British Columbia Hansard — TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 (37th Parliament, 4th Session) (20031125pm-Hansard-v18n16)
20031125pm-Hansard-v18n16
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th 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, NOVEMBER 25, 2003
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 18, Number 16
CONTENTS
Routine Proceedings
Page
Introductions by Members
Introduction and First Reading
of Bills
British Columbia Railway
(Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 89)
Hon. J. Reid
Statements (Standing Order 25 B )
U.S. trade policy
J. Les
Development of export markets
R. Lee
Youth restorative justice
K. Manhas
Oral Questions
Privatization of B.C. Rail
J. Kwan
Hon. G.
Campbell
CN Rail operation of
B.C. Rail freight services
P. Bell
Hon. G.
Campbell
B. Belsey
Boycott of B.C. wood in China
D. Chutter
Hon. M. de
Jong
Viability of public-private
partnerships
R. Hawes
Hon. G.
Collins
Second Reading of Bills
Timber Licences Settlement Act (Bill
96)
Hon. M. de
Jong
Committee of the Whole House
Health Sector Partnerships Agreement
Act (Bill 94) (continued)
J. Kwan
Hon. G.
Bruce
J. MacPhail
Speaker's Statement
[ Page 8181 ]
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003
The House
met at 2:04 p.m.
Introductions by Members
Nuraney: Today the Muslims all over the world are celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr,
which marks the end of Ramadan, the month of fasting. This discipline has been
in existence for over 1,400 years, and whilst fasting is a physical activity,
there is a strong message of spirituality for practising abstinence and
cultivating piety. I would like, on behalf of the members of the Legislature, to
offer our felicitations and wish the Muslim brothers and sisters Eid Mubarak.
[1405]
Hon. G.
Plant: We have in the gallery today some hard-working advocates for the
legal profession and the public interest in the administration of justice in
British Columbia. I'd ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming
Robert Brun, who is the president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar
Association; Michael Woodward, who is the vice-president; Frank Kraemer, who is
the executive director; and Caroline Nevin, who is their intergovernmental
relations person. I hope all members will welcome these people to the
Legislature.
Lekstrom: Joining us today in the gallery are two friends of mine,
hard-working people in the northeast part of our province who work every day to
make the lives better of the people not just in northeast B.C. but in all of
British Columbia. Will the House please join me in welcoming the acting mayor of
Tumbler Ridge, Mr. Don McPherson, as well as the acting mayor of Dawson Creek,
Mr. Alvin Stedel.
Hon. S.
Bond: On behalf of my colleague from Prince George North, we would ask you
to make two of our friends and certainly key leaders from our community welcome
to the Legislature today, as they're here to celebrate incredible opportunities
for the northern part of province. I'd like to introduce Bruce Sutherland, the
president of the Prince George Chamber of Commerce, and Jim Blake, the chair of
the Prince George Airport Authority.
W. Cobb:
It's my pleasure today to introduce the mayor from one of the great communities
in my riding, His Worship Mayor Rick Gibson. Would the House please help me make
him welcome.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: It's always a pleasure to rise in the House and introduce someone
from northeastern British Columbia. It's my pleasure today to introduce a good
friend of mine, Steve Thorlakson, the mayor of Fort St. John. He was down here
to listen, along with the other acting mayors from northeast B.C., to the good
news about B.C. Rail this morning. Would the House please make them welcome.
Belsey: Joining us in Victoria, and now in the House today, is His Worship
Mayor Pond from Prince Rupert, who is here to take back some very good news and
information that has been passed on to us in our new agreement that we have with
CN. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.
Chong: Today visiting us are two exchange students attending Glenlyon
Norfolk School. They've come from very faraway places. We have Abisha Lobo from
India and Dineo Oliphant from South Africa. Would the House please make them
both very welcome.
Hamilton: Joining us in the House this afternoon are 35 grades 4 and 5
students accompanied by 13 parents and their teacher, Mr. McLatchie, from Hans
Helgesen Elementary School. Would the House please join me in making them
welcome.
Hon. J.
Reid: I'd also like to join in welcoming the mayors from across this
province. As well, joining us today for question period is John McLernon , chair
of B.C. Rail. Would the House please make him very welcome.
Hon. R.
Thorpe: In the gallery today, visiting British Columbia, is the president of
Fortis West, Mr. Philip Hughes. Would the House make him welcome, as their
company invests millions of dollars in growing the economy of British Columbia.
[1410]
Hon.
G. Bruce: On this historic day in the province of British Columbia, Anneke
has brought some other very fine individuals of British Columbia down here to
the House. With her today is Harmina and Wayne Richmond and their son Peter, who
have the 49th Parallel grocery operation on central Vancouver Island — another
independent body that does so well. They contribute so much to our community.
Along with them are Rob and Lynn Owen. Rob is the Owen of Owen and Sons, and in
most instances when you put your money into a cash register, it's courtesy of
Rob. With Rob and along with them all is my brother Garry, who runs the family
business and is actually trying to find out whether I really do anything at all.
Could you make them welcome, please.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY
(REVITALIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003
Hon. J.
Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour
the Administrator.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
The
Administrator transmits herewith Bill 89, intituled….
Interjection.
[ Page 8182 ]
Mr.
Speaker: Order!
The
Administrator transmits herewith Bill 89, intituled British Columbia Railway
(Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, and recommends the same to the Legislative
Assembly.
Hon. J.
Reid presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled
British Columbia Railway (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003.
Hon. J.
Reid: I move that Bill 89 be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion
approved.
Hon. J.
Reid: Earlier today the Premier announced a new partnership for B.C. Rail
that is going to generate $1 billion of investment for the people of B.C. Our
new partnership is going to deliver better services, new cars, new
infrastructure, faster shipping times, lower rates and new economic
opportunities for northern B.C. The legislation I am introducing will enable
this partnership to move forward. First and foremost, it will legally enshrine
B.C. Rail's rights-of-way, railbed and track under guaranteed public ownership.
addition, it will ensure that as a new partner assumes operations of B.C. Rail,
the B.C. Railway Co. remains a provincially owned Crown corporation. Under this
legislation, the partner will be able to lease the right to operate over the
railbed, which remains publicly owned by the B.C. Railway Co.
Bill 89
also allows for the smooth transition of inter-company land transactions to
ensure long-term protection by the Crown. This bill will facilitate a new
investment partnership that delivers numerous benefits for British Columbians.
These include new improvements for the rail system; lower rates and better
services, like a Chicago express; to create new jobs and opportunities in B.C.;
$8.3 million a year in new ongoing revenues for communities along the B.C. Rail
corridor; new passenger-tourist train services; and brand-new jobs and economic
benefits as the customer base increases.
I move that
the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next
sitting of the House after today.
Bill 89
introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for
second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[1415]
Statements
(Standing Order 25b)
U.S. TRADE POLICY
Les: Last week the United States Commerce department announced plans to
impose new import quotas on selected Chinese textiles. Protectionist trade
policies, whether they be quotas, tariffs or a number of other trade barriers,
allow a small group of producers to enjoy artificially high domestic prices at
the expense of everyone else. As British Columbians, we are well aware of the
impact of American protectionist policies. The current softwood lumber dispute
has led to the closure of mills and the loss of roughly 15,000 forestry jobs and
is estimated to have cost lumber producers $1.5 billion.
Like
advances in technology, trade liberalization allows a country to specialize in
producing goods and services in which it enjoys the greatest productivity
advantage. The result is greater labour productivity and higher real incomes.
While import barriers may save some jobs in certain protected industries, it is
at the cost of destroying jobs in other more globally competitive industries.
Last week
Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Board, said,
"The clouds of emerging protectionism raise new risks for the global
economy," adding that: "It is imperative that creeping protectionism
be thwarted and reversed." Tariffs on agricultural products, softwood
lumber, steel, cotton and now textiles have significant consequences to the
global economy.
Protectionist
policies are disruptive to the orderly development of free trade, detrimental to
emerging economies, and erode the integrity of international bodies like the
World Trade Organization. The importance of trade with the United States is
vital to the British Columbia economy, with more than $15 billion of exports
being sent to the United States so far this year. For the benefit of citizens
everywhere, we must resist protectionism wherever it rears its ugly head.
DEVELOPMENT OF EXPORT MARKETS
R. Lee:
Recently we have heard a lot of good news in this province, but I'm most excited
at knowing that in October over 30,000 new jobs were created in British
Columbia. It shows that the economic policies of this government are working.
One important component of our economy is export, which accounts for one in five
jobs in this province. This month I had the opportunity to participate in two
trade missions: the trade mission to China and the trade mission to northern
B.C.
In China
the delegation promoted the advantages of British Columbia for its products:
education, high-tech and tourism. As a result of this mission in Shanghai, the
University of British Columbia reinforced its relations with the Jiao Tong
University, and our Premier broke ground for the $12 million Dream Home China
project. In Guangzhou our Premier helped foster collaboration of SARS vaccine
research between Guangdong and British Columbia, two sister provinces.
In Beijing
our Premier spoke in the World Economic Forum. With the hon. member for Oak
Bay–Gordon Head, I witnessed the Premier signing agreements with the Chinese
Minister of Education for further cooperation and with the Chinese Academy of
Forestry to find new uses for fire- and beetle-affected
[ Page 8183 ]
wood. We also witnessed the signing of 14 MOUs between BCIT and its various
partners in many cities of China.
Right after
the trade mission to China, together with my colleague the hon. member for
Prince George North, SUCCESS and the organization Export Prince George, we
brought a group of Chinese Canadian investors and exporters from the lower
mainland to Prince George and other central interior towns. This visit went
extremely well, as it brought together the investors and exporters with the
lumber producers to establish trade relations.
For greater
prosperity in British Columbia, we must continue to make a concerted effort in
developing our export markets to create more jobs for our families in this
province.
YOUTH RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Manhas: Studies show that many individuals caught up in criminal behaviour
at a young age will continue reoffending upon release. All too often this marks
the beginning of a lifelong pattern of criminal activity and returns to the
court system. Youth restorative justice can help break that cycle. It puts them
face to face with their victims, and it reinforces the idea that society suffers
as a result of their crimes. But most importantly, restorative justice ensures
that youth learn from their mistakes.
Effective
restorative justice is an important tool in fostering responsibility and a sense
of connection to the community. It teaches youth boundaries and expectations,
building assets among youth who need help and attention the most. These are the
same kinds of assets the Youth Matters! initiative has been working on building
in my community. The result is a safer, more connected community and a better
quality of life.
[1420]
Restorative
justice acts firmly but recognizes that youth are mostly good kids who have made
bad decisions and that every young person has potential. This work is
spearheaded in the Tri-Cities by the Fraser-Burrard Community Justice Society
and supported by the three municipalities. In coordination with the Coquitlam
RCMP, they provide an alternative to the court process for youth who have
committed criminal offences and their victims. To date, 107 victims, 124 young
people, 149 support staff and family members have participated in the program
and benefited greatly from their services. They provide guidance to community
members affected by crimes and help them work with their offenders to reach a
mutually satisfactory and fair resolution to the conflict.
Programs
like the one in the Tri-Cities reduce the strain on the justice system and the
police system, as time and resources allocated to police officers and courts are
freed up. It's also worth mentioning that 98 percent of the young people
processed through the Fraser-Burrard program have upheld their agreements to
their victims.
Last week
we marked youth Restorative Justice Week in British Columbia. I'd like to salute
at this time the Fraser-Burrard community youth justice program in my community
and all the organizations, individuals and volunteers across the province who
dedicate their time and effort to support restorative justice. Thank you for
believing in all of B.C.'s youth.
Oral Questions
PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL
J. Kwan:
Today the B.C. Liberals and every Liberal MLA from the north have officially
broken with their constituents. They were elected on a promise not to sell or
privatize B.C. Rail. They put that promise in writing, and they campaigned on it
hard. Now their personal integrity and credibility are in tatters, sacrificed in
the service of the Premier's frantic attempt to pay for his failed tax cuts. To
the Premier: how can anyone…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
J. Kwan:
…who took the Premier at his word and believed him when he said he would not
sell B.C. Rail trust him now — now that he's broken a fundamental commitment
he made to the people of the north?
Hon. G.
Campbell: The answer to the question is simple. We did not do any such
thing. What we've done is protected the ownership of the right-of-way of the
rail for the people of British Columbia so that resource communities throughout
the north will know it is in public ownership for the long term in this province
to meet their needs.
More
important than that, what we did was reflected on the advice we received from
northern mayors and community leaders across the north of this province from
last year, when they said to this government that their recommendation
"would be for the province to retain ownership of the railbed and rail
tracks and to offer their partner rail freight and passenger services." We
have done that, and it will mean nothing but good news and jobs and investments
for the entire north of this province.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary
question.
J. Kwan:
The fact is that B.C. Rail has lost control of everything. The Premier admitted
outside in the hall that B.C. Rail has no control — no control — of the
railbeds. The Premier can talk all he wants about the supposed benefits of this
deal, but it changes nothing. B.C. Rail is gone. Hundreds of jobs are lost. So,
too, is the faith of British Columbians.
Interjections.
[ Page 8184 ]
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount
Pleasant has the floor.
[1425]
J. Kwan:
So, too, is the faith British Columbians put in this Premier to keep his word.
The Premier simply can't buy that trust back. The process that led to this deal
stunk — leaks, angry bidders, letters of protest, withdrawn bids. The Premier
had broken a fundamental promise to British Columbians. How can British
Columbians trust a deal that's signed under a cloud of scandal, secretiveness
and suspicion?
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order.
Hon. G.
Campbell: I think the member opposite should understand this. I know it will
be difficult, but she should get this. The British Columbia Railway Company is a
provincially owned Crown corporation. That provincially owned Crown corporation
owns the right-of-way, the railbed and the rails. More important than that, Mr.
Speaker, it is time this Legislature and this province responded to the voices
and the advice of the people of the north. That's exactly what we've done.
That's why we're getting jobs, that's why we're getting investment, and that's
why they can count on a long-term rail system that will meet their needs.
CN RAIL OPERATION OF
B.C. RAIL FREIGHT SERVICES
P. Bell:
My question is to the Premier as well. Critics have attempted to frame this B.C.
Rail partnership as an unnecessary sell-off of a valuable provincial asset and a
betrayal of our commitment to northern British Columbians. Today the critics are
silenced by this agreement reached with CN that brings countless benefits to
Prince George and the rest of British Columbia. Can the Premier please explain
how this partnership with CN makes Prince George a new continental gateway,
creating new economic opportunities for the north?
Hon. G.
Campbell: The B.C. Rail Investment Partnership does something very important
for Prince George. It opens it up as a new continental gateway to the north. It
helps establish, for decades ahead, Prince George's pre-eminent position as that
gateway. There will be a $135 million northern development initiative housed in
Prince George. It will be driven by northerners so that they can take full
advantage of northern opportunities.
The
government today has committed a $4 million investment in the Prince George
airport expansion…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G.
Campbell: …which will create 75 direct jobs over the next three years and
300 new jobs in the region. Because of the integration of the rail systems that
we have just been able to announce today, goods from Prince George will get to
the continental marketplace in Chicago two days earlier than they used to. There
will be a $1 million private sector investment in a state-of-the-art wheel shop
that will bring jobs back to British Columbia and back to the north.
Belsey: My question is also to the Premier. For weeks now, critics of the
B.C. Rail agreement have been spreading misinformation about the deal, saying
there will be thousands of jobs lost. Clearly, these dire predictions are not
coming to pass. In fact, the recently announced agreement with CN Rail looks to
be very promising to the residents of northern British Columbia. Can the Premier
please provide this House with details of how the CN partnership will open up
the north coast to new markets in Asia and around the world?
Hon. G.
Campbell: Mr. Speaker…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
[1430]
Hon. G.
Campbell: …unlike the last government, which didn't even bother to put the
port of Prince Rupert in their brochures, this government has put the port of
Prince Rupert and that great northwestern opportunity front and centre as we
move forward.
The
government has agreed to invest $17.2 million in a new containerization and
terminal facility in the port. It's important to note that the private sector
will be investing $15 million to improve track. It's important to note that
there is a request for proposal out right now that will encourage hundreds of
new jobs through the development of tourism opportunities and rail touring
opportunities across the north and up and down the line.
More
important than many of these things, I think, is to point out that when we do
focus on the great opportunities of that northwest gateway, we provide access to
Asian markets that's one and a half days sooner for our prairie farmers and our
Peace River farmers in this province.
[ Page 8185 ]
Finally,
had the members opposite decided to listen, they would have heard CN say that
they have just got an opportunity that will provide additional jobs, additional
coal shipments from the heart of the continent to the Asian marketplace. That's
what Prince Rupert can do, and that's what this agreement does.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
BOYCOTT OF B.C. WOOD IN CHINA
Chutter: My question is a….
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Please sit down. The Chair will not tolerate
outbursts like that. If you wish to wait for your turn in question period,
please wait.
Chutter: My question is a public written question from Mayor Chris O'Connor
from the village of Lytton to the Minister of Forests regarding the minister's
responsibility for international trade or forest products markets.
Unelected,
unaccountable environmental groups….
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Come to order, please, member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.
J. Kwan:
Shame.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Yale-Lillooet has the floor, and, hon. member, the
word "shame" is unparliamentary. I don't want to hear it anymore.
Chutter: Unelected, unaccountable environmental groups, led by the Forest
Action Network and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, recently staged a
press conference in downtown Vancouver…
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order. We'll wait till the member comes to order. We'll wait.
Chutter: …promoting a boycott of B.C. forest products in China. To the
minister: what actions will the provincial government take to counter this act
of economic treason, and what can resource communities do to fight the boycott
and promote our sustainable forest industry worldwide?
Hon. M.
de Jong: To the member and to Mayor O'Connor of the village of Lytton. I
think millions of British Columbians were disappointed, frustrated and actually
outraged when they saw the actions of the Forest Action Network. On the very day
and week that the Premier was in China trying to find new markets for the
products that British Columbians produce, these folks are telling our potential
customers not to buy. What they're really saying is: "Put British
Columbians out of work." It was irresponsible, and it outraged a lot of
people.
Sadly, I
have to say to the member and to Mayor O'Connor that it hasn't stopped there,
because yesterday we learned that these same people have now gone to Japan and
are telling our Japanese customers not to purchase products from British
Columbia.
Here's
what the government is going to do. We are going to….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order. Order. Hon. members, let's have some order and decorum in
this chamber, please. At least, let's be civil to each other.
[1435]
Hon. M. de
Jong: We are going to continue via the market outreach network, via trade
missions led by the Premier and others, to tell the world about our
world-leading forest practices in British Columbia. We are going to continue to
tell our customers around the world about our leading-edge forest products made
right here in British Columbia. We are going to press ahead with projects like
Dream Home China, which the Premier unveiled just a few weeks ago in China. I
hope every member of this House and every leader of every political party in
British Columbia will denounce the kind of irresponsible behaviour that Mayor
O'Connor refers to in his question today.
VIABILITY OF
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Hawes: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Our government has made a
commitment to the people of B.C. that we will actively pursue partnerships that
make the best possible use of every tax dollar. Recently the Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives released a study that concludes that P3s actually don't save
money; they lose money. In the health sector they may result in a loss of up to
10 percent. Can the Minister of Finance tell the people of British Columbia if
this is going to change our policy and our approach on seeking partnerships?
[ Page 8186 ]
Hon. G.
Collins: It's important to note that the Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives was given about a $200,000 grant, I think, by the NDP as they were
going out the door and cleaning out their desks just prior to the election. I
expect this is the kind of study they're putting that money into. In fact, I
believe the study was about seven pages long. It's a lot of money for seven
pages. It was alleged to be an economic impact study, which I don't think it
came anywhere close to.
I think
it's important to note that there are values and benefits from partnerships
around the public sector that are there to be accrued. I think the Abbotsford
hospital is going to be a stellar example of that. I think it's also interesting
to note that in Ontario recently the new government made changes to their
partnerships to restructure them so that the public continues to own the asset,
which is exactly what we've been working on in Abbotsford all along. That's a
great project. The people in the valley have been waiting for it for a long
time. The economics are there; the benefits are there. It's going to be a huge
benefit to the people who live in the Fraser Valley.
[End
of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. G.
Collins: I call second reading debate of Bill 96.
Second Reading of Bills
TIMBER LICENCES SETTLEMENT ACT
Hon. M.
de Jong: I move that Bill 96 be read a second time now.
Bill 96,
Timber Licences Settlement Act, as I indicated during first reading of this
bill, clarifies the intent of a 1995 statutory amendment to the Forest Act that
passed through this House, I believe, in June of that year, which removed the
royalty method of timber pricing.
I should
take a moment to explain that for a number decades in British Columbia there
were two mechanisms by which timber pricing took place. One is the conventional
notion of stumpage, wherein the methodology has changed, but it is a particular
classification of timber pricing. The second is the royalty method.
[1440]
In '95 the
government of the day phased out royalty rates that were established statutorily
for timber licences. Timber licences — and the terminology here is significant
— represent the oldest form of forest tenure in British Columbia. The last
timber licences were actually granted in 1907. Most have since expired or been
consolidated. A few remained in 1995, and a few continue to remain. Royalty
rates, or the rent the Crown collected for the sale of the timber rights, were
set in legislation. Since 1907 average royalty rates have been significantly
lower than average stumpage rates.
In the
mid-1970s Dr. Peter Pearse commented on that inequity in a report he produced in
a royal commission, actually, that he chaired. He commented on what he termed
the inequities inherent in that historical anomaly. I should say that nothing
came of that recommendation, and yet it was his.
In the
1990s the NDP government of the day commissioned Mr. Brian Scarfe to conduct an
independent review of timber royalty rates in British Columbia. After conducting
an exhaustive consultative process, he did recommend that the royalty system or
the royalty methodology by which timber pricing was calculated be removed. That
gave rise to the introduction and passage of an amendment to the Forest Act in
1995 to remove that historical anomaly. It was and is clear to me that the
intention at that time was not to pay compensation to corporate interests which,
in the view of those who had conducted the report, had benefited from that
historical anomaly between the methods for calculating timber pricing.
I've also
reviewed the debates that took place at the time and the commentary, and I did
want to alert members of the House to a portion of Mr. Scarfe's report. I am
quoting now from page 49 of that report, wherein the author, Mr. Scarfe himself,
quotes from a subsequent or additional report prepared by Mr. Schwindt and also
references the Pearse recommendations.
I'll quote
that. This is from page 49 of the Scarfe report:
"There
is no question that royalties have historically been below stumpages. There is
also no question that the Crown could have brought these charges into line and
that many think the Crown should have done so. This, in fact, was the key
recommendation of the 1974 task force which inquired into this issue. While
amendments to the Forest Act were passed in 1974 by the Legislature to
accomplish this end, they were never proclaimed.
"From
the perspective of compensation policy, any expectations about the
relationship between royalties and stumpages must have been tempered by the
knowledge that this could have been changed at any time. Furthermore, there is
scant evidence to suggest that investment-backed decisions were made on the
basis of expectations that the relationship would not change. The commission
has no knowledge of mills that were constructed on the basis of access to
cheap, royalty-bearing wood. In short, timber licences do not explicitly
confer the right to low-cost timber, and there is no compelling evidence to
suggest that investments were made on the basis of such an expectation. As a
result, the commission recommends that uncollected resource rents not be
factored into any compensation for the taking of timber licences."
Finally.
"The reason Commissioner Schwindt has been cited at length is because
there is a relationship between my recommendations and those of Schwindt when
it comes to the taking of a resource interest embodied in a timber licence. In
principle, I fully agree with the Schwindt position that no compensation
should be payable…."
[1445]
The report
continues on other matters. With this bill we are, as a government, making it
clear that the roy-
[ Page 8187 ]
alty system is gone and that companies will not be compensated for the loss
of any benefits that they enjoyed from the historical anomaly that I have just
described. That is the case for all purposes, including, as I said yesterday,
any present or future litigation. The mechanism by which that is achieved is set
out in the seven sections of the bill that are before the House.
Those would
be my comments at this time, insofar as second reading of the bill is concerned.
Motion
approved.
Hon. M.
de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House
for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 96,
Timber Licences Settlement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee
of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after
today.
[1450]
Hon. R.
Thorpe: I call committee stage on Bill 94.
Committee of the Whole House
HEALTH SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS
AGREEMENT ACT
(continued)
The
House in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 94; H. Long in the chair.
[1455]
The
committee met at 2:56 p.m.
section
1 ( continued ).
J. Kwan:
Picking up from the morning session on my questions to the minister on
section
1. The minister advised, when my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, the
member for Vancouver-Hastings, asked the minister about the Abbotsford hospital
and the relevance of this Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act,
and how it relates to the Abbotsford hospital development…. The minister gave
her an answer.
I'm
interested, though, on the question around the need or how…. Let me rephrase
this. Does the minister anticipate that those groups who may be putting in their
bids for the Abbotsford hospital…? With this piece of legislation, is it the
government's intention to facilitate a process where — even for the Abbotsford
deal, the subsidiaries of the subsidiaries of the subsidiaries, as is outlined
in the
definitions
section — it would allow for each of the bidders to drive
the bidding process in terms of work environment and the wages that would apply,
perhaps, to the very bottom end? Are there any ramifications with this bill and
its application in the way the health sector partner is defined, which would
cause that to happen?
Hon. G.
Bruce: Let's just understand what we've got here, because I can see the
piece being complicated. You could take this in one way if one doesn't fully
appreciate and understand how we're going to do public-private partnerships in
the province.
[1500]
There's a
fundamental difference, and this comes back to the phrase I'm using. As that
concrete of the footings is actually poured, that becomes the property of the
taxpayers of British Columbia. So by virtue of the construction of that hospital
floor by floor, with all that goes into it, at the end of that construction you
have a hospital owned by the province of British Columbia, with a licence for
what I call the private co — that is, the public-private company — to be
able to deliver, where they have them, non-clinical services to that operation
and only to that operation. Then, bestowed upon them are the same rights as what
was within Bill 29.
You have
Bill 29, which applied to your public hospital, your health authority, all of
the rights of Bill 29 under a public health authority. When the health authority
is now a partner with the private sector, we're making sure the same rights that
were employed there with the public hospital are there in the public-private
facility — that facility being now owned totally by the taxpayers of British
Columbia. So what we've actually done is mirrored what is there in the public
sector in the public-private sector.
J. Kwan:
The only trouble with the minister's answer is that in Bill 29, it didn't apply
in its definition
section the broad scope which this Bill 94 extends — that
is, the subsidiaries and subsidiaries and subsidiaries. So it is more than Bill
29. The government has opened a big hole by inviting the subsidiaries of the
subsidiaries to the table to become the employer, which we will define and
debate later on, in
section 3. So the scope is much bigger than Bill 29 and what
the minister lets on.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Do you want me to answer that?
J. Kwan:
Well, the minister wants to answer my issues. Sure.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I'd just like to explain it. You're quite right in respect to the
scope as it applies to subcontractors. I appreciate that. What we're actually
doing is trying to craft a new way in how we're going to build these facilities.
In actual fact, this private co that has both the public and the private sector
involved in it is probably made up of three or four others to become a
conglomerate that delivers other types of services. They've actually put equity,
investment, into the construction of this facility.
[ Page 8188 ]
Then with
what they have, through the auspices of Bill 29, they have the right to
subcontract out if and where it is necessary, because that's what's bestowed in
Bill 29. Now, you're absolutely right. It does go one step, two steps below,
from the standpoint of, first of all…. Keeping in mind that the conglomerate,
the consortium that's made up of a number of companies…. Some of them will
actually be delivering some of the non-clinical services. That's one component.
They may wish to contract some of the other non-clinical services to other
smaller companies there in and around the community, and they have that as their
right, as well, to contract out.
But what
you must understand…. If they subcontract out to another company in that
community that's doing business, which is certified — and, quite frankly, it
could very well be that they are a unionized company — any of the application
of Bill 29 is only specific to the work and service that's delivered to that one
facility. Then if 5 percent of their work is what's around, in this instance,
the Abbotsford hospital, and the other 95 percent of the work is perhaps for
hotels and other types of delivery through the community, none of that which is
applied through Bill 29 reaches beyond only the work they do for the public
sector of that particular facility.
So where
the member has mentioned that it is broader, it is in that sense, but it is
contained specific to that facility. That would be the case in any of the others
that we may, if government chooses, undertake through British Columbia.
[1505]
J. Kwan:
Well, the minister says it's contained only within that facility, but within
that facility the extension is much broader, as the minister has acknowledged.
It is much broader in terms of its application, which we'll get into under
section 2. So it is substantively different from Bill 29. It's not just
extending the rights that the government had legislated under Bill 29 to other
facilities. That's not true. It goes beyond that. By the way in which the health
sector partner is defined, which allows for subsidiaries and subsidiaries, etc.,
to later on be included as a definition of the true employer, then the layers of
moving beyond who the employer is into the subcontracts and the subcontractors
are phenomenal. It's a long list — a long list of people who could line up and
all of a sudden become the so-called true employer under this definition.
I just want
to be clear around the implications of this definition, the health sector
partner, in terms of the ramifications of it. Later on, Mr. Chair, I'll get into
the issues pertinent to that around its application, the contracting-out
situation, because it is misleading to suggest that the act affects only a
public-private interface. The allowance of it to go into subsidiaries and
subsidiaries then effectively, through this act, allows the government to delve
into the private and private interface at the contractor and subcontractor
level. We'll get into that when we get into sections 4 and 5.
I want to
just cover for a moment the questions around non-clinical services in this
definition. In the debate of Bill 29, the Health Services minister admitted that
this refers to just about everything, with one exception. That is the acute care
area. Quoting from the Bill 29 debate dated January 27, 2002, the Leader of the
Opposition stated:
"By
this language in the collective agreement, a patient could be admitted to an
emergency ward in a bed but not part of an in-patient ward. Therefore, that
emergency ward can be a contracted service. By this legislation, emergency
ward delivery of patient care can be contracted out. Is that the minister's
understanding as well?"
Response
from the Minister of Health Services:
"The
intent of this legislation — and the examples the member is using — is
simply to give flexibility in terms of how to best meet patient needs in
communities throughout British Columbia. We have singled out non-clinical
services as a way of identifying the in-patient services that are protected
from contracting-out.
"It's
simply around flexibility and getting options that will allow us to meet
patient needs in the most cost-effective way. That's the best explanation I
can give."
Then the
Leader of the Opposition goes on to say:
"Oh,
now I'm disappointed, because the Minister of Health Services is sounding like
the Minister of Labour with just that mantra.
"I was
looking for some answers. Can an emergency ward be contracted out under this
legislation — yes or no?"
Minister of
Health Services: "Technically, yes."
Then Hansard
goes on to record the Leader of the Opposition:
"Wow!
Unbelievable! What about pre-admission procedures? You know; that's where
nurses greet patients at the front entrance and do the lab services or provide
for the lab services, etc. Sometimes it even gives you radiological services,
etc. Is that able to be contracted out under this legislation?"
Minister of
Health Services:
"As
the member will be aware, we're looking at a reform around primary care. It is
an initiative that is really across Canada and certainly British Columbia.
We'll be trying to play a leadership role in that.
"There
clearly are opportunities for some new models that will actually do a better
job of meeting patient needs in communities around B.C. Today we have a lot of
pre-admission assessments done by physician's offices which are private
operations. They are private sector operations. There are some opportunities
in terms of primary care reform which could make better utilization of some of
those services in a way that's actually more accessible to more British
Columbians in communities throughout the province."
[1510]
My question
to the minister is this. The application of non-clinical services, and the way
in which it's defined and understood under the debate when Bill 29 was debated
— is that something that the Minister of Labour agrees with? That is to say,
emergency care is deemed to be non-clinical services in its definition. That is
to say, when you arrive in a hospital, pre-admission procedures, as an example,
would be deemed to be non-clinical services. I would like the
[ Page 8189 ]
minister to be very specific about the full range of non-clinical services
that would be included and be applied to for Bill 94.
Hon. G.
Bruce: The Minister of Health Services was correct in his definition at that
time. As I mentioned, what is there in Bill 29…. We are only extending the
same to Bill 94. As the member so aptly quoted from Hansard , those would
in fact be the same comments of the Minister of Health today and what we're
doing.
Locke: Mr. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave
granted.
Introductions by Members
Locke: It is my privilege on behalf of my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale
to welcome Bibleway Christian Academy to the chamber. This is a group of
students and their teacher and leaders, and their teacher is Ms. Ramona Clarr.
Also with them is Mr. David Dar, Ms. Kay Dar, Shaun Maloney, Janet Maloney,
Genevieve Daricia, Melody Stahl, Judy Florent and Gail Kemper. Will the House
please make these leaders and their students very welcome.
Debate Continued
J. Kwan:
I want to be very clear so that the public understands what non-clinical
services mean, because the way in which this government puts out the
information, you would think it's just laundry services. You would think it's
just the people who cook and those kinds of services, albeit those services are
equally important as the other ones that I think are also considered
non-clinical services by this definition under this government. Would
radiologists be considered as non-clinical services? Psychiatric services?
Therapists? Counselling? Maybe the minister can give the House and the
opposition a full list of who would be included as non-clinical services.
Hon. G.
Bruce: It was interesting with the announcement there that private
schools…. I just sort of forgot to mention that. Private schools are actually
a form of P3 in British Columbia today, in a different way but a similar
instance.
Just coming
back to the question at hand, Bill 29, as the Minister of Health Services so
aptly put it and as the member opposite was able to reflect on again here in the
House as to the definition of non-clinical services and what that may or may not
entail, that is there. I don't think I need to canvass every single situation
that applies, but I think it's important, as is stated in this act, that the
Canada Health Act takes precedence. Regardless of how we go about providing
facilities or how we go about providing services, all of that must be done under
the auspices of the Canada Health Act.
The member
should rest assured that what we're actually focused on here in all of this is a
different model of how we're going to provide facilities in the province,
utilizing a public-private model to gain the extra efficiencies that we think
are there. This is to be able to put back those efficiencies — and I'm
speaking in this respect of dollars and cents — into the provision of good
health care, patient care for the very people we're trying to look after in this
whole health care system. So it is that we would go and find or try and utilize
a new system to develop a manner of construction of facility that would affect
those efficiencies.
I think
it's prudent of government to look at all that's available and to try to find a
way to bring that into play so, as I mentioned to the member before, we can take
those limited dollars that are there for capital and have them available for the
delivery of actual health care services. If it's the definition of non-clinical
services the member wishes to canvass, the statement of the Minister of Health
made during the debate on Bill 29 a year and a half ago, that is the statement.
Clearly, the member is fully aware of what that entails and doesn't entail.
[1515]
J. Kwan:
Well, I wanted to make sure British Columbians know what "non-clinical
services" means as it applies to Bill 29 and as it applies to Bill 94. The
way in which this government has been spinning the information, I don't think
people do know. I don't think so. From time to time you would even see Liberal
government MLAs trying to muddy up the issue.
Basically,
"non-clinical services" would apply to anything in the health care
sector where a patient is not attached to a bed. That is perhaps the simplest
way to describe it. You could go in for radiology treatment, and that would be
deemed to be a non-clinical service. The radiologist giving you that treatment
would fall under the category of non-clinical service. A psychiatrist who gives
you therapy — or you go through a session with a psychiatrist…. That
psychiatrist could be deemed to be non-clinical in this definition under Bill 29
and therefore, by extension, Bill 94. Let's be clear. The scope of this bill and
the
definitions in it are very far-ranging.
The
minister raised the question around private schools. It just came to him that
it's sort of like doing that. Well, no, it isn't, because we don't have
an act
or legislation that allows for the overriding of collective agreement rights in
the public education system — if there were such a thing as a public-private
partnership in the school system.
Interjection.
The
Chair: Order, please.
J. Kwan:
What this legislation does is above and far beyond any legislation that has been
in place. The reach in deeming…. Well, I should just say that its application
and the broad nature of its applications to the various different facilities and
the ability for this piece of legislation to override collective agreement
rights are unlike any other legislation in the history of B.C. It's nothing like
what is going on in the education system,
[ Page 8190 ]
even if the minister wants to say the private sector education system.
Hon. G.
Bruce: The member opposite is quite correct. Radiology and psychiatry today
are actually pretty much all done in the private sector. I don't think there's
anything new….
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Pretty much. Pretty much.
That's
okay. We don't need to debate fact. We can stick with the fiction, because it's
way more fun. I can play the fiction role…
Interjections.
The
Chair: Order, members. Let the minister talk.
Hon. G.
Bruce: …with you for days and days and days if we want to deal with
fiction. I'm happy to. That's fine.
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Bruce: No, actually, I'll make it up where you make it up. I have to answer
what you've made up. If there's no fact to it, I've got to come up with some
fiction to be able to play to your fiction.
The
Chair: I would remind the members, please, to go through the Chair.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're absolutely correct.
Let's come
back to the fact of the matter of what's in this bill. We were actually dealing,
I thought, with
definitions, which would be
section 1. Through the course of
this discussion, which I'm happy to go through, we've now pretty much canvassed
all sections of the bill. We've talked about true employer; we've talked about
contracting-out. We've talked about a number of other things —
section 3,
section 5,
section 8. I'm quite happy to focus in on any of the
definitions, but
perhaps we'd like to move on to
section 2.
J. Kwan:
Maybe the minister should focus a little bit, because what we were talking about
was non-clinical services. Then he started to go on to say: "Well, you
know, most of these services that I talk about are already contracted out.
They're already in the private sector anyway." The minister knows that
there are services, such as psychiatry services, that are not in the private
sector and that are included under this non-clinical services definition. The
minister knows there are radiologists who fall under this category. The minister
knows there are counsellors that fall under this category. The list goes on.
[1520]
The
minister can fabricate, at least in his own mind, and make up stuff as he goes
along. Why not? Virtually every other minister in this House does that, so why
not him too? He may as well join the club. Otherwise, he'll be an outcast.
Anyway, it would be unparliamentary if I actually said what I was thinking, so I
won't.
Interjection.
J. Kwan:
I was asking questions on the
definitions
section of this bill around
non-clinical services. The minister, by his own admission, admitted that a full
range of services that go far above and beyond laundry, cooking and security
services are deemed to be non-clinical services — services that impact patient
care directly. All of those would now apply under Bill 94 and the reach that is
provided for under Bill 94.
I just want
to close with a statement. The opposition will be voting against this
section. I want to be very clear and say why that is. The reach which is being
allowed in defining the health sector partner to include subsidiaries and
subsidiaries and subsidiaries is far too broad in its scope. The measure which
the government is allowing for the application of Bill 94 is unbelievable with
the
definitions section. The opposition is not in support of how health sector
partner is defined, nor are we in support of how health care facilities are
defined in this bill.
[1525]
Section 1
approved on the following division:
YEAS — 57
Falcon
Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins
Cheema
Hansen
J. Reid
Bruce
Santori
van Dongen
Barisoff
Roddick
Wilson
Lee
Thorpe
Hagen
Murray
Plant
Collins
Clark
Bond
de Jong
Nebbeling
Stephens
Neufeld
Chong
Penner
Jarvis
Anderson
Orr
Harris
Nuraney
Belsey
Bell
Chutter
Trumper
Johnston
Bennett
R. Stewart
McMahon
Bray
Les
Locke
Nijjar
Bhullar
Wong
Bloy
Suffredine
MacKay
Cobb
K. Stewart
Visser
Sultan
Hamilton
Hawes
Kerr
Manhas
Hunter
NAYS — 4
Nettleton
MacPhail
Kwan
Lekstrom
[1530]
On
section
[ Page 8191 ]
J. Kwan:
Section 2 deals with the application of this act. According to this bill, there
are three tests. Bill 94 applies wherever the following three conditions have
been met. Where a health sector partner, which was defined under the
definitions
section, has entered into a contract with a private sector partner to either
provide capital or equipment — that's condition No. 1.
Condition
No. 2 involves non-clinical services. That is as defined in Bill 29, as I tried
to canvass earlier, which is why I was asking the minister for a list of the
non-clinical services, which the minister refused to provide. That definition
extends all the way through the other sections of this bill, and it was
important to lay that out clearly so that people know and understand what
context we are talking about. I must add that as it is defined in Bill 29,
non-clinical services include emergency room services in hospitals. That's
condition No. 2.
Condition
No. 3 is that the facility has to be designated by the cabinet, by regulation.
According
to this bill, Bill 94 extends not only to a private partner that builds the
facility but also to any sub-subcontractor who slaps on a coat of paint. If
that's not correct, I would want the minister to rise up in this House to
outline for us what are deemed to be substantial renovations under…. Actually,
it doesn't even say substantial renovations. It just says "renovating a
health care facility." Maybe the minister can advise to what extent would a
renovation be for it to be deemed to qualify under this section.
[1535]
Hon. G.
Bruce: We're talking about a sizeable capital here in respect of the type
of…. That would be one part of the criteria for being designated under the P3
and then finding that the extension of Bill 94 was applied to them. We were
clear on the fact that it would have to be substantial capital we're talking
about. We're talking about a new facility or a very substantive renovated
facility. We're saying that to begin with, of course, there has to be a
partnership established with a health authority. That means there's a
public-private component to that and, as the member quite rightly pointed out,
the provision in this instance of non-clinical services. The final part of all
of that is that it has to be designated by cabinet as an acceptable project.
There are
those kinds of limiting factors around this, but it's clear to say it's got to
be what one would call capital, not maintenance.
J. Kwan:
The minister says and uses the terms "sizeable" and
"substantial." What is deemed to be sizeable and substantial? Can the
minister give a dollar figure?
Hon. G.
Bruce: It could very well vary project by project, so to define a dollar
figure on it at this point is not going to give the clarity. The clarity I
suspect the member is concerned about is: if it's work performed such as
maintenance, would that be deemed as capital investment or substantive
renovation or a new facility? No, it wouldn't. We're talking about a new
delivery of a facility through the public-private partnership.
J. Kwan:
If the minister can't give a dollar figure or a range, how would we know, then,
what would be deemed in the minds of this cabinet and this minister as
substantial or sizeable? Nobody would know, because those decisions — the
designation — will be done behind closed doors in cabinet. The public wouldn't
know. How would we know the criteria, other than these broad strokes written and
spelled out in legislation here?
Let me ask
the minister this question. If he can't give a range of dollars that would deem
a project to be sizeable or substantial and therefore qualify it to be
applicable under Bill 94, maybe he can give a percentage of the capital
investment that has to be in place for it to be considered substantial or
sizeable.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I can quite understand, by the questioning of the member, Mr. Chair,
that you'd like me to come out and say it's X number of thousands of dollars.
But I can't do that, because the different facilities or whatever that may come
along could vary.
The point
is this: we are trying to find cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiencies in the
delivery of these new facilities, so it takes plans, it takes time, and it takes
effort. Clearly, it's going to be a substantive amount of money before it makes
economic sense to be able to proceed with a P3. If it's a question of changing
the door jamb and painting the walls, that's maintenance. That's work currently
done by a health authority.
We're
really talking about the type of project that is much larger than that, and
we're talking about either substantive renovations or new facilities. As we move
through on this, more and more of those types of things…. As you build them
through, it will become clear what the threshold is of the actual dollars and
cents to even bother with it. Clearly, little amounts of money wouldn't make any
sense, because you'd have all sorts of staff time and legal time and others in
trying to put the whole deal together, which would nullify any cost advantage of
moving into a P3.
[1540]
J. Kwan:
The minister said he wouldn't be able to give a ballpark figure or a range that
would deem a project to be substantive or sizeable for this
section of the act,
because the different projects may vary. I ask the minister for a percentage. Is
it 5 percent? If the renovation cost is 5 percent of the total operating cost of
the entire facility, would that be deemed to be substantive? Is it 1 percent, 10
percent, 15 percent? What is it? What can the public expect?
The public,
I think, has the right to know and should know, if they want to hold this
government accountable, so that they have an understanding of what would apply
to cause the government to designate a particular facility under this act.
Perhaps the minister can explain to us what kind of percentage we
[ Page 8192 ]
are looking at in terms of investments, whether it be capital investments,
whether it be renovation costs — if it's 5 or 10 percent of the total
renovation costs and even equipment costs. What are we looking at?
Hon. G.
Bruce: What the cabinet would look at in designating a facility or a project
under this piece of legislation would probably be a range of criteria that would
come into play, which we think would form that regulation — something like,
first of all, that it must provide a needed and valuable addition to the health
care system. That would be important. The private sector partner must offer to
provide a significant capital investment in building or modifying or renovating
a health care facility and, likewise, a significant capital investment if it was
in providing equipment that would support services that are to be delivered in
that facility. Others you might consider to be part of that criterion would see
the private sector partner having to assume a significant proportion of risk
that's associated with the project and, obviously, having to be committed to
completing the project in a timely manner. Also, the project itself would have
to be done in a manner that was cost-effective — this comes back to that issue
— for the health sector partner.
J. Kwan:
Well, all of the criteria the minister laid out are very general. They're
generalities and not specifics. Take the first example the minister used —
something that would be useful and needed in the health care facility. I could
argue — and I'm sure someone could argue — that a bunch of wheelchairs would
be needed and be useful in a facility. If someone invests in a bunch of
wheelchairs, as an example, would that deem it to be a substantive investment in
terms of equipment purchase for that facility and therefore deem that investment
to qualify as a health sector partner under this act?
I'm looking
for specifics — a little bit more concrete here. All these decisions, in terms
of the designation of these facilities, would be done behind closed doors in
cabinet — secretive decisions — and the public will not have access to that
information to make that evaluation for themselves. It is pertinent that the
minister lays out and clearly advises this House what will be deemed to be a
substantive or sizeable investment.
[1545]
Hon. G.
Bruce: Maybe I can offer some comments, some assurance. Let's take the
Abbotsford hospital then, and let's go back to that criterion. What that
Abbotsford hospital, the MSA, will actually come in at we don't know yet,
because that's still in request for proposal, but I think you're around the $300
million mark or so. Is the Abbotsford hospital a project that is needed and a
valuable addition to the health care system? I think that if you were to check
yes or no in the box, you would check yes to that one. The Abbotsford hospital
that I think we've been…. Well, it's been a long time coming.
What we'd
be looking for is a private sector partner to provide significant capital
investment in the building. Well, around that $300 million mark, I think, would
probably be pretty significant. But on the yes or no for the Abbotsford project,
would you check yes or no? I think you would check yes in that regard.
If the
private sector partner of the Abbotsford hospital — whoever it comes to be —
was going to proceed with this, they would have to assume a substantial
proportion of risk. We just made that very clear. That would fit in with how
we're developing the P3 concept and as it will apply to build the Abbotsford
hospital, which we know the people in Abbotsford have wanted for a long time.
Now, in fact, we're going to be able to move ahead to undertake it.
Again, if
you use the Abbotsford hospital, the real key one in this respect is: can the
private sector partner complete the project in a timely manner? Well, it's been
years in coming. We now have an opportunity to move ahead. I'm not sure how many
years that's been. Was it ten years? Did the former administration actually…?
I think they even announced it a couple of times. They might have even turned
some sod around this project. However, we are going to build it now, because to
fit under this criterion, it would have to be timely. That means when you start
and when you finish, so that would be built into that process. So that all fits
in there.
Then the
private sector partner, as it would apply to Abbotsford, has to complete the
project in the manner that is cost-effective for the health care system. What
would that mean? Well, you would call for your request for proposal; you'd put
it out. You'd get all the information back in. You'd take a good look at it, as
a business decision. You'd scrutinize it. You'd take the reports. You'd critique
it and decide whether this in fact is the best way to go for the development of
that private sector partnership — sort of a similar process to how one might
go if you were actually trying to do something different with B.C. Rail.
I know you
would want to rail on and on and on about the what-ifs and the maybes and the
what-fors and all the calamity about how terrible this thing is actually going
to be, but by gosh, it must hurt at the end of the day when you see a deal come
out that is so powerful and so positive in building the province. I mean, here
is an opportunity for every small community, from one end of that rail line to
another, to actually share…
The
Chair: Minister, are you on
section 2?
Hon. G.
Bruce: …in the economic activity not only in British Columbia but around
the world. I can get really excited about that.
The
Chair: Minister, I think it's important to stick to
section 2.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I take your admonishment, and we'll try to stick to the
bill here.
My point
being this: the fact is that there are some criteria here that we've put in
place, and the Abbots-
[ Page 8193 ]
ford hospital is one that can be used as an example. Not necessarily will it
finish that way, because it will also take
part in negotiations as to how we go
about trying to attract those who are going to come and be part of that P3
initiative….
All in all,
at the end of the day, what is it that we're actually trying to do? We're
actually trying to provide, in this instance, a hospital for those people in
that area, which for the last ten years hasn't been created. What are we trying
to do? We're trying to be able to do that within the dollars that we have, that
$10.7 billion of health care which continues to escalate at a tremendous
trajectory rate. The expenditure in health care is astronomical.
Do you
know, in respect of this, that the $10.7 billion, by the year 2005, could be
nearing $15 billion if we don't find a way to be able to manage the delivery of
our health care in this province — different than the method that we've been
on? As I mentioned to you earlier on — and I think this is a very important
point to understand — that $10.7 billion…. The figure I'll use is $10.4
billion, because the additional dollars are coming in from the federal
government. The statistics that I have currently in my mind are $10.4 billion.
Of that $10.4 billion, 77 percent is wages, salaries and benefits, and that's
understandable. But that then means there's actually only a small portion for
facilities and equipment — the tools that we need to be able to provide the
health care in the province. So it's incumbent upon government that they find
the most cost-effective way to be able to utilize those dollars to provide the
services to the people of British Columbia and in fact build a hospital in
Abbotsford — finally, for the people of Abbotsford.
[1550]
J. Kwan:
You know, this minister is full of rhetoric. I sat here and listened to him rail
on about B.C. Rail — a broken promise of this government where they betrayed
British Columbians. We know today that every single one of the Liberal MLAs
sitting in this House broke their promise and betrayed British Columbians and,
quite frankly, said what Winston Churchill would say is an illogical
inexactitude to British Columbians with that promise. They broke it today…
The
Chair: Order, member.
J. Kwan:
…and they sit around in this House and they hail and they….
The
Chair: Order, member. Order, member. Order. Will the member please sit down.
Will the member please sit down.
I counsel
the minister to stick to
section 2. I also counsel all the members in the House
that if they're speaking, we are speaking to
section 2 of Bill 94, and that's
what we're trying to accomplish here today. I will request that we stick to
section 2 with all the members of the House.
J. Kwan:
Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Chair. I did lapse for a moment, because I was
simply responding to the minister himself when he actually provoked that
response from me. My apologies to you, Mr. Chair.
Let me get
back to
section 2 around this bill — the application of this act. The minister
goes on and on and on about how he actually has exact and specific criteria that
would apply in determining what would be deemed to be a designated facility
under this act. Yet when you ask him a very specific question about the size of
the investment — what that would be, what the ballpark of that investment
might look like — the minister is not able to give you an answer. He goes on
to brag about what a wonderful job this government is doing, moving forward with
the Abbotsford hospital — save and except that this government, including this
minister, is closing hospitals all across British Columbia.
You know
what? The member from New West should know, because the community was calling
for her resignation just days ago because of the closure of St. Mary's. Maybe
the government should be looking for a cost-effective way to try and save St.
Mary's and to ensure that those health care services are being provided for, for
the people of New West.
The
Chair: Member, can I draw you back to
section 2, please.
J. Kwan:
My question around this section, around what would be deemed to be a sizeable or
substantive investment, the minister refuses to answer. Well, then let me ask
the question in a reverse way. Let me ask the minister: what would be excluded
from consideration? That is to say, what investments would be excluded from
consideration for that to be deemed as a designated facility under this act?
Hon. G.
Bruce: It's interesting to note that today there was a news piece that came
out of Britain, actually. Britain has embarked quite substantively in the
public-private partnership aspect. I mentioned that in my opening remarks as to
the fact that I think they'd constructed 40 hospitals and had 60 under
construction, and then they had constructed something like 130 schools and had
another 250 schools that were under the public-private partnership aspect. It
accounts today for approximately 11 percent of investment in public services.
That's about $12 billion, I believe, and supports tens of thousands of jobs in
construction and related industries. You know, one area that they've actually
been very successful in….
Now, our P3
partnerships will be a little bit different than theirs because, as I mentioned
to you, we are starting and maintaining those facilities, indeed, the moment
that concrete is poured into the ground and the footings and the walls and such
go up. We've seen what's been good in other countries. I know the work of
Partnerships B.C. has also been to ferret out those others that have not been
consistently good and to try to build a process for British Columbia which will
be truly successful and unique.
[1555]
Again, you
must come back to…. Okay, let's try it, then. Let's try this. This works. I
don't know if this works
[ Page 8194 ]
or not, but…. Let's say we're painting the wall — okay? We're going to
paint the wall of the emergency care service. That's what we're going to do.
We're going to paint the wall. First of all, is that a project that provides a
needed and valuable addition to the health care system, if you're using that
sort of criterion? Well, it's true that the walls probably need to be painted,
but they're already there, so I don't think it would probably fit. Those that
were going to paint it — this would be, I guess, the contractor that's going
to paint the place…. Would they be offering to provide a significant capital
investment in the renovation of that health care facility? I don't know. I guess
one could argue that if it was a large emergency ward…. I don't know how many
gallons of paint that would be. I haven't painted for a long time, but I'm a
pretty messy guy — so maybe ten, 15 or 20 gallons of paint.
Would that,
in fact, be a substantive investment? I don't think it would stand the test
before cabinet. It might stand the test in my own home budget, but I don't think
it would stand the test in cabinet.
Now, we're
still painting this place. The private sector — this would be the painter
again…. Do they have to assume a sufficient portion of the risk associated
with the project? Well, I guess there is a fair amount of risk. You could spill
all your paint or not get it done on time. You could be pretty lax about it, but
I don't think it would stand the test in front of cabinet. Must they do it in a
timely fashion? Yeah, they would have to do it in a timely fashion, but you
know, painting the emergency ward…. They ought to be able to do that in a
pretty down-and-dirty time frame, so I don't think that particular piece
actually offers….
So you're
still painting the emergency ward, and the private sector partner has to do it
in a manner that is cost-effective for a health sector partner. Well, I guess
you're actually haggling over 20 gallons of paint, the number of days it would
take, the three people that it would take to paint it and what their whole
operating costs would be. So what would that be? How long would it take you to
paint an emergency ward, given that you had the opportunity to do it? Two days?
I don't know. Professional painters can paint pretty quickly.
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Okay. Four. Would that actually then fit the criterion of being
cost-effective for the health sector partner? I know it sounds ridiculous, but
this is. And it's not what we're talking about.
So that's
where we started. I've tried the example of $300 million, which I think would be
sizeable if we were talking about the construction of the Abbotsford hospital. I
think that would give you some idea of the magnitude and how the criterion would
fit. I think I've tried now, on the other end, because the member asked me to
try going the other way. I've used 20 cans of paint and painting the emergency
ward to see if that criterion fits, and I don't think it does.
J. Kwan:
You know, it would do the minister well if he actually provided answers to my
question in a clear and concise way and stopped mocking, quite frankly, the
questions that are being asked. I asked a simple question of the minister. If he
can't give me a figure or a range of what would be deemed to be sizeable or
substantive, then give me a percentage of that investment, that budget — a
percentage of, let's say, a renovation. Then we'll have a sense.
The
minister just uses an example that he likes to say: "If I slap a coat of
paint in my house, it requires some gallons of paint. Well, that might be a
substantive part of the budget for my house, but it is not likely going to pass
the test in cabinet." That's what he said. He used the operative criterion
for determination for his own budget, and that is that slapping a coat of paint
in his own house might be substantive relative to his household budget.
Well, then
the question is: what is the percentage that will deem such a renovation or
capital investment to be substantive — in the health care sector, in this
instance — to qualify a facility to be a designated facility under this act?
Why is that so hard for the minister to answer?
[1600]
[G.
Trumper in the chair.]
He can
answer that question, but he likes to mock it as though asking the questions
were somehow not relevant, or ridiculous or obscene. What we've seen so far with
many decisions of this government is that the decisions are ridiculous and
obscene. It pushes the opposition, if we're to do our job effectively and take
our job seriously, to ask these questions because that information is not
forthcoming from this cabinet, this minister or this government. That's why we
ask this question.
The
minister has failed to answer the question today, and I will give him yet
another chance. What percentage would be deemed to be substantive within the
total budget of a capital investment or renovations or equipment purchase?
Hon. G.
Bruce: Well, we've tried two examples, and they obviously weren't clear
enough. We're trying to explain that we are actually going about the delivery
and the development of health care facilities in a different manner. Now, we
think….
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Well, we are, and we think there's an opportunity, by doing it in
this manner, to take what are limited capital dollars and be able to utilize
them in such a way that we can get first-rate services for the patients and for
the taxpayer in British Columbia while at the same time concentrating that very
large proportion of dollars that is so very necessary to pay for our doctors and
nurses and the people that work in the health care facility.
You know,
percentages of what? That's always an interesting discussion. There's $10.4
billion in the budget. You're not going to run percentages of that.
[ Page 8195 ]
You're looking for innovation. You're looking for creativity in how we go
about the delivery of new facilities. We have here today a piece of legislation
that speaks to that. I've used the Abbotsford hospital as an example of what
would fit the criteria.
I'm sorry
if the member took it as mocking. I certainly didn't mean to do that, and if I
did, I apologize. What I was actually trying to do was to find: okay, here you
are. There are all sorts of other ranges in between that you can look at, but
what we're trying to do is develop that set of criteria. We know that those
criteria, as we're working through looking at the construction of something like
the Abbotsford hospital, would certainly be ones that this government would
entertain under the P3 proposal. That public-private partnership and the
necessity of making sure that what the health authorities currently enjoy —
"utilize," I guess, is a better word to use — in the management of a
public health facility in regard to something like a hospital….
The same
application can be made in the public-private, and that's what this bill does.
Sorry, that's what Bill 94 does. It takes what there is provided for in Bill 29
under the public health authority side and now — when partnerships are created
between the public and private — the ability to manage in that same way can be
undertaken under Bill 94.
Where we
are at here is trying to proceed and trying to provide now, finally, a new
hospital for the people of Abbotsford, which I'm sure the member opposite would
be very excited to be part of. I'm sure she would wish the residents of
Abbotsford and the government well in the development of a new health care
facility that has, like I say, been waiting for some time, been announced
several times, with sod-turning by the former administration. It's with that,
the combination of a number of things, that we're trying to move along to
utilize in the most cost-effective way the tax dollars that the taxpayers put up
so that we can provide new facilities for people.
[1605]
J. Kwan:
You know, the minister goes on to say about how Abbotsford would be excited to
get their hospital built. I'm sure that would be the case, but I am sure it is
the case that the Port Alberni residents, the Grand Forks residents, the Nelson
residents, the New West residents — just to name a few — would be thrilled
if their hospital services were kept intact. Instead of building new hospitals,
all the government needs to do is ensure that existing ones are not eroded and
closed along the way. Maybe the minister would turn his mind to figuring out how
to do that. That might be useful and helpful for British Columbians.
The
minister has not answered the question with respect to the percentage of the
budget for a capital investment or a renovation, modification or equipment
purchase for it to be deemed to be sizeable. I don't know what the minister is
hiding that he's not forthcoming with that information. Maybe, after all, the
criteria that the minister will use behind closed doors at a cabinet table to
determine what is sizeable or substantive or what qualifies a particular
investment to be included or get the designation under this act may not be based
on factual information and standards that are set. Maybe what really matters is
how big the cheque the investor is prepared to write to the Liberal Party. Maybe
that will be the determining factor.
I fail to
understand why the minister would not be forthcoming with that information.
You'd think it's basic information that, when the act is drafted, the government
would actually have in mind what they think would be substantive under this
section of the act. Maybe the minister would have in mind what the time frame
would be for a project to be completed. He says one day or two days. He says
that's likely not to be deemed substantive. But what about one week, two weeks
or one month or two months? Would that be deemed to be substantive?
Would the
purchase of a CAT scan, let's say, for a small rural community hospital be
deemed to be a significant equipment purchase under this
section of the act,
which would deem that investment for a particular hospital or facility to be a
health sector partner in this act and therefore receive designation from cabinet
for this act to apply to them? Let me put that question to the minister.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Let me first of all assure the member opposite that anything that
this government does will be done on a factual basis. I know that's foreign to
the member's thought, because, quite frankly, there was hardly anything in the
past ten years of that former administration that was done on a factual basis.
Interjection.
The
Chair: Order.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I'd also like to say that when it comes to this continual harangue
offensive comment there — that we would only be making decisions based on
those that were contributing to the B.C. Liberal Party. You know, it must be
very, very tough for the member opposite when there is the continued support and
contribution to the B.C. Liberal Party. But we don't make decisions on that
basis.
The member
opposite might also try and kind of understand where people are at. In four days
on Vancouver Island — the other members would be interested — there were
over 2,000 people who came out to two fundraising dinners, one on the north of
the Island and one in Victoria. These were little people. Why did they come out?
They came out to support the building of the province after the ten years of
disaster that you people brought to this province, so it's a little bit of a
stretch.
[1610]
I don't
know if the member opposite knows this or not. Maybe that's how you conducted
your business through the course of those past ten years. I think if
[ Page 8196 ]
one were to take a look and reflect on what went on, that's exactly how you
conducted the business, because you certainly didn't apply any type of factual
information when it came to building fast ferries in this province. In fact, you
had reams and reams of factual information which you continued to ignore. You
certainly didn't apply any factual information into how you would run a railway,
because in fact what you wrote off was twice what you wrote off in the B.C.
Ferries situation — like billions of dollars. I can understand that the
comment may be, "Gee, I hope there's some factual information in
cabinet," because, quite frankly, in that ten years that the NDP
administration ran this province or tried to — into the ground, I might add
— you probably didn't apply much in the way of the factual information. Let me
reassure this member and the people of the province that, indeed, when this
government is working through what needs to be done for the people of British
Columbia, it is done on a factual basis.
Secondly,
you mentioned some aspect of whether a CAT scan would be a potential facility or
piece of equipment that one might look at. Well, I don't know. I mean, say you
had this tiny, little community somewhere, and for them it was huge and there
was some way this could be factored and put together so that it would allow
them….
I don't
know. Pick a community. Maybe it's Bella Coola or some small, little community
which would love to have the service. Somehow we could make that happen, and we
could deliver that service for those people by the utilization of the P3. Are
you saying: don't use it? Is that what you're implying?
I can't
believe the member would say that the people in some of these smaller
communities ought not to have the opportunity to enjoy the services that we're
able to have in some of the larger centres like Vancouver or Victoria. Why
wouldn't we extend those types of services to people throughout small-town
British Columbia? I think we ought to. But we have to be creative in how we're
going to do that. We have to be innovative in how we're going to apply that type
of opportunity for them. In fact, that's what we're attempting to do.
Maybe that
will work; maybe it won't. But do you know what, Madam Chair? If you don't come
back to the types of things I was talking about and put that particular project
against those things and it doesn't fit, it won't be done.
J. Kwan:
It is funny how, on a day that this minister and this Liberal government
broke a significant promise and betrayed British Columbians by selling off and
privatizing B.C. Rail, he is asking for me to trust him and telling me that I
should have faith in him and be reassured by what he says.
His worth
has just been proven by the action of this government and all Liberal government
MLAs. Their word is worth nothing, not even the shred of paper that it could be
printed on. His word is as easily broken as this pencil — just like that,
gone. Just like that it is worth nothing, and that's the value of this minister
and this cabinet minister and this government's word. That's how much it's
worth. When he says: "Trust me. We will make the right decisions in cabinet
behind closed doors…."
Interjections.
The
Chair: Order.
J. Kwan:
And when this minister says, "Trust me. The cabinet will make the right
decisions behind closed doors on what is deemed to be substantive or
significant, or what facility will be deemed to be designated under this
section
of the act…." Guess what. I don't trust him. I don't trust him, because
he has broken promise after promise after promise. He has done nothing to earn
the trust of British Columbians, and he certainly has done nothing to earn the
trust of the opposition.
After all,
it was this minister who brought in legislation that said: "I will not rip
up collective agreements." This Premier and this government have promised
they would not do it, and we are now debating legislation that extends the
ripping up of collective agreements. How can the minister stand up in this House
and have the face to say, "Trust me," when "trust," in his
meaning, in his definition, does not apply obviously for this minister through
his actions? How can he ask people for their trust, when he has broken promise
after promise after promise? There are so many broken promises. You can hardly
keep track of all the broken promises that have taken place.
[1615]
The
minister says, according to my question, that a CAT scan could be considered a
substantive investment in a particular community, in a particular situation —
could well be deemed to be significant — and therefore designate that
investor, that health care facility which received that piece of equipment to
have received substantive investments and therefore be designated under this
legislation.
What about
a situation like St. Paul's? I'll use that as an example. When I was there in
March, when I gave birth to my daughter, St. Paul's had one aspect of a facility
that was quite frankly a godsend for women giving birth. They have
individualized tubs in the room in which you're delivering your baby. For those
excruciating moments, the suggestion was — and I did — to get into the tub,
and the warmth of the water alleviated much pain at least for a period of time.
Not every hospital has that. St. Paul's was very unique in that they have that
facility, those tubs. For the hospitals, let's say, that don't have those tubs
— large or small or medium-sized hospitals — if someone comes along and
says, "We will purchase equipment by buying these tubs for the
hospital," would that be deemed to be a substantive investment?
I'm trying
to get a sense here of the range of the scope that will be deemed to be
substantive for people to understand what would be designated, because the
[ Page 8197 ]
criteria that the minister said are very general. There are no specifics to
it. You would be hard-pressed to understand in what situations capital
investments or renovation investments or equipment investments would be deemed
to be substantive enough for it to be considered a designated facility under
this act.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I might point out to the member opposite that St. Paul's, as you were
commenting about…. The province is actually looking at St. Paul's as an
opportunity, I understand, to engage in a P3 to modernize that facility. It will
be interesting to see whether or not they will proceed with that.
J. Kwan:
Maybe the minister didn't hear my question. Maybe he doesn't care to listen to
what the opposition questions are and, therefore, to answer them. He has
completely missed my point when I raised the issue of St. Paul's. Maybe he only
just heard "St. Paul's" and decided that, well, here's the answer. It
doesn't matter what the question is, which certainly is the case of this
government so far on virtually everything. To heck with the people with their
legitimate questions. I'll just make it up as I go along and give whatever
answer I want, even though it's not relevant to the question at all.
My question
was: if someone bought tubs in the maternity ward of hospitals, would that be
deemed to be a significant enough investment in equipment purchase for it to be
designated under this
section of the act?
Hon. G.
Bruce: Could the member opposite be a little bit more explicit? Are they
white tubs, large tubs, small, short? What kind of tubs? How many tubs? Do you
bathe in them, or do you stand in them? Do they have stalls? Do they have
handles? Do they have soap dishes? Tubs? Did you say tubs? I need to know more
detail.
[1620]
J. Kwan:
If the minister actually listened to what I said earlier, he would have known I
was talking about regular-sized tubs. I was talking about when women go to give
birth and they go into these tubs provided to them, which was an illustration I
had pointed out from my own experience, having gone through that experience
about eight months ago at St. Paul's. Then the minister would know what I am
talking about, but he doesn't care to listen. He sits and smirks, Madam Chair,
at questions. He doesn't care to listen, and then he gets up and tries to make
fun of questions that are asked of him. It is absolutely outrageous the amount
of disrespect this minister shows for the opposition and, by extension, to the
British Columbians who want to know the answers to these questions.
He might
think it's funny, and he might think it's not relevant. I don't. I'm talking
about the regular-sized tubs that are used in maternity wards at St. Paul's for
a woman when she's giving birth. From time to time they advise and assist a
woman to get into these tubs in the rooms so that they can have some pain
relief, for the warm water to relieve some of that pain and make the birthing
process a little bit easier and bearable for people.
Those are
the tubs that I'm talking about — a regular-sized tub. If someone purchased
these tubs for a particular hospital…. I mentioned small, medium-sized or
large hospitals, so it could range in how many tubs depending on the size of the
hospital, which is what I said. If the minister had listened to my question,
then he would have known. That's what I'm asking.
In those
circumstances, would that investment be deemed to be designated under this
section of the act?
The
Chair: I would tell both members that the debate is becoming a little
repetitive and tedious. I would ask if we can specifically get back to
section
J. Kwan:
We can move on a lot speedier if the minister would just get up and answer
the question.
Funny how
it is that in this great hall of democracy, as they say in this chamber here,
oppositions exist to ask government questions when we're debating legislation.
That's the purpose of why we're here. I'm going through
section by
section of
this act, asking the minister questions. Most importantly, I'm trying to get an
answer from the minister so that not only the opposition but everyone in British
Columbia would have a clear understanding of what would designate a particular
investment, deem a particular investment, to be sizeable enough or substantive
enough for it to be designated as a facility under this
section of the act by
cabinet.
So far the
opposition has not received the answer. It may be tedious for members of the
House, Madam Chair, and I'm sorry about that, if members of the House find my
questions tedious. As I mentioned, I wouldn't be repetitive or tedious if I got
my answer. The last thing I want to do is be tedious or repetitive.
But every
time I rise and ask a question, the minister does not provide the answer. He
goes and gives his own spin of what he wants to say. Not only that, he actually
would not even listen to the question and then would rise up and ask a
counter-question to mock the first question that was asked.
[1625]
Madam
Chair, I would seek your advice as to how I might proceed to try and get some
answers from the minister. I do not know how to proceed. I don't know how to
make the minister answer the question and provide this important information to
British Columbians. In this
section of the bill, we're talking about the
application of the act. Where the act is applicable to deem a health sector
partner…. To be a health sector partner under the
definitions of this act, you
have to meet three conditions: "(
i) provide capital for building, modifying
or renovating a health care facility or any part of it, or for equipment to
support services delivered in the health care facility or any part of it, and
(ii) provide one or more non-clinical services at or for that health care
facility or any part of it, and (
b) that health
[ Page 8198 ]
care facility is designated by regulation for the purposes of this Act."
Those are the conditions one must meet, but there are no specifics attached to
these conditions.
I'm trying
to get clarity from the minister so we know — particularly under
sub-subsection (i), where it talks about capital investments, modification or
renovation investments and equipment purchase investments — what would be
deemed to qualify for that condition. So far I've not been able to get an answer
from the minister. Perhaps you can assist me, Madam Chair, in getting that
answer and ask the minister that question for me.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Well, let's just kind of recount. We talked about one example being
the Abbotsford hospital. That was, I think, around $300 million. We talked about
painting the emergency ward, which we figured was 20 gallons of paint and a
couple of days. I think somebody thought it was four — didn't figure that one.
We talked about the potential of a CAT scan in a very small community — that
there might be some application in that instance. The last thing we were on was
bathtubs. I asked how much they were and how many you had, because I have no
idea what you need. I didn't know about the bathtub issue. There are in-patient
services. Never minding that, I got the drift that you were trying to find out
what capital…. I don't know how much the bathtubs are, and I don't know how
many you need. I've got to have more information than that to be able to put
that to the criteria.
J. Kwan:
Well, the one operative word the minister said in this space so far is the
figure of $300 million. Is $300 million, then, the bar? Is that the minimum
capital investment for it to be deemed to be designated under this
section of
the act?
Hon. G.
Bruce: No, I was giving you the range by examples as best we can — and
utilizing, then, the points we would apply in the basis of how you would go
about determining whether it would fit the criteria. You know, let's come to the
quick of this. You've asked the questions; I've given the answers. You didn't
like the answers. You asked the questions. The member asks the questions; I give
the answers. The member doesn't like the answers. I understand that. The member
is totally opposed to what we're doing, and I understand that. I appreciate
that.
We would
rather just carry on, according to the opposition, in delivering how things have
been delivered in the past, not paying any attention to the situation we're
faced with in trying to deliver health care in a different way, in trying to
provide facilities with the dollars we have provided through the taxpayer in the
most cost-effective way possible. We think, as government, that there is an
opportunity, through this process, to do just that. The opposition don't.
We've had
all that argument. We've canvassed it, and we understand that. You can badger
around, and we can go to the paint, we can go to the CAT scan, we can go to the
Abbotsford hospital, and we can go to the bathtubs. We can go up and down the
whole range of that forever and ever and a day. None of that will actually
satisfy you, because at the end of the result, the opposition disagree with this
process. That's what democracy is all about. You disagree. We're government. We
are the ones that are bringing this through. Your job is to review it. You're
reviewing it. You disagree. There it is.
J. Kwan:
No. Actually, what I'm trying to do here is figure out…. If the minister would
actually give me the range of what is the bottom end of an investment that would
be considered substantive and significant, then we could move on. He has not
done that, and he refuses to do that. He didn't give me a range in his answers.
He sat there and said: "Well, Abbotsford, at $300 million, would be deemed
to be significant." Well, that might be the top end of the range — I
don't know — or maybe the medium end of the range or maybe the bottom end of
the range. That's what I'm asking for clarification on here.
[1630]
He did not
provide the answer. He just said: "No. I gave you a range, and it says $300
million or a couple of gallons of paint." Well, that's helpful for debate
in understanding what is deemed to be significant or substantive. How would
British Columbians know how to figure that out on the basis of this minister's
arrogant answers? They can't, and that's why we're here as opposition members
trying to get the answers.
Will the
minister rise up in this House and give me that range? What is the bottom end of
the investment that is required for designation under this
section of the act?
Give me that answer, and then we can move on.
The Chair: Shall
section 2 pass?
Member for
Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.
J. Kwan:
Holy moly, I tell you. It has happened a couple of times already, where I'm on
my feet before the vote is called. Then, as though I'm invisible, the vote is
called anyway. It's unbelievable the way we're treated in this House. It really
is. All we're trying to do is do our jobs.
Interjection.
J. Kwan:
The minister says: "You've done it. You asked a question. You've got your
answers. You don't like the answers, and that's fine." No, actually. If I
got my answers, then we could move on. Maybe the minister can show me in Hansard
where he gave me the answer on the bottom range of an investment. I asked him
for a figure, and he didn't give me one in terms of the lowest figure that would
be required in terms of dollars for an investment to be deemed to be significant
enough for designation under this
section of the act.
The
minister rose in this House and said: "I can't do that. That all depends on
the range of the total budget."
[ Page 8199 ]
Then I asked him to give me a percentage of the total budget. The minister
didn't give me that answer. He got up and gave me some story about some paint in
his house. Then I asked the question about giving me a figure.… The minister
says he'll give a range. He used $300 million as one end of the range. Then
what's at the bottom end of the range? Is it $5,000? Is it $10,000? What is it?
What is the
trick here? Why is there so much secrecy about this that the minister can't rise
in this House to share with British Columbians so that they have a full
understanding of how a facility would be designated when we're talking about
investments that are substantive or significant in the minds of this minister
and this cabinet? Why is that so difficult? Save and except that there's
something to hide. Without giving that information, it begs the question that
the minister is hiding something and that they're going to be making secretive
decisions behind closed doors that British Columbians would not be able to see,
which they cannot shine a light on.
Then it
does beg the question: does it have something to do with donors to the Liberal
Party as is the case with CN? It just so happens they donated $107,000 to the
Liberal Party, and they just so happen to be the proponent that got the B.C.
Rail deal. Maybe that's all just coincidence. I don't know, but without shining
a light on the details of that, the minister is creating a situation that begs
questions and suspicion in the minds of the public.
[1635-1640]
Section 2
approved on the following division:
YEAS — 40
Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins
Hansen
J. Reid
Bruce
Santori
van Dongen
Roddick
Wilson
Lee
Hagen
Bond
de Jong
Nebbeling
Neufeld
Penner
Jarvis
Harris
Nuraney
Belsey
Bell
Long
Johnston
Bennett
R. Stewart
Krueger
Bray
Les
Locke
Nijjar
Bhullar
Wong
Bloy
Suffredine
K. Stewart
Sultan
Hawes
Kerr
Manhas
Hunter
NAYS — 4
Nettleton
MacPhail
Kwan
Lekstrom
On
section
MacPhail: Madam Chair, I'm going to read
section 3 into the record. It's
very short, but my questions are technical and therefore flow from the language.
Section 3 is entitled "Designated private sector partner is true
employer."
"The
labour relations board or an arbitrator appointed under the Code or under a
collective agreement must not declare a person who (
a) is an employee of the
designated private sector partner, and (
b) provides non-clinical services
under the agreement referred to in
section 2 (
a) to be an employee of a health
sector partner unless the health sector partner intended the employee to be
fully integrated with its operations and working under its direct supervision
and control."
[1645]
Of course,
the reason why this is so significant is that there is certain denigration of
rights that flows to an employee of a true employer who is designated as a
private sector partner. Perhaps the minister could just explain for us the
legalities around being designated a true employer. What does it mean? It's a
legal concept.
Hon. G.
Bruce: One might take into consideration when deciding who is a true
employer — this being the true employer of a group of employees…. The Labour
Relations Board determines which company holds fundamental control over the
employees and has integrated the employees into its operations. That would be
one part they would look at.
Another.
The act provides that the board or an appointed arbitrator must not declare an
employee of a designated private sector partner to be an employee of the health
sector partner, unless the health sector partner intended the employee to be
fully integrated with its operations and working under its direct supervision.
What we're
trying to do here is be very clear that as this consortium is put together….
As I mentioned, you had project co, and in most instances that becomes the
public–private sector operator. They will have, perhaps, others that have come
in to be part of that in respect to equity holders, and their employees — if
they have employees — are theirs alone and are not able to go back up through
the system and say that, in fact, they are employees of the health authority.
Now, if you
went another step further into that consortium and you had a subcontractor who
was providing a service to one of those partners that provides non-clinical
services, then those employees of that particular provider are only the
employees of that particular provider. They're not able to go back up and say,
"Well, no. Who it is that you are subcontracting for is our employer,"
or that you could go all the way back through and say that the health authority
is the true employer. So that's what this does.
MacPhail: Why is the government legislating this? Is there some problem
they're trying to legislate out of existence?
Hon. G.
Bruce: This is similar to Bill 29 in that we were trying to determine there
who the true employer was, and we're trying to reflect that in this particular
[ Page 8200 ]
instance here. We're creating these public-private partnerships, and there is
the ability to undertake certain activities. The subcontractors or contractors
that are employed to deliver that are, in fact, the employer of those employees.
They are not then able to go through the chain to try and insist that someone
who they are working through as a contractor or subcontractor would be their
employer or that the health authority would be the employer. We had that in
effect in Bill 29. We're trying to provide that same effect here in Bill 94.
MacPhail: Well, I find that perplexing, because the government of B.C., when
they were brought to the B.C. Supreme Court — challenging the constitutional
validity of Bill 29 — said this. The lawyer for the government told the court
that Bill 29 did not change the jurisprudence on true employer.
[1650]
The
jurisprudence on true employer is exactly the opposite of what this government
is now legislating — exactly the opposite. In fact, the reason why the
government's bringing in this legislation and this clause particularly is to
override decades of jurisprudence on true employer. That's why it's here. They
can't convince the Labour Relations Board that their silly little schemes of
contracting-out change the true employer. They couldn't even go before the B.C.
Supreme Court and argue that Bill 29 changed the years of jurisprudence on true
employer. So here is the government back again, with a sledgehammer to break to
pieces the basic labour rights of ordinary working people entrenched in
jurisprudence. That's what this is about.
Have there
been any rulings since Bill 29, either through arbitration or the Labour
Relations Board, concerning health authorities and the definition of true
employer?
Hon. G.
Bruce: No, there hasn't been. It's still early since this has come through,
and we wouldn't expect there would be at this point, in that regard.
But you
know, really what we're doing here…. We can go to the dramatic, if we like, or
we can take a look at what we're doing here. We had set about very clearly,
through Bill 29, that we were going to do things differently in respect to the
health care sector. We had an ever-increasing escalation — a voracious
appetite in the gobbling of dollars, if you like — of what was taking place in
health care to the alarm of the current government and to the alarm of all
governments in Canada.
We embarked
upon a very specific and difficult decision being made in how we were going to
do that, to make sure that the $10.4 billion…. As the member opposite knows,
the $10.4 billion is an escalating amount. Right back since 1984, which I think
was $3.4 billion, it has been increasing by every government regardless of
political stripe in every jurisdiction in Canada. It's not a political thing.
It's all about how we look after health care in British Columbia and Canada.
Government,
from time to time, is faced with making very difficult decisions. It's choices.
It's simply a matter of choices. You could stand back and say: "Well, I'm
sorry. I'm not going to face those choices. I'm not going to face the facts that
are before us relative to health care not only in this province but in
Canada."
We're going
to have to go about delivering health care differently, and so government's
going to have to make some choices. We made a choice in Bill 29 — a very
difficult choice. By virtue of that choice in Bill 29, we've gone about a
process of trying to deliver the non-clinical services differently to British
Columbia than what has been in the past. As difficult as it was for us to bring
that through, we have seen savings in a number of different manners.
For the
first time since 1952 we found that the Ministry of Health was able to balance
its budget, at $10.4 billion. I want the members to understand that even though
we were able to do that, the continuing pressures of health care…. It's not
static. The continuing demand for health care continues at such a trajectory, as
I mentioned earlier to the members opposite, that we would see that at nearly
$15 billion by the year 2005 unless government faced the challenge and tried to
find more creative, more cost-effective ways of delivering health care. We're
doing that.
Bill 29
gave us one way of moving through in that respect. What we're doing now in Bill
94, in the aspect of the public-private construction of facility, is affording
what is really a public facility — built and constructed in the different
manner — the same opportunities as what the public facility had.
[1655]
That's
what we're doing with Bill 94 as it applies to this act, and this particular
section is reflective of what we were trying to do in Bill 29. We're now trying
to bring those same provisions across to Bill 94 to allow for that which is
constructed through a public-private partnership — the same opportunities that
were there under Bill 29 for the totally public entity.
MacPhail: My gosh, how the minister does ramble on.
[K.
Stewart in the chair.]
Let
me just respond, then. I was giving my colleague relief here so that we could
probably just debate the technicalities of this legislation. But this Liberal
government never campaigned on breaking union contracts or legislating against
years and years of jurisprudence that protects employees and that doesn't allow
numbered companies to take away employee rights or break a union contract or
break the Labour Relations Code. This government didn't campaign on that, so who
knows whether the public supports this government or not on this road down to
two-tier delivery of health care? They didn't have the guts to test it in the
election, to tell the truth. They didn't at all. In fact, they said exactly the
opposite. The now Premier of British Columbia said: "Oh no, we're not going
to do any contract-breaking or taking away of rights." Yet here we are.
There was a
government, just as this minister said, that examined the issues of escalating
health care or the
[ Page 8201 ]
delivery of health care and that campaigned just weeks ago on the very issue
we're debating right now, which is privately built, privately operated hospital
services. That was the now Liberal government in Ontario. The Ontario Liberal
government discussed exactly what this B.C. Liberal government has put in place.
Here's what they decided just last week.
"The
Ontario government has dropped controversial plans to allow private companies
to build hospitals, fearing it is a step toward two-tier health care….
"Instead,
the hospitals will be constructed with public funds, as has been the case for
other hospitals in the province. Though the government's move keeps a campaign
promise and follows recommendations on the future of health care made by
former Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow as a commission…."
Okay, that
was only nine million people. That's true. Only nine million people actually got
to debate whether they wanted to go the direction that this B.C. Liberal
government is going now. British Columbians didn't get to debate it. In fact,
they were misled. But Ontarians got to debate it, and the government got elected
on the basis that they would not now go down the track that this Liberal
government is going down.
In fact,
here's what the Ontario Liberal government said:
"…Liberals
have been persuaded by Mr. Romanow's arguments that having hospitals built and
operated entirely by the public sector is less expensive than the private
sector operator. The Liberal government also feared that encouraging the
private sector to build and operate hospitals and clinics offering diagnostic
services such as MRIs and CT scans would be the thin edge of the wedge leading
to two-tier medicine."
Of course,
we know that this bill defines non-clinical services as diagnostic services, as
out-patient services, as day surgeries, as rehab, as cancer patient services.
Yes, there
was an election. Nine million Canadians got to vote on whether they agreed with
the direction that this B.C. Liberal government is going, and they said no. They
said no in Ontario. It would be a real act of courage if this government had
actually campaigned with British Columbians on what they're doing now. I hope
the minister stops the rhetoric that this is the way everybody else in the world
is going to contain costs. This B.C. Liberal government stands alone in Canada
on its extreme actions in the delivery of health care. This sledgehammer of
denying workers their rights to what a true employer is, is just another
example.
[1700]
Let me ask
this question: is the minister aware of the Hospital Employees Union challenging
a health authority in saying that contracted security services were not part of
the health authority as an employer — and they won? They won the argument that
for contracted security services, the health authority is the true employer for
this reason. I'm surprised the minister is not aware of this decision.
The reason
why the health authority was declared a true employer post–Bill 29 was because
the security people actually are involved in patient care in restraining a
patient that comes into emergency. They are involved in restraining difficult
patients and are part of the health care–patient care system. Is the minister
aware of that?
Hon. G.
Bruce: You canvassed quite a bit there, and I think that's great. In fact,
it is British Columbia that is leading in the reconstruction and building of a
sustainable health care system. In other provinces and in fact federally, they
are watching what we're doing and are indeed employing some of that which we are
doing. Alberta is; Ontario is.
I'm led to
believe, in fact, that what Ontario has done…. The new Liberal government that
came in made some changes relative to how their P3 model was working. They had
their election — the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct — and
there were changes. But as I'm led to believe, if I understand it, what the new
Ontario government now is doing is that the public will own the land and the
facility. The health care facility will be leased to the private partner, and
the partner will then issue a sublease to the local health authority to operate
all clinical services. This lease arrangement is adequate for the private
partner to raise financing to build the facility.
You know,
it's funny that those points are there, but they are quite similar to what we're
already doing on the Abbotsford hospital. In fact, they are very reflective of
what we're doing in British Columbia but not quite as far as what we're doing in
British Columbia. We are proceeding with a public-private partnership project
only where it makes sense to do so and where we can achieve value for money, as
we've pointed out before. The model of what is taking place in Ontario is
actually now, in the modifications they've undertaken, quite similar to what we
are doing here in the province of British Columbia. Let's acknowledge this.
I don't
mind that British Columbia leads. I think British Columbia can lead in a whole
manner of different ways. When you say we're the only one on the world stage,
well, yeah. It's difficult to lead, but sometimes it's great to be first. It's
great to be out there to build for the future. In fact, we are building for the
future, and that's okay. I don't think the Leader of the Opposition would want
to see British Columbia last — albeit they drove the economy into the ground
and made it last and made us then a province that was a have-not.
Never mind
that part of it. I shouldn't digress into there.
What we in
fact have is the situation where what Ontario was doing, similar to what the
Leader of the Opposition intoned…. The changes and modifications they're
making are very similar to what we're doing here in the province of British
Columbia.
MacPhail: I can't believe he actually stands up and says that. The Ontario
government has rejected exactly what this government has done. They did it on
Friday of this past week. They have rejected exactly what this Liberal
government is doing here, because they put it to a vote, and the public said no.
[ Page 8202 ]
[1705]
Jeez, this
government is so desperate to make itself not look like the draconian extremist
that it is, that it will falsely embrace any other democratically elected
government. That's what it's just done now.
I asked the
minister a question about the situation of security services being defined as
the true employer with the health authority. Is he aware of that?
Hon. G.
Bruce: Yeah, we're aware of that pre–Bill 29, but we don't believe we've
had the similar situation post–Bill 29.
MacPhail: When the government of B.C. had to argue in court whether Bill 29
changed that jurisprudence, the government argued that no, it did not change
that jurisprudence. There we have the full line drawn by the minister from A to
B. Pre–Bill 29 the very scenario that this government is now legislating out
of existence was won successfully by the union. Contracted security services of
another employer, of a person where they received their paycheque from
elsewhere…. It was defined that their true employer was the health authority.
Bill 29 did not change that. Now this legislation takes the sledgehammer and
changes that, changes all of the jurisprudence about what is a true employer.
Tell me:
does this kind of clause,
section 3, exist for any other workers? Does this
exist for any workers in the private sector?
Hon. G.
Bruce: The Leader of the Opposition makes the point pre–Bill 29 to today.
We're not arguing that. In fact, there was concern expressed. We had what's
there in Bill 29, and as I mentioned, we were trying to take what was there from
Bill 29 as it applied to public health authorities. As the public-private
partnership built a new facility and then operated it under the non-clinical
portions, the manner of operation would be similar. What was allowed under the
public hospital would then be the same under the public-private hospital. What
we're trying to bring across from Bill 29 are the provisions that were there so
that they would also apply under Bill 94 to the public-private partnership.
MacPhail: So is the minister, despite what I've just given him as evidence,
saying that Bill 29 does allow, for instance, security services in an emergency
room to be declared that the health authority is not the true employer? Is that
what he's saying — that this was in Bill 29, and he's just moving it over into
Bill 94? If so, where could he tell me that practical application exists under
Bill 29?
[1710]
Hon. G.
Bruce: We're trying to make it very clear with this that unless there was
direct control and full integration, and it was intended…. Unless that was the
case, then there won't be a true employer flowback. We have the situation with
Bill 29. Again, what we have done in Bill 29, we're trying to bring across
through Bill 9