British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, May 14, 2003

H0514pm-12

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 15, Number 12 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 6773 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 6774 Community Services Labour Relations Act (Bill 61) Hon. G. Collins Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 64) Hon. J.

Reid Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 66) Hon. G. Plant Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 6776 Nurses in B.C. R. Hawes Korean Heritage Day H. Bloy Chinese Heritage Day P. Wong Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 6777 Funding for child protection services J. MacPhail Hon. G.

Campbell Funding for child protection and community living services J. Kwan Hon. G. Campbell Assistance for leaky-condo owners T. Bhullar Hon. G. Abbott Police force integration in lower mainland J. Nuraney Hon. R.

Coleman Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 6779 Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, year ended December 31, 2002 Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 6780 Industry Training Authority Act (Bill 34) Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 6780 Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) J.

MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen J. Kwan K. Manhas

6773 WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members Mr. Speaker: I would like to welcome a group of 25 public servants from various ministries who are joining us in the gallery this afternoon. These guests are at- tending the parliamentary procedure workshop for public service sessions today. I hope the House will make them very welcome. [1405] Hon. J. Murray: I would like to recognize today in the public gallery representatives from the Greater Vic- toria Bike to Work Society.

The member for Victoria- Hillside has been a strong supporter of the society's work over the years, and today she and I had a chance to join society members and some of the bike-to-work team leaders to promote commuter cycling. Victoria, I understand, is now the number one city in Canada for commuter cyclists. This is a positive thing in terms of environment but also in terms of peo- ple's health, so I'm a very strong supporter of Bike to Work Week. It's May 26 to June 1. Last year Victoria's Bike to Work Week campaign drew 304 teams.

As of today they have 200 teams registered, and they are aiming to beat last year and have more than 304. I en- courage everyone to consider the benefits of bicycling and cycle commuting. I would like the House to please recognize presi- dent, David Cubberly; vice-president, Rob Wickson; coordinator, Linda Saunders; Tom Sutton and Joan McIntosh who have joined us in the House today. Please make them welcome. Hon. G. Campbell: Today I'd like to recognize spe- cial visitors from the United Kingdom who are in the gallery with us.

His Excellency Sir Andrew Burns, the high commissioner for the United Kingdom, is with us. Sir Andrew is accompanied by James Rawlinson, the British consul general in Vancouver. Although the high commissioner is nearing the completion of his posting in Canada, we hope he'll make many return visits to this great Pacific province. He will always be welcome. I want to thank the high commissioner for the work that he's done on behalf of the United Kingdom in building stronger relationships with British Columbia, and I know that this Legislature would like to wish him well in the future. J.

MacPhail: I join with the Premier in wishing the high commissioner the best. I'm very much looking forward to celebrating with all of my colleagues a great meal, because it's Asian Heritage Month. I see the gallery is full of citizens of Asian heritage coming and joining us. I can hardly wait to sit and chow down and celebrate, which is only one part of celebrating Asian heritage as well. I am de- lighted to join with my colleagues throughout the House to welcome all guests here to celebrate with us Asian Heritage Month. Hon. G.

Campbell: My second introduction today marks a very important milestone in scientific research for British Columbia. Visiting the precinct today is Dr. Marco Marra of the B.C. Cancer Agency research centre and the director of B.C.'s Michael Smith Genome Sci- ences Centre. As I'm sure members of the House will know — and British Columbians, I know, take great pride in this — Dr. Marra is the head of the B.C. cancer team which was the first in the world to sequence the coronavirus genome which was widely believed to be, indeed, the cause of SARS. Dr. Marra was born in Fort St.

John, British Colum- bia, and returned to British Columbia from the U.S. to work with the late Dr. Michael Smith at UBC. Dr. Marra is joined by the president and vice-president of Genome B.C., Dr. Alan Winter and Mr. Bruce Schmidt. Genome B.C. is in Victoria to co-host a caucus briefing. I know that all British Columbians take pride in the work they've done, and we look forward to the discov- eries of the future. Please make them welcome. Hon. L. Stephens: In the precincts today we have 60 visitors — grade 6 students and five adults from Langley Fundamental School in my constituency.

They're accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Merkel. Would the House please make them welcome. J. Les: In the gallery today we are joined by two members of the communications team with the Fraser health authority. They are Sydney Tomchenko and David Plug. Would the House please make them wel- come. Hon. C. Hansen: There's a gentleman in the gallery today who's very important to my office, and that's because he's the father of my ministerial assistant, Kim Chan. I hope everyone will welcome Mr. Douglas Chan. [1410] J.

Kwan: I join with my colleagues to welcome the many community leaders who are here to celebrate Asian Heritage Month. In addition, I would also like to introduce Aaron Jasper, who is a community activist who believes in equality and social justice, and he's in the gallery today. Would the House please welcome all these guests. I. Chong: In keeping with the welcomes of the peo- ple who are here to celebrate Asian Heritage Month, there are a number of representatives from a number of the associations in Vancouver here in Victoria.

While I can't name them all, I would like to list off the various organizations that they represent. We have the Van- couver Chinatown Business Improvement Association

6774 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 Society, Lees Association of Vancouver, Canadian Chi- nese Business Development Association, Vancouver Chinatown Merchants Association, Chinese Benevolent Association of Vancouver, Chinese Benevolent Associa- tion of Canada, Chinese Consolidated Benevolent As- sociation of Victoria, Chin Wing Chun Tong Society, Richmond Asia Pacific Business Association, Sunbrite Business Association, Tsung Tsin Association of Van- couver, Association of Chinese Canadian Professionals, Teo Chew Society of Vancouver, Chius Benevolent Association, Soo Yuen Society, Lower Mainland Gro- cers Association and Toi Shan Benevolent Association.

I know they're either in the precincts or they could be having a tour of the buildings. I would hope all mem- bers here make them welcome. K. Manhas: I'd like to introduce to the House today two people who are very important in my life. With us in the gallery are my parents, Karm and Devi Manhas. This is the first time since I've been elected that I've had the honour of introducing them to the House. I would like to just say how much I appreciate all the support that they've been to me. I'd like the House to please join me in giving them a very warm welcome. R.

Lee: Today we have many visitors to the House from the Chinese Canadian communities to celebrate the Chinese heritage day. Some are from the Chinese news media. We have Woody Lo, Bill Kong, Samson Wong from Fairchild TV, Michael Liu, Kenneth Fung from Ming Pao Daily News , Jane Zhang, Frank Huang from Global Chinese Press , Richard Qun Li from Dawa Business Press and also Rina Ho from China Journal Can- ada. We also have a few performers today for the cele- bration: Mr. Chai Man Cheng and Mrs. Chuen Ying Cheng, plus two more performers, and also Mr. Yuk- man Lai. He's a great Chinese calligrapher.

Later the members can ask him to write their name in Chinese. You are very welcome to Also, Mrs. Li Ying Wang is going to sing a few Italian songs too. Would the House please make them welcome. S. Orr: I want to also join the minister in welcoming some Bike To Work Week members in the House, par- ticularly one who is actually a good friend, Rob Wick- son, who used to be a past president of the chamber of commerce. We have a habit in the Bike To Work Week where the minister, who took off on her fabulous bike…. But we also do it by car. We like to see who gets there first. And guess who got there first. The car. R.

Stewart: I t ' s m y p l e a s u r e t o i n t r o d u c e D e r e k Morton and Susan House from the Catholic Health Association of B.C. These folks came and spoke with a number of members today about the vital role of de- nominational health in British Columbia's health care system. Would the House please make them welcome. [1415] Eight or nine years ago I was president of the Ca- nadian Home Builders Association of B.C. Things have improved a lot since then for the association — well, for the home building industry, if not for me. I'm pleased to introduce M.J.

Whitemarsh, Pat Caporale and Peter Schultz of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C., who are here to discuss with us continuing to work with our government on trades training. D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 100 grade 4 students visiting the parliament buildings from Coyote Creek School in my constituency of Surrey- Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers Mr. Kai Chan, Mrs. Jill Marsden, Miss Marianne Smith and Mr. Marcus Berndt, as well as 31 parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy

schedule to accom- pany these students. Would the House please make them very welcome. J. MacPhail: I am delighted, and I know many of my colleagues who were elected at the same time as I was in 1999 will welcome Frank Garden, who is a for- mer MLA with those of us who were here from 1991 to 1996. He is here today. He is accompanied by his son who I know as Kenny but wants to be introduced as Ken. So would the House please make them welcome. J. Weisbeck: O n b e h a l f o f m y c o l l e a g u e f r o m Kelowna-Mission.

There are a number of students from the Kelowna Christian School in the precinct somewhere — 35 students along with Mr. B. MacArthur, their teacher. Would the House please make them welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills COMMUNITY SERVICES LABOUR RELATIONS ACT Hon. G. Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Community Services Labour Relations Act. Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Collins: I t 's m y p l e a s u re t o i nt ro d u c e B i l l 61, the Community Services Labour Relations Act.

Last October government appointed a public administrator for the Community Social Services Employers Associa- tion. Part of his mandate was to recommend ways in which the bargaining structure in the community ser- vices sector could be modernized. Over the last six months the administrator has engaged in extensive consultations with employers and unions to ensure that community services labour relations structures are streamlined and reflect service delivery structures. This legislation puts in place the necessary legal structure to fulfil that task.

This act deems the Community Social Services Em- ployers Association to be the sole accredited bargain-

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6775 ing agent with the exclusive authority to bargain on behalf of unionized agencies in the sector and to bind them to a collective agreement. The act establishes a total of three bargaining units, one for each of the three broad service areas in the sector. These service areas are community living, aboriginal services and the gen- eral category, general services, covering such areas as child and family services, women's services and other services.

Cabinet will have the ability to consolidate these bargaining units into a single unit if it is deemed to be a more effective structure. The legislation creates an association of unions and the requirement that all unions representing employees in the sector belong to that association. The new asso- ciation of unions will have 30 days from when this act comes into force to agree to the articles of association. If they're unable to agree to the articles within this time frame, this legislation provides that the Labour Rela- tions Board may determine the articles of association within the subsequent 30 days.

The act ensures that collective agreements cannot prevent agencies from using volunteers so long as the use of volunteers does not result in the layoff of an employee. The act also clarifies the status of employees, family home providers, contractors and government for the purposes of collective bargaining and labour relations. This legislation will modernize and stream- line social service labour relations, freeing up resources for agencies to concentrate on the work they do best — caring for society's most vulnerable.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 61 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1420] TRANSPORTATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. J. Reid presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Transportation Stat- utes Amendment Act, 2003. Hon. J. Reid: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. J.

Reid: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 64, the Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. This bill addresses a number of transportation-related pri- orities. Consistent with our new-era commitment to cut the regulatory burden and red tape by one-third within three years and revitalize our economy, this bill amends the Railway Act to remove 162 unnecessary or outdated regulatory requirements and to eliminate red tape. The Railway Act was largely written and enacted in the early 1900s.

Over time many provisions of the act have fallen into disuse, and railways are no longer sub- ject to provisions that either are out of date or constitute an unwarranted degree of regulation in today's highly competitive commercial transportation environment. The act also repeals the Riverbank Protection Act, which will eliminate an additional 66 obsolete require- ments. The repeal of this act will not remove dike protec- tion rights. Those rights are protected under the Dike Maintenance Act and the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act.

The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is now responsible for the management of dike repair. A third change is to the Highway Act. It's to ex- empt snowmobile trails from being considered as pub- lic highways. This amendment assists the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management's work with the B.C. Snowmobile Federation to develop a back-country snowmobile tourism industry. This exemption is simi- lar to the one previously provided to the Trans Canada Trail and will allow all previously created snowmobile trails protection against being defined as a public highway in the future.

We are also proposing amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act to facilitate the addition of the proposed Richmond airport– Vancouver rapid transit project into the GVTA's exist- ing strategic transportation plan. Finally, the bill proposes changes to the Transporta- tion Investment Act, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act and the Weed Control Act to facili- tate a Coquihalla Highway long-term services and op- erations agreement.

These amendments will ensure that a new operator has the authority to collect and retain toll revenues and will facilitate the implementa- tion of a frequent traveller pass. They will also ensure that the operator has the necessary authority and re- sponsibility for weed control on the right-of-way. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 64 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003 Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: I am pleased to introduce Bill 66, which amends the following statutes: Barbers Act, Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, Commercial Trans-

6776 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 port Act, Correction Act, Cosmetologists Act, Election Act, Estate Administration Act, Expropriation Act, Fam- ily Relations Act, Forest Act, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, Liquor Con- trol and Licensing Act, Lobbyists Registration Act, Mo- tor Vehicle Act, Museum Act, Offence Act, Patients Property Act, Public Guardian and Trustee Act, Su- preme Court Act and Trustee Act.

Members will have to hold their suspense until second reading, when I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments. M r . S p e a k e r , I m o v e t h a t b i l l b e p l a c e d o n t h e o r - ders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 66 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [1425] Statements (Standing Order 25

B) NURSES IN B.C. R. Hawes: M r . S p e a k e r , M a y 1 2 t o 1 8 i s N a t i o n a l Nursing Week. This is the week that we all pause to reflect on the critical role that nurses play in delivering a health care system that works for all of us. Every second of every day throughout our prov- ince, British Columbians depend on the care, compas- sion and advocacy provided by our nurses. Whether it be in hospital emergency rooms, care homes, schools or private residences, these dedicated men and women ease the pain and suffering that patients and their fami- lies often face.

They play a critical role in preventative care. In an emergency, nurses have always answered the call with extreme bravery, such as with the recent challenge of SARS. We know there's a growing nursing shortage, and that's why our government has taken action and con- tinues to address this. I'm proud to say that our gov- ernment has both recognized the value of nurses and responded positively to nursing shortages. We have given a 22 percent pay increase to nurses, making them among the most highly compensated in Canada.

Over the past two years we have spent $42 million towards a nursing strategy, $15 million of that on equipment such as patient lifts and hospital beds to reduce the number of nurses' injuries. This year we've added 547 new seats, totalling 813 nursing seats added in educational institutes in B.C. over the last three years. We've offered student loan forgiveness to nurses locating in areas of critical short- age.

We're helping non-practising RNs to recertify, finding roles for injured RNs, providing a nurse grant program and promoting skill upgrades, and — proba- bly the most exciting — we've added 30 seats for nurse practitioners. With the legislation introduced in the House yes- terday, this would allow for the development of regula- tions for this new program in nursing through the Regis- tered Nurses Association of B.C. In short, this govern- ment understands the value of nurses, strongly supports May 12-15 as Nurses' Week and completely endorses its theme "Nursing: at the heart of health care." KOREAN HERITAGE DAY H.

Bloy: I rise today in the House to invite my col- leagues to take

part in the rich cultural diversity of British Columbia. On May 31 people throughout the lower mainland of British Columbia will come together to celebrate Korean Heritage Day at the Plaza of Na- tions. The Korean community is a huge part of my rid- ing. There are hundreds of small businesses that virtu- ally drive the economy of Burquitlam. Koreans, new and old, have built their lives in the thriving commu- nity and are proud of their achievements. On May 31 all Koreans from around B.C. will come together to celebrate their cultural heritage and to share stories of how B.C. has helped shape their lives.

The day itself will be exciting and full of events — tradi- tional Korean drum and mask dance, performers — and traditional Korean instrumental music perform- ances will play as the crowds view traditional Korean activities. Of course, there will be great Korean food that I enjoy when I am in the Burquitlam riding. I know there will be great food at this event. There'll be arts and crafts and games to entertain young and old alike. All along North Road in my riding of Burquitlam, you can see the contributions of the Korean community everywhere you look.

They have a cultural heritage that is tied to their origins, but they also have a lasting legacy in their new home of British Columbia. This year marks the fortieth anniversary of diplo- matic relations between Korea and Canada. I am happy to rise today and voice my support for Korean Heritage Day and encourage my colleagues to do the same. CHINESE HERITAGE DAY P. Wong: Today is a very special day. My hon. col- leagues the members for Burnaby North and for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and I have been in contact with the leaders of the B.C. Chinese community to organize a celebration of Asian heritage.

B.C. is home to a signifi- cant population of Asian immigrants. There are over 350,000 Chinese Canadians living in B.C. and more than one million throughout Canada. Those of us that live in the lower mainland and Vic- toria benefit from Asian cultural influence on a daily basis, where there is shopping, recreation, art, literature and all the other aspects of our lives. In the workplace Chinese immigrants contribute immensely to the B.C. economy. They are hard-working and dedicated and lend their considerable talents and expertise to every field of human endeavour.

The unique thing about this influence is that it has spanned nearly 5,000 years. [1430] The Chinese are renowned throughout the world and throughout history as innovators, thinkers and

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6777 artists. Chinese language, arts, poetry and traditions have survived and flourished for millennia. It's for this reason that we organized a Chinese heritage day. Through you, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues and I would like to invite all MLAs and Legislature staff to join us in today's celebration and to enjoy the displays of music, calligraphy, dancing and arts as well as the sampling of traditional Chinese food and delicacies.

We are honoured to be joined today by many spe- cial guests from the Chinese community, including the consul general of the People's Republic of China and several entertainers and artisans. It's well known that the government of British Columbia is committed to expanding our economic and cultural ties to Asia. This is wise for many reasons, not the least of which is B.C.'s close geographic proximity to Asia, the untapped Chi- nese market for B.C. exporters and the strong cultural ties between our two nations.

I would encourage all of our colleagues and staff to attend today's celebration and to learn more about the Chinese culture. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES J. MacPhail: In 1997 the Premier used a report of the child advocate to attack the government for not spending enough on child protection. Today, of course, the Premier doesn't have to care what the child advo- cate thinks, because he has eliminated her job. Just how many children will suffer as a result of that cut alone will never be known.

We do know that as a result of this government's budget cuts, supported by every Liberal MLA in this House — the member for Saanich South, the member for Hillside, the member for Prince George — by next year there will be $200 million less for children and families than in 1997, the year the Premier made those remarks. Will the Premier admit that as a result of his cuts, he is putting child protection at serious risk? Will he live up to his promise and restore the funding he has cut, with the support of every single Liberal MLA, that used to protect children at risk? Hon. G. Campbell: I appreciate the question.

First, I want the member opposite to know that this govern- ment's first and foremost responsibility and our obliga- tion, which we intend to meet, is to protect children in British Columbia. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. G. Campbell: The previous government, as you'll know, actually had six separate Ministers of Children and Family Development over a five-year period. We wanted to bring in both stability and pro- grams that would meets the needs of children and that would keep children in their families as long as possible. Professionally, as you know, that is the best thing for children.

We want to make sure that what we are doing works in the best interests of children, that children are protected, that we work with profes- sionals and that we deliver those services in the most cost-effective way possible. We will continue to do that. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: Isn't it funny the difference six years makes in terms of what this Premier now thinks is im- portant? When the Premier was the Leader of the Op- position, he agreed with the child advocate and said that the government should spend more money.

He has cut $200 million from the funding that was in place in 1997. Let me quote the Premier then. He said: "Big changes cost money if we're going to protect kids." Yesterday Craig Meredith, the executive director of the Federation of Child and Family Services, echoed that sentiment, saying there was no way the government could make the cuts they're contemplating while going through a massive reorganization. In 1997 big changes cost money. Now there is $200 million less than existed in that very year.

Will the Premier acknowledge today that big changes do cost money — as he o nc e t o l d t hi s H o u s e over and over — and restore the cuts he's made to the Ministry of Children and Family Development's budget for child protection? [1435] Hon. G. Campbell: There is no question that we had to make changes in the way the last government dealt with children. We wanted to keep children in their families. We wanted to give social workers the power they needed to provide the professional advice and assistance to families that was required. We want to be sure that children are protected.

We want to work with regional agencies in delivering those services in the most cost-effective way possible. We wanted to, in fact, remove the bureaucratic and administrative bur- den that got in the way of protecting children. That's what we intend to do. I want the member opposite to know this — that this government's first and most critical concerns are the protection and safety of children in the province and the strengthening of families in British Columbia. That's our goal, that's our objective, and we're going to do everything we need to meet it. Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a fur- ther supplementary. J. MacPhail: I would actually say that it's probably a priority far behind the tax cuts this Premier gave on

6778 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 day one to his rich friends. That was the first priority of this Premier, and look how that's failed. Here's a whole litany of quotes from this Premier when he was in opposition. Let me remind the Pre- mier, again, what he told this House as Leader of the Opposition. He said this. He said that he would reach out to all members of the House, to all members of the child care community, to all citizens of British Colum- bia who want to help in solving this problem.

Now that he's Premier…. [Applause.] As always, the Liberals are completely wrong in praising this Premier. Now that he's Premier, the gov- ernment is conducting a review of the child protection budget behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny and without the input of any front-line workers and the families they support. British Columbians want to know that it wasn't just politically convenient for him to make the promises that he did.

Will he commit today to a review process that will involve the public and the front-line child protection workers in a public and transparent way, like he promised when he was in opposition? Will he also commit that his government will provide the funding those experts say is necessary, just like he promised when he was in opposition? Hon. G. Campbell: First, I think anyone who really cared about children would understand that a revolving- door ministry policy, which the previous government had, of six ministers in five years certainly didn't put children at the top of anybody's list. Secondly, let me say this.

We said that we thought that all British Columbians deserve to be included in the discussion about how we could take care of our children. This government has talked, discussed and consulted with 14,000 British Columbians across this province — 14,000 people who put children at the top of their agenda, who want to deliver services in the most cost-effective way possible, who want to remove the bureaucratic and administrative burden so that children can be cared for first. That is what this gov- ernment is committed to, and if the member opposite has suggestions for improvements, we would be glad to hear them.

FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION AND COMMUNITY LIVING SERVICES J. Kwan: Well, we do have suggestions. Not only is the child protection in danger of col- lapsing, according to those on the front lines, but so far those services in the community-living sector for peo- ple with developmental disabilities are having prob- lems as well. A few weeks ago the Minister of Children and Fam- ily Development told this House that all was well, that he had worked successfully with the Interim Authority on Community Living to reduce budgets while protect- ing these services.

But an e-mail obtained by the oppo- sition and sent late last week from the Interim Author- ity for Community Living tells a different story.

These are the government's own hand-picked appointees, and they reported that they have no confidence that next year's budget targets can be met without risk to the safety and security of individuals. [1440] Again, to the Premier: if he won't listen to the op- position, if he won't listen to the front-line workers, will he listen to the warnings of his own hand-picked appointees that the safety and security of people with developmental disabilities are at risk if the government proceeds with the cuts? Hon. G. Campbell: I k n o w t h i s i s d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e members opposite.

The reason you put a plan in place, the reason you put people together to try and imple- ment the plan… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. G. Campbell: …is to learn from the people. The reason that this government is undergoing a re- view is to be sure that what we are doing is putting the interests of children and people in need first. Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: This assessment of the budget crisis comes directly from the people responsible for implementing the new regime.

They say that the safety and security of individuals and families are at risk. This e-mail goes on to say: "The interim authority is not being consulted on the budget review that culminates Friday, when Treasury Board meets to make decisions about the ministry's budget." Over and over again, the Premier said he would consult. He just said in this House today that he would spend what it took to take care of and protect kids and people with developmental disabilities. This Friday the fate of child protection and community living hangs in the balance.

Again to the Premier: will the Premier keep his promise and ensure that his own hand-picked appointees, the interim authority, will be consulted and be at the table on May 16 for the Treasury Board meet- ing and that he will ensure that the cuts to child protec- tion and community living are restored so that vulner- able kids and their families get the protection they need? Hon. G. Campbell: A s we ha v e s ai d o n a nu m b e r of occasions… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Let us hear the answer. Hon. G.

Campbell: … a p l a n w a s l a i d o u t — a three-year plan — which includes community living, which includes protection of children across this prov-

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6779 ince. The government will be pursuing that plan. The government is aware of a number of issues that people have brought forward. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Premier has the floor. Hon. G. Campbell: The government will continue to make sure that as we move forward and make deci- sions, the best interests of the community living sector as wel l as child ren i n need that need to be in care are taken into consideration. ASSISTANCE FOR LEAKY-CONDO OWNERS T.

Bhullar: My question is to the Minister of Com- munity, Aboriginal and Women's Services. It's regard- ing those awful leaky condos. Can the minister please tell the House the status of the leaky condos that the government has undertaken and if the minister has reached any conclusions? Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of leaky condos cer- tainly remains a major and difficult issue. We esti- mate at this point that some 65,000 homes and fami- lies are affected in some measure by leaky-condo syndrome.

The cost of that is certainly at least $1.5 billion and possibly up to $1.6 billion, so it's a huge issue for a lot of families. To date, through the homeowner protection office, the province has invested $293 million in no-interest loans. We have also put out $7.7 million in interest re- bates, PST rebates, to families that have been affected by that. As well, HPO has invested a lot of resources in research and education to ensure that we can remedi- ate those homes properly and ensure that the problem doesn't continue in the future.

We are continuing to work, as well, with the federal government to try to strengthen their partnership. I'm working in particular with the new secretary of state for housing, Steve Mahoney, to see if we can get a GST equivalent to the PST rebate, to get more action on leaky co-ops and to move ahead and try to resolve this situation, which unfortunately affects many British Columbians. [1445] POLICE FORCE INTEGRATION IN LOWER MAINLAND J. Nuraney: My question is to the Solicitor General.

The proposed integration plan for RCMP in the lower mainland is anticipated to create more efficient and effective law enforcement in Burnaby. However, there are some concerns about the potential cost to the tax- payers and the possibility that some members of the force may be required to work outside the municipal- ity. Will the Solicitor General tell this House the steps he is taking to consult with the municipalities to allevi- ate these fears? Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, there are a couple of issues with regard to this, which are out in the public today.

One of them is a management structure which is being worked on with the Mayors' Consultative Forum on the lower mainland of British Columbia. That man- agement structure actually got in the way of the real discussion that is important to communities, and that is the integration of specialized services in policing across borders. The reality is that if we integrated policing on the lower mainland in the RCMP areas and in our munici- pal forces, the public would see no difference in polic- ing. They would still see their officer on their street.

They'd still see their community policing officer, still see their school liaison. What they wouldn't see is that finally we broke down the borders so sex offenders can't move from one community to another and not be followed by police because somebody sets up an artifi- cial border in crime. We would actually track homi- cides in a manner that we would not have homicides fall through the cracks for investigation, because we'd actually be integrated in policing. Those are the goals that are the priorities for public safety which will be put together.

Anyone that doesn't understand where integration should go should take the opportunity to review the Oppal report so we can move forward in integration in policing. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Hon. S. Hagen: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Property Assessment Appeal Board for the year ended December 31, 2002. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: Pursuant to standing order 81.1, I rise today to inform the House of the government's intentions for the conclusion of the spring sitting of the Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, it's no surprise that the government intends to complete the supply debate as well as the final Supply Act. There are currently ten bills before the House now, which the government intends to pass by the end of May. Those are Bills 29, 39, 40, 45, 50, 51, 58, 61, 64 and 66. There are or will be introduced this spring a total of approximately 20 to 25 pieces of legis- lation which the government intends to leave on the order paper and pass in the fall sitting of the Legisla- ture.

6780 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 I look forward to working with the opposition to determine an orderly conclusion of those ten pieces of legislation by the end of May 29, Thursday. Mr. Speaker: Thank you for that information. J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can't let it pass without commenting on what the Government House Leader just did. Interjection. J. MacPhail: I'm not debating it; I'm commenting, just the same way the Government House Leader did. After today there are 21 hours of debate left. Fully 40 percent of the budget still has to be debated. The Health estimates — that's what.

There were 20 to 25 pieces of legislation introduced. Through incompetence by the Government House Leader…. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. member, it's not debatable. This is not debatable — sorry. Hon. G. Collins: I call third reading vote on Bill 34. [1450] Third Reading of Bills INDUSTRY TRAINING AUTHORITY ACT Third reading of Bill 34 approved on the following division: YEAS — 67 Falcon Coell Hogg L. Reid Halsey-Brandt Whittred Hansen J.

Reid Bruce Santori van Dongen Barisoff Roddick Wilson Lee Thorpe Hagen Murray Plant Campbell Collins Clark Bond de Jong Nebbeling Stephens Abbott Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Nuraney Belsey Bell Chutter Mayencourt Trumper Johnston Bennett R. Stewart Hayer Christensen McMahon Bray Les Locke Nijjar Bhullar Wong Bloy Suffredine MacKay Cobb K. Stewart Visser Lekstrom Brice Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Manhas Hunter NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan Bill 34, Industry Training Authority Act, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Collins: In this chamber I call Committee of Supply.

For the information of members, we'll be debat- ing the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services. I'd also like to advise the House that at 6:30 p.m. we'll be calling Committee of Supply in Committee A as well. [1455] Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3 p.m. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH SERVICES (continued) On vote 29: ministry operations, $10,038,097,000 (continued).

Introductions by Members The Chair: Before we begin, earlier on during in- troductions I introduced some visitors from the Kelowna Christian School on behalf of my colleague the member for Kelowna-Mission, and they hadn't ar- rived in the chamber yet. They have arrived now, so I'd like to welcome the 75 guests from the Kelowna Chris- tian School, along with their teacher, Mr. B. MacArthur. Would the House please make them welcome. Debate Continued J.

MacPhail: I must say, just to begin, I have had the wind taken out of my sails completely because of the absolutely horrendous task my opposition colleague and I have ahead of us, how much work has to be done in this chamber and how this government has com- pletely shut down any ability to have a legitimate de- bate. I put this not because of the Minister of Health Services. He happens to be the person…. The Chair: Member, excuse me, but I think the Speaker had ruled earlier that this was a non-debatable item. I'd like you to proceed along with vote 29. J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will.

I'm trying to explain how the debate will go with the Minister of Health Services. I have all of this work to do. It is quite overwhelming, is what I want to say, because of the way this House is being run. Did the minister have a chance to get the informa- tion on the affidavits for Pharmacare for me?

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6781 Hon. C. Hansen: Ye s, we do have that. As of M ay 11, there have been 1,011,813 families registered. As the member will know, one consent form is required per family of those one million families. Of the ones we sent out for pre-registration, these were individuals who had been on premium assistance previously, so we automatically enrolled them in the program be- cause we already had that information. We then had to send out the consent forms for their verification. Of those 442,000 families, we have re- ceived consent forms back for 294,000.

There was unde- liverable mail for 49,000, so we are still waiting for the return of 99,000 for those individuals. Those are not necessarily all that would be in a po- sition to benefit from the Fair Pharmacare financial assistance. It may be that those overwhelmingly who need that assistance are, in fact, in there with their con- sent forms already returned. Of the other non–premium assistance registrations, we have 569,721 families registered. There were mail-in registrations which come in with the consent forms attached to them numbering 106,000.

In addition to that, we've already received back consent forms from 182,000, so we're awaiting return of about 277,000 con- sent forms from those families. W h a t I w a n t t o u n d e r s c o r e i s t h a t w h e n a f a m i l y registers, whether they register through the website, whether they register by the phone systems or whether they're the ones who were previously on premium assistance who we automatically registered, those families automatically get benefits. We don't wait for the consent forms to come back in before they get their eligibility.

We are certainly pleased with the response we have to date, particularly when you take into consideration that many of the families for whom we are waiting for consent forms in fact signed up in the last stages of April. Actually, I've just had this highlighted for me…. I'm going to have to figure out exactly what that meant, but I think the information that I gave to date summarizes what the member's question was from the other day. [1505] Introductions by Members P. Wong: I'm pleased to introduce guests in the gallery. Joining us today is Mr.

Johnny Fong, philan- thropist and also organizer of the Better Community Partnership Outreach Network. Together there's Dr. Joseph Hui, Mr. Albert Fok, Ian Cheung, Chris Chung, Albert Tsang and Zi Fu Zhang. Would the House please give them a most warm welcome. Debate Continued J. Kwan: The numbers that the minister gave indi- cate that there is chaos and confusion with the Phar- macare system. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are not yet registered. They have actually not been registered onto the Pharmacare program.

Yet the minister says: "Don't worry; everything will be fine." Just to note the issues that people take, let me read onto the record a letter — not from a constituent of my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings or myself — in terms of how they feel about the Pharmacare program. I would like the minister to respond to this document. It reads: "I'm tired of being lied to about how much all these damn changes are benefiting me and my family. My wife and I are self-employed after being downsized by corporate Canada. We've been hit by substantial drug costs this year, mostly because of my wife's heart problems.

We are not seniors, and we do not have any employment benefits, being self-employed. "We estimate our drug costs will be $1,700 this year on a net family income of $43,000. I went and checked the StatsCan figures for median family income in British Columbia, and it is about $56,000 per year. We're well below that, so we're well into the bottom half of family income in B.C. "Our drug costs will go up by $300 — period, end of story. Our deductible will rise from $1,000 to $1,300. For them to say that this will decrease drug costs for lower- and middle-income British Columbians is a lie, pure and simple.

Are they counting on the fact that so many people have extended benefits and really don't care less about this? We feel we are being nickel-and-dimed into the poorhouse by these endless fees and tax increases. We have our spending under control except for what the provincial government is doing to us." For the protection of the individual, I'm not going to say who the individual is. I would like the minister to respond, because the minister continuously says how the Pharmacare program benefits people, when in reality it doesn't.

Here's an example of one individual and his family, where he's saying that he's actually getting hurt by this government's new policies. Hon. C. Hansen: To speak to the specific example that the member has raised — a family that has an an- nual income of $43,000 a year — under the old Phar- macare plan they would have faced an annual maxi- mum ceiling for their drug expenditures of $2,000. Un- der the new Fair Pharmacare program that maximum ceiling actually comes down by $250 to $1,750. J. Kwan: I'm going to yield the floor to the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

He wishes to have the floor for about ten minutes. I'll follow up with my questions with the minister in a few moments. K. Manhas: I appreciate the member yielding the floor. I just have a series of questions to ask. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time, but…. Interjection. K. Manhas: No? I yield the floor back, and I will ask the questions at the appropriate time. Thanks. The Chair: Member, proceed, if you have some questions. Member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, proceed, please. K. Manhas: Thanks, Mr. Chair. I've been speaking with the Fraser health authority regarding their plans

6782 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 to more fully utilize the Eagle Ridge Hospital. Eagle Ridge is a state-of-the-art facility that provides service to the 200,000 people in our burgeoning Tri-Cities area and beyond. For years since it opened, it's remained underused, and large areas of the hospital have never been opened. I understand the FHA will be looking to provide more services at Eagle Ridge and more fully utilize the potential of the hospital in the years ahead. As the area grows, the need for these services continues to grow. Utilizing the Eagle Ridge Hospital fully just makes sense.

Residents in the Tri-Cities who've worked so hard to build and support the hospital will receive the care they need close to home. Patients will be the win- ners, and B.C. taxpayers win from their investment in this wonderful modern facility. I'd like to ask the min- ister if he will urge the health authority to follow through on that plan to fully utilize the Eagle Ridge Hospital facility. [1510] Hon. C. Hansen: For those who are trying to follow the debate, we're going to try to work through with the Pharmacare discussion, and then we may get on to some of these other issues.

Just to give the member a quick response to that particular issue, we are looking throughout the whole province at how we best utilize the hospitals we have. In the past we had a system where every hospital w a s t r y i n g t o b e a n i s l a n d u n t o i t s e l f , a n d w e w e r e lacking the interconnectivity among our hospitals so that we could best make sure that patient needs were met. Certainly, Eagle Ridge is a hospital that has tre- mendous capacity, and when we look at the communi- ties that are serviced in the immediate area of Eagle Ridge Hospital, we see some tremendous population growth.

Certainly, the Fraser health authority is looking at how it can best organize the delivery of services so that residents in those communities get access to timely care and effective care and that we also make the best use of those available facilities. That is part of the plan that is being rolled out. K. Manhas: I will ask the rest of my questions when the minister has finished with debate on Phar- macare. J. Kwan: I'm sorry. Maybe the minister can give his response again to the letter I read onto the record, and then we can start from there. There was just a bit of confusion prior to that. Hon. C.

Hansen: I guess the member, before she read that letter, was making the point about the thou- sands of B.C. families that are not yet registered under t h e F a i r P h a r m a c a r e p r o g r a m . I k n o w w e d i d h a v e a chance to review that with her colleague the other day. Basically, there are about 1.6 million families in British Columbia, and we know that the majority of families will not have either income levels low enough or pre- scription costs high enough to put them in a category that would make them eligible for financial assistance under Fair Pharmacare.

We expect there are going to be many families who will make a decision not to register for Fair Pharmacare until such time as they need those benefits. We have set up a system where they can register very quickly if t h e y s h o u l d w i n d u p w i t h u n f o r e s e e n o r u n e x p e c t e d costs that would put them into that range. But to answer the member's specific question — the example she raised with the family that had an income of $43,000 — under the old Pharmacare system they would be facing an annual ceiling of $2,000 before Pharmacare would have clicked in with 100 percent benefits.

Under the new Fair Pharmacare program they would in fact hit a ceiling at $1,750 a year. Then after that point, they would not have to pay anything under Fair Pharmacare. So in fact, the annual maximum they would have to pay for their benefits decreases under Fair Pharmacare by about $250 a year. J. MacPhail: Is the minister having a chance to clar- ify…? Perhaps the minister could tell me how the cor- respondence is going with individual citizens writing in about Pharmacare. I know the opposition has re- ceived…. Well, it was hundreds of letters a few weeks ago. It's probably well over the thousand mark now.

I'm wondering whether the minister could update us on how his correspondence branch is going to clarify all of this so that if indeed, as he claims, this fellow has this information wrong, he's getting it straightened out. How quickly are those letters being answered? Hon. C. Hansen: The member may have had the same experience when she was Minister of Health, but the correspondence that comes into my office always staggers me when I see the numbers.

I'm told it's in the range of about 16,000 letters a year that come in specifi- cally addressed to me, and I know that the four Health ministers combined actually get more correspondence than the Premier does. I'm not sure what that means, but keeping up with that is indeed a challenge. What we found with the Fair Pharmacare program is that we were getting some letters from people that were concerned, and we're trying to get answers and information back to them as quickly as we can. What we have found is that most people are actually phon- ing in for information.

I fully appreciate that there was a period of time in late April when it was extremely challenging to get through on the phone lines.

We are now over that hump, and people, generally speaking, can get a timely response to their telephone inquiries. [1515] In addition to that, one of the things we're doing in the ministry — because it is much more time-sensitive — is when we receive a letter on a particular subject like Fair Pharmacare, for example, someone in the min- istry will actually phone that person back and provide them verbally with the information they need and give them an opportunity to ask subsequent questions. We are trying to get back to them on a timely basis.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6783 I know there are some letters that come in that are very complex and do require a fair amount of work in order to get a substantial response back to them. I know there are times when I'm signing replies to letters that are sometimes over two months old, but we're trying to make them the exceptions. J.

Kwan: For the person who sent the opposition the letter with his concern around the Pharmacare costs, if he and his family in fact got it wrong, I'd like the minister to please provide a name and contact so that we could provide the individual with the contact information so that he can get his information straight- ened out and make sure he's not paying more than he should be. Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, if the member would want to forward that letter to me, I would be pleased to have a very specific response to that individual's par- ticular family circumstance.

Just to repeat what I said before: with a family income of $43,000 a year for a non-senior family, under the old plan they would have been paying a maximum of $2,000 a year for their drug costs. Under Fair Pharmacare that comes down by $250. If they wanted to check that out, they could go into the calculator that is on our website, and they could actually punch in their own family numbers to get that information. J. Kwan: I appreciate that information, but I would also like to have a contact name and number for the individual.

Should I advise the individual that he should be contacting the deputy so that he can get his situation straightened out? Hon. C. Hansen: If he dials the 1-800 number, that'll save him the long distance costs — 1-800-387- 4977 — and he can certainly get that information veri- fied. J. Kwan: I was actually hoping for more of a direct and personal approach to the individual. These are people who are actually having difficulties with the system, as the minister knows. The 1-800 number is just a general number for people to sign on.

I would much prefer — and I would assume that the individual who's written to us with his concerns and problems and chal- lenges would want — someone who can respond to him directly and not sort of be routed through a 1-800 number. Hon. C. Hansen: If the member would like to pro- vide me with his telephone number, I would actually undertake to call him personally myself. J.

Kwan: I will certainly check with the individual t o m a k e s u r e h e ' s o k a y o n t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i s s u e , which is why I'm asking for the number so that the individual can touch base with the minister as opposed to providing the information. But I am assuming, given that the minister is prepared to phone the individual, that the person can actually phone the minister, then, in that case so that the logic flows either way. I will follow up on that accordingly. Hon. C.

Hansen: The member was a former mem- ber of executive council, and I'm sure she appreciates how complex life is when people try to phone in to reach the minister. I don't know how to facilitate this, but if she wants to get the individual's permission to pass that information to me, I would make a commit- ment to the member that I will call that person. J. MacPhail: Here's a further twist on the minister suggesting that once you've got premium assistance, everything is okay. People are finding it hard to get their premium assistance applications approved. Let me read this letter into the record.

It was from a few weeks ago. We received it at the end of last month. It's to the ministry. This is about Pharmacare. "Enclosed is my consent form. I have completed my application on-line. However, I have two problems with the information I was able to submit on the application.

(1) It stated that anyone on MSP premium assistance would automatically be eligible for full Pharmacare coverage." Just as an aside, that's what the minister's saying, and everything just flows smoothly from that. Well, I carry on with this letter: "I have had my application in for assistance since the end of 2002. When I contacted MSP about the application in February, I was told that they were still working on applications from July of 2002 and that mine would not be approved for many months. Therefore, I was unable to claim on the Fair Pharmacare on-line form that I was on premium assistance, but I'm sure I will be eventually. [1520] "

(2) The amount of Pharmacare assistance is based on the previous year's income, but there is an inherent inequality about that. Ditto for MSP premium assistance ― that is, for some of us the income includes taxable child support if our agreements were made before 1997. This makes our income appear to be much more than that of our counterparts, who have basically the same income, but the child support is non-taxable.

"As we are giving our consent for you to check the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency filings, surely the report you get from them could be total income less child support, regardless of whether or not it is taxable. This would create equality for all applicants. "If your response were that I just need to apply to the courts to have the child support non-taxable, you would be right ― sort of ― but I have had such an application before the courts since 2001 and as yet have had no ruling due to a tragedy of errors within the family court system. So please do not dismiss this issue with that remedy.

Just make the income you calculate for MSP and 'Fair' Pharmacare not include any form of child support. It is just one line on the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency tax forms and will require a few lines of code in a computer program to do that calculation." Hon. C. Hansen: Thank you, and I know we had visited this briefly the other day when we started the estimates process, but the use of line 236 is actually something that was started around the premium assis-

6784 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 tance application system. That calculation of net in- come is not something we as a province do, but it is, in fact, something that's determined by the federal gov- ernment on their tax forms. So it does include some other outside revenue sources, but it also includes some expenses. I know one of the expenses that is in- cluded, before you get to line 236, is authorized child care expenses that could be deducted.

I want to come back to the point the member made at the start of that question, and that was around whether or not an individual who had ap- plied for premium assistance but that had not yet been processed…. They would not have wound up as an automatic registrant in the Fair Pharmacare pro- gram, but the fact that individual phoned into Fair Pharmacare means they could actually register right then. So the fact that somebody was eligible for pre- mium assistance doesn't preclude them from the ability to do an on-line registration or a phone registration.

In fact, many premium assistance recipients have done that — just phone and confirm that they are registered. There's certainly no disadvantage to the individual ― the fact that he duplicated what would not have been necessary if his premium assistance application had already been processed. J. MacPhail: What is the backlog with MSP applica- tions for premium assistance? [1525] Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, the processing of documents and correspondence generally, and things like registration of births, have been a big challenge for us in the MSP.

Just a snapshot in time: as of March 3 there were 13,000 premium assistance applications that would h a v e b e e n p e n d i n g . I s h o u l d n o t e t h a t i n t h a t b r a n c h , we give top priority to processing premium assistance applications, and we also give top priority to things like birth registrations and that. There are other things that do take a much longer period of time. I know the example that the member cited where it was taking months — that does happen. Sometimes there is addi- tional information that is required before an applica- tion can be processed.

One of the things we are doing is to try to deal with this backlog in a more effective way. One of the things that we did, for example, was implement a call centre. We went out for a request for proposal and got a firm that was going to field calls, provide information on the MSP side of it and also help speed up the process- ing of documentation. I'm the first one to admit that that is a part of the ministry that continues to be a big challenge for us, and we are certainly taking the steps to try to make sure that the processing of that informa- tion is done in a more timely fashion in the future. J.

MacPhail: It is with a sense of frustration that I rise again to make my point about why the ministry didn't first of all take on the pharmaceutical companies or try to reduce drug costs before they took on British Columbians in this "Fair" Pharmacare program that is in…. I mean, I know the minister does a yeoperson's job of trying to sell that everything is fine, but it isn't. We have chaos in the Fair Pharmacare system, and the drug companies are sitting out there not being ad- dressed at all in terms of lowering their drug costs. The government hasn't done a thing with the Morfitt re- port.

The government doesn't even know whether it has asked the drug companies to invest in British Co- lumbia in research. Yet we're proceeding holus-bolus on this Fair Pharmacare program. From the numbers I've heard, there are hundreds of thousands — almost 100,000 people under the pre- mium assistance program and several hundred thou- sand people on the non–premium assistance program — who haven't put in their affidavits yet.

Over 300,000 — in fact, well over 300,000 as I calculated the number — families do not have affidavits in yet, so there's go- ing to be a whole backlog and retroactivity that's going t o h a v e t o b e a b s o r b e d i n t e r m s o f c a l c u l a t i n g p a y - ments under Pharmacare. We have a backlog in even the applications for premium assistance, as the minister has just admitted. That's a backlog. That's not even someone who is applying for premium assistance as we look forward.

It is not working, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out and have not received an adequate answer from this government about why they chose to go after citizens before they chose to go after the drug compa- nies. Let me read this letter that was sent several weeks ago and received last month from a constituent of the member from Dewdney-Alouette riding. It's a three- page letter, and I'm not going to read it into the record. However, the minister was copied on it. I am not going to editorialize, but I will edit to make the point.

"Dear Sir: "What is compelling the government of B.C. to come down so hard on retirees and pensioners? This family alone has found out today" — it's dated March 19 — "that we will go from $275 deductible to $1,500, not because we can afford it on our pension but because of net assets showing on our tax form. "My husband already pays $75 per month for non-prescription drugs such as vitamin program and lactase-based pills for a condition in which he can not take dairy products and eggs without being violently ill, and those aren't covered by a medical plan.

After he retired, he was diagnosed with diabetes, which aided in a heart condition that is being rectified with vitamins and the use of a heart attack preventative medication. [1530] "We stretched our budget to provide the $275 deductible imposed on us at the beginning of this year, but how we cover medications to the $1,500 deductible is beyond our comprehension. Please don't say I should have saved for our old age, as my husband's wages, though carefully budgeted and well earned with continual upgrades and exams, didn't aspire to leftover money for savings.

"Do you think my husband retired without viewing all his options? For two years we attended pension seminars, heard our options, knew our benefit programs

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6785 and made the decision to retire on a tight budget. In two years, because of your hard policies against this group of people, I have seen our pension plans chiselled away with now no dental coverage, 50 percent medical services premiums to pay, extended health deductible increased, the maximum allowance doubled and now an income- based Pharmacare program taken on previous income earned.

"What arrogance to say that if you were born in 1939 and before, you are a pensioner and entitled to the senior Pharmacare program, but born in 1940 and beyond, you are not and never will be classified as a senior for this program. Whether you are born in 1939, 1940, 1945 or 1960 and beyond, once you reach the age of 65, according to all government departments, provincial or federal, you are classified as a senior.

"How can you call it a Fair Pharmacare program when, for example, two people who are already retired and earning more than $30,000 but less than $33,000 a year — one born in 1939 and the other in 1940 — are being treated differently in that the person born in 1939, when he becomes 65, will be classified under the seniors Pharmacare program and will have a zero family deductible and a 1.25 percent family maximum of net income, and the other person when he/she becomes 65 will have a family deductible of 3 percent of net income and a family maximum of 4 percent of net income because they are denied access to the senior Fair Pharmacare program?

What is the fairness in that?" It goes on for several more pages. I just want to reassure the minister. I want to ask the question about the 1939 versus 1940 as a result of this letter, but the minister can be reassured that this couple got the accu- rate calculations of what they now owe under the pro- gram. Hon. C. Hansen: I appreciate the example to give me an opportunity to respond to that. When the mem- ber started that particular question, she was talking about why we're doing nothing to reduce drug costs.

I should point out to the member, as she knows, that drug costs for brand-name drugs in Canada are actu- ally not set by the provincial government. They are set by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is a federal body that actually establishes the prices. As a r e s u l t o f t h a t , w e i n C a n a d a d o h a v e t h e b e n e f i t o f prices that are significantly lower than what our neighbours to the south pay as a result of that pricing regime. I wrote this down. She says: "Why do we go after citizens instead of the drug companies?" We're not go- ing after citizens.

What we're doing is actually provid- ing a system which will see 282,000 families in British Columbia pay less than they were paying under their previous plan. But I want to come to the specific example she raised, because when she talks about how that senior couple was paying $275 deductible before, that's $275 each. So about $550 is what they would have been pay- ing as their ceiling for the two of them before. Rather than having an individual deductible, we're now going to a family deductible so that regardless of who has the higher drug consumption, it can go towards achieving that deductible.

She also mentioned — she quoted in the letter — that this family was facing a new deductible of $1,500. Well, that would put them in an income category of between $72,500 a year and $77,500 a year. That's the income category for seniors that would result in them being faced with a deductible of $1,500 a year. I should point out to the member that the average income, the median income, for a senior in British Columbia is about $23,000 a year. Some people have asked us: why did we pick $33,000 as the threshold at which the amount that a senior household would pay goes to a different cate- gory?

The reason is that at $33,000 a year, you're actu- ally capturing 69 percent of British Columbia senior families that earn $33,000 or less. In fact, the numbers for non-senior families just came out yesterday with the StatsCan numbers. It shows, I think, that in British Columbia we're now up to about $54,000 a year for the average income for a family. [1535] Under this new Fair Pharmacare system, most sen- ior couples, families, earning $33,000 a year or less will see more financial assistance. The maximum they will pay per year will, in fact, come down.

The same can be said for non-senior families earning up to about $50,000 a year. They will also see greater financial assistance under Fair Pharmacare because the maximum they pay will come down. J. MacPhail: Well, I guess the member from Dewdney-Alouette can decide whether that satisfies his constituent's complaint. Interjections. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry? Well, I'm reading from a letter from the constituent. I'm not allowed to say the member's name. He sits right there. It's his constituent that I'm reading the letter from, and we'll see whether that satisfies them or not.

I would just perhaps advise the minister of this. While he throws figures out about how fair this is, I haven't had one person — not one person — say to me: "Isn't this better?" Not one. I read a letter into the record from a senior coming in from…. Interjection. J. MacPhail: Thank you. I'm sorry; the riding is Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I read the letter into the record from the woman from the seniors organization, in the Kelowna Daily Courier, say- ing that some of her fellow seniors are prone to complain- ing — but other than that, no.

So I guess this minister or this government or these MLAs sitting here, as I read their constituents' letters into the record, can decide whether the minister's answers satisfy that or not. I will tell you these are people who know they're worse off. I suspect, although it doesn't say here, that

6786 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 these may be public employees. The letter I just read may be public employees who paid a great deal in terms of the work conditions to get pension benefits, who gave up a great deal in other areas to get their pension benefits and are now having them eroded away over and over by this government. That's what it sounds like to me. This minister stands up and says, I guess: "If there are two retirees who have a pension, they're considered rich." That's what he's doing.

The very rich in this prov- ince, because of this government, needed to get richer — according to the government. Those at the high end needed to get a huge tax break, and they worked real hard to make that happen the first day they were in office. But the public service pensioners need to be brought down to the average, I guess, across Canada. So that shows where this government's priorities are. This will be my last one on Pharmacare, because it's not a particularly satisfying exercise.

Those who have had their letters read into the record have communi- cated with me that the work that was done a couple of days ago was not satisfactory at all. Of course, given t h e l i m i t e d t i m e w e h a v e h e r e , I h a v e t o p a c e m y s e l f . There are so many issues. Here's one. It's from Victoria. "The seniors Fair Pharmacare program family deductible is based on line 236, net income, of your 2001 income tax return. That gives our family of two a 1 percent deductible putting us in the mid-range income bracket.

In 2002 the percentage of payments for our drugs, including fees, worked out like this. Pharmacare paid 37.5 percent; however, Pharmacare did not cover 62.5 percent of our drugs. They were paid by Pacific Blue Cross, our extended health benefit program, at 50 percent, leaving us to pay 12.5 percent. "Under the new proposal with the seniors Fair Pharmacare and using the same drug costs for 2002, the scenario changes. Pharmacare, which now has a deductible and still won't cover 62.5 percent of the drugs, now would pay 15.5 percent.

Pacific Blue Cross now also has a deductible, and it would pay 40 percent, leaving us to pay out two deductibles plus the remainder of the cost, which is equal to 44.5 percent. [1540] "What kind of a Pharmacare program do we have if 62.5 percent of our drugs are not covered, and we end up paying more on our deductibles between the two plans?" Hon. C. Hansen: I was busily trying to scribble down those numbers as she was reading them off, and I suddenly realized I was coming to well over 100 per- cent. I did get a bit lost in terms of the calculations there.

Just to respond in a general sense, for individuals that have third-party insurance programs that doesn't change, they still get the benefit of those third-party insurance programs. Clearly, we know that's going to be a challenge for some of those third-party insurers, because for some of their members they will, in fact, see Fair Pharmacare picking up a greater share. For example, any family that's earning under $50,000 a year, as I mentioned earlier.

For an employee that has a third-party insurance plan and that's earning over $50,000 a year, there may be more that the third- party insurer is going to have to pay. I guess those families that do have extended health have that benefit of having their third-party insurer pick up at least a major portion of their drug costs until Fair Pharmacare clicks in. I think we've got to back up a little bit and just look at what Pharmacare is all about, whether it's the old Pharmacare program or the new Fair Pharmacare pro- gram.

What it's about is not saying that the provincial government is going to pay for all their prescription costs. No province could afford to do that in this coun- try. What we want to be able to do is recognize, first of all, that prescriptions are a necessary part of a good health care system and make it so that families can get access to the medications they need based on their abil- ity to pay. For lower-income families we want to provide more financial assistance. For higher-income families that have more ability to pay, we expect that they will pick up a greater percentage of their costs.

If those higher-income families have the additional benefit of having a third-party insurer, then that's all the more benefit for them. The Fair Pharmacare program, as far as I'm concerned, is exactly that, and it's fair. I also wanted to comment on the member's point about the letters she gets and the conversations she's had — that she's had nobody talk about Fair Phar- macare being fair. That actually reminds me of my days in opposition. You tend to get letters from people who look at the world as where the glass is half empty.

I think in this case, if they really want to look at Fair Pharmacare, they're going to find that that glass is 98 percent full and maybe 2 percent empty. Hopefully, we can still keep trying to address the 2 percent to make sure that it is indeed fair for everybody. J. MacPhail: Well, isn't it interesting that the minis- ter says that some things may not change because peo- ple have third-party insurance? He's wrong on that again as well. Let's be clear. It's not like people are going to be paying less for their drugs. The Fair Pharmacare isn't reducing the cost of drugs. They're just shifting who pays for it.

This government hasn't done anything to tackle the cost of drugs, but they've gotten out of the business of covering it, out of their share of it, so pri- vate insurers have to pick up a cost. Believe you me, private insurers are going to be back at the table negotiating whatever contracts they have with employers to say: "Sorry. Either your premi- ums are going to go up for that coverage, or else you're going to have less coverage." That's exactly what they're doing. Every third-party insurer, private in- surer, is doing that right now.

I'm well aware of British Columbians having access to their MLAs to raise their concerns about government policy. I'm well aware that because there are two of us and 75 of the government, perhaps my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I get more than we would normally get as individual MLAs. But it isn't

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6787 just that the good people are remaining silent. It simply isn't that at all. [1545] We will get to the stage of talking about the overall well-being of seniors in this province as it relates to their Pharmacare costs, their access to nursing homes, home care, etc., — all sorts of things. In the opposition we don't have time to indulge in terms of raising issues that are negative just for the sake of being negative. I have to move on now to the issue of privatization in our health system.

It is my view that it looks like health privatization is going to result in the layoffs of thousands of skilled and experienced health care workers over the next few months. This is even in the context of the recent renegotiations. The government has argued that the health authori- ties need more flexibility, that workers are overpaid compared to the national average and that government is "not in the laundry business." On the basis of that, these Liberals have torn up collective agreements, and then that allowed for paving the way for mass layoffs and privatization.

But I have yet to see this government make a case for health care privatization. Any aspects of the health services have yet to see a case made for privatization, and that's what I want to explore now. I haven't seen the government produce any evidence that such a policy would be cost-effective and would improve patient care. In fact, I would say they haven't proved that it would be cost-effective or improve pa- tient care. One or the other would be a start, but neither has been proven by this government. Actually, I would say that the early adventures into privatization have been stunningly deficient.

The pro- vincial health services authority cancelled a housekeep- ing contract for the new building at the Children's and Women's Hospital with A&A Laundry Ltd. just weeks after it was awarded. K-Bro Linen Systems was awarded a ten-year contract for hospital laundry in the Fraser Valley. They haven't particularly been compliant with a good-quality product — washing soiled birthing linens in domestic-grade machines in a seniors care facility, for instance.

There are major requests for proposals pending — I think they're still pending; the minister can correct me — for security, housekeeping and food services in the lower mainland and in the Fraser Valley. I assume they're still pending because we haven't heard any- thing, but we anticipate that those contracts will be awarded over the next few days and weeks. Let me begin exploring this topic by asking whether the ministry has carried out or contracted for any research, economic impact studies or best practices surveys.

Have they generated any other reports or analyses that support privatization of health services as leading to either greater cost-effectiveness or improved patient care? Hon. C. Hansen: I think the first thing I want to point out is really very important, and that's that this government is not privatizing the delivery of health care services in this province. We have certainly had requests from some of the health authorities that they be allowed to look at some of the clinical services that could be shifted over to the private sector — surgical services, for example.

We've said we don't have a prob- lem with that, providing it's publicly funded, it's within the context of the Canada Health Act and it is more cost-effective than could be provided in our pub- licly owned facilities. [1550] So far there have really been no initiatives that have been undertaken in that regard, because I think when you start getting down to it, the economics of it aren't there for most services. There may be some examples that will come forward in the future, but certainly to date there has not been any privatization of the delivery of health care services.

If there is some in the future, it's on the margins. We're not talking about any kind of a significant shift at all from what British Columbians are used to, and certainly not away from what British Co- lumbians expect, and that is that they get access to their medically necessary health care services in a manner that is fully funded by the government. We have, of course, gone to look at some of the sup- p o r t s e r v i c e s t h a t w e r e q u i r e .

I n t h e p a s t w e h a v e c e r - tainly rented commercial space in order to house ser- vices that are provided, and we contract that from the private sector. We are now looking at how we can pro- vide services such as landscaping around our health care facilities, security services — in some cases the health authorities are looking at laundry services, as the mem- ber mentioned — and housekeeping services. It's not driven by any kind of a philosophical desire to shift from the current system as we have known it to one where these support services are all contracted out.

It is saying, "How can we get the best value for each and every dollar that we have in the health budget?" — because every dollar that we save, when it comes to providing these support services, is a dollar that we can make sure gets redirected into direct patient care. This is a process that is certainly open on the part of the health authorities. They've gone out with a tender- ing process around this, and that is an open and trans- parent process.

The bottom line is that if it doesn't wind up with cost savings, the health authorities are not under any obligation to go down that road — cer- tainly not by any directive from this government. The member will know that the Hospital Employ- ees Union has approached government with a proposal around how some of those cost savings can be realized i n w a y s t h a t m a y a t l e a s t r e d u c e t h e n u m b e r o f p o s i - tions that may have been otherwise contracted out. The member knows that is currently out for ratification. We'll see what happens when those votes get counted. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry.

My question was around research about this direction leading to greater cost- effectiveness — not ideological. I'm not asking ideo- logical questions; I'm asking practical questions. This trend, just as the minister describes what he is doing…. What research does he have to show greater cost- effectiveness going in that direction or greater patient

6788 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 care? FOI requests to the minister came back filled with not a shred of evidence that any studies or analysis had been done. Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, there has been a lot of analysis done. We have certainly looked at the experi- ence in other jurisdictions across Canada that do con- tract out a range of support services.

We have also looked at what some of the cost struc- tures are, comparing British Columbia with other prov- inces across Canada on what the support services cost on an hourly wage basis and also the benefit package that support workers realize in British Columbia com- pared to all of those other jurisdictions. When you start to look at that research, what it shows is that our cost structure in British Columbia is about 30 percent higher than the Canadian average, and it's about 20 percent higher than the next most generous province.

There has also been work done that I have seen — we didn't commission it — which compares the cost of support services in our health sector to support ser- vices in other sectors. I think some health care workers come back with a legitimate argument that you can't compare apples and oranges between the health sector and the hospitality sector, but certainly we've looked at some of the research that's been done in that area. All of these things have led us to the conclusion that we can get much better value for the taxpayer when it comes to providing those support services.

We don't have to go out and commission some three-year study. We know that the cost savings are there. They will be realized by an open and transparent process of inviting competitive bids. We've even invited the un- ions to submit bids, and my understanding is that in some cases there have been bids coming in from union members in the province in response to some of these RFPs. J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the minister keeps referring to unions. I'm making the case here…. He has a relationship with the HEU and the unions BCNU and HSA.

I'm asking these questions on behalf of patients. [1555] Is the minister somehow suggesting that if this government pays reduced wages, that's more cost ef- fective? There's a difference between actually provid- ing cost-effective services and paying lower wages. That's what I'm asking the minister for: what studies does he have to show that the cost of providing house- keeping services in other jurisdictions, while they may pay lower wages, is more cost-effective? That's all I'm asking. There are contractors in between. FOI requests came up with zero studies to show that. Hon. C.

Hansen: Our review of the circumstances in other provinces is that there is quality service pro- vided around those support services in other prov- inces, whether it's within their in-house staff that provide those support services or whether they are contracted-out services. That is, what is key are the performance guarantees that are put in place to make sure we get quality service for what the taxpayers are paying.

Whether an individual is working in a private company that is contracting a service to government or whether government directly employs those individu- als does not in itself dictate whether you get a quality service on behalf of the taxpayers. [K. Stewart in the chair.] What we are saying is that we want quality service — and we're not going to compromise that — and we want to get it in the most cost-effective manner possible to en- sure that taxpayers get the best value for their dollar. J. MacPhail: My question was about what studies or analyses he has to prove that point.

If the minister has those analyses and studies, how come FOI requests turned up nothing — not a shred of evidence — to that effect? Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not aware of what FOI re- quests may have come in, in this regard. But if an FOI request came in, asking for studies we have undertaken with the specific focus the member talked about, we haven't undertaken studies. We've done a review of experience in other jurisdictions and learned from that analysis. Let's use an example.

If we have a hospital some- where in British Columbia, and it goes out and hires staff on its payroll to provide a landscaping service to keep the lawns mowed and the gardens tended in front of the hospital, I don't need an expensive government study to tell me that if we go out with an open tender- ing process where there are competitive bids — the existing employees may bid on that, or some new group of employees may bid on that — we will find out from that process whether or not we can get better value for the taxpayers. If we can, then the dollar saved can be redirected into direct patient care. J.

MacPhail: It is so disi ngenuous for this minister to get up, as he's done for the last two years, and use the issue of landscaping and contracting out. That's like 0.01 percent of the health care budget. But he likes to do that, because it meets the nod test to the public: "Oh yeah. Anybody can cut grass." Well, duh. But he uses that to justify the hundreds of millions of other dollars he's planning to contract out and privatize. It's just completely disingenuous for the minister to keep standing up and doing that. But he does it, and no one except the opposition challenges him.

By the way, there were FOI requests, exactly as I asked the minister in this estimates debate, and they came back with zilch in terms of the ministry having any studies, any analysis or any best practices surveys that would support the direction the government's going in. [1600] Now, the ministry service plan lays out successive but not defined percentage cuts at the health authority

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6789 level to both administration and support services. Some of the performance agreements that occurred between the government and the health authorities set that cut at 7 percent. Could the minister tell me what proportion of those cuts will be borne by health care executives/administration and what portion will be paid for by the support service workers? Hon. C. Hansen: The 7 percent reduction in ad- ministration costs that the member refers to does not refer to support services at all.

That is entirely within the administration and administration support budg- ets. J. MacPhail: So there will be a cut of 7 percent in administration costs across the health authorities? And what will that affect? What happens with that cut? What's the effect of it? Hon. C. Hansen: The 7 percent reduction in ad- ministration costs will take place over the three-year period. So we're now about a year into that process since we first announced it.

It's around the areas of finance, human resources, payroll costs, and a lot of those savings are actually driven by the fact that we've reduced the number of health authorities from 52, which were in place before, to the six health authorities that we have currently. That has allowed us to streamline the way things get done. It allows us to use technology in a better way, and as a result, we anticipate there will be savings in the range of about 7 percent. J. MacPhail: Well, we've had the six authorities for over a year now. What have been the administrative savings? Hon. C.

Hansen: I am advised that all of the health authorities are on track to meeting their 7 percent re- duction over that three-year period. The fiscal year for the health authorities ended at March 31, and we are still waiting for their final wrap-up numbers. Part of their performance review that we will be undertaking when we get those finalized year-end statements is to be certain they are, in fact, achieving those goals. I'm advised that all of the health authorities are well on track and have no concerns that they'll be able to reach the 7 percent target. J.

MacPhail: Well, what has happened to executive compensation, for instance? I know in my own health authority, a couple of VPs were fired, given big sever- ance packages, and the new people replacing them earned even more. So what's happening with executive compensation? Then another issue…. I would be hard-pressed in the Vancouver coastal health authority to understand where the administration costs are coming from, given public reports. Public reports show that VPs are fired — at least two, with big severance packages — and their replacements are paid even more.

There's a huge communications shop in the Fraser health authority. You know, we have a situation where the Fraser health authority has paid out severance, but they also have a ten-person communications shop. There's a huge number of executive hires in the provincial health services authority. So perhaps the minister could reassure all of us, who may be fearmon- g e r i n g b y j u s t n o t i c i n g o n t h e s u r f a c e w h a t ' s h a p p e n - ing, by giving me specifics on the cuts in administra- tive costs. Are there limits, for instance, on what one can pay for communications? [1605] Hon. C.

Hansen: You know, this actually is driven by the fact that we had 52 health authorities in the past, and those 52 health authorities were reorganized into five regional health authorities in the province. Where we had 52 CEOs in the past, we now needed five CEOs for those regional health authorities. So there were some good people who were working hard for the health care system in this province, who became re- dundant through that process. They were terminated, and they were paid severance in accordance with their contracts.

Even though some of those severance pay- ments seem high, they still wind up with a saving to the health care sector, and it is part of achieving that 7 percent goal. I'm glad the member mentioned the provincial health services authority, because that's the sixth health authority, and that's not regionally based. That pro- vides all of the very complex care and the tertiary and quaternary care for the entire province. That is a brand- new facility. It wasn't a case of sort of morphing one of the old health authorities into this new body.

Basically, all of the executive positions in the pro- vincial health services authority were, in fact, new hires because that entity didn't exist previously. You wound up with some of the agencies being moved in, but the executive level, under Lynda Cranston's immediate supervision, was newly hired to that provincial health services authority. The net result of this whole process is that you are going to see fewer executive staff in the health care system compared to the number of executive staff that we had when there were 52 different health authorities. J.

MacPhail: The minister is making that assertion without any evidence — zero evidence. I'm just asking for the evidence. That's what I'm here for. Show me the evidence. You said there's going to be less. Prove it. T

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0514pm-12
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0514pm 12
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	09ad5016cb02ae54472afc98c6d8aa30ec5ca5c7

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