2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

University Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 34)

Hon. M.

Coell

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle

Emissions Standards) Act (Bill 39)

Hon. B.

Penner

Residential Tenancy Act Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill M205)

Thorne

Lutheran Camp Concordia

(1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr402)

Cantelon

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Ed Chynoweth

Bennett

Ann Elmore Haig-Brown

Trevena

ActNow B.C.

I. Black

Heritage fair in Port Alberni

Fraser

Trees and Arbour Day events in

B.C.

M. Polak

Constituency assistants

Puchmayr

Oral Questions

Funding for post-secondary

education

C. James

Hon. M.

Coell

Funding for adult students with

special needs

C. James

Hon. M.

Coell

Puchmayr

Thorne

Funding for post-secondary

education

Fleming

Hon. M.

Coell

J. Kwan

Release of report on B.C. Place

roof

Macdonald

Hon. S.

Hagen

Tree farm licence land removals

on Vancouver Island

Routley

Hon. R.

Coleman

Community consultations with

Roundtable on Forestry

Trevena

Hon. R.

Coleman

Simpson

Second Reading of Bills

Medicare Protection Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 21) (continued)

Macdonald

Rustad

Trevena

Sultan

C. Wyse

Ralston

Sather

Chudnovsky

Horgan

Karagianis

Speaker's Statement

Rules for public bills in the

hands of private members

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Economic

Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative

and the Olympics (continued)

Kwan

Hon. C.

Hansen

Simpson

G. Coons

Trevena

J. Brar

Estimates: Ministry of Community

Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues

Hon. I.

Chong

C. Wyse

Trevena

Gentner

[ Page 11703 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2008

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have two guests in the gallery visiting today.

Many of the members in this Legislature will have heard me talk in glowing terms

about the James Bay Community Project and the good work it does in our community

as well as in primary health care.

Today in the gallery I have Hanne Fair, who is the executive

manager of community and family programs, and also the chair of the James Bay

Community Project board, who is involved in a number of activities. I think it's

fitting that she's here during Volunteer Week because this is someone who in

fact holds up the volunteer organizations in greater Victoria. She is a

community activist. She is someone who has provided incredible mentoring in

standing up for yourself to many people in our community as well as to me, in

particular. I would like to introduce my mom Mavis DeGirolamo.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Members of the House, today we have 45

federal and provincial senior tax officials visiting in British Columbia.

British Columbia is co-hosting this national meeting, and I would ask all

members of this House to make these officials welcome in British Columbia.

Hon. T. Christensen: It's my pleasure to welcome three

young people today who were good enough over the lunch hour to help launch a new

work experience and cultural exchange pilot program for aboriginal youth in our

province.

We are joined, firstly, by Stan Williams. Stan is a special

adviser on youth initiatives with the Ministry of Children and Family

Development, and he is coordinator of the ministry's Youth Advisory Council.

Joining Stan we have two very special guests, two of our

aboriginal interns who have been working with the ministry over the course of

this last year — firstly, Don Tom of the Saanich Nation and, secondly, Ellen

Newman of the Haida, Kwagiulth and Coast Salish nations. Both of them have been

doing excellent work building relationships between the ministry and first

nations. I would ask that the House please make all three of these young folks

very welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: This week we are celebrating National

Volunteer Week. In this province over one and a half million British Columbians

volunteer an average of almost 200 hours a year. I was pleased to host several

of these volunteers from Victoria in my office today for lunch, and they are now

seated in the gallery.

Accompanying Lori Elder of Volunteer Victoria are Norman Ellison,

Ted Simmons, Henry Minto, Derek Swallow, Helen Taylor, Barbara Dunahee, Kathy

Reid, Bruce Ingram, Flo-Elle Watson, Joseph Boutilier and Sylvia Bachop. Would

the House please join me in thanking them for their dedication to greater

Victoria, making it a vibrant, healthy community.

Also joining us today in the House is Rick Brant, who is the chief

executive officer of the Cowichan 2008 North American Indigenous Games host

society. With less than 100 days until the opening ceremonies, Rick and his team

are working hard to make the Cowichan games the largest and most successful

games to date. Would the House please join me in making him feel welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I'm pleased to introduce a class of

grade 5 students along with their teacher Mr. Chan and some parents, who are

touring the buildings and are now joining us for question period.

Among the students is one in particular that I'd like to

acknowledge, and that is the grandson of the Clerk of the House, Mr. MacMinn.

That's Grant Nicholson. I would ask the House to make Grant, his classmates, the

parents and teachers all welcome.

D. Routley: I would like to introduce to the House a

neighbour of mine. Nick Wade has come with me on a job shadow today. He's an

18-year-old high school student who was born about a year after my family moved

in down the street from his. His older sister and my daughter grew up together.

He's a very aware young man. He's very concerned about our

province, and he's come here to get a taste of what it's like in this building

and what it's like to see political process underway. I'd like the House to

please make him welcome to this place.

[1340]

I'd also like to join the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts

in welcoming Rick Brant to this House. He is the CEO of the NAIG games, and it

gives me one more opportunity to invite all these members to Cowichan this

summer for the 2008 North American Indigenous Games. It's going to be a

wonderful bridge between communities. Everyone is volunteering.

So to all the people of B.C., come to Cowichan this summer.

Hon. M. Coell: I have a number of guests joining us in the

Legislature today: from Capilano College, the president Greg Lee; from Emily

Carr Institute of Art and Design, their president Ron Burnett and chair George

Pedersen; from Kwantlen University College, Skip Triplett, their president; from

Malaspina University College, Ralph Nilson, their president, and Robin Kenyon,

their chair; from University College of the Fraser Valley, their president Skip

Bassford, their chair Rob Nicklom and his wife Orla.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal: I would like to introduce 140 students

accompanied by their teacher Chris Ascher from David Thompson Secondary School

in my riding. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

[ Page 11704 ]

Hon. B. Penner: Once upon a time I attended Sardis

Elementary School and had a teacher by the name of Mr. Adrian Stoutjesdyk. Today

he's the principal of Mount Cheam Christian School, and he's here with 23 of his

students doing a tour of the Legislature. I ask that the House please make them

all welcome.

R. Hawes: Joining the university presidents in the gallery

is the president of the University College of Fraser Valley Student Union, Mario

Miniaci. Could the House please make Mario welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. M. Coell presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled University Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 34, University

Amendment Act, 2008, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Coell: I'm pleased to be here today to speak about

the amendments to the University Act. This legislation paves the way for special

purpose teaching universities to be created in this province. It includes

amendments to the University Act, setting out the general mandate of a special

purpose teaching university.

These new institutions will focus on teaching excellence. They

will also conduct applied research and scholarly activities that support their

programs. The amendments allow special purpose teaching universities to be

designated by regulation, further defining the specific mandates and programming

of each institution as well as the region it serves.

The amendments will create a separate senate for each special

purpose teaching university. They also include a new process for appointing

university chancellors. Finally, the legislation includes amendments to ensure a

smooth transition to university status for these institutions.

Hon. Speaker, 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 34, University Amendment Act, 2008, 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.

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(VEHICLE EMISSIONS STANDARDS) ACT

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle

Emissions Standards) Act.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

[1345]

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 39, the

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act. This bill is a

component of the government's climate change strategy.

We took our first step in the fight against climate change with

the enactment of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act last November, setting

out targets to reduce British Columbia's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33

percent below 2007 levels by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act

will help us achieve those targets by putting in place vehicle greenhouse gas,

or GHG, emissions standards for new light-duty vehicles such as cars, SUVs and

minivans. These standards will be equivalent to those identified in the state of

California and will become more stringent for each model year until 2016.

When fully implemented in 2016, the standards will achieve a

reduction of personal vehicle GHG emissions of nearly 600,000 tonnes annually in

British Columbia. This amount is over and above the reduction expected from the

new vehicle fuel efficiency standards adopted nationally in the United States

and committed to as a new minimum by the Canadian federal government.

Compared to current voluntary fuel consumption standards in

Canada, this is a reduction of approximately one million tonnes annually in B.C.

in 2016. The standards will also translate into significant fuel cost savings

for British Columbian drivers.

In addition to setting GHG emissions standards for new vehicles,

the act will require larger vehicle manufacturers to include a percentage or set

number of zero emission vehicles in their fleets each year. This requirement

will be based on California's general approach and will target both GHG

emissions and air pollutants.

The act enables manufacturers to generate credits for vehicle GHG

emissions that more than meet the requirements. These credits will be

transferable between manufacturers and model year of fleets as a flexible

compliance approach, following California's model.

Mr. Speaker, 17 U.S. states have adopted or are in the process of

adopting the California model, while six others are actively considering it.

Twelve out of Canada's 13 provinces and territories have indicated support for

tailpipe greenhouse gas standards, with Quebec now in the process of making

final revisions to its draft regulations. Including British Columbia, the

population of jurisdictions adopting the California model totals 176 million. If

that were a country, it would be the sixth largest in the world.

Mr. Speaker: Could the minister please put the question.

[ Page 11705 ]

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, 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 39, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards)

Act, 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.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

D. Thorne presented a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Act

Amendment Act, 2008.

D. Thorne: Today I move introduction of the Residential

Tenancy Act Amendment Act, 2008, for first reading.

Motion approved.

D. Thorne: It gives me great pleasure today to be

introducing a piece of legislation that amends the Residential Tenancy Act to

provide more protection for tenants. It increases the amount of notice that a

landlord must give a tenant in the event of renovations that require the tenant

to vacate their residence and of conversion to strata title. It increases the

compensations payable to tenants in these circumstances.

It also allows the tenant the right of first refusal, giving them

the option of continuing residence following the renovations or conversion, and

prohibits the landlord from raising the rent any more than would otherwise be

lawful.

Finally, it allows the tenant increased time to pay overdue rent

or dispute an eviction notice and increased time before eviction due to the

non-payment of rent.

This act is an acknowledgment of the imbalance of power that

exists between landlords and tenants, particularly with regard to the many

avenues available for landlords to eject tenants with very little notice and

compensation. With this act, British Columbia recognizes and protects the rights

and interests of tenants in a way that is fair and reasonable to landlords.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M205, Residential Tenancy Act Amendment Act, 2008,

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.

LUTHERAN CAMP CONCORDIA

(1992) SOCIETY (CORPORATE

RESTORATION) ACT, 2008

R. Cantelon presented a bill intituled Lutheran Camp Concordia

(1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008.

R. Cantelon: I move that a bill entitled Lutheran Camp

Concordia

(1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, of which notice has

been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

R. Cantelon: As the title implies, this is

an act to

restore the incorporation of a very worthy organization and bring it again into

good standing.

[1350]

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee

on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402, Lutheran Camp Concordia

(1992) Society (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and

Private Bills.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) ED CHYNOWETH

B. Bennett: On April 22 one of Canadian hockey's great

pioneers and builders, Ed Chynoweth, passed away at the age of 66. Ed was

president of the Kootenay ICE and chair of the Western Hockey League board of

governors. Ed brought the ICE to Cranbrook in 1998, and he insisted at the time

that the team be known as the Kootenay ICE. Cranbrook and the Kootenays are

better off because of Ed's leadership, and incidentally, Ed would want me to say

this. The ICE have had the top-winning percentage in the WHL since Ed brought

the team to the Kootenays ten years ago. He was a big man with a big personality

— dynamic, strong, always positive, with rock-solid integrity.

Ed Chynoweth was the commissioner of the WHL from 1972 to 1995. He

brought the Quebec League and the OHL — that's the Ontario Hockey League —

together with the WHL in 1973 to form the Canadian Hockey League. Now there are

60 teams from east to west in two countries, and players come from all over the

world to compete in the Canadian Hockey League. Ed was president of that league

from 1975 to 1995.

In 1981 Ed forged a relationship between the CHL and Hockey Canada

that allowed for Canada's best juniors to compete in the world every Christmas.

My wife and I try not to miss any of the world junior tournament that appears on

television each Christmas. It was a great honour and a privilege to drop the

puck before the championship game in Vancouver between Canada and Russia in

2006, and of course, Canada won 5-nothing.

One of Ed's proudest accomplishments is the WHL's comprehensive

post-secondary education plan — one year of books and tuition for each year

played in the WHL. That's a significant part of Ed's rich legacy. Ed Chynoweth

built the WHL, and in his honour last year, the league renamed their league

championship trophy the Ed Chynoweth Trophy.

[ Page 11706 ]

Ed is survived by his wife of 45 years, Linda, and his two sons:

Jeff, who is the general manager and VP of the Kootenay ICE, and Dean, who is

the general manager of the Swift Current Broncos. Ed's funeral will be held in

Calgary on May 5 where, no doubt, many hockey luminaries will come together to

celebrate one of Canada's great hockey men, Ed Chynoweth.

ANN ELMORE HAIG-BROWN

C. Trevena: I have spoken in the past about Roderick

Haig-Brown. Today I'd like to talk about Ann Elmore Haig-Brown. It's almost too

easy to say "his wife." Yes, she was his life partner and true companion, but

Ann Elmore Haig-Brown was a remarkable woman in her own right. Like her husband,

she was a conservationist and an intellectual. She was a librarian, and she was

a teacher. She was a very strong advocate for women.

Before Campbell River had a shelter for women fleeing abuse, Ann

Elmore often took women into her own home. Even after the transition house named

in her honour opened in late 1987, Ann Elmore continued to take women in. She

said at that time, the time of the naming of the house, that it was much easier

to find a bed for a sister in need than to make a speech of thanks, and she also

said that women must stick together. Now the Ann Elmore Transition House

provides shelter for more than 250 women and children a year.

Ann Elmore was a community activist, a fighter for social justice,

an honourable woman who was highly respected. May 3 marks the 100th anniversary

of her birth. As part of an ongoing celebration of the Haig-Browns this year,

there's been a lecture series on women's issues, on harm reduction and on

restorative justice. On Saturday there will be a celebration at Haig-Brown House

in Campbell River when the city will mark the day as Ann Elmore Haig-Brown Day.

At the time of Ann's death in 1990, her daughter Valerie said:

"When you think of my mother, plant a tree." So as part of the celebration on

Saturday, there will be a commemorative tree planting. I invite all members of

the House to come to the celebration on the banks of the Campbell River and to

mark the anniversary and the legacy of this remarkable woman.

ACTNOW B.C.

I. Black: In 2005 our government announced a noble goal —

to be the healthiest jurisdiction ever to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Since the launch of the ActNow ministry and the work of its many partners, what

we're witnessing is a resonance with the public of that message, that healthy

living goal.

[1355]

While it's rewarding to see the ActNow programs receive

international acclaim from the World Health Organization for the third time

since November, what is really inspiring is how a call to action has been

embraced by our communities, our families and our school children across British

Columbia.

Last year almost 86,000 British Columbians visited the ActNow B.C.

mobile pavilion. This year's 20-city tour is stopping in my city of Coquitlam on

May 29 through June 1. I've already had conversations with school teachers in

Coquitlam and Port Moody who are excited about bringing their school kids, and

they're going to walk there.

Those of us who took the opportunity to visit the pavilion earlier

today saw its terrific balance of interactive games — I personally liked the

piano — education and the health assessments. Some 1,852 people received such

ActNow health assessments last year, with almost 70 percent of them saying that

they would seek medical advice and/or make lifestyle changes based on their

experience. The word is getting out.

The mobile pavilion is still on the people's front lawn from the

recent Victoria Times Colonist 10K run where over 10,000 people participated

with 3,000 of them in the ActNow walking category. There were 54 government

teams, up from 39 last year, with 1,200 government employees participating.

In addition, when my eight-year-old and I ran the Vancouver Sun

Run two weeks ago, we were part of over 59,000 total participants — another

record — 24,000 of whom were in the ActNow walking category.

Please join me today in celebrating the hundreds of thousands of

British Columbians who are embracing a change in lifestyle, the message of

investing in your health, and the simplicity and fun inherent in being active

and eating properly.

HERITAGE FAIR IN PORT ALBERNI

S. Fraser: One of my favourite events of the year is the

annual heritage fair at Echo Centre in Port Alberni. The event is put on through

the Alberni Valley Museum. The dedicated volunteer committee has been doing this

for six years now.

This Friday, May 2, local students from Maquinna, E.J. Dunn, John

Howitt and Wood elementary schools will join other students from central and

north Island to participate in this two-day extravaganza. The students are

travelling from as far as Ucluelet, Courtenay and the Comox Valley.

The students create fantastic heritage projects which are

displayed in Echo Centre for public viewing and for judging by panels of local

judges. The judging is the hardest part, I know. I am one.

These hard-working students are in for a real treat. They get to

participate in a variety of workshops and get to ride to McLean Mill on the

Alberni Pacific Railway. How fitting for a heritage fair. This vintage train is

a steam train from the past, and it's full of exciting surprises, which I will

not allude to yet.

Old Steam Logging Locomotive No. 7 travels through scenic Alberni

Valley to deliver the kids to the mill, which is a national heritage site. It's

the only steam-operated sawmill left in Canada. It's an exciting step into the

past, into another era.

Meanwhile, we judges will be locked in mortal combat. After a

lengthy viewing process and inter

[ Page 11707 ]

views with the students of course, the judges are locked in a room to duke it

out — a vicious tug-of-war trying to decide who will ultimately be chosen for

awards. Very difficult. They're all award-inspiring.

In the end, the overall winner will travel to the national

heritage fair, which is in Victoria this year. Hats off to all the volunteers

and the museum staff and especially to the participating students. You are all

winners in my eyes.

TREES AND ARBOUR DAY EVENTS IN B.C.

M. Polak: Over British Columbia's 150-year history, trees

have been an integral part of industry and everyday life. Our heritage from the

time of British Columbia's first peoples is inextricably linked to trees. Since

the 1930s when reforestation began, six billion trees have been planted across

the province. In fact, on April 17 the six-billionth tree was planted in Kelowna

— a ponderosa pine.

A lot has changed since the 1930s. Today communities across B.C.

are embracing the importance of trees like never before. Their excitement at

being part of a greener and healthier province is evident in the enthusiasm

displayed at community arbour days every year.

This year on April 27, the township of Langley held Arbour Day

festivities in South Aldergrove Park that saw 150 trees planted in honour of

British Columbia's 150 years. Community leaders and residents planted trees in

memory of loved ones. The Kwantlen First Nation participated by leading us in

song and prayer.

Most importantly, on that day a former township councillor, the

late Muriel Arnason, was honoured with the planting of a black hawthorn tree by

her daughter Petrina. As we look ahead to another 150 years, the memory of

pioneers like Muriel, who was a staunch advocate for green initiatives, will

serve to remind us of the importance of trees. As we reach toward our goal of

net zero deforestation, we're off to a good start.

[1400]

Forests for Tomorrow will see an additional 60 million seedlings

planted over the next four years. We can all do our part, and I look forward to

next year's Arbour Day and a chance to plant another piece of B.C.'s history.

CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANTS

C. Puchmayr: They say that behind every successful MLA,

there are great constituency assistants working at the local level. There is no

doubt that our constituency assistants play a critical role in the functioning

and the governance of our province.

They serve the members of each community in the province and

enable us to perform our duties. They keep their fingers on the pulse of the

community while we are away at the capital. They follow up on our work with

constituents, and they strive to unshackle the many barriers to access

government and ministries and their programs.

In my community we have a very high workload that can only be

fulfilled with the assistance of the professional advocates that we call our

CAs. They work with seniors on shelter and health care issues. They work with

homeless people needing assistance, many of them with psychological maladies.

They work with doctors and health care professionals, community and business

groups, just to mention a few.

Our offices throughout the province are non-partisan and are

accessible to all individuals and organizations needing assistance. Some of our

ridings are geographically large, with communities spread over such a distance

that they require two and sometimes three satellite offices. There is no way

that MLAs can be everywhere at once, and we rely on our constituency assistants

to work with our constituents and to act as our representatives in our absence.

Look in the blue pages or the phone book or google us, and chances

are that the first contact to your MLA will be a professional, hard-working

constituency assistant. I invite all members of this House to join me in

thanking these dedicated individuals for all of their hard work, because they

truly are the unsung heroes on the front line of the community needs.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

C. James: Over the last month colleges across British

Columbia have been cutting programs, laying off faculty and downgrading

services. The reason? The B.C. Liberals pulled the rug out from underneath them.

The Minister of Advanced Education single-handedly changed the funding formula

midyear, midterm. As a result, we see colleges that are facing shortfalls and

valuable programs that are being axed.

In a letter to her board, Susan Witter, the president of Douglas

College, called the minister's funding scheme unbalanced. She sounded the alarm

about significant negative impacts on the entire college system.

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Can he

explain how his widespread cuts, brought on by his broken promises, actually

help people access higher education in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: Only the NDP would think a $68 million

increase in a budget is a cut.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Coell: Only the NDP would think that spending $1.7

billion on infrastructure was harming colleges and universities. The creation of

four trades

[ Page 11708 ]

complexes — one at BCIT, one at Kwantlen, one at the University of the Fraser

Valley, one in northern B.C. — producing thousands of seats for trades and

technology in this province…. Only the NDP would think that was harming

education.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

[1405]

FUNDING FOR ADULT STUDENTS

WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

C. James: The only response from this minister to the

people across this province who are losing programs and services is: "No big

deal. Don't worry about it. It's nothing."

Well, let's take a look at the programs that are being cut. In

Prince George at the College of New Caledonia, four adult special education

programs are on the chopping block. "No big deal," the minister says to those

special education adults looking for programs. Three similar programs at Douglas

College are also facing cuts. Rory Summers, the president of the B.C.

Association for Community Living, calls the cuts alarming. He says they deny

access to post-secondary education based on disability.

So my question again to the Minister of Advanced Education: does

he really think that these programs for adults with special needs are so trivial

that they can just be washed away — and he doesn't care and his government

doesn't care about those programs?

Hon. M. Coell: In the last week this government has created

five new universities….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Coell: I want to know whether the members in the

opposition are for that. On this side of the House we're for it. I know they're

going to be against it, because they've been against everything we've done for

post-secondary education.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Coell: Maybe I'll bring it home for the Leader of

the Opposition. Maybe she should go have a walk around Ring Road at UVic — $200

million worth of buildings. Thousands of new spaces and a new medical school at

UVic, in your hometown. Doubled the number of nurses in your province.

Post-secondary education in this province has never been in better shape.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Perhaps the minister would like to take some time

to sit at the public meeting in Prince George as I did, to listen to parent

after parent stand up and talk about what it was going to be like for their

adult to no longer have access to post-secondary education — to no longer be

able to get out of the house every day and get programs and services that make a

difference in their lives. That's what's being cut by this government, and

that's appalling, Minister.

The Premier has a great goal to support people with special needs.

How does this help support people with special needs? At Vancouver Community

College vulnerable students are also facing cuts. As VCC comes to terms with a

$5.8 million deficit, cuts to ESL programs…. "Nothing," the minister says. The

elimination of positions in the developmental disabilities program. "Nothing,"

says the minister. Downgraded counselling services and cuts to programs for

visually impaired students.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: The American sign language and deaf studies

program at VCC is facing cuts. This is a unique program to B.C. There are

absolutely no alternatives to that program.

So my question again: will the minister now put a stop to these

cuts and give the funding to the colleges that they need?

Hon. M. Coell: This government has created thousands upon

thousands upon thousands of new spaces at colleges and universities in this

province. The thousands and thousands of new spaces go with $1.7 billion worth

of infrastructure in this province, building and rebuilding campuses throughout

this province to make sure we've got space for more and more students using

them.

[1410]

C. Puchmayr: Many of the programs on the chopping block at

Douglas College are also designed to help students with disabilities and

barriers. One of the casualties is a program to help students with learning

challenges to develop workplace skills. Three other programs are for adults with

barriers. Those will be cut. Losing these programs will be devastating to those

in need.

It's the minister's fault. It's the minister that created the

shortfall in the budget. Will the minister finally admit his mistake, admit that

it's a step backwards for people with disabilities, and put those programs back

into our communities where the need is?

Hon. M. Coell: The member mentions Douglas College. I would

invite him to come to the opening of their $34 million new building tomorrow.

[ Page 11709 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just take your seat, Member.

Members.

D. Thorne: It's not just the New Westminster campus of

Douglas College that is facing cuts. The David Lam campus in Coquitlam will be

hard hit, and I don't think that opening a new program and closing other

programs justifies one another.

I can't wait to hear the minister's rationalization for my

question. Here are some of the programs….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Thorne: Here are some of the programs that this minister

calls small. I guess he doesn't care if these kinds of programs get shut down as

long as we're opening new buildings.

Here are some of the programs: customer service and cashier

training for people with employment barriers; the opportunities enabled program

for adults with disabilities who are looking for work in the IT sector; and

worst of all, the new directions, which is a program for students with brain

injuries.

This minister trivialized these programs and their students when

he defended these cuts and said that only small programs would be cut. How can

he stand by that feeble defence when he is about to open new buildings but strip

education away from so many people with disabilities?

Hon. M. Coell: The member mentions the David Lam campus,

and that is indeed where a $34 million building will open tomorrow with the

funding for the students in it.

FUNDING FOR

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

R. Fleming: The minister started his answer to the first

question by saying that it's only the NDP that is opposing the cuts to the

education budget this year. I think he should take some credit, because it

includes the University Presidents Council, the B.C. College Presidents

association, CUFABC, FPSE. Every student organization across British Columbia is

asking this minister why he failed on March 12 to honour his funding commitment

to his own budget.

He hasn't answered questions here today as to why he thinks it's

okay that programs for people with learning disabilities and visually impaired

students can go by the wayside. That's okay with him.

I want to ask him about North Island College. Instead of receiving

$700,000 in new funding, they're now cutting half a million dollars from

programs. On the chopping block for September are computer science and IT

programs, campus-based applied business technology programs, and there will no

longer be an adult-based basic education program that is classroom-based at the

Port Hardy campus.

Can the minister explain how reducing adult education upgrade

programs in Port Hardy serves our literacy goals in this province?

[1415]

Hon. M. Coell: I think a question to the NDP would be: why

did they vote against a 40 percent increase in the budget for Advanced

Education?

Why did they vote against $1.7 billion in capital construction on

colleges and universities in the province of British Columbia? It's hard to

imagine that they have a position on post-secondary education when they vote

against it every chance they get.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Well, it would be nice to get an answer to a

question that is on the minds of a lot of British Columbians, as to why this

minister on March 12 pulled back his funding commitment and cut over $50 million

from B.C. colleges and universities.

This government's own Campus 2020 report — this minister

has failed to look at its recommendations — recommended massive improvements to

student financial assistance in this province for first nations and low-income

students so that they can take their equal place at our colleges and

universities.

B.C. has the second-highest debt level in the country. Tuition

fees are 15 percent higher than the Canadian average. But incredibly, in this

Budget 2008, the StudentAid B.C. budget was cut by $20 million. Now the

minister's core funding cuts to institutions are adding local campus-based cuts

to student financial assistance. Simon Fraser is planning to cut $1.5 million

from its scholarship and bursary programs and to eliminate tuition waivers for

students over 60 years old.

Does the minister think that cutting campus aid programs to

students is an acceptable impact of his failure to honour his funding

commitments?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the question on people's minds is:

do the NDP support the creation of five new universities in British Columbia?

The presidents are here; the chairs are here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Coell: I think the members would like to hear

whether they support the University of the Fraser Valley. Do the NDP support

that? On this side of the House, we do. On this side of the House, we support

Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Do the NDP?

[ Page 11710 ]

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. Coell: Does the member for Nanaimo support

Vancouver Island University? On this side of the House, we do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: In a letter to her board, Susan Witter, president

of Douglas College, called the minister's funding scheme unbalanced and sounded

the alarm about significant negative impacts on the entire college system.

My question to the minister is this. Is Susan Witter wrong?

Hon. M. Coell: Every institution of post-secondary

education got an increase in their budget this year — $68 million. Douglas

College was one of those that got an increase, and tomorrow they get $34 million

of an increase for a building and the subsidy for those students to be in those

classrooms.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that the president of

Douglas College is wrong, that she's just simply saying this for fun and that

they're cutting programs for people with disabilities just because they feel

like it? Or is it because the government is not providing the funding that they

need? Will he own up to that and fund the colleges today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Coell: I know the members opposite don't realize

that $68 million is a lot of money. Every institution gets an increase in their

budget, totalling $68 million plus $200 million in capital for this year — $200

million for capital this year.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

RELEASE OF REPORT

ON B.C. PLACE ROOF

N. Macdonald: Two years after the NDP warned the government

about the roof of B.C. Place, the government is still scrambling to keep secret

its mismanagement on a second Olympic venue. PavCo promised a report on options

for the roof of B.C. Place at the end of March, and it is now the end of April.

We have seen this before. The people of British Columbia know the government

kept all information about the building of the convention centre secret, and the

public found out too late just how bungled that project was.

The people of British Columbia deserve specifics about the plan

for B.C. Place roof. Who are the contractors for this project, and what are the

options being considered? Be specific.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said yesterday in answer to the

question, David Podmore is working on a number of options that he will be

presenting to government. When government receives those options, we'll be

making a decision.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: I'll tell you what sounds familiar. It's the

government standing up and saying, "Trust us," while…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: …they hide the truth about mismanagement from

the people who are ultimately going to pay for this minister's mistakes. It is

exactly like the convention centre, exactly like it. There is a looming

deadline, there are unknown costs, and there is no plan. The public has a right

to know what is going on, because they are ultimately going to be paying for it.

The minister says he's going to receive a report. Will he table it

publicly so that the public knows what is going on, or is he going to continue

to hide the mismanagement on a second Olympic project?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, I'm saddened to hear a member from

the opposition slagging the reputation of a person like David Podmore, who has

decades and decades of experience in heavy construction. As I've said repeatedly

in this House, Mr. Podmore….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said, Mr. Podmore and his team are

working out some options that he will bring forward to the government when he is

ready to do that. As far as other comments, if the member wants to go to the

website of PavCo, he can look at three engineering reports that are posted on

the website.

TREE FARM LICENCE LAND REMOVALS

ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

D. Routley: The Minister of Forests has allowed the removal

of lands on Vancouver Island from TFL over

[ Page 11711 ]

sight. When questioned, he gave this quote: "There are 3,300 people at

Western Forest Products employed in the coastal forest sector in British

Columbia. It was an important decision to help them put their business plan in

place to put themselves on an economic footing to protect those 3,300 jobs."

Since those statements, what have we seen? We've seen four Western

Forest Products mills close. We've seen the loss of several hundred more jobs,

the last mill being Ladysmith. The minister failed. He failed the communities of

Jordan River and Vancouver Island. He failed the workers by not getting

assurances for their jobs. He failed the people of B.C. when he allowed this

removal without any compensation.

He states the reasons for the removal of the lands, but all his

reasons fail to make sense. Will he today, before there is any sale of land,

stand in this House and say that he will return those lands to TFL oversight?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know why this member hates Western

Forest Products, the people that are employed by it and the communities that it

serves so much. If you take a look at Western Forest Products in one of the

worst market trends in the history of the province of British Columbia, in the

history of the forest industry….

[1425]

I don't know. Maybe you don't like the 175 employees that are

presently working at Alberni Pacific sawmill or the 155 that are working at

Somass sawmill in Port Alberni. What about the two mills in Nanaimo — 159 and

102 millworkers on top of that? As a matter of fact, hon. Member, they have

seven mills operating, three reman mills and 17 logging operations going on

Vancouver Island right now.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: In fact, I'm very fond of Western Forest

Products. They're a great employer in my community.

I don't even hate the minister, but what I do really despise is

anyone who could stand in this House and defend those actions by saying, as he

said: "We removed some lands from a tree farm licence. They were private lands.

I'm not selling them. The reality is this. You know, the member goes out and

goes on about the thing in New Westminster. Why don't you also admit to the

member for Cowichan-Ladysmith that at the same time that mill was closed, they

opened another mill in Cowichan-Ladysmith?"

Well, I've got news for the minister. In fact, that mill has

closed. That mill has closed. Just one more casualty of failed Liberal forest

policies. Others — Munns Lumber; Madill, famous equipment maker…. There were

many others, too many to list here. Last week some 5,000 bidders took away

hundreds of pieces of logging equipment from an auction in my riding. It was a

sad day. It was a crime that it happened at all.

Don't stand and blame the markets. These closures mostly occurred

before the market turned down, and in any case…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

D. Routley: …someone is cutting our logs, which are being

exported raw from this province.

Mr. Speaker: Could the member pose the question.

D. Routley: What will the minister do today to protect

those jobs?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's the most nonsensical diatribe I've

heard in this House in 12 years. To the member: there are virtually no logs

being exported from British Columbia right now, because the market is that bad

for logs as well.

But I just want to remind the member….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: The piece that I found the most sad about

the member's comments was this. We talked about the Saltair mill reopening when

I talked about Western Forest Products when we had that particular debate. The

Saltair mill is still open today and employs 124 people.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS WITH

ROUNDTABLE ON FORESTRY

C. Trevena: Despite this government's best efforts, the

forest industry is still the heart of North Island's economy. But when the

Minister of Forests and Range launched the Forestry Roundtable in Campbell

River, almost four months after the Premier first announced it, he didn't give

people much time or much notice. The minister had two meetings, one in Campbell

River and one in Port McNeill. Neither was more than an hour long — an hour for

forestry in Campbell River and in Port McNeill. These weren't open to the

public. They weren't open to workers. They weren't open to some of the

stakeholders. It was invitation only.

We've got a mill going down in Campbell River. We do know that

this mill is closing in a couple of weeks, and yet the minister dismisses this

in one-hour meetings. I hope that the minister isn't serious. I'm taking the

fact that he isn't being serious about the round tables being dismissed in an

hour.

I'd like to ask the minister: when will he come back to the north

Island to have real consultations about the future of an industry that we all

depend on?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was a broad invitation list that goes

out to the round table. I don't know where the member gets her information. I

sat in the meeting for two hours and 30 minutes. Everybody at the meeting

[ Page 11712 ]

had up to ten minutes to speak. Every one of them had an opportunity to ask

questions — two hours and 30 minutes and then for another half an hour after the

meeting for consultation with first nations on top of that in both communities.

[1430]

B. Simpson: This minister has the audacity to talk about

nonsensical diatribe. In the same statement he talks about no log exports from

British Columbia occurring right now. In the same statement he claims the

Ladysmith mill isn't closed down. The minister doesn't even know his own file.

What bothers me most is that this minister has the audacity to say

to us that we hate one of the companies that we're asking questions about. What

the reality is, is that this minister so detests hearing the truth about the

forest industry from the people of British Columbia that this round table that

he's got going, this sham, is invitation only. It's a couple of hours maximum in

communities, and we get some bullets on the webpage.

I have a challenge to the minister today. According to the bullets

that you've got on your webpage, the issues are tenure security, tenure reform,

forest health and waste, new social contract for communities and workers.

The Leader of the Opposition has an agenda for the forest industry

that could be enacted right now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just take your seat for a second. Continue, Member.

B. Simpson: That agenda will address the crisis now…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: …and the restructuring that the industry needs

for the future. My challenge to the minister is this. He was in Quesnel, the

heart of the mountain pine beetle, on Saturday for 1.5 hours. Will he add an

hour and allow me to come in and brief the round table on how to address this

crisis now?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister, go ahead.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith was

talking about a mill that I mentioned in comment in the House, and that was the

Saltair sawmill. The mill that took an indefinite closure last week was a

different mill. So you get your facts straight, and you decide to figure it out.

I get that you want to insult every company in B.C. that's just

trying to survive in one of the worst markets in the history of North America. I

know you don't care about them. I know you don't care about their capital

investment or their future investment or their employees or anybody else.

I also find it absolutely ridiculous that the member thinks he

should come and brief a round table when he absolutely refused to even recognize

that it had any value in the first place.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on

Bill 21 in this chamber and in Committee A, for the information of members,

continued Committee of Supply debates on the estimates of the Ministry of

Economic Development.

Second Reading of Bills

MEDICARE PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

N. Macdonald: I have just a few minutes left to speak on

Bill 21.

[1435]

Bill 21, I'll remind people, is what is called the Medicare

Protection Amendment Act. Like many of the acts that come before us from this

government, there's an Orwellian sense to the choice of words used to describe

the act. With the term "sustainability" added as a sixth principle of the

principles of medicare, we have what is in essence a step in undermining the

existing five principles — five principles that have served British Columbians

and Canadians very, very well.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

What I talked about earlier was just the fundamental importance of

health care that is based on need as opposed to health care that is based upon

the ability to pay. That is something that most Canadians would point to and say

is the most important, the most civilized part of Canada. On something as

important as health care we, as a greater community of British Columbia, pool

our resources. In fact, we pool resources from across Canada to make sure that

regardless of somebody's situation in life, they are looked after in a time of

medical need.

That's something that I know the NDP, the people of this caucus,

feel deeply about. In fact, it is something that the people of British Columbia

feel incredibly strongly about.

When the Premier has at various times tried to put forward ideas,

tried to put forward actions that would undermine health care in this province,

the reaction from people is strong. In the community that I come from — and I'll

just touch on a few of those things — the Premier is not trusted. This

government is not trusted

[ Page 11713 ]

on health care. There is a fundamental feeling that this government will work

to undermine the services that are important to people in my area, and we just

have to go back to the history that we have in the Kootenays.

We look at the beds that were shut, the facilities for seniors

that were closed. We look at a hospital that was closed in Kimberley in such a

short time that it resulted in chaos. It's something that's still a deep wound

in Kimberley, a community that contributed $20 billion worth of resources, of

wealth, to this province over its 100-year history. When that mine runs out, the

hospital that the community, the union and the company, Cominco, built with

community funding was closed in a matter of months — and all of the chaos that

that created. As you go through the riding, you hear stories similar to that,

almost as dramatic as that.

For all the other issues that were in front of people last

election, that was the main issue — seniors care and health care. There is a

depth of feeling that goes with that.

In rural areas, any attempt to move away from the idea that people

in all parts of the province, regardless of their wealth…. That services should

be fundamentally different is a fundamental problem. There are always going to

be challenges to providing health care in rural areas, but what we have decided

as a matter of decency is that we would attempt to provide care in all parts of

the province, and that's something that is fundamentally important.

As I have said before, this bill is one that defines the

difference between the two parties. Last week I had an opportunity to go into a

school in Kimberley and meet with classes to talk about the Legislature and to

describe for them what it was like here. One of the questions that the students

asked was: "Well, what's the difference between the NDP and the B.C. Liberals?"

Trying to be as careful as I could with the answer, I gave some notion of what

the differences, the general groupings are.

[1440]

One of the teachers said, "Well, basically the NDP believes more

in public education and public health," and then described the B.C. Liberals.

Fundamentally, that's it. The protectors, the creators of public health, are the

NDP and continue to be. Those that people should fear in this province are the

B.C. Liberals and this Premier. He is not trusted. He should not be trusted on

this issue, and it is an issue that is fundamentally important to people in this

province.

I'll just close with a reminder to people about this whole

argument around sustainability. The figures that they used initially have been

abandoned because they were completely discredited. I remind them about a fact

that I think sits clearest. When we talk about health care costs being too

great, we need to remember that $13 billion is what the people of British

Columbia pooled together to look after the needs of all British Columbians and

that $10 billion is spent on lotteries and put into slot machines.

If British Columbians are asked, "Is there room to make up?" well,

people will give up lotteries and slot machines far before they will give up

health care. That's a fact that every single British Columbian knows.

So the whole argument put forward around sustainability — in fact,

the lack of argument that's been put forward…. We have not heard any government

member stand up and actually explain what the purpose of this bill is. It has

been completely absent. There's been no description about what the purpose of

this is. We can only guess at the meaning. Because of the record of this

government, we have every reason to be suspicious.

With that, I take my seat. I look forward to the debate, and I

look forward to working — if not in this Legislature, in the election to follow

— to make sure that health care in British Columbia is there for every single

British Columbian, regardless of their ability to pay, but based solely on their

need. That's the civilized thing to do.

J. Rustad: I am pleased today to rise to speak to the bill,

the Medicare Protection Act. Before I start, I just want to ask the member a

question or just pose it rhetorically about the member for Columbia

River-Revelstoke, who's suggesting that the people in this province are spending

money in the way that they want to spend money — that he thinks he knows better.

Is the member really suggesting that he wants to take people's money that they

may have to spend on whatever reasons they want to spend it on and that he knows

how people should rather spend that money?

I mean, perhaps he's talking about a total socialist state where

all the money would come into the government for him to be able to allocate

accordingly. However, that digresses from the purpose of this act.

The purpose of this act is…. It adds a concept called

sustainability. I want to talk for a second about that, because I decided I'd

look it up in the dictionary, just to bring it out. Sustainability is a

characteristic of a process that can be maintained at a certain level

indefinitely.

Health care is precisely that. We want to be able to maintain and

improve services, but we have to be able to have that health care service

offered over time. We have to make sure that it is there for our generations,

our kids, our grandkids and that it's there for us when we need it.

Sustainability is a very interesting concept. I want to touch on

this a little bit, because the member for Vancouver-Kingsway came out and said

that he thinks…. We have the best health care system in Canada, according to the

Canadian conference board, but he thinks that's not good enough. What he would

like to see is B.C. spend the most money of any other province in the country.

Well, I find that very interesting, because what we're talking

about is being able to offer quality services — not a race to see who can spend

more. We want to make sure that those dollars are spent effectively. We want to

make sure that the taxpayer has the best value for the money and, at the same

time, that we're offering the best services possible. That is what

sustainability is all about.

[ Page 11714 ]

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway also said that this idea of

sustainability is the Premier's idea. Well, I have to tell you this, Madam

Speaker. I'm proud that we are looking at adding sustainability, and I'm proud

that we have a Premier who's able to stand up and take leadership on this issue

to bring forward some concepts and ideas that are going to keep our health care

system vibrant and healthy for many, many generations to come.

[1445]

When you think about sustainability, you might ask: why is this

important? What is it about sustainability? I want to just look at a simple

example about sustainability. If a taxpayer in this province was bringing in and

earning $50,000 a year and was spending $55,000 a year, would that be

sustainable? Over time, what happens is that shortfall would end up putting the

taxpayer in a very, very difficult position.

I'll just give you an example of that, and that is our debt. In

1991 we had about $17 billion in debt in this province. By the time the NDP were

finished in this government in 2001, that had grown to over $34 billion — a 100

percent increase in debt. That type of thinking is not sustainable.

One of the constituents in my riding, Paul Stevens, came up to me

when I was out at a chamber meeting and said: "You know what? We need to see a

reduction in our debt. What happened in the 1990s was totally and completely

unacceptable. We need to see a reduction in that debt."

We have spent more than $10 billion in capital investment in this

province, and at the same time, we've actually reduced our debt. We've actually

been in a position where we have seen the type of investment that's needed in

this province — new hospitals, new roads, new infrastructure that's needed. At

the same time, we've managed to maintain and lower our debt. That is what the

principles of sustainability are all about, unlike what the opposition had

railed on about in the 1990s.

Currently we have about 45 percent of our budget being spent on

health care services. Two-thirds of all new spending is going towards health

care. By 2013 it's estimated that that will rise to 51 percent of our budget —

51 percent. Just a 1 percent increase in our budget would probably wipe out four

ministries' entire budgets, just to try to find a 1 percent increase.

The member of the opposition, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway,

the critic for health care, states that he wants to see the highest spending

levels in Canada here. Well, where's that money going to come from? Where would

those additional dollars come from? If you're going to be talking about even a 1

percent increase, you're going to start talking about eliminating ministries.

Or is the member suggesting that they want to see tax increases —

that they feel the tax burden on the people of this province is too low, and

they want to increase it? When you're talking about wanting to increase

spending, that's what you're saying. You're saying that you need to bring in

revenue so that you can spend additional dollars.

When you talk about sustainability, you have to also think about

what it means for us in this province. We need to attract nurses. We need to

attract doctors. We need to bring people, skilled tradespeople, into this

province. You don't do that by driving up taxes and stagnating the economy.

People can go anywhere they want in this country that we have.

We have the best place on earth here. We're making it the most

competitive place. We are attracting people. The opposition's idea seems to be

that they want to crank up the taxes and drive people away, just like they did

in the '90s. I find it just absolutely amazing that the opposition did not learn

those lessons in the 1990s.

Health care is one of the fundamental things that government can

provide. As you know, it's our largest expenditure. We have some pretty

significant obstacles coming up in health care, and that's simply because of

what's happening in our society today.

For example, there are more than 1.3 million people in B.C. who

suffer from one or more chronic conditions, and over 90,000 people suffer from

four or more. Those numbers are anticipated to grow. Chronic disease is the

biggest obstacle to sustainability of our public health care system. The amount

of resources required is phenomenal, and we need to be able to provide those

resources, but we must make sure that we can sustain them over time.

Some of the steps we are taking in terms of sustainability in this

act are that we have implemented banning smoking in vehicles where children are

present, and we've also banned smoking in a number of other venues around the

province.

[1450]

From where I come from, northern B.C., there are a lot of issues

around tobacco use. Tobacco use is much greater there than in other areas in the

province. So these are great steps towards trying to find ways to curb that

particular problem, which can reduce a whole bunch of health care issues that

come from that.

We're also looking at banning the use of trans fats in the

preparation of food in restaurants, schools and food service establishments by

2010. Trans fats are something that never leaves your body. Those are the types

of things we need to be looking at and addressing in order to try to create a

healthier environment.

Some of the other innovative things we're doing. We're promoting

ActNow, and we're promoting opportunity for physical fitness. Just 30 minutes of

exercise a day and five fruits and vegetables can make a world of difference in

people's health. All it takes is just a few steps. People are healthier, and

their chances of cancer are reduced dramatically — all of these sorts of issues.

Those are the kinds of things we are trying to do about sustainability, and

that's what is part of this bill. That's part of making things sustainable.

Also, there are some other innovations that we're doing, and this

is a big issue for me. As my parents age, they tend to have to go to the doctor

more. Sometimes they have prescriptions that need to be filled. My mom, for

example, has to go to a doctor every three months to get a prescription filled.

It's the same pre

[ Page 11715 ]

scription that she has been taking for a number of years, yet she can't just

go to the pharmacist and get it done.

Well, that's a change that we're bringing in so that seniors and

people who need prescriptions can just go to a pharmacist and get them filled

and get them renewed without having to go through that expensive process and

creating all that redundant work. Those are steps towards helping to create a

sustainable health care system.

Similar with nurses. We're giving nurses more opportunity to be

able to utilize the skills that they've been trained for. These are things that

help to bring efficiencies in our system. Those are the types of things that

come from leadership and from direction that our government is giving. The

opposition, which has taken no position on many of these things, just seems to

oppose. There is no plan, and there is no leadership coming from that

opposition.

Madam Speaker, when you think about health care in northern B.C….

I just want to talk about some of the things that we have also done to help make

it sustainable in the north.

Sometimes attracting doctors and nurses into the north can be

challenging. So what we have done is implemented at UNBC the northern medical

program to train doctors in the north for the north. It has already made a huge

difference in the level of health care that's being offered in the north. We've

more than doubled the amount of nurses that have been trained, and we're

training a significant number of new nurses now in northern B.C. All of those

things are critical towards making health care sustainable, and those are steps

that our government is taking.

Similarly, we're implementing and bringing in a new northern

cancer clinic in Prince George, and we've implemented a northern cancer

strategy. In the city of Vanderhoof we just implemented a new cancer service

there as well.

Those sorts of things help to provide the kind of services that

are needed in the north, but it's all part of being sustainable. It's all part

of improving services in the areas and making sure that those services can go

forward and be sustainable.

This bill fulfils our government's throne speech and our

commitment towards health care. As I mentioned before, two-thirds of all new

money goes towards health care. By putting in the principles of sustainability

as well as enshrining in law the principles and values that provide the

foundation upon which our health care system is built, it is truly an example of

what leadership is and what is needed with regards to health care.

I want to touch on one other thing. I've gone on and talked a

little bit about it here. Health care is not about buildings. Health care is not

about professionals that provide services. Health care is about the patients

that need those services. The opposition critic stood in this House and railed

on for two hours in some repetitive rhetoric that went on. Not once did I hear

the opposition critic say that patients are what the issue is and what we need

to be considering.

[1455]

Fundamental to what we're doing with health care is making sure

that patients have the services they need in this province — not wait-lists and

not the strategy that the opposition had implemented in the 1990s, which was

creating a shortage of doctors and nurses and professionals so that there was a

limited amount of services that could be offered.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: They reduced the number of nurses that are being

trained. They didn't expand the number of doctors that are being trained.

The member for Yale-Lillooet seems to be denying that, but that's

okay. He was here in the '90s when that happened, and he knows very well that

that's what happened.

Under our government we have seen a dramatic increase in that

training. It's those health care providers that provide those services for

patients, which are the core of what health care is.

The Medicare Protection Amendment Act takes a huge leap. It

enshrines those principles that are the core, but it does bring in that new

concept of sustainability. I know, in talking with constituents in my riding,

they want to see a government that manages their money well, that can provide

services, that can be there when it's needed but, at the same time, respects the

tax dollars that are collected in this province and manages that well.

That is what the principles of sustainability are. That is what

our government has done. Clearly, from what the opposition has said, they're not

interested in that. They're not interested in sustainability. They're not

interested in knowing what is in the best interests of patients. They seem to

want to hit some record of being the top spenders in the country. Well, they

tried that in the 1990s, and they ruined this province. Our government will not

go in that direction.

You know what I find interesting? Even though the opposition

members that have spoken so far have talked against sustainability, back in 1995

they brought in a plan that actually had sustainability as one of the key

components. Yet now they seem to have just ignored that, and I think I

understand why. It's because there is a lack of leadership on that side, and

they just want to stand up and oppose anything.

That's very unfortunate, because I know that the people in this

province, when they elected an opposition, wanted them to be able to be

effective. They wanted them to be able to speak. Clearly, there is no vision

coming from the opposition.

That is what defines us on this side of the House and the

opposition on that side of the House. We have a vision for where we need to take

this province. We have a vision for how we need to get there. We have a vision

around sustainability, around fiscal responsibility. Those are the driving

differences.

I challenge the opposition to put forward some plans and ideas.

The health care critic, who went on for two hours, in the early part of his

speech mentioned

[ Page 11716 ]

that he'd get to talking about some policies and what the NDP believe in.

Well, I waited with bated breath for two hours, and yet not one thing came up —

not a single one.

Hon. G. Abbott: We're still waiting.

J. Rustad: Yes. As the Minister of Health says, we are

still waiting. I suspect that when future speakers from the opposition come up

to speak, we will still be waiting. I'm sure the opposition leader hasn't quite

taken a position yet, so no one else wants to come forward and kind of give

their opinion on where things should be going.

I want to close by saying that our government has been taking some

phenomenal steps in health care. When you look at the investments in the

facilities around this province, when you look at the investments in the

training and providing and expanding those opportunities, when you look at….

I just want to bring up one other one in Prince George, because

I'm very proud of the programs that we're offering in Prince George. Just

recently at CNC we opened up the new medical laboratory technologist program.

That fills a huge need in northern B.C. As we all get older, when we go to see

the doctor, we have many more exams that we have to go to, many more tests that

need to be done. But you need people to be able to do those tests.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The member just said that's not sustainable. I

find that very interesting. The opposition member says that something is not

sustainable. Are you suggesting that perhaps we shouldn't be doing those sorts

of things?

[1500]

Quite frankly, being able to do that additional training means we

will have the professionals available to be able to do those tests, to provide

those services for years to come. We are doing that training for northern B.C.

in northern B.C., through the great facilities that we have. Through part of the

cancer strategy, we plan on doing even additional training within the north to

help meet the needs of a cancer clinic in northern B.C.

As I was saying, we've been taking a tremendous amount of

initiative in health care to make some changes, to bring things into a state of

sustainability. When you look at a quadrupling of the rate of inflation — what

our budget has been increasing over this decade, quadrupling the rate of

inflation — that clearly cannot continue.

We need to start doing things differently. We need to look at ways

that we can have more effective use of those dollars. Innovations such as at the

UBC Centre for Surgical Innovation — those are the kinds of things we need. We

need to stop thinking of what we did 50 years ago and to bring health care into

the 21st century, look at the challenges we're facing and be able to meet those

head-on with strategies so that our children can also have the same benefits and

the same type of health care systems that we have today.

I'm very pleased to have had this opportunity to talk to the

Medicare Protection Act. I am very pleased to have had this opportunity to talk

about some of the great programs happening in northern B.C. towards

sustainability.

For once, it would be great if the opposition would come out and —

instead of having NDP or no discernible policy — support what is fundamental for

our province. That is proper fiscal management and sustainability in our

services so that we can improve our services and so that they will be there for

us and for generations to come.

C. Trevena: I rise to speak against Bill 21, the Medicare

Protection Amendment Act. I was interested to hear the member for Prince

George–Omineca trying to define sustainability, because this is what the issue

is about — the addition of the principle of sustainability to the act.

As well as the principles of public administration,

principle of sustainability. According to the member for Prince George–Omineca,

the principle of sustainability has something to do with eating your five fruits

and veggies. It seems to be a little strange, a little vague. He was talking

about that and something about finances, but we really haven't seen and haven't

heard a definition yet about what the government means by sustainability.

The concern from this side of the House is that when the

government puts in a principle of sustainability and starts talking about

sustainability, it is one or maybe two steps towards the introduction of

increased user fees and a greater level of privatization within our public

health system. As we are well aware, we on this side of the House are very

strongly and very determinedly in support of a public health system that is

universality are underlined. We want to make sure we do everything to ensure

that it is there for people when they need it.

I'd like to put this debate into a little bit of context because

when people come into it, they are listening to a debate. When there are many

people speaking, they're obviously not going to be aware of everything that's

happening. So I'd like to put a bit of context into this debate.

The bill itself is very short but I think very, very significant.

I think this might be one of the most significant pieces of legislation to our

public health system that we will be seeing. This is why many of us on this side

of the House will be speaking against it.

In context, in 2006 the throne speech was full of issues about

health care and the health system. The Premier was talking very strongly about

health care, and then we saw the Conversation on Health start — going around the

province talking to people who wanted to participate in the Conversation on

Health.

[1505]

[ Page 11717 ]

Then we saw this concept of sustainability start to filter in and

the move more and more towards what seemed to be a privatization of our health

care system.

It's very interesting when we talk about sustainability because in

including it in legislation like this, B.C. would be the first province to

legislate this principle into its structure of public health and into its health

provision — that there would be, as well as the five principles, this principle

of sustainability. Not only is it not something that any other province has

done; it's something that even the federal government, which we know is a very

right-wing government at the moment, doesn't want.

In fact, the federal Minister of Health, Tony Clement, has

written: "The federal government does not intend to open up the Canada Health

Act. We believe there's plenty of room for positive innovation within the

current legislation." Whether or not one has any faith in what the federal

government is talking about as positive innovation and what that might mean,

there isn't a need to open it up;

whereas the provincial government has clearly

decided that they want not only to open it up, but they want to put in this

principle of sustainability.

Sustainability is really one of the words of the 21st century that

means everything to everyone. I think if you went around these chambers and

asked every member what they define sustainability as, they would have a

different meaning for it. Some would talk about economic sustainability, and

some would talk about balancing the books. Some would talk about long-term

planning. Some would talk about environment. Some would talk about triple bottom

line — that we're talking about everything, all the different parts of finance,

environment, social issues. All are part of sustainability. Everyone would have

a different

interpretation.

Madam Speaker, if you left this House and talked to people, I

think there would be hundreds of other

interpretations of what sustainability

meant. It is the word that means everything to everyone.

However, in the context of health care in B.C., it has very much

come to mean financial sustainability. When we talk about financial

sustainability in health care, we start to talk about how we can maintain it. We

take, as I said a few moments ago, a few steps until we start talking about

increased user fees and increased privatization.

The Finance Minister last year started raising this issue when she

had the PowerPoint demonstration which showed the level of spending on health

care and defined this as not sustainable. It really created this buzz of fear

and concern and almost panic of "What are we going to do?"

Our health care system, the health care system that every

Canadian…. I think every Canadian really believes in public health care. It's

one of the things that identifies us as Canadians.

I think people started to get really worried and very concerned

about whether we were going to have health care for our generation as we the

boomers move on, as we get older — whether our kids are going to have health

care. What's going to happen — whether it is all going to crumble, whether we do

need to turn to some sort of privatized model, or what?

At that time, the government claimed that current health spending

was 44 percent of the budget and that it would rise to more than 50 percent by

the year 2013 and 71 percent by 2017.

This was the PowerPoint. This is what the figures were that were

put out there to put the health care agenda of this government into the public

domain. Costs are going to rise exponentially — 71 percent by 2017. This is all

very much within our lifetimes, very much within our time when we will see it.

We'll never be able to afford it, so what are we going to do? We're going to

have to start making sure that people pay for things.

[1510]

One has to ask: how accurate are these figures? How are figures

being interpreted? I credit the Finance Minister. She is a former journalist, as

am I. As a former journalist, I think the Finance Minister could tell you, as

could I, that you have statistics, you have the

interpretation of statistics,

and you have a story to tell. So you can, if you wish, interpret the statistics

to tell your story.

I believe this is what the government is doing. It looks at the

statistics, and it wants to tell its story. It wants to get its point of view

out and so will use those statistics to get its point of view out that the

health care system is in financial crisis.

Now, our point of view on this side of the House is that yes,

there is a crisis in the health care system. No question, there's a crisis in

the health care system. In my own constituency of North Island, we've got

emergency rooms closing in Port Hardy and Port McNeill, and we've got people

moving from one to the other. We have patients being moved from one hospital to

another, from Alert Bay over to Port McNeill or from Port Hardy to Alert Bay,

depending on what's open.

Yes, there's a crisis in the health care system, but our view of

the crisis in the health care system is one of how it's impacting patients. The

government's view of the crisis in the health care system comes down to dollars

and cents. It comes down to the issue of: "We're not going to have enough money.

How are we going to make it happen? We're going to introduce this concept of

sustainability and bring everything down to the sense of 'we cannot afford it.'"

I know there was some debate earlier in this House about how we

are measuring how much the health care system is costing. I think that when

people get the bold figures, they do get worried. There's no question they get

worried because, as we say, we care about our health care. But the percentage of

money that the government spends on health care really depends on three things.

One is obviously the amount of money it chooses to spend on health

care, but there's also how much money the government is spending on other items,

on other programs. This is bound to have an impact when you're looking at the

proportion of money that goes on health care compared to the proportion of money

that goes on other spending. So you spend on health care, and you cut on other

services, as we have seen this

[ Page 11718 ]

government do over the last seven years. We've seen cuts in women's services,

cuts in child care, cuts in education, cuts across the board. Time after time

we've seen cuts, and we see that the amount that goes into health care seems to

be higher.

The other way that the proportion of spending on health care seems

to go up is when you measure it against how much revenue you're taking in, and

this government has cut taxes. No question, it has cut taxes. It's getting less

revenue in, so however much it's spending goes up compared to the amount of

money it gets in. It's quite basic and can be described quite simplistically. As

other figures can be described simplistically to give the scare side, it can

also be described quite simply how it's really not that scary.

The member for Prince George–Omineca is talking about how this

side of the House is going to tax and tax and tax and tax so that we would be

spending more on health care. I would like to see where the member got that

information from. While this is obviously a way that a government can raise

money, this isn't something that this side of the House, in this iteration, has

ever been saying — that we are going to be doing this as a way to increase the

money available for health care.

I think what we have are figures telling a story, figures being

delivered in a way which tells a story the way that the government wants to tell

it. Those figures are being interpreted the way the government wants to

interpret them — which, of course, is their right. With their media operation,

there are hundreds of people in their public affairs bureau putting out the

various spin lines very regularly, working very hard down there. I mean, I give

credit to them. They do work very hard down there. They put out the information,

and they can sell their story pretty easily.

An Hon. Member: Slogans.

C. Trevena: There are many slogans. My colleague has just

said that it's a slogan. There are many slogans that can be given. The concern

is that sustainability is a slogan which is insidious. It is insidious; it's

creeping in. Sustainability. We keep hearing: "We have to have sustainability;

we have to have sustainability." It undermines the strength, the real strength

of our public health system. It undermines the real strength of our Medicare

Protection Act.

I don't see why we need this principle of sustainability. We all

believe in maintaining and strengthening our health care system. We want it.

Everybody wants this health care system to be sustainable, because every person

in B.C., in some way or another, is relying on it. I'm a little concerned that

we even need this.

[1515]

I think we all know that there are private sectors already within

the health care system. We all know that. Our concern is that this is opening

the door to greater privatization because, again, this concept of sustainability

has not been properly explained.

We have doctors' offices that are already private. We have

clinics. We know that we have clinics. We keep getting quoted back about

clinics. We have clinics which are private. But nowhere in the world where there

is just private medicine is that proven to be more sustainable. I think we just

have to look south of the border to see that a fully private system is

definitely not sustainable.

I come from England where there is a two-tier health care system.

There is the public system, the national health system, and there is also

private. If there is the money, you can make the choice. But the national health

system was very strong and had a great deal of investment in it. My colleague

from Columbia River–Revelstoke spoke quite eloquently about how the British

system helped his daughter, because she was a child when he was in England. She

didn't have to pay.

One of the other things that the British system did in its choice

up to a certain point — I think it ended it a few years ago — was free dental

care. This was part of the national health system that made a choice that every

child would be allowed to have free dental care. Dental health was seen as part

of fundamental health. This was one of the choices in that system.

The other aspect that my colleague didn't touch on, because

obviously he wouldn't be aware of it, is that seniors in Britain, even now,

still get free prescriptions. Not a penny. They don't have to pay. They don't

have to worry about drug plans or anything. They get free prescriptions. My

parents are seniors, and they both get free prescriptions. So there are times

when we really have to look at what is available.

Also in Britain there are free eye tests. We all have to make

choices. We have to make choices about what we're going to be providing. When

we're looking at what is sustainable and what isn't sustainable….

Interjection.

C. Trevena: I know that the minister is trying to talk to

me, trying to catch my attention, but the floor is mine. The minister has had

his hour to speak.

As I was saying, where there is private health, it's not proven to

be more sustainable. In Britain, where there is this two-tier model, where the

National Health Service can provide good care in certain aspects…. As I say, in

Britain they've chosen, for instance, to have free prescriptions for seniors,

which I think is something that is very, very valuable. They never have to worry

about that.

In Britain in 2004 the National Health Service was charged 47

percent more for hip replacements performed by private surgical clinics than

those in public hospitals. A coronary bypass operation cost 91 percent more in

private practice in England than it did through the public practice. Again, if

we're looking at sustainability as a cost issue, we should really be looking at

investing in our present health system and not creating this fear factor that

our present system is not going to be able to be maintained and that therefore

we have to move to the private.

I have to say that this government, the B.C. Liberals, does keep

perpetuating the myth — as is the political philosophy of the government side,

the

[ Page 11719 ]

neo-conservative philosophy — that without competition, costs are higher. So

we have to have competition. We have to have more privatization because that

will give people more choice — this idea of individual choice — and this will

bring down costs.

People will have their choice. They'll be able to go out there

with their $100 that they got from their environmental rebate and have that

choice to spend it on their health care. I mean, let's take this to the next

stage if we bring in the sustainability and allow the sustainability idea to go

through.

[1520]

Again, it's been proven that the lack of competition does not

necessarily increase costs. It doesn't necessarily mean high costs. If I can

quote from the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation…. If we were arguing

that lack of competition does lead to higher costs, we would see that in

countries where there are parallel private systems of care or public-private

systems or those market-based, the costs would be so much lower. But they're

not. In fact, Canada's costs are in most cases among the lowest.

As individuals here in our system, we already pay a great deal for

our health care, and I find that shocking. I really do. I believe in a public

system. I believe in public health care. I believe it's one of the signs of our

civility that we have a public system. It's one of the really strong parts of

our safety net. If you do get sick, you should be able to be looked after

wherever you are. But sadly, that isn't the case.

We're already paying, because we are paying for essential

services. If you need an eye test, you have to pay. Any optometrist will tell

you that the eyes tell you how healthy you are. Everybody knows that dental care

is private, but now we're talking about having to pay for physiotherapy. The

list of the number of things that one has to pay for goes on. Chiropractic,

podiatry, physiotherapy, eye tests — these have all been delisted.

On top of that, people are paying extra for private insurance,

which covers things that the public health system doesn't cover. So we're

already creating those tiers — those who can afford private insurance, those who

are lucky enough to get a job where they get private insurance paid for. You

need that to get the coverage. You need that because it helps to pay for your

drugs. Like I say, God help you if you're a senior.

We are, as Canadians, very proud of our publicly funded health

care. As I mentioned, it really defines us, and it differentiates us. That is

because access to public health care is a great equalizer. The fact that

everybody ends up, effectively…. They have access to high-quality care wherever

they are, whether they've got money or not, if they need it.

If you get cancer, you get the same quality care largely wherever

you are. It's much harder for people in rural communities to get access to it,

but we get high-quality public health care in B.C. I think the fact that quality

health care is a great equalizer means that we really should be supporting that.

We should be looking at what the problem really is. It's not an issue of

financial sustainability. It's not a question of that sort of sustainability. I

think it's trying to find some solutions, trying to find ways of making the

system work for us.

For instance, I cited the issue in my own constituency where we

have a real question of sustainability with doctor shortages in the north end of

the Island, where we have literally constant closures of the emergency room in

one of the hospitals — whether it's Port Hardy or Port McNeill or at times Alert

Bay — which means that we're seeing people moving around.

We have to address this. We have to look at ways of dealing with

this sort of sustainability, with the medical sustainability, the staffing

sustainability, whether we're looking at nurse practitioners, whether we're

looking at increased use of clinics — how we can be very inventive, how we can

be innovative, how we can really make sure that the innovation we can use comes

from the people and not from changing the act to create this sense of…. There's

the fear factor — putting the sustainability idea in.

[1525]

Instead of looking at how we're going to be shifting towards the

private sector, let's start looking at some of the ideas. As I say, the nurse

practitioners are great. Let's start looking at more clinics. Let's start

looking at, instead of spending a lot of money on locums, possibly using some of

the money that goes to locums in incentives to get and keep the doctors and

other people in the medical profession to stay in communities, particularly in

rural communities.

One idea that was suggested to me by a doctor was that we've got

people retiring, particularly to Vancouver Island. People are retiring to the

communities. How about encouraging some of the doctors who retire to practise

part-time? Get a couple of doctors, two or three doctors, to continue their

practice part-time. They can still practise one or two days a week and be on the

golf course the rest, and that might help. Look at different ideas.

Also, invest in primary health care. We don't necessarily need all

the bells and whistles all the time. Invest in home care so that we can keep

people out of the hospitals, out of the long-term care beds for as long as

possible. Look at these ways, and these will start dealing with some of the

issues. When we have the whole concept of sustainability, we will be tackling

some of these issues.

I think we also have to look at the structures that we have, the

health authority structures. Instead of having basically empires growing with

very centralized health authorities who want to create their own monolith, let's

bring it back to the community. The community can help bring it back down to

reality and make the health system, our public health system, very sustainable.

The ideas are out there. The ideas are definitely out there for

how we could make our health care system sustainable. I think the bottom line is

that people of B.C. want quality health care. They really do want high-quality

health care. They do want to see that their system is maintained and sustained,

and they want to see an investment in it. They want to see a commitment from

their government in health care.

[ Page 11720 ]

Other members have suggested that this is going to be a debate

that will carry through the election. I believe it will be a debate that carries

through the election, because people are vested in health care.

As I end my comments on this bill, I go back to the concept of

sustainability. Over this last session I think that members on this side of the

House have talked about our view of sustainability. We have a document and a

philosophy on how we're going to create a sustainable B.C. Our view of

sustainability is the holistic view of sustainability. It is a view of

sustainability that really does include a huge variety of aspects.

So it isn't just the financial sustainability

interpretation. It

isn't just the environmental sustainability

interpretation. It is looking at

everything with a lens of how we are going to make this accessible for everyone;

how we are going to make sure that there is local control; how we're going to

make sure there would be a democratic approach, which is again bringing the

structures back down to the local level; how we can make sure that it is

equitable and also how we can look at full-cost accounting.

So when we are looking at the cost of it, we're not just looking

at the financial cost of the dollars and cents that we are investing in health

care, but the cost of not investing in health care — the cost of poverty and how

that impacts on our health care, the cost of homelessness and how that impacts

on our health care system. These things have to be weighed in when we are

looking at sustainability.

We can't take our health care system out and put it separately as

a body that is there to be attacked, to be pared apart. It is part of our

society. I think we should all be very proud that we have a health care system

that is part of our society, that can be accessible to everybody, that is

universal and that is free for a large part of the population.

I think we really do need to make sure that when we are starting

to tinker with any of the health care legislation…. There is a lot of health

care legislation in front of us at the moment. I'm sure we're going to have a

very lively debate, and I hope there is a debate. I hope there is a

back-and-forth between the members, because this is extremely important. Health

care defines us.

My colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke mentioned that this is

what differentiates us, our side in the opposition, from the government side.

But I think it is also something which does define all of us — the fact that we

do have a health care system, that we are proud of it and that we need to invest

in it.

[1530]

I think we all have to be very cautious about how we are going to

make sure that it can be sustained — that it can be maintained, that it is going

to be available for everyone when they need it and where they need it — and that

it will be sustainable in the truest sense of the word, which means that it will

be sustainable for everyone as we go forward.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

We can't just accept that it is a matter of how much it all costs.

It is irresponsible not to take that into account. But I think we have to be

very aware that when we start playing with our health care system, we are truly

playing with the health of all of our society.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks, but I will

be opposing Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act.

R. Sultan: I am pleased to comment on the Health Minister's

Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Act. This British Columbia act adds a sixth

principle — sustainability — to the five core principles of the Canada Health

Act, these other five being public administration, comprehensiveness,

defines those other five principles, a rather crippling oversight on the part of

the original authors, but then there are a lot of other things that they didn't

foresee as well.

The Health Minister has explained that the sustainability of our

largely public health system is a serious concern, since health costs unchecked

can grow beyond the current 44.6 percent of provincial government spending to 50

percent by 2013 and, according to our Finance Minister, could even reach a 71

percent share if we merely project the status quo.

The opposition Health critic has had a bit of fun suggesting that

the statistic of 71 percent has turned out to be an awkward bit of rhetorical

overkill and has therefore been taken out in the backyard and buried, never to

be mentioned.

I strongly disagree with that assertion. One can easily construct

an expenditures model based on historical growth rates for the economy, current

levels of taxation and projections of health spending. After listening to the

Health critic's unflattering prose yesterday, I got up at 5:30 this morning,

fired up the laptop, got Excel out on the screen and built my own little model

on the kitchen table without the helpful intervention of any aides or Treasury

Board officials, based on simply reasonable "trends and asks" in the current

context. Presto.

It's quite easy to foresee health care spending rising to 50

percent of this government's budget by 2013, only five years from now. If one

projects the more aggressive "actual asks" in the current context, one can

easily see the Health Ministry's share of the pie climb to 70 percent and more

by 2020. No big challenge, and I didn't have to go and dig it up in the back

yard.

Is this the Health-share budget future which our government in

waiting sitting opposite has in mind, with essentially a continuation of the

status quo? If so, they really have a serious obligation to explain to us and to

British Columbians where the extra 7 percentage points of the budget share five

years from now, for one example, or indeed the conceivable extra 27 percentage

points of budget share in 2020 is going to come from.

[1535]

Is it going to come from the schools budget? Is it going to come

from the universities — five new ones just created? Are we going to squeeze down

the number of social workers in Children and Families? Maybe

[ Page 11721 ]

forget about the snowplowing to the same degree in rural B.C.?

The pie is only so large, and there are many mouths to feed. It's

helpful to recall that as recently as 1984, the health share of the budget was a

little bit more than 30 percent. Over a 30-year time span, we are witnessing

what seems to me to be quite possibly a doubling of the role of health care in

the provincial budget. As health's share of budget grows, other important things

like spending on schools and universities will surely be squeezed, and the seats

on Treasury Board grow even more uncomfortable.

Many of us believe in the importance of maintaining a balanced

menu of government services, and I believe members on benches opposite strongly

subscribe to that view. Citizens ask many things from government, and rightly

so. The government has 23 ministries and many obligations beyond the doctor's

office. Health care must indeed be entrenched on a more sustainable basis.

All of this has been attacked vigorously in this Legislature. The

opposition Health critic has described Bill 21 as weakening the principles of

the Canada Health Act, as unsupported across Canada, as devoid of substance, as

an idea coming from a sole-source decider and as completely unnecessary. I'll

have more to say about that loosely aimed barrage later, but right now I'll

merely remark that other friends of the Left have also chimed in.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, with characteristic

attention to their funding sources, declares that the numbers cannot be believed

even when they're published by CIHI, the health industry's equivalent to

Statistics Canada. The Canadian Centre much prefers to make up its own numbers.

Our local health economics heavyweight, Prof. Robert Evans of the

University of British Columbia, has pronounced in his usual scholarly prose that

it's a phony issue. Vancouver Province , April 10. Not exactly a referee

journal, Mr. Evans. He quotes further: "They are providing themselves with a

legal basis for shifting the funding from the public to the private sector."

Who is Professor Evans, and what are his bona fides? He will be

best remembered in history, I predict, as having concluded some 20-odd years ago

that the reason health costs are climbing so fast was that we had too many

doctors. Those pesky doctors, always seeing patients, always prescribing costly

pills and ordering blood tests — dollars here and dollars there. Pretty soon

we're talking serious money.

He became identified with what came to be called the Vancouver

school of health economics. As described by SFU academic David Cohn, the

Vancouver school conceded that medical care was important but relatively minor

when compared with the social, economic and environmental factors in determining

our health.

You might say they concluded that health care was too important to

be left to the doctors. They recommended reforming health care so that the

relation between medicine and the state was shifted — and these are David Cohn's

words — somewhat away from the autonomous profession towards that of the labour

force.

You might call it a Marxist theory of medicine. I think you can

guess how much the doctors loved all of this. Our socialist government of the

day, anxious over the growing medical cost burden, bought into the Robert Evans

theory and choked off any growth in medical school enrolments, preferring to see

British Columbia maintain its dependency on doctors from elsewhere. They cut

nurses training a third, if you can believe it — good high-paying union jobs cut

by a third.

[1540]

Hospital construction essentially stopped. Even when the tower was

half completed on the site of my old high school at 12th and Oak Street in

Vancouver…. It sat empty for many, many years until this government completed

the job. For the last seven years as epitomized by that tower, as a matter of

fact, this government has been scrambling to try to catch up and indeed repair

some of the harm.

For those of you following — with great, intense interest I'm sure

— the statistical to and fro of this debate, here's a curiosity for you. While

listening to the slings and arrows coming at this side of the House yesterday, I

took time from ducking to take a closer look at the CIHI data on the growth rate

in the growth rate of health care spending. That's right — the growth rate in

the growth rate.

The question is…. Health care continues to become a more important

component of the economy, but at what rate? It turns out that the growth rate of

the growth rate was around 2.3 percent per annum in those bad, dark Socred days,

dropped to a puny 0.8 percent under the NDP in the 1990s and has since rebounded

to 1.1 percent under the B.C. Liberals. How about that?

No wonder the previous NDP government ran such a penny-pinching,

stressed-out, cut-cost, don't-invest-for-the-future and don't-innovate health

care system. They cut the growth in the growth of health spending by almost

two-thirds, and to them, Robert Evans was a theoretical saviour. You can look it

up — page 123 of their report on health expenditure trends, CIHI 1975-2007,

bottom half of the page.

I guess my mathematical quirkiness tends to bubble forth. I said:

here's a great campaign slogan for re-election. The NDP cut the second

derivative. But then I thought: not many people are going to catch it, so we'll

drop that brainwave.

With all of that, you might say a lot of us now approach Professor

Evans's theories of cutting health costs by reducing the number of health

professionals with a bit of caution. Let us concede, however, that the critics

have performed the useful service of raising the profile of a fundamental, very

important health policy issue. How much should government spend on health care,

and what is sustainable?

Journalist Will McMartin, in Tyee last September, printed a

series of tables arguing that the Finance Minister was simply crying wolf, that

there was no medical cost crisis in government finances and that the

crowding-out thesis, which he did not deny, was simply the result of government

not spending enough on everything else. Government's total share of the

provincial

[ Page 11722 ]

economy for health and everything else has slipped from 20.9 percent of the

economy in the first flush of the NDP era, in 1991-1992, to a mere 15.9 percent

in 2005-2006 under this government and to 15.8 percent today.

Therefore, it was pointed out that since health care spending

itself was not cut but, in fact, in the last two years has continued to grow at

a pace significantly faster than the growth rate of the economy through NDP

government and B.C. Liberal government alike, it's no surprise that health

care's share has grown and then grown some more.

We are told the fault, dear Brutus, lay not in the stars but in

ourselves, because we have not been spending as much as we should have been

spending on everything else. Stripped to its essentials, the McMartin thesis

suggests that this government has made a big strategic blunder by demonstrating

tax and spending restraint. That 25 percent personal income tax cut that our

government made on the first day it was in office was a huge mistake. Removing

low-income people from the tax rolls entirely was another big blunder. The NDP,

which has adopted McMartin's analysis with gusto, is once again revealed as the

tax-and-spend juggernaut it really is.

But to leave the matter simply at that is a bit superficial. Let's

consider a couple of other points. The first is: would British Columbia have

performed as miraculously as it has — the envy of Canada if not the world —

without those tax cuts on our first day in office, coupled with another

innovation, spending discipline?

[1545]

As an economist, I pay a lot of attention to Marty Feldstein of

Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge,

Massachusetts. In a recent working paper titled The Effects of Taxes on

Economic Behaviour , Marty has come close to endorsing Mr. Laffer's famous

diagram sketched on the back of a napkin, pointing out that tax cuts pay for

themselves. In other words, the proposition that economic growth stimulated by

tax cuts can help the fiscal situation…. That proposition gains academic

respectability — but, I would add, as long as we don't overdo it. Let's skip

over quickly the fiscal record of the current Washington administration.

Our big fiscal policy question is: would we have more or less to

spend on health care if we had not cut taxes? The NDP says more. I say less, and

if that is true, McMartin's argument and the NDP's tax-and-spend theory go out

the window. Indeed, I would argue that it was precisely the failure of the

previous NDP government to grasp this point that forced them to become

parsimonious, penny-pinching and very short-term in their thinking with respect

to health care.

The NDP's higher taxes led to out-migration and lower investment,

helped put the economy in the tank, slowed the growth of tax revenue — that's

what high taxes did — forced the deceleration in the growth of health spending

and set the stage for the poor performance in health administration during the

'90s, leaving the many issues that this current government had to deal with.

The second point that I think should be considered is the

proposition that regardless of its share of the government's budget, health

care's share of the total economy continues to grow. It is true around the

world, whether we're talking socialism or free enterprise. The United States,

struggling with the disaster of its free market approach to health care, is now

devoting one dollar in five to that sector in the economy and is bankrupting its

automobile sector in the process.

CIHI tells us that we are spending little more than half that

amount, but we're getting there. Why not? When it comes to immortality, why not

go for the gold?

And another thing. It costs about ten times as much to keep these

old bones of mine going as it did when I was a frisky 20-year-old, and I have

not noticed anybody else getting younger either. So add it all up. Medical care

is going to cost more, and this is on a collision course with finance ministers

right around the world, whether we're talking Sweden, France or Canada — or for

that matter, Hillary, Obama or Mr. McCain.

With so much of this cost now lifestyle-driven and with so much of

this life science technology now discretionary, if not exotic, we have moved

into an entirely new health care world far removed from the simpler days of

Tommy Douglas and far removed from my own family's Dr. Coburn operating from a

second-storey walk-up. I think it was above a fish and chips stand on Kingsway,

as I recall. He made his house calls to our place, it seemed to me in my youth,

armed with not much more than an enema syringe and a couple of aspirin tablets

in his black bag. That was health care when I grew up.

Today's radically transformed economy is not sustainable under

those old rules. I don't think it is. I think that in their hearts and minds the

NDP knows that too, but it's an easy political hit to deny it.

Yesterday the minister concluded his remarks by referring to one

Janice MacKinnon, and I would like to as well. Janice MacKinnon became famous as

the first provincial Finance Minister to balance her books in recent times in

Saskatchewan under an NDP government — under a good socialist, Roy Romanow. It's

helpful to recite portions of an essay she wrote, since she is a tried and true

NDP stalwart who served a competent western Canadian social democratic NDP

government with distinction for about a decade and since so many of her views

should find an audience in this debate today and refute the notion that the

principles underlying Bill 21 may not find roots elsewhere.

[1550]

In a July 2004 IRPP, Institute for Research on Public Policy,

paper titled "The Arithmetic of Health Care," she worked over some of the same

ground as Will McMartin did in his Tyee article. She says — and I'll

quote at length; I'll just keep quoting until I say unquote:

"There is a simple arithmetic to the rising costs of health

care, just as there was to the growing deficits and debt of the 1980s and early

1990s. Health care costs are increasing at a faster rate than the revenue of any

government, and other critical priorities are being underfunded in the scramble

to cover these costs.

[ Page 11723 ]

"Despite enormous investments of new money, Canada's health

care performance lags behind that of other western countries such as Sweden. Yet

attempts to change the system are constrained by an ideological debate in which

new ideas are branded as taking Canada down the road to Americanization,

privatization or two-tiered health care.

"Canadian governments need to make their health

systems more effective and affordable and in so doing, they should look to

models beyond North America. New ways to fund health care are also needed to

prevent costs from continually squeezing out funding of other government

priorities like education.

"The question then is: what is an ideal

revenue-raising measure? It must be fair. It should be based on income or

ability to pay. A fee should not be charged at the point of service since this

would deter people from seeking needed care but should be charged annually. The

amount charged should be related to the individual's use of the system."

Let me repeat that.

"The amount charged should be related to the individual's

use of the system. People need to take more responsibility for their own health

care choices and have a greater sense of the costs of the system.

"To expect…young people to pay higher taxes for

health services they use less than older Canadians is to place a further fiscal

burden on their generation. With shortages of educated, skilled workers looming

in the next decades, governments will not fare well in the international

competition for such people if they burden them with high tax loads for services

they little use; hence, the need to link revenue measures to pay for health care

with the use of the health care system."

That's what Janice MacKinnon said, an NDP prescription from an NDP

stalwart and a seasoned NDP Finance Minister — no right-leaning radical, but

merely a political leader with both humanity and common sense. Sounds to me like

she was embracing the principle of sustainability.

I have no idea whether this Health Minister or, for that matter,

this Finance Minister plans to take advice from an NDP Finance Minister, retired

or not, but I think they should both think carefully about her words. For us

here in British Columbia, sustainability is an issue.

I support Bill 21. It's the right thing to do. It's the necessary

thing to do.

C. Wyse: With all due respect to my colleague from West

Vancouver–Capilano, eventually an old high school math teacher might show a

little bit of discrepancy in how you take a percentage and move it around in any

direction you want at any time and have fun with it.

Before I get into that, with due respect for my colleague, I think

what also needs to be mentioned here is this point. That is that a budget is an

expression of political decisions. That's in actual fact what a budget is. It's

a collection of a whole variety of different items that are taken into

consideration when the budget is brought forward. There is a whole range of

items that come into play when those decisions are made.

[1555]

To turn around and suggest, for example, that the youth should not

pay for an increased cost because they will use health less than the elderly,

taken in isolation by itself, begs other issues. Does that also suggest that

seniors shouldn't pay for education because they're not having a family? Does

that also suggest that drivers should pay more than non-drivers because they

don't use the roads? Away we go with that type of discussion. When you try and

move things out into isolation, you will get into all sorts of contradictions.

In looking at this bill — Bill 21, the Medicare Protection

Amendment Act — I wanted to listen carefully to what my colleagues opposite had

to suggest, because we are talking about defining the word sustainability. When

you get into defining what sustainability is, in my judgment…. I wish to hear in

actual fact from the government what they had in mind with sustainability.

It's possibly my lack of understanding; I accept that. But to date

I don't understand why this bill has been brought in. There are still questions

that are outstanding for me. The government representative, the Minister of

Health, in my judgment still has not explained the rationale for why the bill is

being brought in.

What I did hear was quite a period of time on what this side

should be doing and questions of that nature. But this bill does not belong to

this side of the House. Therefore, that responsibility rests with the minister.

It rests with the government to explain what is going on, what is the background

for this bill.

With the discussion that has been taken to date, I would be voting

for something as a pig in a poke. Therefore, at this particular point in time,

this bill in my judgment is not supportable. Possibly with extensive

clause-by-clause analysis, possibly with a myriad of amendments, this bill may

be salvageable. But in the present form it is not supportable.

I mentioned earlier about where this bill has come from. In 2006

the throne speech did focus upon the unsustainability of health care — no

question. The throne speech defined that health care was unsustainable. It was

used to kick off the Premier's tour of the province on health.

That tour was sent out with a preconceived conclusion that it was

unsustainable. Now we'll go out and find it, and we will then fix a problem that

we've already said exists. Now after that was done, lo and behold, that wasn't

the message that was brought back.

[1600]

We've heard consistently — as a matter of fact, the words of

wisdom by my colleague opposite likely are still reverberating through the room

with such a high ceiling — that the numbers for the health portion have gone to

50 percent and then to 71 percent. Lo and behold, that is based upon

percentages, those lovely items that statistics and statisticians love, where

you can move numbers around by changing the parameters that you're talking