2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Our Community Story project in

Vancouver-Hastings

Simpson

Seniors and volunteering

Sultan

Block Watch program

Fleming

Bob Harrison

Horning

Korean War memorial in Burnaby

Chouhan

H. Bloy

Oral Questions

Responsibility for outstanding

child death reviews

C. James

Hon. J.

Les

A. Dix

Call for reinstatement of

independent children's commissioner

J. Kwan

Hon. J.

Les

L. Krog

Farnworth

Hon. G.

Campbell

Responsibilities of property

owners for private railway crossings

Chudnovsky

Hon. K.

Falcon

Simpson

C. Wyse

Federal funding for immigrant

settlement services

Chouhan

Hon. W.

Oppal

Committee of the Whole House

Workers Compensation Amendment

Act, 2005 (Bill 11)

Puchmayr

Hon. M.

de Jong

Cantelon

Horgan

Krueger

Macdonald

R. Hawes

Rustad

McIntyre

Reporting of Bills

Workers Compensation Amendment

Act, 2005 (Bill 11)

Third Reading of Bills

Workers Compensation Amendment

Act, 2005 (Bill 11)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

(continued)

Cubberley

C. Wyse

Hon. G.

Abbott

Gentner

Ralston

Conroy

Fraser

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and

Sustainable Communities (continued)

Hon. B.

Penner

Simpson

Austin

Macdonald

C. Wyse

Simpson

Fraser

[ Page 1847 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2005

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

[1405]

Prayers.

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale is not with us today. She is at a memorial for her son, who was killed in a car accident. I hope it would be appropriate for the House to send the member our condolences and our prayers as she goes through this very difficult time.

Mr. Speaker: It will be done.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: I have two sets of introductions today. The first is to welcome a ministry staff person who is attending a parliamentary procedure workshop. Her name is Angela Dibden, and she represents the B.C. Public Service Agency. I hope the House would please make her very welcome.

The second set of introductions, as well, today…. We are joined by some very special guests — actually, a number of young moms who are here with their children today. Hazel Currie and her baby Nelson are here along with Erin Wright and her baby Spencer, who is four months old, and Jacqueline Quinless and her baby Maxwell Palmer, who is nine months old — obviously viewing question period for the very first time. I hope the House would make them very welcome.

Hon. C. Taylor: Joining us as well today, attending these workshops, are a number of my staff that I would really like to introduce to you. It's interesting, because the workshop is intended to provide a greater understanding of parliamentary procedure, including legislative and budgetary processes in British Columbia as well as cabinet and Treasury Board decision-making. I'm not quite sure what they're going to learn from question period. Nonetheless, I would like everyone to welcome Lake Apted, Debra Venn and Patrick Deakin.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's my pleasure to welcome in the gallery today five employees from the Ministry of Health who are also here. I understand that they had strongly expressed a preference to actually attend the Ministry of Health estimates but have been inadvertently forced by the larger group into this session. I can appreciate why they would want to attend estimates in lieu of that. But they are here for the parliamentary procedure workshop.

It's my pleasure today to introduce from the Ministry of Health: Wendy Trotter, Paula DeBeck, Donna Langford, Elizabeth Gronsdahl and Elizabeth Jonkel. I'd ask the House to please make them all welcome.

R. Cantelon: It's my pleasure to welcome two guests in the gallery today: Mr. Doug Backhouse, president of the Nanaimo City Centre Association, and Mr. George Hanson,

managing director of the Downtown Nanaimo Partnership. Both have been extensively involved in downtown revitalization, and they've succeeded in winning seven provincial awards for their efforts. I ask the House to welcome them here today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Richard Lawrie is the president of the B.C. Fire Chiefs Association. He is also the fire chief for the city of Abbotsford, and he is here today to witness what I anticipate to be another fine example of the good things that can flow from debate in this chamber. Please make him welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) OUR COMMUNITY STORY

PROJECT IN VANCOUVER-HASTINGS

S. Simpson: A remarkable artistic effort is underway in my community. Our Community Story , which runs from October 14 to November 30, is a multimedia project by 14 young interns and six mentoring artists, which tells the tale of three important pieces of Hastings Sunrise history.

Four on Hastings is a film and audio documentary about four unique Hastings Street businesses — Sorrento Barbers, Polonia Sausage House, Wung Wo Tong's Acupuncture and Herbs, and Olympia Tailors — which, interestingly, are also the venues for these performances. Stories on the Waterfront is an animated history of the port based on the recollections of longshoremen, seafarers and longtime residents.

Sights and Sounds of Hastings Park is a series of audio booths featuring stories about Hastings Park, including Playland and the PNE, the racetrack and the Japanese Canadian internment, and is hosted at the Sweet Tooth Café, the Grind Café and Gallery, Laughing Bean Coffee House and the Slocan Family Restaurant.

Our Community Story is both a wonderful community-building exercise and a great opportunity for young artists to showcase their talent.

[1410]

Congratulations to Jaimie Robson and Maya Ersan, who conceived and developed this project, and to their fellow mentoring artists: Igor Santizo, Lea Moss, Paul Bennett and Pietro Sammarco.

A special acknowledgment to the students for their superb efforts: Bruce Macdonald, Camilo Porter, Darnel Colby, Dennis Pierre, Emma Banks, Frank Pacheco, Julie Jones, Karl Fousek, Lucy MacKenzie, Max Knowlan, Mimi Li, Mitchell Vong, Olivia Kempkes and Wendy Chen.

And of course, thanks to the many sponsors, community advisers and supporters of Our Community Story and to the over 40 residents and workers who told the stories that made it such a success.

SENIORS AND VOLUNTEERING

R. Sultan: At the Premier's congress on aging issues David Baxter, the demographer, reminded us of what

[ Page 1848 ]

we see when we look around: more and more old folks. Despite improvements in seniors' health, the question goes begging: who is going to look after them? Clearly, it would be a mix of families, agencies and volunteers.

Statistics Canada says that 20 percent of the population are volunteers in one capacity or another. One organization I know something about is West Vancouver United Church's Caring Ministry. It's 77 volunteers and five team leaders in weekly contact with 96 people for home visits, walks in the park, and help with shopping and doctor appointments. With a 1.2-to-1 staffing ratio, Reverend Gouws tells me his team of volunteers is maxed out.

A different approach was described to me recently by a commercial home care operator up the valley. With 1,200 clients and 250 staff earning, all in, $25 an hour, at a 5-to-1 ratio it works out to about $12,000 per client — not cheap.

Or consider the hospital volunteer. For almost 20 years the wife of one of our most prominent North Shore business people quietly volunteered at the Lions Gate Hospital reception desk. One day, without ceremony, she was told to stop coming in. The union had filed a grievance. There was nothing the hospital could do about it. Was reception service maintained? Not that I've noticed. I call this nonsense.

As the seniors population grows, society's capacity is going to be stretched. To borrow a maritime analogy, it is going to be a situation of all hands on deck. It's going to include a huge volunteer component. Let's, therefore, welcome volunteers, celebrate them and keep them. We're going to need them, each and every one.

BLOCK WATCH PROGRAM

R. Fleming: I'm pleased to report today on activities that residents of my constituency are taking to prevent crime. In recent years the Victoria police department has increased its support to reinvigorate the Block Watch program that is citywide for ordinary citizens to fight crime in their neighbourhoods. This block-by-block approach is helping to prevent crime such as vehicle theft, graffiti, vandalism of property and the targeting of seniors by perpetrators of consumer fraud. Block Watch is very simply a program of neighbours watching out for other neighbours.

It's designed to enlist the active participation of citizens in cooperation with police to reduce crime and improve the quality of life in our neighbourhoods.

Approximately six months ago the residents of Washington Avenue in the Burnside-Gorge neighbourhood experienced a rash of break-ins on their street. People began to feel unsafe in their own homes at night and were frightened to leave their homes unattended during the day. A small group of residents of Washington Avenue led by Mr. Paul Chytyk, Cameron Burton and Judy Aldridge took the first step in seeking ways to make their street safer. They attended a Block Watch seminar and heard the message that the key to a safe neighbourhood is to know your neighbours, to look out for one another and know what to do in the event suspicious activity is observed.

Sometimes people's anger from being victims of crime leads to an impulse of vigilante behaviour. But this impulse is not only wrong; it can be dangerous to oneself and to others. Block Watch is about empowering people on their block and connecting themselves to law enforcement professionals. On Washington Avenue the initial efforts of a few concerned citizens have led to the organization of over 100 residents into the Block Watch program, making it the largest group in the city of Victoria. It has already led to the apprehension of suspected car thieves, and charges are being laid.

[1415]

Block Watch is not a 100-percent guarantee that crime will not occur in your neighbourhood, but it is a proven means to reduce the risk of being a crime victim. As the MLA for Victoria-Hillside, I want to applaud the efforts of Washington Avenue residents and encourage other constituents who think it may be of benefit to them to contact Bev Stewart of the Victoria-Esquimalt Block Watch program.

BOB HARRISON

A. Horning: I'm proud to rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding citizen of my riding — Bob Harrison. Bob passed away March 27, 2004, a week shy of his 70th birthday. He was a leading citizen in our community for more than 30 years, with sports being his passion. Although many know him from his distinguished radio career, it was his volunteer spirit, commitment to the community and love of sports that made this legacy.

This weekend I had the pleasure of dedicating a new Kelowna minor league football field in his honour. It's the first time the city of Kelowna has made such a proclamation to a specific field to be known as Harrison Field.

Bob was a man who was always first in many ways. He was a founding member of the Okanagan Sun Football Team 24 years ago. He even picked the team name and colours. His energy and driving force led to one of the most successful football franchises in B.C. and Canada. He also helped create the Kelowna Minor Football League, bringing together teams from throughout the province. The league is still thriving after three decades. In 1987 he was given the Football BC Builders Award.

Although Bob was larger than life and a fierce competitor himself, it will be his inspiration to our young people that will last. He saw sports as a way to develop discipline and character in our youth. He understood the benefits of team play and hard work. As a person who has participated in sports all my life, I want to thank everybody involved who made this dedication happen.

I think it's important that we all recognize these special individuals who have created better communities throughout our province. In Kelowna we have

[ Page 1849 ]

dedicated parks and facilities in honour of former Kelowna mayor Jim Stuart, Stuart Park; Councillor Ben Lee, Ben Lee Park; King Stadium for Willy King; Athens Pool for Dr. George Athens; and Edith Gay Park for Edith Gay — just to name a few. All had long and distinguished careers serving the public or a passion for sport or children such as Bob Harrison. I thank the House for this opportunity to pay tribute to these fine British Columbians.

KOREAN WAR MEMORIAL

IN BURNABY

R. Chouhan: On November 11 we paid tributes to the brave men and women who defended freedom and democracy. We shall never forget their sacrifice. To commemorate the legacy of over 500 Canadian soldiers — 36 from B.C. — who gave their lives in the Korean War, the Korean Veterans Association western Canada chapter, the Canadian Korean Veterans Association Pacific Region, the city of Burnaby and its Park, Recreation and Culture Commission have decided to create the Korean War memorial in Central Park in Burnaby.

This will be the second Korean War memorial in Canada. It will remind the citizens of the supreme sacrifice and contribution of over 26,000 Canadians who served in Korea from 1951 to July 1953. It is an important educational project to remind us of the horror of the war and to encourage a peaceful future. Unfortunately, very little attention has been paid to the Korean War in schools or by the senior government. Neither the federal nor the provincial government has made a financial contribution to build this memorial. Meanwhile, the government of South Korea has committed to pay 30 percent of the cost.

The Korean community has started a fundraising drive to complete this project. As MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds I strongly urge everyone, including this provincial government, to contribute to this worthy cause.

[1420]

H. Bloy: I rise to speak on the Koreans and their commitment to our community, as my colleague has. Many Canadians served in this war, often called the Forgotten War. From the outbreak of the Korean War in 1951 until armistice agreement was signed in 1953, almost 27,000 of our countrymen served in the United Nations–led operations. Of the 1,558 casualties suffered by our troops, over 500 Canadians did not return home.

British Columbia's vibrant and flourishing Korean community is not only an important part of our province's enriching multicultural society but also the fastest-growing segment in my riding. Despite coming from Korea, the community has always honoured those who travelled across the Pacific Ocean to defend democracy and freedom in their land of origin.

Right now, led by the fundraising efforts of the Korean community, a project is underway to honour those Canadians who served and died in the Korean War — the Korean War memorial. This is an initiative I fully support and have encouraged. Located in Burnaby's Central Park, this 450-metre plaza is expected to be completed next May. A bronze sculpture of a woman representing peace and hope, called the ambassador of hope, will be the centrepiece of only the second Korean War–specific memorial in Canada. It will be a fitting and moving tribute.

Please join me in thanking those Canadians who served in South Korea defending democracy and freedom and the efforts of our province's Korean community in honouring those who served.

Oral Questions

RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUTSTANDING

CHILD DEATH REVIEWS

C. James: Today we heard the Premier blame the system for the scandal that's consuming his government. This wasn't a systemic breakdown. This was wilful negligence by a government that deliberately — deliberately — designed a child protection system that was designed to fail.

My question is to the Premier. Can he explain how it was possible that no one in his government recognized that there were no child death reviews being done?

Hon. J. Les: I reported to the House yesterday that we would be examining all of those outstanding files. That work is still ongoing. As soon as that information is available, it will be made publicly available. There obviously were issues related to that transition. We want to get at the facts and what happened, and as I said, we're going to report out as quickly as we can.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I think what's missing in all of this is for government to accept responsibility for their

part in this negligence, for their

part in the fact that reviews weren't done. This system was designed by the government. The Premier downloaded responsibility for child death reviews onto the coroner's service without the resources or mandate to conduct proper reviews. No one in the government noticed that there was an absence of reviews, because they weren't looking for them and didn't want to see them.

Again, I ask my question to the Premier. When will he accept responsibility for his decisions and government's decisions that created this problem?

Hon. J. Les: I want to be very clear. As a minister, I take responsibility for this file to ensure that it is dealt with appropriately. As a government, we are accountable for all of these issues. That is why we are going through these files to ensure that we get all the relevant facts. I have already committed to making those facts publicly available. When we have those facts, we are going to react to them appropriately.

[ Page 1850 ]

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I'm pleased to hear that government is now taking responsibility for an issue. But the sad fact remains that no responsibility has been taken for the last five years. It's very clear, when we take a look at responsibility, that the Premier is responsible for these forgotten children. It is the Premier who led the core review process. It was the Premier who changed the system. It was the Premier, in 1996, who said we should all put the care, support and protection of children at the top of our priority list.

So my question is again to the Premier. Why weren't the deaths of these children on the top of his priority list over the last five years?

[1425]

Hon. J. Les: I just want to advise the Leader of the Opposition that we take these matters very, very seriously. There's no question of that. We expect to set a very high standard with respect to child death reviews in British Columbia. It is clear that there are a number of outstanding files that need to be dealt with, but our commitment to ensuring that child death reviews happen appropriately in the province of British Columbia remains, and we expect to see that achieved.

The child-death review process has been reviewed by a number of people across the country. It has been found to be an excellent process. What we are dealing with is a transition where, apparently, there are a number of outstanding files. I again repeat that as soon as we have that information, we'll be making that available to all members and the public.

A. Dix: Well, I say to the Solicitor General through you, hon. Speaker: I'd like him to name one expert across the country who would say that a government that doesn't know whether they abandoned 80 files, 500 files or 800 files, and when a minister of the Crown can't answer that question in this Legislature — whether any expert in the country would say those are high standards….

My question to the government is this. In 1996 the Premier said: "I can tell you this. This side of the House would not have taken months and found delaying tactics and ministers who didn't care about it to implement the Gove report. We would have put the Gove report at the top of our agenda, and it would have been implemented one step at a time, day after day and month after month."

My question to the Premier is this. When he dismantled the recommendations of the Gove report, day after day, month after month in 2002, why did he or his ministers not pay any attention to the consequences?

Hon. J. Les: I don't want to leave any illusions here. None of us on this side of the House are happy that a number of those files remain outstanding. No one on this side of the House is happy around that fact. However, we have committed to dealing with them expeditiously, and we intend to do that.

We have in British Columbia a coroner's service which I think is second to none. We have a chief coroner in British Columbia that is respected across the country. We have in our various ministries in government a lot of very dedicated staff, who are very dedicated to ensuring that we provide the best possible service to British Columbians. I think that when we come together and take a look at these issues and resolve them, we'll be able to do that in a way that is absolutely appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: The government acts on this question, and the Premier and the Solicitor General act as if this situation is the result of an accident that happened that they witnessed, which they weren't intimately involved with. There are no child death reviews, because the Premier and the government got rid of the Children's Commission. There were no child death reviews, because the Premier and the government got rid of the children's advocate. There are no child death reviews, because the Premier and the government transferred responsibility to the coroner without any funding and, in fact, cut funding to the coroner the year they did it. That's why there are no child death reviews.

My question to the Premier is this. Why doesn't he act today and refer all of these cases to a newly appointed, independent children's commissioner here?

Hon. J. Les: The fact of the matter is that we are acting today to deal with these outstanding files. I've made that commitment a number of times now, and everyone on this side of the House joins me in making that commitment. Every child death in British Columbia today is reviewed. Every death that occurs to a British Columbian under the age of 19 years is reviewed.

What we are talking about is the second-stage child-death review process, which for a number of outstanding files has not appropriately occurred. That is where we are looking for the facts. When we have those facts, the member and every other British Columbian will have them publicly available.

CALL FOR REINSTATEMENT OF

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER

J. Kwan: The Solicitor General says he's doing everything that he can. The government has had three years — more than three years — to look into this situation. The files have passed through a whole array — a team — of ministers, and nothing was done.

[1430]

How could it be that the Solicitor General and the Premier, the head of the executive council, do not know how many children got lost in the shuffle? How, then, can the Premier expect British Columbians to have any confidence that this government would take

[ Page 1851 ]

care of the most vulnerable people in our society — children who have no voice?

Hon. J. Les: I commit again to the member opposite that we are engaging in a process that will bring forward all of those outstanding files, together with a complete analysis of those files. When that information is available, it will be publicly available for the members opposite and the public generally.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Let us not forget that the missing information is about children — children in care like Savannah Hall and Harvey Charlie's granddaughter. The missing information is about children known to the ministry, like Kayla John and Daniel Smith.

In 1996 the Premier spoke eloquently about the tragic death of Matthew Vaudreuil. He wasn't a child in care. He was a child known to the ministry. The Premier demanded to know: how many other children known to the ministry, who are at risk, have died. The government changed the process, let the investigations drop and let the reviews drop. Through the many ministers to date, we have no answers. How can the Premier accept that as a high standard?

Will the Premier accept responsibility, stand in this House, do the right thing by British Columbians and reinstate an independent children's commissioner today?

Hon. J. Les: The member has enumerated some of the types of cases that would be involved in children's deaths. I've already indicated that we are talking, in fact, about all deaths under the age of 19 in British Columbia. These are not just cases of children in care. They are all British Columbians under the age of 19 who have died. Those are all reviewed. I just want to make that point.

We have consistently said that we want to have an excellent child-death review process in British Columbia. We believe the child-death review process that we have set out does that. We also have the Hughes panel, which will be reporting to government in several months. If there are improvements to be made, we will make those improvements.

L. Krog: What is known to every member who has sat in this House in the last years is that this government's process is a far cry from the excellent process that was implemented in this province by the previous government.

For days the Solicitor General has fumbled to get information that his government should have had for the last three years — information that, according to the Premier in 1996, should have been at the top of the government's agenda. The fact of the matter is that this minister has constantly used ignorance as his defence, and ignorance is not a defence. It's negligence. That's a direct quote from the Premier in 1996. Does the Solicitor General agree with the Premier that his government has been negligent?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite refers to the excellent work that was done by the Children's Commission. I would point out that while the Children's Commission was in existence until January of 2003, in fact it was still dealing with files from 1997. It points out clearly that sometimes these files do take a long time to be processed properly. That is for a variety of reasons. Again, I point out that there are a number of outstanding files around which we have some questions, and we are dealing with those as quickly as we can.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Confusion, changing stories, forgotten children — negligence. It is time for action. It is not an action to wait for some report to tell this government what to do. Everyone in British Columbia, including the members opposite, knows what should be done. So that this kind of scandal will not happen again, will the Premier finally reinstate an independent children's commission?

[1435]

Hon. J. Les: We are taking action to ensure that all of the outstanding files are appropriately dealt with as quickly as possible. In addition to that, we have appointed a review panel under Mr. Ted Hughes to review the entire child-death review process — to review how that is done — and whether there are any further recommendations that can be made with respect to making it an even better process perhaps. I think we are taking action. We are concerned that in British Columbia we will have the best child-death review process that we can possibly manage.

M. Farnworth: Well, what have British Columbians heard? They've heard that there have been three Ministers of Children and Families, two Attorneys General, two Solicitors General. Three years later, one review, lost files — and no one knows how many there are — and too many questions that remain to be answered. The buck doesn't stop with the minister; it stops with the Premier. It stops at the head of the executive council, the Premier of British Columbia.

So my question is to the Premier. Will he apologize to British Columbians for this situation, and will he restore trust in the system by committing today to reinstating an independent children's commission?

Hon. J. Les: I have already said that no one on this side of the House particularly enjoys what we have discovered over the last several days. We have, however, taken action to ensure that we obtain all of the information that we need to deal appropriately with these issues. We are going to do that. We will be reporting out on the facts that we have found as quickly as we can do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 1852 ]

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the remarks of the Solicitor General, but the buck stops with the Premier. He is the Premier of British Columbia, and he is the one who is ultimately accountable. So my question is to the Premier again. Does he take responsibility? Will he apologize to British Columbians, and will he reinstate the children's commissioner?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, the government does take responsibility. The government believes that every child's death should be examined. Every death of a child under 19 in British Columbia has been examined at least once, and members opposite know that.

Members opposite know that the child death review is a second-stage review. It allows us to aggregate information so that we can provide the public with the results of those investigations carried out by the coroner so we can help prevent deaths in the future.

Let there be no mistake. Unnatural, unexpected cases that take place — suspicious deaths — are investigated immediately by the coroner. The child death reviews include children that die in hospital. They include children that die in accidents. We all want to learn from that. While I welcome the opposition's recommendations for how we can improve the situation, I want everyone to understand that everyone in British Columbia — British Columbians, the government, the opposition, all of us — wants to be sure that we learn from the death of every child. All of us will learn. We'll learn through comprehensive reviews.

We'll learn by depending on an independent person like the coroner reviewing that with professionals and providing us with advice.

Let there be no mistake. Every death of every child under 19 will be reviewed in British Columbia, reports will be prepared, and action will be taken, so all of us in this House and British Columbians in general can learn so that we can make British Columbia even safer in the future for the children of this province.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROPERTY OWNERS

FOR PRIVATE RAILWAY CROSSINGS

D. Chudnovsky: The Minister of Transportation has repeatedly asserted that nothing has changed since B.C. Rail was sold to CN. Last week we heard that Loreen Tegart has a $30,000 bill she never had before, which is a pretty big change. Today we learned that another landowner is going to have to pay to maintain a fence between their property and the railbed, despite having an agreement signed in 2003 that said B.C. Rail would maintain the fenceline.

Can the minister please explain how this information fits with his assertion that nothing has changed?

[1440]

Hon. K. Falcon: As we know, we've canvassed this issue very extensively in this House. I think I've made it abundantly clear that whether you're a resident in Newfoundland or British Columbia or Saskatchewan, if you have a class one railway crossing on your property, you are responsible for the maintenance and upgrades of that rail crossing.

I've also made it very clear to this House that I am — and I was and maintain that I still am — very unhappy with the tone of the letter that CN sent out. I've made it very clear that I thought the tone was unduly burdensome and the rhetoric in the letter was totally inappropriate.

I can tell the member that my office has made that clear to CN on numerous occasions. Today I can tell the member that our office has again spoken to CN, and they've suggested that as a result of the review they've been undertaking, which I made clear in this House was underway, they've made some changes.

First among those is that they will be waiving the suggested annual maintenance fee.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: It's about time the people of B.C. got some leadership from their Minister of Transportation, got some advocacy from their Minister of Transportation, got some representation from their Minister of Transportation. It's taken them until today to talk to CN.

We'll keep asking the questions, and we'll hope that at some….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, I can't hear you. Carry on.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad you want to hear me. We'll keep asking the questions, and perhaps eventually we'll get the leadership that British Columbians deserve.

Anne Grower of Clinton has lived on the rail line since 1962 and has never paid for fencing. She reports that she was assured by the former MLA for Cariboo South, Walt Cobb, that this Liberal government would continue to repair and maintain fences after the railway was privatized. Is this minister and is this government prepared to live up to that commitment? And if it isn't, who does the minister think these people should turn to for support and encouragement?

Hon. K. Falcon: You cut me off at the best part of my answer, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately I've saved the best part here. As a result of the repeated discussions my office has had with CN, I am pleased to suggest that they have indicated that they will be waiving the suggested annual maintenance fee of $500 a year till at least 2007.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: No, it gets better. During that time CN will examine all relevant private crossings to determine where and what minimum work needs to be done to meet those federal safety regulations and stan-

[ Page 1853 ]

dards. Thirdly, they will be reducing the recommended liability requirement from $10 million to $2 million. I might add that that was put there to ensure that the homeowners are protected in the event that they're a third party in any lawsuit having to do with the rail crossing. Finally, they will be reviewing the letters and re-sending new letters out with appropriate language explaining the appropriate rights and obligations of both parties. That's exactly what we've been asking of CN, and that's exactly what CN has delivered. I appreciate that.

[1445]

B. Simpson: I find it fascinating to listen to the Minister of Transportation take credit for something the Canadian transportation authority intervened in. It's the Canadian transportation authority who is pushing CN to remove the maintenance fee, and it's as the result of the opposition members in this House engaging the Canadian transportation authority, when the government would not, and asking them those questions

So to the Minister of Transportation, another angle for a change: who is responsible for noxious weeds along the rail line?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, I appreciate the member opposite trying to claim credit for something he had absolutely nothing to do with. But that's to be expected by the members opposite, I suppose.

Actually, the member should know that CN charges those annual maintenance fees right across the country. Everywhere else in Canada they charge that annual maintenance fee. They will not be charging them in B.C. until 2007, until such time as they have an opportunity to fully review the rail crossings and the obligations.

The member asks a very detailed question, and I would encourage the member to actually go to the agreement. The agreement, as I have said from the beginning, is on the website — almost 1,000 pages of fascinating detail that the member can fill in for himself. I'm happy to quote sections. But really, what I'm doing is the homework that that member ought to be doing if he'd take the time to go to the website and find that information.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: It is unfortunate that question period is so constrained, because this is an engaging dialogue. The fact is that I engaged the Canadian transportation authority long before the minister got involved in this and apprised the Canadian transportation authority of both the letter from CN, which had a clause in the agreement gagging British Columbians from engaging them in reviewing that agreement…. It is that phone call that caused the Canadian transportation authority to put pressure on CN to remove the maintenance fee and the liability insurance.

To the Minister of Transportation: will the letter from CN involve an apology to citizens of this province who went through a very, very difficult time as a result of the cost burdens that were going to be put on them? And will the minister finally do the right thing and write a personal letter himself apologizing for not taking a leadership role in this issue from the outset?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, Mr. Speaker, they brought up the case of an individual in this House — Mrs. Tegart, I believe her name was. Sadly, what they did not do is share any of that information with us. Apparently it wasn't important enough to actually share the information with government or with the minister responsible to make us aware of this situation. So we actually followed up on our own initiative, once this individual's name was raised in the House in that manner.

We followed up with the individual. I can tell you in fact that as recently as just this afternoon, my staff has spoken to Mrs. Tegart. She's very happy with the efforts that we've made on her behalf and very happy with CN's results that came out of the efforts that we made on her behalf.

But I will say this, and I want that member to really understand this very clearly. This does not relieve private railway owners from having responsibility for paying for the maintenance and upkeep of their rail crossings. It exists in British Columbia, and it exists in every other province right across this country.

C. Wyse: I was going to carry on and leave the crossing issue behind, and go on to the new issue of fencing — both the construction and the maintenance of those issues. But the minister here wishes to stay on the issue of crossing — the old problem that resulted from no changes here.

The question I would have of the minister is: from what he said today, does this mean that everyone who has received a bill from CN should just send it over to the minister with a note, a thank-you?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1450]

Hon. K. Falcon: As I have indicated, CN will be reissuing letters to all of the private rail crossing owners. CN will be working with all of the private rail crossing owners to identify what the minimum safety requirements, upgrades, are needed to ensure that they comply with the federal regulations which, after all, govern class one railways — whether it's CN, CP or Burlington Northern — right across this great country of Canada. That is the appropriate thing to do.

They will work with the Mrs. Tegarts, they will work with the other individuals that have been raised here, and they will make sure that things are moved forward in a manner that is fair, appropriate and reasonable but with the understanding that they will be under the same obligations that every other private owner is in every other part of this country.

[ Page 1854 ]

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR

IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT SERVICES

R. Chouhan: The federal Immigration Minister, Mr. Volpe, has said that the B.C. government is set to receive at least $300 million over five years for immigrant settlement services. In the past B.C. has received $30 million from the federal government for settlement services. However, almost half of that money has gone into general revenue. The people who needed the services were left in the cold.

Could the Attorney General assure us that all of the new money received will be used for the needed settlement services?

Hon. W. Oppal: I was in Ottawa two weeks ago, and I had a lengthy conversation with Minister Volpe. After we had the lengthy conversation, he agreed that British Columbia ought to be treated in the same fashion that Ontario has been treated. As a result of that, our grant from the federal government has been tripled in size.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate in this chamber on Bill 11 and in Committee A, for the information of the members, estimates debate on the Ministry of Environment.

[1455]

Committee of the Whole House

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

section 1.

C. Puchmayr: We would like to introduce an amendment in

section 1. The amendment is on your table.

SECTION 1 , by adding the text shown as underlined:

"occupational disease" means

(

a) a disease mentioned in

Schedule B and primary site lung cancer,

(

b) a disease the Board may designate

or recognize by regulation of general application,

(

c) a disease the Board may designate

or recognize by order dealing with a specific case, and

(

d) a disease prescribed for the purpose

section 6.1 (2) but only in respect of a worker to whom the presumption in that

section applies, unless the disease is otherwise described by this definition,

and "disease" includes disablement

resulting from exposure to contamination; , and

(

b) in the definition of "regulation" by

striking out " when used in

Part 1, " and substituting

" when used in

Part 1 in relation to regulations of the Board, ".]

On the amendment.

C. Puchmayr: It is to alter the

schedule to include lung cancer. We've looked at this quite closely, and we are certainly pleased at the direction that this list of amendments is going. We feel very strongly that lung cancer should become part of the schedule. We would like to see that the legislation includes that and directs that to become part of the

schedule so that it would then list primary site brain cancer, primary site bladder cancer, primary site kidney cancer, primary non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, primary leukemia, primary site colon cancer, primary site uterine cancer and primary site lung cancer.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if I might, in advance of the discussion we're now having about

section 1 and the amendment that the member correctly identified stands in his name on the order paper, just make these observations about what has transpired since October 31 when this bill was originally introduced and subsequently debated at second reading.

I might add, Madam Chair, that in the over 12 years I have been here now, it's one of those debates that come along periodically — lamentably, not as periodically as we would like — where members truly do get an opportunity to offer up ideas. The debate was one that highlighted the degree of support that exists for what is taking place in Bill 11. As a number of members on both sides of the House said, it spoke to the issues about how a good bill can perhaps be made even better. We're going to talk about some of the ways today in which that might occur.

[1500]

There has been good discourse and debate in this chamber. There has been, behind the scenes, a great deal of work taking place. The member and his colleagues have contributed to that, as have members of the government benches. I would be remiss if I didn't mention, as well, people like Chief Richard Lawrie and the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia and representatives from just a whole host of fire brigades and fire forces, some of them entirely comprised of volunteers, some of them comprised of professional crews and volunteers and drawing on paid part-time firefighters. All of them have brought their ideas to bear.

In his remarks in second reading the hon. member from the opposition highlighted three areas that he wished…. A number of his colleagues — and, in fact, some of my colleagues on this side of the House — said they wanted to explore possible changes. We're dealing

[ Page 1855 ]

now with the first of those. It relates to an expansion of the numbers of diseases — in this case, cancers — that would be covered by the presumption that this creates in favour of firefighters.

My first response — not that I would be accused of being cute in any way…. The government is not accepting this amendment. My comments now hopefully will offer some information about why that is so. I suppose I could preface those submissions by saying that I wish we were in a position to accept the amendment, but I don't think we are just yet.

The other aspect of this, if I can for a moment digress and talk about the mechanics…. The bill is designed in a very purposeful way to have the listed cancers appear in what is technically not — and I'm sure….

Oh, by the way, I do want to do this, and I apologize. To my left, for members of the House, are Michael Tanner from the Ministry of Labour and Annette Wall, to my right. I apologize to both of them. I'm sure the thousands of viewers watching are now much more content knowing who everyone is on the screen.

The bill is designed so that it can actually evolve as the science evolves and the data and the supporting material. The document that I tabled at the time that the bill was tabled on October 31 lists an initial seven cancers that are covered. It's not technically a

schedule to the bill but actually becomes a regulation by an order-in-council. That is done purposefully so that as the evidence does accumulate and evolve, we can do the very thing that the member is suggesting, which is to add the lung cancer in a way that doesn't require coming back before the House. But it can be done much more expeditiously via regulation. That is the first and technical reason why I am reluctant to accede to the suggestion that we amend the bill to include a particular disease. In fact, what we want to do is ensure that that can be done and added to the regulation via a different process.

That is only a procedural response to what the member is suggesting. The more substantive response is that I'm not able to come to the House and, in a convincing and satisfactory way, say at this point that I am in possession of the necessary data and science that would allow me to group the cancer that he has listed in his amendment — the lung cancer — with the other cancers that are listed. I hope that if that link exists, that we are in possession of that data and that evidence as quickly as possible. But I'm not now.

[1505]

While I very much appreciate the spirit with which the amendment is proposed and recognize that in Manitoba, I believe, that cancer has been listed, in a number of other provinces to this point, it has not. That work continues to be done. There is urgency associated with that work. I am hopeful that if the causal link exists, I am put in possession of material that will allow me to conclusively reflect that in a subsequent order-in-council, which would list it along with the other cancers.

C. Puchmayr: Thank you for that brief introduction on this first amendment. Could the minister tell this House if there is any ongoing process at this time with respect to research or the science that is looking at the issue of primary site lung cancer?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is yes. I was reminded by the senior staff here that even in the case of Manitoba, of course, the presumption accrues to those who are non-smokers. So there is that caveat that attaches, not surprisingly, even where it has been listed there. The positive thing about the process that we have undergone to get to this stage, of course, is the focus that it has brought within agencies like WorkSafe B.C., where there very much is now a concerted effort to accumulate the necessary data, assess it, examine on what basis the other jurisdiction…. I think there are two jurisdictions where the expansion or the extension to lung cancer has taken place.

Everything that has happened about this bill — and the process that the member and all members of this House have been part of — has contributed, I believe, to sending a signal that legislators in this province, whether they are government or opposition, believe that this is a priority and needs to be dealt with as such.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister please explain to us what stakeholders may be involved in such an analysis of the primary site lung cancer?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm reminded that the main repository for the kind of information that would be the focus of the analysis taking place is not just WorkSafe B.C., but, of course, the other WCB organizations across the country. Logically, that would be a place where there is involvement. Of course, just as we have worked with the employer, the fire services, I can assure the member — and I know he knows this on his own — that the Professional Fire Fighters Association has taken a central and acute interest in this. I have no reason to believe that their interest will diminish.

Those would represent the largest contingent of people that would be involved in this. There are, I suspect, other occupational health specialists that might be brought in from time to time. I don't profess to be an expert in how these experts draw the causal links and analyze the data to establish a comfort level that the causal link exists, but at the end of the day that is the task they are charged with — and then coming forth with their recommendation.

[1510]

C. Puchmayr: I know there are some sciences out there. As opposed to just having those documents there for the different stakeholders to look at and to address, are there actually some mechanics in place that are currently looking at and doing an analysis of those sciences, and if so, when can we anticipate some response to that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I won't endeavour to provide the bibliography here, mostly because I can't off the top of

[ Page 1856 ]

my head. But there are a series of studies, some of them dated and some of them, I might add, of increasingly limited value, because it was some of those studies that led to conclusions that would not have allowed this bill to go forward. But those studies are being updated, some of them, and I'm happy to provide the member with a reference guide for what they are, and in some cases, the actual studies.

In the case, for example, of the main provisions within Bill 11, it was a particular study initiated in large measure by the Professional Fire Fighters Association in a response to some other work that had been done that ultimately established the comfort level that government needed to move forward. That's a good starting point, but there are some other studies that I'm happy to share, with the caveat that some of them either need to be updated or are in the process of being updated.

Amendment negatived.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

R. Cantelon: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper on

section 2.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if my colleague would be prepared to momentarily withdraw the moving of his amendment so that we might hear from our friend opposite with respect to some suggestions he has around the bill.

R. Cantelon: I'm happy to accept the advice of the minister.

C. Puchmayr: On

section (

b) there are two motions. There is the motion that we put forward to include volunteer firefighters in this legislation. We've had some very good debate in this House, in this chamber. We had some very good debate with respect to the impacts that this type of legislation would have on excluding a segment of firefighters from the legislation. I believe that the members on this side put forward some very cogent arguments as to why volunteer firefighters should be included.

I should also note that I heard some very positive overtures from the other side, as well, from the backbenches, with respect to some of the rural communities and some of the impacts that this legislation would have in creating an unfairness between full-time firefighters and volunteer firefighters. I was very pleased with the tone of that debate.

[1515]

As we know, many communities do not have the resources to have full-time firefighters, and yet some of the smaller communities with entirely volunteer firefighters have significant exposure because of travel time getting to the fires and getting to the events. So a lot of times when they get to fires, they're fully engulfed, and so the exposures are significant as well.

We also have career and volunteer firefighters in some of the growing communities. We have career and volunteers side by side attending every fire, pretty well, together and being exposed to the same toxins as a volunteer versus a full-time firefighter. As we saw, an excellent analysis of that was the Kelowna fire. I know the member for Kelowna-Mission, in the chair, was certainly aware of the impact that that had. We had first nations firefighters, we had volunteer firefighters, and we had forest fire fighters. We had firefighters from communities all over British Columbia who were dispatched to go up there and try to save some of the houses that were engulfed in the flames.

I think there was a very clear understanding in this chamber that it is an issue of fairness and it is an issue of balance. I know there may have been some discomfort with some of the rural areas and not having the equal legislation to respect those firefighters who are putting life and limb on the line in those remote communities.

Yesterday when I opened Orders of the Day I saw the resolution from the member for Nanaimo-Parksville, which is quite similar to the legislation put forward in my name. I read it, and I did have some discussion, and I thank the member for having some discussion with me on that matter. I also thank the Labour Minister for having some discussion with me on that matter. I would now like to yield my motion to the motion made by the member from Parksville. I'm fairly new at this game, but I do know how to count, and so I think the numbers game would play into it.

I think we're trying to achieve something here that's positive for British Columbians. It's positive, and it creates an equal balance. To me, the bottom line is: how do we do it? So I will yield my motion, and I'd like to go into committee stage on the resolution by the member for Nanaimo-Parksville.

R. Cantelon: I, too, am quite new at this. If it's now appropriate, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper on

section 2.

SECTION 2 , by deleting the text shown as struck out and substituting the text shown as underlined:

2 The following

section is added:

Firefighters' occupational disease presumption

6.1

(1) In this section,

"firefighter" means a member of a fire brigade who is

(

a) described by paragraph (

c) of the

definition of "worker",

(

b) working, on a full-time basis for

remuneration, as a member of the fire brigade, and

( c

b) assigned primarily to fire

suppression duties, whether or not those duties include the performance of ambulance or rescue services.

(2) If a worker who is or has been a

firefighter contracts a prescribed disease, the disease must be presumed to be due to the nature of the worker's employment as a firefighter, unless the contrary is proved.

(3) The presumption in subsection

(2) applies only to a worker who

(

a) has worked as a firefighter for the

minimum cumulative period prescribed for the disease,

[ Page 1857 ]

which minimum cumulative period may be defined differently, and be different, for different categories of firefighters,

(

b) throughout that period, has been regularly exposed to the hazards of a fire scene, other than a forest fire scene, and

(

c) is first disabled from the disease on

or after April 11, 2005 or a later date prescribed for the disease.

(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council

may make regulations for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) (

a) and (c).

(5) If made on or before January 1, 2006, a

regulation under subsection (4) may be made retroactive to a date on or after April 11, 2005 and a regulation made retroactive under this

section is deemed to have come into force on the date specified in the regulation and has the retroactive effect necessary to give it force and effect on and after that date.]

On the amendment.

R. Cantelon: If I may just acknowledge the member opposite. He did call me, and I think we're all of a unity of mind on this. Not only is it the intention of this amendment to make this available to volunteer firefighters throughout the province, but there are many on-call firefighters as well, who are paid and who do good work. In fact, in my hometown of Nanaimo almost half of the roster are on-call firefighters. I think when firefighters attend a fire, they take the same risks. They inhale the same toxins, and therefore, they're entitled to the same benefits that are provided under this act.

I also acknowledge the minister. I think in his generosity he responded to the concerns on both sides of the House. I think in spirit both of these motions accomplish what we jointly wish to press on the minister.

J. Horgan: I, too, want to echo some of the comments from my colleagues here today. It's this sort of interaction and sense of cooperation in the Legislature that all British Columbians want to see.

The Minister of Labour said at the beginning of this committee discussion that a good law could be made better, and we're doing that today by cooperating on this amendment. I think it's a great step forward for politics in British Columbia, it's a great step forward for this Legislature, and more importantly, it's a great step forward for firefighters, whether they be volunteers or full-time.

[1520]

In my comments at second reading of this bill, I made it clear that I have many family connections in the professional side. It was brought home to me in my community of Langford, where we have a mix of professionals and volunteers. We can't have these people going into a fire with different rights and different obligations. So I applaud the member for Nanaimo-Parksville and the member for New Westminster and, most importantly, the Minister of Labour for listening to both sides and coming up with a dynamic compromise that will serve us all very well.

K. Krueger: I wish to briefly add my voice to those of the members who have just spoken. At the time that we were debating second reading, I had spoken with the minister about the possibility that we could include volunteer firefighters. He made it clear he wanted to but wasn't sure there was sufficient evidence to proceed at the time.

Things have happened very quickly — a lot more quickly than I think they generally happen when legislation is enacted. When I spoke with him about it, I had in mind a young man, a firefighter named Schapansky who died in a tragic fire in Clearwater not long ago. All of my fire departments outside Kamloops are volunteer — 100 percent. These people take tremendous risks, and I know they'll feel really good that they're included. I wish to join my colleagues across the way and on this side of the House in thanking the minister for being so willing to accommodate and doing so, so quickly. Congratulations.

N. Macdonald: I just want to join with everyone else in commenting on two things. First, I very much appreciate what has gone on here. I realize that for the minister to make the change…. It was something that I know you'd wanted to do. You said that in your initial statement.

I very much appreciate the fact that it's taken place. I commend compatriots mainly from rural areas, but for anyone who has a volunteer force, the opportunity to make the change within the Legislature is appreciated. It's what people like to see — that there is debate that leads to a better conclusion. I've had a chance to talk to all of the fire chiefs. They feel very strongly that this is the way to go in my area, and they're all professionals with mainly a volunteer force or with a few professionals and the rest volunteer. I commend the members across the floor and on this side and the minister.

I think you deserve all the credit that you're going to get here for making this adjustment, and I thank you.

R. Hawes: I, too, would like to thank the minister. I would like to thank the firemen who were very persistent in coming to us year after year to make sure that we understood this issue and that we acted on this issue. On behalf of the volunteer firemen and paid-call firemen in both Maple Ridge–Mission and the electoral areas of the Fraser Valley regional district, I'd like to say thank you to the minister. I know that every one of those firefighters who we rely on for safety and for the protection of our lives and our children and our assets….

Every one of those guys risks their lives every time they go to a fire. They do breathe the same toxins as the professional firefighters, and they do deserve the same coverage. I'm extremely pleased that they are going to receive that coverage.

To the minister and to all members of the House that worked so hard to get this to happen: thank you on behalf of the firefighters that I represent in my constituency.

[ Page 1858 ]

C. Puchmayr: Actually, New Westminster has firefighters that are women as well, and maybe Maple Ridge doesn't.

section 6.1 there is an added sentence, which is subsection (3), and there's an added (a). I'd like to explore some of that with the minister, please: "…has worked as a firefighter for…." This is the volunteer firefighter who has worked for a period prescribed for the disease, which is straightforward — "which minimum cumulative period may be defined differently, and be different, for different categories of firefighters." I would like some explanation as to that language, please.

[1525]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to all members whose generous contribution and passion for this subject have allowed it to become a reality, and to Chief Lawrie. I hope you will convey to your colleagues and members the extraordinary contribution they have brought to effect this amount of love in this chamber in the course of this afternoon. For those of us who have been here for many years, it is gratifying to see the degree to which positive things can emerge out of debate in this chamber. I am happy to have been in a position to be the conduit for the will of the chamber in this instance.

To the specific point, and we should not lose sight of what's taking place here, because we are first and foremost by virtue of the amendment that is now on the floor, which I obviously commend to all members…. Passage of the amendment will ensure that the benefit of the presumption extends to all firefighters — part-time, full-time, paid, unpaid volunteers — effective April 1 of this year. It does so upon passage and proclamation immediately.

What I discovered, and what the senior staff and advisers were able to bring to me as we were exploring this over the last week and a half, is that in a couple of the jurisdictions where this coverage does extend to volunteers — and I'll pick Nova Scotia because it's the one that comes most readily to mind — the legislation, either in the legislation or at a regulatory level, creates some expectation. So for the coverage to apply as per the regulation around the presumption to a volunteer firefighter in Nova Scotia, that firefighter has to at least establish that they have been involved in 20 percent of the callouts.

At a certain level, one can understand the wisdom in that, because the principle that I heard in this chamber, that stuck with me and that ultimately led me to want to pursue the matter more fully is when members on both sides of the House pointed out anecdotally — reminded me, actually, because I'm from a community that has both volunteer and full-time — that there are particular areas where those people are fighting fires side by side on a regular basis, where the risk they are exposed to is essentially the same.

The proposition I ultimately did not want to argue against was that people who are experiencing similar levels of risk should enjoy the benefit of similar coverage and similar evidentiary burdens — or in this case, reverse evidentiary burdens, as it were. That struck me as being a very compelling argument that was made in eloquent fashion in this chamber and by firefighters and their representatives.

It is possible, I suppose, that as we go forward, we will decide, or a future government will decide, to adopt something akin to the Nova Scotia model, and that is a regulation that says: "Well, if you're going to enjoy the benefit of this as a volunteer over the course of your tenure, we want to establish minimum levels of participation." I will say to hon. members today that I'm not sure how workable that is from a practical point of view, and I'm not even sure today whether the evidence would support that approach. So we're not going to do it.

What we are doing, however, by passage of the amendment that is before the House now is saying that a future government may want to have that option and that if it is going to exercise that option, there needs to be a power within the act that allows it to do so. That, in a nutshell, is what the added phraseology that the member has referred to that exists in the member for Nanaimo's amendment we are now debating….

[1530]

But the two points that I want to make are that, unlike a scenario in which we were putting volunteers on hold until some regulation was developed — and that was one of the options — that is not taking place here. The benefit of the presumption accrues immediately for volunteers and part-time firefighters upon proclamation of the bill, and it will be for other governments, perhaps other — well, most certainly other — ministers, based on additional information, to decide whether or not to make use of that additional regulatory authority to do something like they did in Nova Scotia.

C. Puchmayr: Well, I'm pleased to hear that this could only be a threat from future governments, and so we'll do our best to ensure that that doesn't happen.

The other issue that I have some concern with is the identification of the firefighter, and it talks about someone being primarily in fire suppression. I do have some concern with respect to the inspectors. Aside from what my community does, where they have a progression through suppression into inspection, I've been instructed that many communities don't have that protocol, or they don't have that formality for inspecting fires. Therefore, the fact that there have been some very serious incidents of primary-site cancers in all the categories that we have identified in

schedule B from off-gassing after the fires have been extinguished…. I think there's an example of a test burn in Richmond. Out of eight inspectors, I believe, six of them have succumbed to cancer from off-gassing.

So could the minister please explain his

interpretation of the "primarily to fire suppression" clause? I believe it's

section 6.1(1)(c).

Hon. M. de Jong: I do want to explore that with the member, but I think that, technically, we are now off

[ Page 1859 ]

the amendment, and I wonder if we might first deal with the amendment. I don't know if there are any further comments on the amendment. Apparently, there are. Then we can, perhaps, come back to the member's question.

C. Puchmayr: The other question I have with respect to the drafting of this

section of the bill…. I just want to know who drafted the bill, and what consultation was derived in drafting the bill?

Hon. M. de Jong: Right. I can tell the member that insofar as the bill, in its entirety, within the policy division of the Labour Ministry…. Two of the officials that were intimately involved in that are here with me. There are legislative drafts people that are involved in the drafting of a bill of this sort, so hopefully, that helps.

C. Puchmayr: Then the consultation in drafting that — is that information available for us?

Hon. M. de Jong: So, two stages, I think, to the consultation process. One, in terms of the substantive public policy — again, largely engages contact with WorkSafe B.C. or WCB in this province and other agencies across the country. Obviously, none of this took place without some pretty intensive discussions with the professional firefighters.

[1535]

I should say, as well, that communities…. The member will know about resolutions from UBCM, so there was a degree of input from there. All of this, ultimately, in April of this year gave rise to a conceptual announcement by government, and contact with those agencies would have continued. Then, when we get to the stage where a bill is actually being put together, it involves contact with other legislative drafters, looking at what other jurisdictions have done in terms of the language that they have used.

J. Rustad: I just wanted to rise and speak to the amendment to say that I have professional firefighters in my riding, but I also have a significant number of volunteers as well as on-call firefighters in the communities of Vanderhoof, Fort St. James and Fraser Lake and even, to some extent, in other areas in my riding.

This amendment coming forward and the spirit of cooperation in this House really speaks to democracy. More importantly, it speaks to the work that the firefighters themselves have done. I had an opportunity to speak with a great many of them, and their comments to me were: "This is great. We really appreciate the work that the government is doing. We really appreciate them hearing our concerns." They advocated, as well, for the on-call and volunteer forces to be a part of this.

So I'm very pleased that our government has been able to respond to this, and I thank the minister for the timeliness in bringing this forward. This is a great effort by the entire House to bring forward on behalf of those great professionals and the services they provide.

J. McIntyre: I'm not going to be able to do this. I just wanted to add my voice of support — if only I could. Sorry.

The Chair: It will be noted.

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

C. Puchmayr:

Section 2(

c) is the amendment on retroactivity, which has been submitted in my name. It is to extend the retroactivity to 1985.

SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as underlined and substituting the text shown as bold:

Firefighters' occupational disease presumption

6.1

(1) In this section, "firefighter" means a member of a fire brigade who is

(

a) described by paragraph (

c) of the definition of "worker",

(

b) working, on a full-time basis for

remuneration, as a member of the fire brigade, and

(

c) assigned primarily to fire suppression duties, whether or not those duties include the performance of ambulance or rescue services.

(2) If a worker who is or has been a

firefighter contracts a prescribed disease, the disease must be presumed to be due to the nature of the worker's employment as a firefighter, unless the contrary is proved.

(3) The presumption in subsection

(2) applies only to a worker who

(

a) has worked as a firefighter for the

minimum cumulative period prescribed for the disease,

(

b) throughout that period, has been

regularly exposed to the hazards of a fire scene, other than a forest fire scene, and

(

c) is first disabled from the disease on

or after April 11, 2005 1985 or a later date prescribed for the disease.

(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may

make regulations for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) (

a) and (c).

(5) If made on or before January 1, 2006, a

regulation under subsection (4) may be made retroactive to a date on or after April 11,

2005 1985 and a regulation made retroactive under this

section is deemed to have come into force on the date specified in the regulation and has the retroactive effect necessary to give it force and effect on and after that date.]

On the amendment.

C. Puchmayr: The current bill, the way it's presented, has a retroactivity date that states that the first disabled are as of the April 11, 2005, and our amendment is to strike that and back the retroactivity up to 1985.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's one of those frustrating circumstances in which, having decided to adopt a course of action, which is really designed to correct some-

[ Page 1860 ]

thing, we would all like to be able to rewrite history and say it wasn't so — for a firefighter a decade, two or three. Armed with the same evidence, presumably, the same presumption should have followed. It didn't because it wasn't there. The hurdle they were forced to overcome in making a claim was higher, and in certain cases, they did not overcome it.

[1540]

I can't stand and argue, nor will I endeavour to do so, that the firefighter who faced precisely the same circumstances ten, 15 or 25 years ago would not benefit or would not have benefited by having the advantage of the evidentiary presumption that this bill creates for firefighters. They didn't.

The difficulty with anything this chamber does retroactively is that the date one picks is arbitrary by its very nature. Whatever date one picks, ultimately and inevitably, someone can come along and say: "You missed me. If you'd just go back a little bit further, you would capture me. Isn't that fair? Why should I be excluded?"

I know I don't have a convincing answer for that person who is being missed. What I can say is that it is difficult to rewrite history. The government obviously came to a point in April of this year where it was satisfied that the evidence compiled by officials, by occupational health experts, by the firefighters themselves was sufficient to warrant making an announcement and made an undertaking to ensure that any legislation that was presented to the House would be retroactive to the date of that announcement, and that's what's taking place here.

Sadly, I'm not in a position where I can indicate that the government will be supporting the member's amendment. I should say, because of the spirit, I know, with which the amendment is being proposed, that I don't necessarily wish to hang my hat on this, but I am advised, as well, that the rules of the chamber would preclude a motion of this sort from being passed and that it is technically out of order.

I think it's important, though, that we have had the discussion because there will be a few people who look at this and say, "You missed me," and I'm sorry about that. I wish that previous administrations had been in possession of the evidence the government came into and were in a position where they thought and did act on that information. They didn't, and if anything, it acts as a sober reminder to all of us in this chamber that the work we do is important and that responding to evidence, as it becomes available in a timely way, is important.

I am in no way offended that the member would bring the suggestion and the proposition to the chamber. Regrettably, the rules suggest that it's not one we can properly act upon, and it's not one that the government, in any event, is in a position to act upon.

The Chair: Members, the Chair rules that the amendment would have the effect of creating an impost by opening up liabilities of the workers compensation fund going back 20 years. Such an amendment requires a recommendation by the Lieutenant-Governor under Standing Order 67. Therefore, the amendment is not in order as presented.

C. Puchmayr: I'm not surprised, and frankly, this makes an interesting argument. I appreciate the minister's comments on it, and I appreciate the minister allowing it so that he could make some comments on it. I certainly appreciate the dilemma with respect to that defining line and who's on the side of presumption and who's on the side of nothing, or of non-presumption.

I think the science behind our thoughts on this is that the further back you go, at least you capture more people, especially when a bill is introduced that is so short in time of it actually applying.

I appreciate the Chair's comments on that, and I will not continue further on it.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madam Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Bill 11, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. de Jong: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Bill 11, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

[ Page 1861 ]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 3:50 p.m.

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $11,323,248,000 (continued).

D. Cubberley: Just for the minister's information, what we would propose is to finish off a couple of questions on ambulance service, which carry over from yesterday. Then we would like to go into hospitals and P3s.

C. Wyse: Good afternoon. Yesterday we were talking about a possible redesignation of rural ridings to urban ridings. My question to you is whether several rural designated stations will be, or recently have been, changed to an urban status.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his follow-up on his question of yesterday. Of course, there can be revision from remote to rural. We discussed the one case, and apparently, there's only been one case to date, which was Houston. That's the one that's changed from remote to rural.

There have been ten, I'm advised, that have moved from rural to urban. They include Ladysmith, Agassiz, Squamish, Powell River, Nelson, Quesnel, Terrace, Prince Rupert and Fort St. John.

C. Wyse: I thank you for that information.

Now, in the area of supplies and ambulances. Apparently, paramedics are performing procedures without adequate equipment and supplies. I will specifically name the information that I have: drugs that are being borrowed from hospitals, ventilators that are inadequate and Propaks that are not available. My question: what funds are being provided to address these concerns?

[1555]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll answer the member's question in respect of drugs and ventilators, which are the two elements that he mentioned. But to set this in context, I should note that the emergency health services budget for 2004-2005 was $220.602 million; for 2005-2006, $253.523 million; and for '06-07, $259.572 million. So there has been no reduction in budgets; there have been substantial increases in budgets.

Further, I'm advised by the director of ambulance services for British Columbia that he is entirely unaware of anything out of the norm in terms of how drugs are managed on the ambulances. They have normal warehousing procedures and safeguards around the drugs that they would routinely use on ambulance calls. When those get into short supply, it is protocol and procedure for those to be restored through the hospitals. There's nothing unusual in doing that. It is, in fact, expected.

Similarly, when ambulance crews are expecting to be taking on a client or a patient that requires a ventilator, again, it is normal procedure to access that equipment through hospitals. So I don't know where the apprehension comes from that the member is expressing. I presume it was expressed to him by someone, but again, from what we've heard so far, there is nothing out of the norm in terms of protocols and procedures.

C. Wyse: To the minister: I have a very tight agreement to stay on my questions within a time frame, and so I just wish….

Hon. G. Abbott: Oh, don't worry about that.

C. Wyse: I wish to advise you that I don't worry about it, but I will be following up on these items, and I just mention as I pass through that Propaks, which I asked about, weren't referred to.

But I'm going to go on to my third question — critical care transport. In a region like where I'm from and across the rural part of the province, this becomes an integral component from where the ambulance is going to pass their patient over. A time delay for patients requiring critical care transport becomes integral in this system. What funding is provided or available, if you prefer, for critical care transport of patients, be it by air or ground?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

[1600]

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope this will address the member's questions. The B.C. air ambulance service has been in place for some time, as I'm sure he knows. But just to get a sense of the volume, Airevac, 7,380 patients transferred in 2003-2004 and 7,600 — I presume that's a rounded-off figure — in 2004-2005. That's kind of the volume.

In terms of new initiatives involved around critical care transfers by ground, I'm advised that there are two pilot projects underway in the interior of British Columbia that are using critical care ground transfers. One pilot program involves the Kamloops area, which involves paramedics only. A second pilot involves Trail, and there it is paramedics plus critical care nurses. That's the current work that is being done on ground transport.

D. Cubberley: With that, I'd like to swing over to things to do more with hospital capital funding and P3s. I just want to open up the discussion around the way in which the formula or approach for approving and funding hospital capital projects may have changed after the health care reorganization into the five authorities.

[ Page 1862 ]

What I understand from experience back in local government is that in the past, there was an established formula of 60-40 as a cost-sharing ratio between the provincial agency and the regional hospital district for major capital projects. I know from my own experience on a hospital district that there's some confusion now about how new hospital facilities are approved and funded and the application of the formula. That may be because health authorities are going through some transition.

I'm interested in that, and I guess a question that might lead it a little bit is: do health authorities have annual capital allocations that they're given with latitude to negotiate with hospital districts around priorities? Or does the minister/ministry approve major capital projects for new hospitals across B.C. and then advance money for them to the health authorities?

[1605]

Hon. G. Abbott: Again we salute the member for his multi-textured, multi-levelled questions which invite such involved answers from me.

A lot of things remain the same around how a project would generally move from concept through to construction. Many things remain the same. So for example, notwithstanding the reorganization from 52 health authorities across the province down to six, the basic funding distribution of 60 percent provincial — i.e., health authority — and 40 percent regional hospital district remains the same — that same basic breakdown.

There is a difference, though, as the member probably knows, in the Greater Vancouver regional district, where — I believe it was under the former government in the late 1990s, or possibly the early 2000s — there was a shift made as the devolution of B.C. Transit occurred. So the situation is different in the Greater Vancouver regional district, but apart from that, across the province the 60-40 funding formula around capital remains.

In terms of the relationship between the health authorities and the regional hospital district, we touched on this a little bit yesterday. We think in most cases, if not all cases, there would be a working relationship probably embodied in a memorandum of understanding that would reflect how the discussions would proceed between the health authority and the regional hospital district in relation to new projects.

Clearly, it would be in everyone's interest for the discussion to be extensive so that the regional hospital district and the component municipalities and electoral areas of that regional hospital district have a clear understanding of why a new facility might be required — maybe the age of a facility, or perhaps there's been extensive population growth, or any other number of combinations of factors that may come into play in convincing the health authority that a new facility or a retrofitted facility is needed.

When that happens, obviously, the expectation is that they will bring the local governments along in terms of their understanding of the problem and why it needs to be revised.

[1610]

So that's kind of the process. But if we've missed any of the important pieces in terms of the member's original question, we'd welcome supplementals, obviously.

D. Cubberley: No, I think that was good. It's helpful. It is interesting, as a commentary. The minister has mentioned a couple of times now the idea of a memorandum of understanding between a health authority and an RHD. It's not something that in my period of time on the capital regional hospital district board that I was ever aware of as a possibility. So I think that bears some exploration, and I may come back to it with a further question, but it's an interesting avenue to explore. Certainly, as a practice it might help. If it were institutionalized, it might help to ease some of the tensions that can arise between the two entities. We will perhaps come back to that.

I want to pursue the way in which a project gets shaped. In particular, I'm interested to know whether it's now a formal requirement that a new hospital project being proposed by a health authority be considered for development as a P3, whether there's some kind of trigger that says that this should happen, whether it's simply a requirement that all major capital projects be considered as potential P3s.

I want to lead on to the question of whether establishing a business case, which I would assume would be a requirement in the event that…. There should be a business case for any proposal in any event, but if there is a business case being prepared for a proposed P3 hospital, whether there's a requirement that it be compared with the assumptions that would apply to the same hospital presented as a not-for-profit entity…. So, is there a requirement that it be a P3? Is it a requirement that a P3 be considered prior to something else being considered?

If a P3 is being proceeded with, obviously there would be a requirement for a business case of some kind. Is there a requirement that the assumptions of the P3 be tested against the business case for a not-for-profit hospital facility?

[ Page 1863 ]

[1615]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question.

The pivotal document in terms of answering the member's question is one that was created and published in 2002, which I'm happy to share with the member if he doesn't already have it, called Capital Asset Management Framework: Overview . That goes through the framework, the guideline and tools, the principles that underline it, and so on. It probably provides a pretty good picture of what the capital process is from looking at the different methods of procurement through business cases and capital asset management plans, consolidated capital plans, etc.

That would be a useful document, I think, for the member to be in possession of. This is a pivotal document in terms of understanding the shift that is occurring within the culture of capital spending in the province.

As the health authorities are building rigour around their capital planning process, this is more and more the framework that is being incorporated into those projects. For example, Shuswap Lake General Hospital — if they wish to do an upgrade there, they would have to look at the framework and principles around that in developing the plans for consideration by, initially, the health authority and then subsequently by the ministry and by Treasury Board. That would be the expectation all across the province.

We do what are termed public sector comparators so that we have a very strong evidence base on which approach should be adopted in terms of the construction model. It's our expectation that all options will be considered to ensure that, in fact, the public benefit is maximized, again to ensure that every taxpayer dollar — and there are a considerable number of taxpayer dollars that come into play here — achieves the maximum public value.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for that.

It's interesting. I think that document probably needs to circulate more widely than it has been circulated. There are people sitting on a nearby regional hospital district board who have no knowledge of that document. Given that they are charged with the responsibility for overseeing 40 percent of the funding that goes into these major capital projects, I think it would be very, very helpful to local decision-makers to have a sense of how the provincial framework has changed.

I do understand that when you go through a process of transformation, especially if you are aggregating up into very large units, obviously lead executives have a great deal to deal with. But there is not a clear sense, clear signals around how priorities are being set and projects are being moved forward at the level of the RHDs.

[1620]

It may be different in other health authorities. I'm speaking based on knowledge of one, but it is based on some knowledge of it. I think that in the interests of creating a clear sense of where the ball is, it would be very desirable for that framework to be presented to that level of decision-maker, because 40 percent is not negligible. It's important that people understand how priorities are created and how frameworks are set.

I'm interested in knowing a little bit more about the determination as to whether a hospital should be a P3. Just from reading a little bit about the legacy project in Vancouver, it seems that Partnerships B.C. plays some role in the creation of a P3 hospital project or the approval of it. I'm interested in the decision-making phases that the minister outlined in skeletal form, where Partnerships B.C. comes into it and what role they play in theory.

I know that the sole shareholder, I believe, is the Minister of Finance. Does that make them in essence an agency of the Treasury Board? And are they acting on behalf of the Treasury Board with what they do? If you could give me a sense of how that fits into the picture, that would be helpful.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's suggestion of more widespread distribution of this is a good one. I am pleased to advise that should any of the members opposite or any of the thousands and thousands of viewers watching today be seized with interest in this matter, they can go to the Ministry of Finance website, where they can find this material. And of course, on request, it could be provided by mail as well, but it is available on the Ministry of Finance website. So that's useful.

In terms of how, in a general sense, one would get a sense of what would be determined to be a priority within that range of projects that might be desired either by a health authority, a regional hospital district or, happily, by both…. I think that commonly it would be both. But typically, the age and condition of a facility is going to be, in large measure, the determining factor in where it will sit on priorities. Our hospitals in this province vary and range from one being built in Abbotsford right now that is not even brand-new — it's under construction — to St.

Paul's, which is probably in the neighbourhood of 100 years old. I've heard estimates ranging from about 95 years old to 111 years old, but it is a very old hospital that is in very considerable need either of extensive retrofitting, which may or may not be practical, or replacement. That's the legacy project which the member mentioned.

[1625]

In terms of how Partnerships B.C. might be a part of the consideration by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and Providence Health Care about issues around St. Paul's and its remediation or replacement, Partnerships B.C., which reports to the Ministry of Finance, would only get involved where they were requested to do so by the health authority. What Partnerships B.C. bring to the table is a pool of expertise in respect of public-private partnerships. There's extensive knowledge there of national and international P3s that can be brought to bear in discussion of potential projects. Effectively, Partnerships B.C. act as consult-

[ Page 1864 ]

ants to the health authority where they are requested to do so by the health authority.

D. Cubberley: I'm just interested, briefly, in a question that came up in listening to the minister's comments regarding whether the regional hospital district has an ability either to say no to a project in the shape that it's being proposed or to put a project on the agenda where it believes that a project is necessary, and how that gets adjudicated if there is a difference around what the priorities should be.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raises what is, essentially, a kind of hypothetical situation about what would happen if there should be a situation where a health authority and regional hospital district had fundamentally or somewhat different views in respect of a potential new facility or the potential remediation of an existing facility.

The way we'd answer it is this. I'm always foolish enough to try to risk answering these hypothetical questions, so we'll try it again. Our expectation would be that the health authorities will have the principal role in identifying what they believe to be the priorities within that health authority's physical geographic area. We further expect that they would — as they identify those priorities, and as we believe they do in identifying those priorities — undertake extensive consultations, including with the level of government, the regional hospital district, which is going to be expected to pony up some 40 percent of it.

There are going to be very important discussions occurring between the health authority and the regional hospital district. We do believe the culture of that kind of close cooperation is being strengthened, whether it's sort of expressed as a memorandum of understanding or just expressed as a better working relationship between the organizations. Clearly, it is important that the two organizations be on the same page in terms of their understanding of what's needed and why it's needed.

Again, it's our expectation that the health authority has the lead in terms of identifying the priorities. If the regional district had a different concept of what's a priority, it's our expectation that they would take that to the health authority and try to work that issue out constructively and sort of progressively, as opposed to trying to play off the province as a third party. It's vital that they work out and resolve those kinds of things constructively within the health authority itself.

[1630]

The challenge, I think, that would often make this hypothetical situation one that will be unlikely to be seen too many times by us is that over the past 30 years…. We're talking historically, and I'm not pointing at any particular government. I'd say that historically, over the past 30 years, we have not done the reinvestment in hospitals and hospital infrastructure that we should have. As a consequence, we have a considerable backlog of health facilities, including major hospitals, that demand either serious remediation or replacement. The quantum of that demand is in the billions.

Clearly, if a health authority and a regional hospital district want to see something done, the last thing they want to be doing is fighting in front of the province, because there are finite resources, and there is a huge demand. It's our expectation…. I think we're seeing all the time where the two levels, the health authorities and the regional hospital districts, work together constructively to identify their priorities, agree on them, then bring them to the Ministry of Health and, ultimately, to Treasury Board.

[J. Nuraney in the chair.]

D. Cubberley: Thank you. That's helpful. Just one more question on major capital projects, and then I'm going to go to my colleague for some questions.

On major capital projects over $50 million, it says in the service plan update, the business case must be made public. I don't want to complicate it, but I have two questions. One is just in general. Should not the business case for a new project be a public document that goes public irrespective of whether it's a $50 million project or a $40 million project?

I'm looking there for some comment on the advisability of sharing the planning direction before it becomes a tax hit and on allowing some opportunity for public discussion. The question there is: is it passively available as a public document if it's only applicable to $50-plus million, or is it actually presented in some fashion publicly so that people know that you are moving towards a decisional point in facility planning?

[1635]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. For projects that are at a $50 million value or more, there is a value-for-money report done, and those are posted on the website for public consideration and information should they wish scrutiny. This is a departure from the past. I understand that up until this new provision was put in place, there was very limited transparency around any project of any size in the province. So this is a big step forward, a big shift in the culture, to actually have a value-for-money report done and to have it posted to the website.

In terms of the projects less than $50 million — I hate to call them small projects because $45 million is a pretty big amount of money — there is, I think, some diversity of arrangements within health authority regions. Certainly, it's our understanding that all capital project plans, including those below $50 million, are now shared with regional hospital districts and enjoy their consideration and scrutiny. Just as a matter of public information, I think that more and more of these plans are being taken to the public as well.

It's difficult to be sort of prescriptive or descriptive around exactly what each is doing, because there's probably a fair bit of diversity in terms of the processes that are undertaken for those relatively smaller projects, but we do know that all of the strategic plans for

[ Page 1865 ]

health authorities are posted on their websites. People certainly get a sense, for example, of when a project is under consideration in a geographic area and what the next steps are going to be in terms of the development or consideration of that project. There is, I think, increasing transparency around those issues, but I think the member's point is a good one in terms of the continued shift in the culture of transparency around these things.

G. Gentner: To go right to the heart of the matter relative to projects, there's been a report on the minister's desk for some time relative to Surrey Memorial — the anticipated expansion or the possibility of another facility. My question to the minister is: what role does the minister anticipate Partnerships B.C. to play in these expansion recommendations coming from the report?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so the member understands, we had a brief discussion with one of the member's colleagues from Surrey yesterday in respect of the Surrey report — or the Fraser Health report, more precisely. Just to advise the member, I received the final draft on October 31 from Fraser Health in respect of their consideration and recommendations around either expansion of or potential additions to Surrey Memorial. Those decisions have not been made yet.

[1640]

We understand, as we noted with the Health critic here a short time ago, that Partnerships B.C. will, at the request of a health authority, be engaged by them in their consideration of potential projects. We understand that in the case of Fraser Health and their current consideration of Surrey Memorial and potential additions to it, Partnerships B.C. have been engaged, at least on a limited basis, in terms of consideration of the project alternatives there. I do want to emphasize that no decisions have been made in respect of Surrey Memorial — additions to it or a hospital addition to the Fraser Health region.

Once that decision is made or once that final report is secured, which we expect to be somewhere around the end of November…. At that point, the ministry will again be looking at this in terms of the next steps on that potential project.

G. Gentner: Some revealing thoughts there indeed — especially to realize that the minister has been engaged with Partnerships B.C. on this project. Could the minister please elaborate what he really means by having been engaged with Partnerships B.C.?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so we don't get too Perry Mason here in a hurry, I said that Partnerships B.C. had been engaged in some capacity by Fraser Health to this point. I just wanted to clarify that with the member, and I'm glad to review his question.

G. Gentner: This engagement with the Fraser Health Authority — did this occur after the report was received by the minister?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to advise the member, Partnerships B.C., of course, have been working extensively with Fraser Health Authority on the development and construction of the new Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Centre, so there is a strong relationship there. We know that Partnerships B.C. have offered their expertise, as they routinely would, to Fraser Health in terms of any project that emerges in and around Surrey Memorial Hospital. But in terms of the level of those discussions and the timing of those, the member, if he has a really compelling interest in this, may want to ask the Minister of Finance about it. We don't have that detail here.

[1645]

G. Gentner: With no disrespect to Perry Mason, I'll probably move on to another topic. But I will take that as an answer — that there has been discussion with Partnerships B.C. relative to any expansion at Surrey Memorial.

I want to quickly talk about Abbotsford, since the minister did bring the Abbotsford project up. The original cost — costed out, I think, way back in 2001 — was $211 million. We now have a cost estimated at $355 million. Could the minister please explain: why the overrun?

Hon. G. Abbott: To put the member's mind at ease, there has been no overrun on this project. There has been a conscious expansion of the size and scope of this project. It is now Abbotsford and region hospital and cancer centre. The original estimate of $210 million, which was developed by the former government in late 2000, did not embrace a cancer centre and was also smaller in size and scope than the facility that is being built today.

Among the important changes that were made in terms of size and scope: clinical best practices improvements around increased education and academic areas, changes in approach to infection control, four bedrooms became private or semi-private, the number of isolation rooms was increased to 50, the intensive care unit and coronary care unit were separated, and a rehabilitation room was added to the surgical floor.

As well, a second area — and there are four areas where scope expanded — was in the creation of a digital facility. Two of the eight operating rooms will be equipped with OR1 technology, including video and teleconferencing facilities, a part of our telehealth opportunities. The potential to accommodate paperless operations is also a part of the digital facility.

A third area is facility and environmental improvements, including separate entrances for ambulatory and cancer and emergency, and the adoption of a green facility designation aiming to meet LEED silver standards, both setting a positive environmental example and achieving energy-efficiency savings.

Finally — I won't say most importantly but certainly very, very importantly — are the cancer centre enhancements, including enhanced chemotherapy and systemic cancer care programs and new breast and

[ Page 1866 ]

hereditary cancer programs to improve screening as well as treatment.

[1650]

Those are the principal drivers in terms of size and scope, but to reinforce the point, there is no overrun on this project. Conscious decisions were made to expand it. If the member opposes that or some of his colleagues do, I'd be delighted to hear about it. But I'm sure they won't.

G. Gentner: The service manual from Partnerships B.C. states that the project was approved with the same scope but as a public-private partnership. The capital estimate was revised to $251 million — $8 million due to inflation, and a replacement of contingencies with a more accurate estimate of the expected value of risks that might arise during the procurement and construction of $31 million.

Hon. Chair, since the minister has brought up a few issues relative to the expansion, how much of this expansion will be leased out to commercial or private clinics?

Hon. G. Abbott: Our understanding is that while there may be room on the site for some commercial or retail opportunities, it's subject to Fraser Health Authority thinking that is wise and appropriate. We have no idea whether they would think such a thing to be a good idea. In terms of the expansion of the size of the project, there is virtually no commercial and no retail space within the body of the expanded hospital.

G. Gentner: Could the minister give us an explanation or allocate what the difference is between the costs of the expansion and that of the change as set out at the business case with Partnerships B.C. — the difference of about $40 million?

Hon. G. Abbott: Staff is uncertain as to what the member is asking, and if he could either direct us to a document or just give us further information about what exactly he's looking for.

G. Gentner: I'm reading from Partnerships British Columbia Service Plan Update 2005/06-2007/08 , September '05, page 12. It does a comparative graph from the business case of '01 to the changes in '02, the RFP of '03 and December '04. Perhaps the minister would like to contact me sooner than later, within 30 days, as to answering that question. I would appreciate it. I can go to another question and defer it, knowing and understanding that the minister will come back with a reasonable reply — however defined, of course.

The project was originally, I understand, supposed to be completed by '05. I think that was a little ambitious — at least by '06. Now it's slated for completion by 2008. Is there a reason why?

[1655]

Hon. G. Abbott: We're not sure where a promise or an attempt to open this hospital in 2005 may have come from. To staff's knowledge May 2008 has been the goal for an opening date for some time. If there was a promise made earlier on, we stand corrected, but we're not familiar with any promise or commitment to open it in 2005 or 2006. Again, we'll stand corrected if the member can advise us.

Part of the confusion may be that this, in fact, is a facility that has been promised on numerous occasions over the past 15 years — including, on a number of occasions, by the former NDP government, who were never able to actually bring the project together and get it commenced. I guess if there's a promise been made, we'd be glad to hear it, but I hope there's not been any confusion stemming from an unfulfilled promise by the former government.

G. Gentner: Now we've reached into a P3 agreement,

whereas before there didn't have to be any legal largesse, so to speak. My question now is: what will be the total payments for lawyers and consultations with contractors before the end of the 35-year contract of the service agreement?

[1700]

Hon. G. Abbott: We're talking procurement costs here, including design, legal, etc. Procurement costs, including the cost of transaction and legal advisers, were $14.5 million to financial close.

G. Gentner: Now the partnership that's going to be involved here…. My question to the minister is: what code of ethics is the Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Centre Inc. board going to follow — that of the Ministry of Health or that of the private provider?

Hon. G. Abbott: The owners of the Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Centre will be PHSA for the cancer portion and the Fraser Health Authority for the hospital portion. As a consequence, the board or boards that may assist in the governance of the facility would be responsible to the code of ethics, same as Fraser Health and the Provincial Health Services Authority.

G. Gentner: Well, time is of the essence, and I won't get into the debate about conflict here, but I do want to quickly move into another project. But before that, I have one last question. When will the Legislature receive a full audit on the project we're now discussing?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: Our province's Auditor General is the auditor of record for the Fraser Health Authority and by extension the auditor of record for this project. It's also important to note that the Auditor General has done a comprehensive review of our value-for-money report and did issue a positive audit report in respect of that.

[1705]

G. Gentner: Yes, I know there was a review, but I don't know how complete it is, relative to being a full audit.

[ Page 1867 ]

I want to ask the minister about one other project before I segue into the St. Paul's project. The academic ambulatory care centre will provide up to 40 percent commercial space. How much of that will be leased out to private health care clinics?

Hon. G. Abbott: So there's no confusion around terms and what the space is being used for at the academic ambulatory care centre in Vancouver — which, for those who don't know, is located at the corner of Oak Street and West 12th Avenue in Vancouver, obviously in proximity to the Vancouver General Hospital…. That proximity is an important thing in terms of understanding that.

The overall total space is 352,796 square feet. Of that, 216,798 square feet is described as (

a) space leased by VCH for hospital clinics and academic facilities, including a lecture theatre, library, meeting halls and support space for teaching physicians and (b), which is 75,376 square feet, a teaching physician space, including teaching space for undergraduate and postgraduate medical students. A third area, (c), at 46,670 square feet, is space for other health-related organizations. For example, the Vancouver General Hospital Foundation might take up space there, but we don't have the detail on that. The final area, at 13,961 square feet, is hospital-related retail or commercial facilities. We understand there might be a pharmacy located in the building — that sort of thing.

Again, I'm not sure that we have all of the detail around that, but clearly, the lion's share of this — all except possibly close to 14,000 square feet of the 353,000 square feet in this building — is devoted to building on the expansion of the UBC medical school to provide lecture theatres, teaching opportunities and opportunities for credentialed physicians to be closer both to VGH hospital and to their opportunities in a teaching role for that institution.

Perhaps the member can ask further questions if we didn't hit on what he needed.

G. Gentner: Yeah, I'm fine with that answer. I think I know where we're leading with that one. It just seems to me that there is a potential for private clinics at the said site.

[1710]

The province, through the ministry, has provided a grant — I believe a million dollars — to Partnerships B.C. to do a business plan for the future St. Paul's. There's a whole host of suggestions as to what the minister is going to do, what direction the ministry is going to go. My question to the minister is: if the province is seriously thinking of decommissioning St. Paul's and building a new hospital at the station site, why would not the province buy the land itself instead of a separate company or society purchasing it?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm a little concerned with what this member appears to be reading. The province is not proposing to decommission St. Paul's or any other hospital. He should be careful with his rhetoric around that point, because I think what's being undertaken, in fact, is a very responsible process by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and by one of the most respected and long-lived denominational providers in this province, Providence Health Care.

They are looking, and rightly, at what their options are in respect of St. Paul's Hospital, which is…. Again, we talked about this a little earlier. The varied estimates of its age are somewhere between 95 and 111 years old. This is a facility that is in great need either of very substantial — probably very, very substantial — remediation or replacement.

The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and Providence are not leaping to conclusions. They are undertaking a comprehensive, inclusive planning process to ensure that they make a sound decision that is going to serve their constituents well, hopefully for the next century. I know there has been considerable consultation to date. I know that Vancouver Coastal and Providence are planning on more, and we look forward to that. Clearly, we want that kind of planning work to be undertaken as a business case is being prepared by VCHA and Providence in terms of: should they attempt to remediate this building?

Should they attempt to replace it? If they're attempting to replace it, should St. Paul's be reconfigured in some way or should there be some heritage management of it? These are all very important questions, which I think are being dealt with in the most responsible way possible.

I think the member, near the conclusion of his somewhat snippy remarks around this, was suggesting that somehow there was something nefarious going on with Providence Health Care and VCHA in terms of the purchase of potential properties for replacement of St. Paul's. Madam Chair, I think that VCHA and Providence are acting very responsibly in this. To assign any kind of nefarious motive, as the B.C. Health Coalition has done on this, is grossly irresponsible.

If the member wants to make further suggestions in that regard, we'll hear them, but I want to make it very clear that I think that Vancouver Coastal and Providence have been acting entirely appropriately and responsibly in managing this very serious challenge.

[1715]

G. Gentner: I take it, therefore, that if there's a decision to move St. Paul's, the ministry itself will purchase the property at a new site — correct?

The Chair: Minister. Minister, I didn't hear you say "grossly irresponsible" — did I?

Hon. G. Abbott: In relation to what?

The Chair: To the member's comments.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Did you find it offensive, Madam Chair?

[ Page 1868 ]

The Chair: They border on unparliamentary, so….

Hon. G. Abbott: If I said something in my rhetorical flourish which any member of the House or the Chair found offensive, I'm glad to withdraw it.

We will need some clarification from the member in respect of what exactly the question is that he is asking us to answer. Is he asking whether the province has been requested to purchase, or has purchased, a piece of property? What exactly is the question that he wishes answered?

G. Gentner: Just a very quick commentary. It seems to me that with the P3 movement in the new era, the province seeks property and then enters into an agreement with a third party. It's been suggested by many that this could be very much a significant change, where a third party could purchase property and then lease it to the province.

The Vancouver Esperanza Society — it's my understanding — did buy property. Is it not correct that Providence Health Care has an option on it and that, in fact, this was done March 31 of '05? Has the ministry entered into any discussion or agreement with the society?

Hon. G. Abbott: We understand that Providence Health Care has the first right of refusal to purchase the site from the Vancouver Esperanza Society for $24.8 million. The province has not been involved in any way around the negotiation of that, but I would like to advise the member that, again, we are dealing with a denominational service provider that has a long and honoured relationship with the province and the city of Vancouver.

We often see cases where non-profits or denominational service providers own the land where we deliver the services. I don't think there is anything unusual here. I know that the B.C. Health Coalition, as they so often do, have tried to assign some nefarious motives to this, but I'm sure that the member opposite would not include himself in that group.

[1720]

G. Gentner: Yes, since the minister has talked about the B.C. Health Coalition…. The coalition has asked for, through a freedom-of-information to the ministry and Partnerships B.C., information relative to the review that was completed as of the fall of '04. They've been denied several times. In fact, they were told that it could be provided to the coalition at a cost of $20,000, because of the time to search it out. I have the documentation here. My question to the minister is: why would the ministry deny the B.C. Health Coalition a copy of the business case assessment to rebuild or relocate St. Paul's Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: To advise the member, our Ministry of Health, just like every other ministry of government, operates strictly and entirely under the terms of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which was constructed by his former government and which has since been embraced by all governments. We operate entirely within the bounds of that act, and as the member probably knows, should the B.C.

Health Coalition or any other group be dissatisfied with the decision of the statutory decision-maker — which is certainly not me, in respect of the Ministry of Health — around how their FOI complaint was handled, they should submit their complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and he can adjudicate as to whether the application was managed responsibly and appropriately or not.

G. Gentner: I have one last question to the minister. Will this new hospital be completed by the year 2014?

Hon. G. Abbott: The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the Providence Health Care Society are in the throes of a planning project. They have not completed that planning project. They haven't completed the consultations. No decisions have been made about either the remediation of St. Paul's or the replacement of St. Paul's by a new facility, so clearly it would be premature to speculate on when a project will be completed that hasn't been yet identified as a project.

That is challenging in its own right, so I think what's being undertaken here is entirely appropriate. The planning work is being done, and a balanced, informed decision will be made at the end