they've paid the bank off. The bank owns it. Yes, the bank owns whatever the mortgage is in the house. That's why when people default, they lose their houses. Maybe it doesn't happen that often on the west side. But that's the principle.

You got a mortgage, you don't pay your mortgage for long enough, the bank repos- sesses the house, and you don't own it. That's what this is. What's the difference about the public sector, about taxpayers building hospitals? [1535] Up until this government's tenure here, taxpayers would fund the debt of the hospital — taxpayers' money. The government would borrow money on the public credit, so the government was the owner, and the people who serviced the debt are the taxpayers. They never had to worry if a hospital couldn't make its payment.

They didn't have to worry about being at default and losing the hospital, because the public was the owner of it in the first place. That is not the case in this hospital. The public does not own it from day one. If indeed the minister is trying to say that there is no difference, then what the heck are we doing this for in the first place and giving what others have predicted as a $300 million profit to the builders? Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, the member is wrong. We will have title to this building from the day that the foundations are first laid. It is the public sector that will own this facility.

I also think the member is wrong in the way she characterizes a house mortgage. You may have a mortgage on your house…. Interjections. The Chair: Members, through the Chair, please. Hon. C. Hansen: If you buy a piece of real estate, you will have title to that property. Then, if you default on your mortgage, there are ramifications in terms of foreclosure. But I would suggest to the member that she check with her bank manager with regard to who actually owns title to a private residence. What this arrangement does is…. The benefit it brings to the taxpayer is around innovation.

It is in the best interests of the private sector consortium to bring the kinds of innovation to this project that will in turn drive costs down. The risk, instead of being incurred by the public sector, is in fact incurred by the private sector because at the end of the day they have to de- liver this building, and they have to deliver all of the support services provided in this building within that fixed envelope of the tariff we discussed earlier. J. MacPhail: Well, wow. I can't believe there are not more consortia running to bid on this project. It's such a good deal — not.

Not for a moment do I accept the characterization of this government in terms of who owns it. If indeed the government gets title from day one, then Ledcor and that consortium sure are silly. They're not very good business people. Why the heck would there be any obligation whatsoever for the gov- ernment to maintain its side of the contract? Where are the risks, then? Who assumes the risk? What happens if the consortium goes bankrupt? Hon. C. Hansen: I do want to clarify for the mem- ber who the corporate partners are in this.

It's referred to as Access Health Abbotsford, and it is a joint venture of Brookfield LePage Johnson Controls, PCL Construc- t i o n G r o u p I n c . a n d A B N A M R O B a n k N . V . C a n a d a branch. They are the partners to the consortium. If the private sector partner, the consortium, defaults on their obligation, then the project defaults to government.

Certainly, in the contract that is put in place, and al- ready set out in the RFP, are the protections for the taxpayer should the private sector partner at any stage during the 30 years not be able to deliver on their side of their obligations. [1540] J. MacPhail: Thank you to the minister for clarify- ing the partners. I'm sorry. My apologies to Ledcor. It's PCL. Thank you for that clarification. There have been examples. I know of two substan- tial examples. One is in Britain where privatized en- ergy companies went bankrupt. They were publicly owned energy companies, and then they went bank- rupt.

That energy company actually owned privatized energy operations in Ontario. I think it was a nuclear plant that they owned. All of a sudden when that con- sortium went bankrupt, the future of the assets run by that company in Ontario was at risk — one for operation or one for quick sale, so that the British-owned company could pay off its debt and get out of bankruptcy. The other example I know of is one we raised in estimates with the Minister of Education, where the school board in Philadelphia…. The services, the schools and the books are owned by a private operator.

That private operator was at huge financial risk with the collapse of the stock market at some point and had to sell off its assets in that school, including books and computers, etc., in order to get itself out of financial trouble. What is in the RFP to prevent the consortium from using its asset — what I predict will be its asset — to manage financial risks occurring elsewhere? Hon. C. Hansen: The bottom line is because we have the title, that gives us that protection. What the company will have as their asset is in fact a contract that provides for an annual tariff that would be paid to the company.

If they default on any aspect of their con- tractual obligations, then basically the terms of the con- tract will dictate the protection that's there for the tax- payer. One of the things we're putting first and foremost, as we go through the negotiating process and put these

MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9181 business arrangements in place, is to make sure that the interests of patients get put number one. We are look- ing at all eventualities in terms of what could happen and what happens if the company were not to remain financially viable. Throughout that, we are making sure the interests of the patients get put as the para- mount interests in this province, and that will be writ- ten into the contracts.

I think what the member is talking about actually underscores the value of public-private partnerships, because it is the private sector consortium bearing the risks involved here instead of the taxpayer. Let's trans- fer that future risk from the taxpayer to the private sector consortium. I guess in any kind of an arrange- ment around the world there is a possibility of financial viability becoming an issue. Well, let's make sure it is the private sector that bears that in this case, not the taxpayers of the province. Those protections are being built into the agreements. J. MacPhail: Okay, then.

Let's just concede that the public owns the building. The equipment inside — the public owns the $60 million worth of equipment inside too? Hon. C. Hansen: As I understand it, all of the medical equipment will in fact be owned by the health authorities and will be part of their debt. I think the example that the Finance minister may have used in estimates…. I wasn't there; the member was, so she may recall this. He said perhaps the floor polishers, for example, may be owned by the consortium, not by the health authority. That was one example I think he gave. J.

MacPhail: Then I assume the health authority can move that equipment outside of that hospital when- ever they wish, if they own it? Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned earlier, the clinical operations — the direct provision of health care — will still be done by the health authority, and equipment will be owned by the health authority. Unless there was some other provision written into the contract, I think around…. There may be things like HVAC sys- tems, or whatever, that are part and parcel of the build- ing that would have some obligations to stay at a par- ticular site.

Certainly, when it comes to the medical equipment being used in direct delivery of patient care, that's owned by the health authority, and they would have the right to move that to another facility. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. During the term of the con- tract they will have that right? Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. [1545] J. MacPhail: Let me ask, then: if indeed the finan- cier, the project co, the consortium is providing all of the risk and owns nothing, what do they get out of it? Hon. C. Hansen: What the private sector partner gets is the $39.7 million tariff per year.

On top of that they would get what other revenue sources they could get from the site. We talked earlier about retail opera- tions, for example, or coffee outlets in the main lobby of the facility. Those would also be revenue opportuni- ties for the private sector partner. J. MacPhail: Well, if project co, the consortium, doesn't own the building, owns no assets and has to absorb all of the risk, do they not get any financing guarantees whatsoever? Like, they're just subject? I'm getting a little shaky. I'm concerned about this hospital being able to operate under the consortium now.

If they don't own anything and the government's not providing any financial risk security for them whatso- ever, how are they actually going to be able to operate the hospital? How are we going to know it's going to b e t h e r e , i f i t ' s s u c h a g o o d d e a l f o r t h e p u b l i c s e c t o r and there's nothing being given in the way of profit or a security against financial risk to the consortium? How is it that they'll be able to even make a go of this? Hon. C. Hansen: The member said: why would they do this if they don't have some financial guaran- tees? Well, they do have financial guarantees.

They have a 30-year contract to provide them $39.7 million a year. Within that, that's the cash flow they will be able to count on from a government agency that has an ex- tremely high credit rating. That's what brings the pri- vate sector consortium to the table. J. MacPhail: The minister can't possibly tell me whether that $39.7 million is a break-even proposition, whether there's a profit margin. Or he refuses to tell me.

With that lack of information about whether there's a profit margin built into it or whether there's a financ- ing risk built into it, I can't see any good news for the proponent here whatsoever. Or does the minister have that information that he can now share with me? Hon. C. Hansen: Just as the member went out and got a mortgage from the bank or the credit union at a certain rate, I'm sure she didn't find out exactly what the profit margin was that the bank was going to get off that particular mortgage.

We have gone out with an RFP that sets out the range of services that we expect to have delivered, which will be delivered, under the terms of this project. We have said we will provide a tariff of $39.7 million a year in exchange for that. Obviously, there are three companies that took a look at this and that figured, well, maybe they couldn't make a profit out of that $39.7 million a year, and they have decided not to pursue their opportunities.

One consortium has indicated that they believe this is finan- cially viable, that they can make a profit as a result of the innovations they can bring to the table and still deliver on the quality service that is set out in the RFP. I believe that is a win-win for patients. It's a win- win for taxpayers and hopefully is a win-win for the private sector partner as well.

9182 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 J. MacPhail: Well, sorry, Mr. Chair. I hate the fact that the minister keeps bringing up mortgages and that kind of stuff. Yeah, most people who do have a mort- gage know exactly what the profit margin is built into the bank. That's why they shop around. That's why they get different terms, different rates. They know exactly when a good deal is a good deal, and they know what they can afford based on what the interest charges are and how that's going to change. At least, most families do that.

This minister can't even tell me whether the $39.7 million is a good price to pay. He can't tell me. He just says: "Well, that's the price we established, and I'm not going to tell you what's behind that whatsoever." The minister is 100 percent behind this model — is he? — and he has the fullest of confidence that it's go- ing to go ahead according to the RFP — no changes. [1550] Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, but I can also come back to the member's point. When she used this example of shopping around for a mortgage, you don't shop around to find out which credit union or which bank is going to take the lowest profit.

You shop around for the bank or the credit union that's going to give you the best price. I think maybe the member is confusing those two aspects of it. Yes, I am very confident that we will have a private sector partner who will deliver the quality services as set out in 1,600 pages of public RFP. J. MacPhail: I wish the minister all the best — all the best. I also predict he won't be able to deliver the way that he said.

I predict that the consortium will negotiate, that the consortium will come back, that there will be changes requested by the consortium to the RFP and that that will mean changes for the tax- payer. Who's leading the negotiations for the province? Hon. C. Hansen: Partnerships B.C. J. MacPhail: What role does the health authority play in all of this, in the negotiations that I predict will occur? Hon. C. Hansen: Partnerships B.C. is leading this process, and their client would be the two health au- thorities that are involved. J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that.

When the con- sortium comes back and asks for changes or asks to negotiate the deal, who gets to sign off? Is it Partner- ships B.C. who says those changes are acceptable? Who at the health authority or in the Health ministry is mak- ing those decisions? Hon. C. Hansen: I have signed off on the RFP that went forward with all of the requirements in it. If there were to be any changes necessitated, I would have to sign off on them. I am quite confident at this point that the private sector partner is going to be able to deliver o n t h e R F P a s i t w a s d e v e l o p e d .

A s t h e y g o t h r o u g h negotiations, it is the role of the health authorities and their representatives that are part of the process to pro- vide oversight and make sure they're in fact going to get the clinical services and patient care services set out in the RFP. J. MacPhail: What's to negotiate? There is one con- sortium, one RFP. If it is a slam dunk, what's to negoti- ate? Hon. C. Hansen: What the RFP sets out is what the outcomes are, what the deliverables are that this pri- vate sector partner has to deliver in terms of the physi- cal space and all of the requirements that go with that.

In terms of how they get there, they can bring innova- tion to the table. These are companies that have worldwide experi- ence. I think the member earlier talked about some RFP projects around the world that may have been less than successful. There are many more RFP projects around the world that are successful, and we are learning from that. What these international players can bring are innovations, looking at how health care can and will be delivered in the year 2010 or 2012 — or 2020, for that matter — and bringing that innovative approach.

As they bring an approach as to how they're going to de- liver on the requirements, the health authorities then have to be confident that in fact that is going to meet the needs and produce the desired patient care results at the end of the day. J. MacPhail: Could the minister name the exact hospitals — models — elsewhere upon which they're basing their optimism? Just name the exact hospital and the country. [1555] Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have a list of specific facili- ties, but we certainly have been working with some consultants who have looked at this from a worldwide perspective.

They have brought examples that help and that we can learn from. We can also learn from the ex- amples that had problems to make sure that we don't duplicate those problems. The experience around the world is one where there have been some problems, and we've learned from those. But there are certainly a lot more projects that would be considered successful, and we're going to learn from those experiences as well. J.

MacPhail: T hi s i s m y s e c o n d g o and t he s e c o nd set of estimates where I have asked for examples of success and have had zero names from either the Min- ister of Finance or the Minister of Health. Yet they keep standing up and saying: "Don't worry. There are suc- cessful models just like this, and that's who we're mod- eling our project after." Then when you actually ask t h e m : " O h , s o r r y , w e d o n ' t h a v e a n y n a m e s . " I t ' s b e - cause there aren't any, I would suggest, except private

MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9183 hospitals in the United States that operate strictly for profit and do not have universal access. Now, the minister had to eat his words — and I thought it was very good that he did eat his words — around freedom of information and access and what that means with their privatization operation of MSP services. It was to his credit that he said he would in- vestigate that, even though on day one he said that no bloody way would the Americans have access to any information because of the privatization of MSP ser- vices.

What aspects of freedom-of-information law apply to this Abbotsford hospital project? Hon. C. Hansen: As I understand it, it is set out in the RFP documents that our freedom-of-information law will apply to this private sector partner. J. MacPhail: There is an aspect of the freedom-of- information law — a commercial exemption — that if this hospital were being built in the public sector, that commercial exemption wouldn't apply. Under freedom of information, government clients can exempt certain information because of the competition of a private sec- tor bidder.

That would not occur if this hospital were being built in the public sector. Does that exemption, in allowing information to be deleted because the propo- nent is private sector and commercial — not private sec- tor and public, but private sector and commercial…? Will that information be exempted from freedom-of- information laws? [1600] Hon. C. Hansen: This particular contract is going to be a contract between a supplier — this private sector consortium that's going to supply the construction of a building and the facility operations….

We have all kinds of contracts in place between the health sector and the private sector today. Yes, if there is a contract in place for the supply of goods and services — let's say between Vancouver Hospital and a private sector supplier — that information is also available through freedom of information, and there is the provision to hold back information that may be of a commercially sensitive nature. This would be the same in that regard.

Ultimately, as is set out in the act, there's an opportu- nity to appeal any decisions to the freedom-of- information commissioner in this province, and those will all be considered under the existing framework of the act. J. MacPhail: Y e s , b u t i f t h e g o v e r n m e n t i s s a y i n g that this is a private operator with commercially sensi- tive information, the freedom-of-information commis- sioner has to rule according to the law, and there are different exemptions for that kind of information than for publicly offered services. Let me ask the minister this, just as an example.

It's a little bit off topic, but I'm concluding my questions a r o u n d A b b o t s f o r d h o s p i t a l b e f o r e I m o v e o n t o l a b reform, if the minister needs an indication of what I want to discuss next. Has the minister's staff, the minis- try or the health authorities received freedom-of- information requests from newly contracted-out ser- vices that the ministry must treat in a different manner than before the services were contracted out? Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, the same law would apply previously as applies now. In that respect, the act has not changed in its applicability.

The act will set out what information needs to be provided. From the min- istry's perspective, we make sure we abide by the law. J. MacPhail: Okay, let me try to clarify my ques- tion. The freedom-of-information law treats commer- cially sensitive information differently than informa- tion solely within the public domain. If — and I just use this as a hypothetical — laundry services at VGH are totally within the public domain, a person has the right to apply under the freedom-of-information law and get all the information about that laundry service, and there's no exemption for it.

I'm asking the minister, and I don't know whether…. If there's a contracted laundry service, a pri- vatized laundry service, that is now providing a service that used to be in the public domain, do freedom-of- information requests about any nature of that opera- tion get treated any differently? Is it subject to exemp- tions based on commercially sensitive information? That's my question. Hon. C. Hansen: We don't have a specific answer to the member's question. It's a good question.

I know that the branch within the ministry that handles all the freedom-of-information requests that come in follows the act very closely and makes sure it's abided by. The fact that one involves a commercial partner and the other example may be two public sector partners…. Certainly, it will be handled in the same way. Whether there is more information that may be blocked in a commercial contract…. That may be the case, but I don't have that information at my fingertips. J.

MacPhail: Well , I'm sure that over the course of the next couple of days we can discuss that further, and the minister can get an answer for me. Thank you very much. My last question around the Abbotsford hospital is this: what if there is a change in demand at the Abbots- ford hospital? What if there are closures of beds re- quired because of the per-population funding formula? What happens to the contract? [1605] Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, there has been quite a lot of very good work done to try to anticipate the demographic pressures.

We know it's one of the fastest- growing parts of the province, and we have tried to anticipate what those demands will be not just for ten years but, indeed, over the 30-year span of the project. Also written into the contract is the ability to change the operational levels over a period of time. It's not

9184 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 something that sort of results in quick decisions or quick announcements. It's something between the health authority and the private sector partner. There is a provision that gets written into the agreement to al- low for expansion or contraction of services over time. J. MacPhail: Who bears the risk on that? Hon. C. Hansen: Within the scope that is set out in the RFP, the risk is borne by the private sector partner.

I f w e d e c i d e t o v a r y f r o m t h a t s c o p e , t h e n w e w o u l d have to negotiate that with the partner, but we are pretty confident that there's been some good research and analysis done to determine the scope and to an- ticipate the needs over the term of the contract. J. MacPhail: I'm switching to lab reform now. Can the minister update me on lab reform, please? Hon. C.

Hansen: This an initiative that we em- barked on — I guess it would be about two years ago now — where we made it quite clear to those who are involved with lab services in the province that we were looking at a process of lab reform. If you look at all the provinces west of Quebec, I think we're the last one to engage in this process of lab reform. There were a se- ries of round-table discussions with various stake- holder groups, including union representation, private lab representation, some of the pathologists and health authorities.

They were all involved in those discussions over almost a one-and-a-half-year period. That resulted in a report we released last summer. Along with the release of that report, we announced that we were going to embark on a process to lead to a new arrangement in providing lab services in the prov- ince. We felt that we were paying considerably more t h a n w e s h o u l d b e p a y i n g f o r t h e s e r v i c e s w e w e r e getting, especially when you compare it to other prov- inces, where our total cost of lab services is much higher than any other province in Canada.

We initially indicated that we were going to reduce the fee-for-service around lab fees. We had every indi- cation that we could do that by order-in-council; at least, that was the advice we received. When that was challenged in court, the courts, on a technicality, indi- cated that we didn't have the necessary legislative au- thority for that.

We have now, first of all, filed an ap- peal, but we are also looking at other options to ensure that the change can in fact be implemented. [1610] We are now proceeding on a process of lab reform to try to realize annual savings of about $60 million a year in the short and medium term, and $25 million of that would get reinvested into the lab system in terms of training, information technologies and other services within the lab sector itself. The other $35 million we are allocating to patient-care cost pressures in other as- pects.

We are now working toward trying to, first of all, put in place some standardized clinical approaches. We've established what's referred to as the provincial lab coordinating office. Dr. David Pi, who is the direc- tor of clinical services there, is working with all of the various players to try to make sure that our clinical approach is standardized. We are also proceeding on an approach to a new business model, which would allow for a competitive process to determine which services should be provided through a private sector provider and which should be provided through our public sector labs.

At the end of the day, we want to make sure that the public get first-class lab services in the province. W e w a n t t o m a k e s u r e t h a t q u a l i t y i s e n h a n c e d a n d certainly not compromised. We actually believe it can be enhanced through a standardization of approach across the province. At the end of the day, we want not only that quality of service, but we want to get utiliza- tion down so we avoid unnecessary duplication of tests. We want to get all of that and get the most cost- effective price for those services, whether it be in the public sector or the private sector. J.

MacPhail: That was part of the announcement I think the government made almost a year ago, August of '03 — okay? — so about eight months ago. What's new? Dr. David Pi was heading up a committee eight months ago. What's been happening? Who is on the committee? Who are they meeting with? Has the 20 percent cut been implemented? How is that going? Hon. C. Hansen: If the member goes back to look at the announcement we made last August, what we in- dicated was that we were targeting to have this process completed by October of 2005. It is an extremely com- plex process. Dr.

Pi has set up a whole series of com- mittees to work with him. They've got a great website that the provincial lab coordinating office has estab- lished. On that website he lists all of the various com- mittee members looking at various elements of this. The last time I looked, I think there were certainly about 12 different committees — I forget off the top of my head — with each having about 12 members from all sectors participating in some of the clinical work that Dr. Pi is doing.

As far as the 20 percent, what we had indicated initially was that as of September of last year, we were going to reduce the fee structure by 8 percent. That was, in turn, what was challenged before the courts. The court decision indicated we did not have the legis- lative authority for the order-in-council that imple- mented that. As a result of the court's decision, we have not been entitled to take that 8 percent, pending our appeal, unless we actually follow through with the appeal. If that's the route we choose to go and if suc- cessful on appeal, then obviously that would be in place.

But we are certainly now looking at what other options are there. It is our intention to realize a 20 percent saving in this short and medium term, because it is that 20 per- cent that's going to fund some of this transitioning and the new education programs for pathologists and the information technologies we want to put in place so

MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 9185 that physicians can get better access to lab results in a more timely fashion. J. MacPhail: I've looked at the website, but what I'm told is that the committees aren't meeting. They're there, but…. Could I have a list of the kind of commit- tee meetings that are occurring and when they last met? [1615] Hon. C. Hansen: Just to give the member some examples of the committees that are there….

I may not have an exhaustive list here, but there's a committee set up for each of the disciplines within lab services — a committee on chemistry, for example; microbiology; immunology; transfusion medicine; anatomic pathol- ogy; cytogenetics. There is also a committee on evolv- ing technologies; there's a committee of the operating VPs of the various health authorities; there's a commit- tee on information technology. These have been meet- ing on a regular basis. They may not meet as often as….

I certainly have not heard complaints from any of those who sit on these committees that they aren't meeting often enough. My understanding is that the work of these committees is proceeding, and they're meeting as necessary. J. MacPhail: As of January, I'd heard they hadn't met at all, or they had ground to a…. There was a two- week flurry of activity after the initial announcement. Then as of January, they ki nd of had ground to a halt and they weren't meeting, so I assume the minister is saying they've started meeting again. The $60 million of saving — in what year is that booked? Hon. C.

Hansen: It is booked starting '04-05. J. MacPhail: So that's starting in April '04-05. I'm just wondering: $60 million — that's, what, $5 million a month? You'd have to be getting going pretty soon, I'd assume. Are we still on that game plan to save $60 mil- lion? Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. J. MacPhail: I appreciate, as always, the minister's firmness in reply, because it does have a way of end

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h0308pm-09
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h0308pm 09
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	07cc836fd56b3643e39360cd10cca80d0640b41b

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