2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Richmond Kigoos Swim Club

J. Yap

Jewish Canadian war veterans

C. James

Lions Gate Hospital Foundation

Whittred

Ladysmith Resources Centre

Routley

Ashlu Creek green power project

McIntyre

Worker safety

Puchmayr

Oral Questions

Cost of 2010 Olympics

C. James

Hon. C.

Hansen

Role of Crown corporations in

funding of 2010 Olympics

H. Bains

Hon. C.

Hansen

Olympic venue construction

contracts

Macdonald

Hon. C.

Hansen

Robertson

Call for investigation into real

estate practices

Thorne

Hon. C.

Taylor

Farnworth

Funding for Nanaimo Family Life

Association

L. Krog

Hon. T.

Christensen

Funding for agencies providing

services to children and families

Karagianis

Hon. T.

Christensen

Funding for Buy B.C. program

C. Evans

Hon. P.

Bell

Second Reading of Bills

Mission Foundation Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill Pr402)

R. Hawes

Committee of the Whole House

Mission Foundation Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill Pr402)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Mission Foundation Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill Pr402)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Cubberley

Trevena

Fraser

Simons

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community

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

(continued)

Hon. I.

Chong

C. Wyse

G. Coons

Fleming

Simpson

Sather

Simons

Gentner

Chudnovsky

Austin

Horgan

Farnworth

[ Page 7685 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Taylor: It's my great pleasure today to introduce

a number of very special friends from my riding, the Sunset Indo-Canadian

Seniors Society of Vancouver. This organization has been in existence for some

30 years. In fact, they celebrated their 30th anniversary last year. There are

over 200 members, and they have given so much back to the community in terms

of assistance to new immigrants to Canada and to seniors generally in my

community.

I'm so pleased they were able to join us this morning for a

reception, and they have had a tour of the Legislature. Now they get to see us

work, which I hope is a good experience for them as they watch.

May I please introduce the president, Gurbux Singh Bal; general

secretary and spokesperson Gurnam Singh Ranu; Vice-President Amrik Singh Gosal;

Punjabi Market Association president Daljit Singh Sidhu; Ross Street Sikh

temple Vancouver president Gurdip Singh Gill; Punjabi writer, columnist and

the founding pioneer of the Punjabi Market Vancouver, Sucha Singh Claire; and

Mr. Chandra Bodalia, their press photographer. Thank you very much for joining

us today.

Please make them welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: Together with the Minister of Finance, I'd

like to add my special welcome to my dear friends from the Sunset

Indo-Canadian Seniors. They are an extraordinary group of people. I encourage

every member of this House to find time on a Thursday afternoon to join them

at Sunset Community Centre. It's always a lot of fun. They ask tough questions

— and the correct questions, it seems to me.

In particular, if I may welcome Mr. Ranu, who is a good friend,

a confidant and an adviser. I thank all of these guests for being here today.

[1335]

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to acknowledge the balance of the

Sunset Indo-Canadian Seniors. They are Mohinder Singh Rakhra, Joginder Singh

Johal, Dalip Singh Dhillon, Sohan Singh Atwal, Sohan Singh Mahal, Hukam Singh

Kainth, Bakhsish Singh Bains, Lashkar Singh Dhatt, Makadev Singh Randhawa,

Harchand Singh Dhaliwal, Dalip Singh Moga, Terger Singh Purba, Naraujau Singh

Ghangheri, Sohan Singh Toor, Tarsem Singh Bal, Gurmej Singh Beesla, Sardarn

Dhesi, Tarsem Singh Bains, Amargit Sidhu, Arjau Singh Bilku, Mukhtiar Singh

Dhillon, Dara Singh Mann, Avtar Singh Kular, Mohan Singh Dhillon, Malkaiat

Singh Sohpaul, Gurmej Sandhu, Avtar Dhillon, Sohan Singh and Sucha Singh Kalon.

They're a wonderful group of people, senior citizens, who meet

on a weekly basis. They read poetry, they tell each other stories, and they

support one another. They're wonderful people in our community. I join the

Minister of Finance in welcoming them all here today.

M. Sather: Joining us today in the precinct are Joy Brown

and a group of seniors from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. I'm sure they're going

to learn much about the workings of this august institution. Will the members

please join me in welcoming them.

J. Nuraney: Among the group who are the guests of our

Minister of Finance is a particular person that I would like to recognize. His

name is Chandra Bodalia. He's a photographer who attends each and every event

of our community and is an untiring worker. His pictures tell thousands of

words every time they get printed. I would like to say welcome to the House to

Chandra, and I would ask the House to please help me welcome all of them.

J. Brar: I would like to once again be part of the

introduction this afternoon and to join members from my side and members from

the other side in welcoming the number of people who came from the Sunset

community. These people not only get together every day. They are the voice of

the community, and they fight for equality and justice.

I echo the introduction of the member. We do have one person who

tells the story of the community through putting pictures in the newspaper. I

would like to welcome him, as well, and many other members of the community

who are here to meet with the government as well as the opposition and bring

their issues to the House and also to watch us today as to how great we are in

our discussion and question period.

Hon. J. van Dongen:

Today in the members' gallery we have

a special visitor from the embassy of the People's Democratic Republic of

Algeria. He is visiting Victoria for the first time, and his name is His

Excellency Smail Benamara, the Algerian Ambassador to Canada. We had an

interesting visit this morning. I ask the House to please give a warm welcome

to His Excellency.

A. Dix: I want to introduce, on behalf of my colleague

from Vancouver-Hastings, 26 grades 5 and 6 students from Hastings Elementary

School in Vancouver. These students are all in the French immersion program in

Vancouver. I also want to introduce their parents, because as many people

involved in French immersion know, trips such as these aren't possible without

an incredible contribution from parents and teachers: Ken Macdonald, Maureen

Ashfield, Tom Mills, Michele Tung and her mother Mrs. Tung, Jean Daniel

Pancheau, Sherry Butt and Anna Ramirez.

[1340]

I also want to say that they have the pleasure of being

accompanied by 30 students from Rivière-de-Loup in Quebec and their teachers

Natalie Fortin, Erica Levesque, Louis Valliere, Tatia Ouellette and Christian

[ Page 7686 ]

Ouellette. I know that all of us wish everyone visiting us here today la

bienvenue .

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Mr. Gordon Taylor. He

is agent for the Mission Foundation. He's a solicitor from Mission and also

happens to be the landlord for my constituency office, so I have to be

particularly nice to him. He is here with Doreen McKimmon, who is the

vice-chair of the Mission Foundation and, hopefully, with the cooperation of

everyone in the House, soon to be Mission Community Foundation. Would the

House please make them both welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: In the precincts today are Mr. Doug

Gillett and his wife Ann. Mr. Gillett has been a conservation officer serving

the British Columbia public very well for the last 33 years. Today it was my

honour to take him and his wife for lunch in recognition of his receiving the

Conservation Officer of the Year award. Would the House please extend its

congratulations to Mr. Gillett and his wife.

D. Hayer: I also want to say thank you to all of the

seniors that are here today. Last week, on Thursday, I made a statement on

seniors — how important they are and how seniors are the ones that built this

province and this country. They are the ones who fought for our right to vote.

I just want to thank you on behalf of all British Columbians and

all the MLAs who have introduced you. Welcome here, and thank you.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) RICHMOND KIGOOS SWIM CLUB

J. Yap:

I rise today to recognize a community group which

exemplifies the spirit of my riding Richmond-Steveston. That group is the

Richmond Kigoos Swim Club. Kigoos is a first nations word for a fish that

swims quickly, and that they do at the Kigoos Swim Club.

Founded in 1959, the Kigoos have a long history in Richmond,

today calling the Steveston outdoor pool home. The club itself is one of the

larger summer swim clubs in the lower mainland, with roughly 200 swimmers. In

addition, it's one of the most inclusive clubs, boasting members from age

three to 53 and beyond.

In keeping with their great sense of community spirit, the

Kigoos have become a crucial part of the Richmond culture. They are a

non-profit organization which is run almost entirely by volunteers, something

that the residents of Richmond are extremely proud of and widely known for. In

order to include as many swimmers as possible, the Kigoos work tirelessly to

host fundraisers to lower costs and continue to provide quality swimming for

local residents.

The summer season runs from May to August. June 2 to 3 marks the

annual Kigoos Icebreaker swim meet. This is the first swim meet of the season,

bringing together all the clubs that have not met for months — hence, the name

Icebreaker. It has a long history of success and provides the swimmers a great

opportunity to catch up, compete and have a whole lot of fun.

I know that this year will be no exception, and I want to wish

every swimmer with the Kigoos Swim Club the best of luck at the Icebreaker

swim meet and with the rest of the season. I know that all of you will make

all Richmond's residents proud.

Please join me in saluting a great club which promotes community

values, a healthy lifestyle and a sense of fun.

JEWISH CANADIAN WAR VETERANS

C. James: I'm very proud that my constituency of

Victoria–Beacon Hill is home to the oldest synagogue in continuous use in

Canada and the oldest house of worship in British Columbia. Congregation Emanu-El

has served the Jewish community on Vancouver Island since 1862.

This week the congregation is honouring Jewish Canadian veterans

who served their country in World War II. Today I rise to recognize the

congregation's efforts and join with all British Columbians to honour the

service and sacrifice of these Jewish Canadians.

Over 18,000 Jewish Canadians served in one or more branches of

the Canadian Armed Forces in World War II. Thousands came home with physical

and mental wounds. Hundreds were killed. Many more were decorated for military

valour.

[1345]

These Jewish Canadians fought for their country and for our

freedom against an enemy that was committing genocide against the Jewish

people. In fighting and dying for their country, young Jewish men and women

made an invaluable contribution to the universal values of equality, liberty,

religious freedom and human dignity.

Owing to the efforts of Jewish war veterans and of congregations

like Emanu-El, that sacrifice and their memory will never be forgotten.

LIONS GATE HOSPITAL FOUNDATION

K. Whittred:

I rise today to pay tribute to the Lions

Gate Hospital Foundation. The success of this foundation is remarkable. In

just over four years the Lions Gate Hospital Foundation has raised and

invested more than $30 million to enhance health care on the north shore.

Thanks to the foundation, the Lions Gate Hospital is one of the

few hospitals in western Canada that houses fully dedicated, minimally

invasive surgical suites with worldwide teleconferencing capabilities. The

total cost of these new suites was $2.1 million, with $1.3 million contributed

by the foundation.

The hospital is also home to a 64-slice CT scanner, the most

advanced CT available anywhere in the world. Vancouver Coastal Health provided

$1.2 million. The foundation raised $900,000 to top up this contribution in

order to purchase the 64-slice scanner.

[ Page 7687 ]

Their fundraising efforts for a new emergency department have

been astounding. The foundation will invest an astonishing $15.5 million

toward the $23 million needed, which is 67 percent of the total cost of the

expansion. This is an extraordinary feat.

I ask the House to join me in celebrating the tremendous

accomplishments of Judy Savage, the board of directors and the many donors,

volunteers and supporters. Their hard work and generosity directly contribute

to the foundation's success, which in turn will save many lives. I know that

their newest project, a freestanding hospice, will be equally as successful.

LADYSMITH RESOURCES CENTRE

D. Routley: I know I share with many of the members here

a history of some volunteer service in the community, but I also know I share

with all the members a true amazement and astonishment at the level and depth

of volunteer services in our community.

Today I rise to speak about one centre, the Ladysmith Resources

Centre — which was born in 1992 at a meeting of the Ladysmith Inter-Agency

Liaison Committee after those folks noticed, during the late '80s and early

'90s, an increase in social problems on the streets of Ladysmith.

They banded together, and the first program they came up with

was the Nobody's Perfect parenting program in 1993. I'm sure I could have

benefited from that — very recently, actually. They added to that the

community volunteer income tax program, the community advocate program in

1994, the youth-at-risk worker program in 1995, and the youth alcohol and drug

worker program in 1997.

Since those days they've added the community computer centre,

where people can access computers free of charge. They host the Ladysmith food

bank, which is coordinated by the churches of Ladysmith. They do the Ladysmith

early childhood committee and service the Success By 6 program. Community

Kitchens is located there, and that's one of my favourite programs — adding

capacities to the community by helping families learn about budgeting and diet

and food preparation. They have loaner wheelchairs and scooters and walkers.

We all know the value of volunteerism, but it is something

that's very difficult to quantify. Indeed, it's invaluable. Without it, our

communities would not be the places that they are. Credible estimates of the

value of volunteer service in Canada range between 10 and 17 percent of our

GDP. Certainly that's not something we can afford to lose.

Beyond that, they add great character to our community. They add

the great fibre of good character-building to the youth who experience their

programs and serve their programs through our schools.

Right now the Ladysmith Resources Centre is trying to raise

funds to build a disabled ramp to their building, so we need to reaffirm our

support for volunteers in B.C.

[1350]

ASHLU CREEK GREEN POWER PROJECT

J. McIntyre:

It's no secret that modern society runs on

electricity. Without it, our way of life would grind to a halt. It's also no

secret that B.C. faces a dilemma when it comes to electricity. We use more

than we generate, buying it from our neighbours to meet the demands of our

booming economy and growing population. But we are working to become energy

self-sufficient. There are projects being undertaken across this province to

meet our power needs through the use of clean, green technology.

I'm proud to say that one of those projects is in my riding, the

Ashlu Creek green power project. It's through clean, green power production

facilities like this that B.C. will meet our growing need for power while

still meeting our government's goal of having all new power generation have

zero net greenhouse gas emissions.

Last Friday I was at the launch of the tunnel-boring for the

Ashlu project and was able to learn firsthand the benefits — not just for the

power generation itself, which is the equivalent of powering 23,000 homes a

year, enough for all of the Squamish-Lillooet regional district, but the CO 2

emissions–avoidance as well. It's 219,000 tonnes per year when compared to

coal generation, equivalent to 21,000 cars off the road annually. And all

electricity will be sold to B.C. Hydro.

Importantly, this project is also being done in cooperation with

Squamish First Nation, who in addition to employment opportunities will

receive an annual royalty, academic bursaries, fund contributions as well as

transfer of the project after 40 years.

This run-of-the-river project will generate millions of dollars

in revenues to all levels of government combined, as well as provide economic

opportunities and community benefits to local residents. The environment, the

Squamish First Nation and British Columbians will all benefit from the

construction of Ashlu green power.

This business partnership truly is a win-win. It was a pleasure

to meet on-site all those involved who are ensuring our economy continues to

boom.

WORKER SAFETY

C. Puchmayr: This week is Occupational Health and Safety

Week. It is recognized throughout many jurisdictions in North America. This

summer many students will enter the workforce for the first time — small and

medium businesses and some farms. In this province children as young as 12

will be working. That is the youngest in North America and is very contentious

to many.

One hundred and sixty workers died in B.C. last year, and 5,000

were permanently disabled. Twelve of the dead were young workers under the age

of 24. This is unacceptable. All employers have obligations to provide safe

and healthy working conditions to all workers. This includes training

employees on potential hazards and ensuring that workers have the required

knowledge and certification. It also includes correcting unsafe acts and

unsafe conditions. Every employer

[ Page 7688 ]

needs to ensure that personal protective equipment is available and being

used. Employers need to investigate all accidents and incidents.

All workers have three fundamental rights: the right to know,

the right to participate and the right to refuse unsafe work. No worker should

die in the workplace in this modern era — no worker.

I challenge all workers and all employers to set a higher

standard that achieves a safer result in the workplace. I challenge all to

take the initiatives required to reverse the trend of permanent injury and

death in the workplace.

Many workers are still exposed to asbestos throughout British

Columbia. The asbestos-laden material must be eradicated and removed so that

this toxin does not pose a risk to the public or to workers again.

Finally, let's make every week Occupational Health and Safety

Week.

Oral Questions

COST OF 2010 OLYMPICS

C. James: After several delays British Columbians finally

got to see the business plan for the 2010 Olympic Games. Unfortunately,

British Columbians are still waiting for the Premier to tell them what the

total cost will be. The business plan released today is an incomplete picture.

It doesn't tell the taxpayers how much they're actually…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …paying to stage the games.

My question is to the Premier. VANOC refuses to do it, so will

the Premier tell British Columbians today how much taxpayers are actually

putting out to host the Olympic Games?

[1355]

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the Leader of the Opposition,

on August 11, 2003, said on CFAX: "I didn't support going for the bid in the

beginning." Now it's obvious that she is one of the few British Columbians —

mind you, she has about 32 other colleagues — that are negative on the

Olympics.

On this side of the House we know it is actually one of the most

pivotal moments in British Columbia history that's going to launch British

Columbia in the next decade and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, to address the member's specific question…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: …we made a commitment at the time of the

Olympic bid, which she did not support, that we would put on the table $600

million from the provincial government — from the taxpayers through the

provincial government — for the staging of the Olympic and Paralympic Games in

2010. Last year the Auditor General did a review. He actually verified the

fact that that $600 million commitment is still on target.

Mr. Speaker:

The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: Well, the only person who….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Take your seat, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

C. James:

The only people who believe that it's $600

million are the minister and his gang on that side. The rest of us want to

know the cost. We've heard the minister and government stick to the same old

tired line: "It's $600 million, nothing more. That's all the taxpayers are

putting out."

Well, even the Auditor General has said that the provincial

contribution is likely to be $775 million and counting. That doesn't include

contributions from municipal governments like Richmond, like Vancouver and

like Whistler.

Again, my question to the Premier: including the tens of

millions of dollars that are being spent by those three municipalities, what

is the total cost of the games to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: At the time when the Leader of the

Opposition was negative on us going for the Olympic Games, we were actually

putting in place the budgets and the support that the province would provide

if we were successful. Guess what. On this side of the House we believed in

the bid. We believed in going for the Olympics. We believed in going for the

gold and striving for success in this province, unlike the NDP.

As a result of that, we're going to see the benefits that the

games are going to bring. We know there's about $4 billion worth of direct

economic activity that will come to the province, and there will be hundreds

of millions of dollars — and billions of dollars more — of spinoff economic

activity in the province.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what the biggest benefit from the

Olympic Games is. The biggest benefit from the games is the eight-year-old

child in a school in British Columbia who is inspired by the Olympic

[ Page 7689 ]

athletes, inspired by the games and inspired by what this province is going

to become.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: There was one word left out of that minister's

long list of beliefs, and that's belief in accountability, which we believe in

on this side, to the taxpayers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

Continue.

C. James: Taxpayers in Richmond are paying for the oval.

Taxpayers in Vancouver are paying for the two Olympic villages. These are real

costs, and British Columbians deserve to know the final price tag, not the

public relations line that is put forward by this government.

Add that to other Olympic costs — Legacies Now, the Sea to Sky

Highway and the big one that the government refuses to acknowledge as Olympic

spending, the Olympic secretariat. Only the minister would believe that the

Olympic secretariat is not Olympic costs. Why would you need a secretariat if

you didn't have the Olympics? The costs keep growing, Mr. Speaker, but this

government won't come clean.

Again to the Premier: what is the total cost to B.C.'s

taxpayers, and why are they hiding the figures?

[1400]

Hon. C. Hansen: You know, Mr. Speaker, after ten years of

NDP government in this province, British Columbians actually deserve the right

to dream again — to dream big dreams.

While British Columbians….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: While the majority of British Columbians

in every corner of this province are dreaming about success, the NDP are

dreaming about failure. I know in Richmond, to use the member's specific

reference, the city of Richmond decided: "Here's an opportunity. Yes, we can

build a speed skating oval for the $60 million that the federal and provincial

governments are putting on the table, but we want to do more than that."

We're going to revive that part of their community, and they put

an additional $110 million into the speed skating oval to build it into a

future community centre. Guess what. They promised that they were going to

cover that cost by the sale of lands immediately adjacent, so it would not be

a cost on the ratepayers. That's exactly what has happened.

ROLE OF CROWN CORPORATIONS IN

FUNDING OF 2010 OLYMPICS

H. Bains: Let me remind the minister that it was the NDP

who dreamed about these Olympics before they even thought about it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker:

Members.

H. Bains: Let me make one more thing clear. I supported

the Olympics right from the beginning, and every member of this caucus

supported them. What we also….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

H. Bains: We also support accountability and

transparency, which is sorely lacking from that side of the House. It's a very

simple question, but the government is more interested in spin and bogus

numbers — and so much for transparency, Mr. Speaker. VANOC even locked me out

of the briefing today.

The VANOC business plan shows that the organizing committee is

still short of domestic sponsorships. We know that ICBC kicked in $15 million

and that the government gave away B.C. Place as an in-kind donation. Those are

all taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. Speaker:

Could the member put the question, please.

H. Bains: The question is: how many other Crown

corporations are going to kick in? Will those funds count as taxpayer

contributions, or will he try to spin those away as well?

Hon. C. Hansen: You know, the member may have been a

supporter of the Olympics from the beginning, but his leader wasn't. I'll give

you another quote. This one is actually from January 2004: "I didn't support

the government trying to gain the Olympics. But it's here now, and being a

practical person, we need to do the best we can now that it's coming."

Well, that's not good enough for us. We're going to capitalize

on the fact that we're hosting the Olympics to actually make it into something

big, to put British Columbia on the map. I can tell you who actually

[ Page 7690 ]

believes in the Olympics. If you look nationally across Canada, at the time

of the bid the bid committee projected that they were going to realize $454

million from domestic sponsorships. The private sector has come to the table

because, unlike the NDP, they actually know that this is going to be a

phenomenal success.

[1405]

But I can tell the member right now that they're not going to

get $454 million from domestic sponsorships, because they're already up to

$615 million, and it's projected that it's going to go to $760 million.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, VANOC is very clear. They are

still looking for $100 million in domestic sponsorships. ICBC and PavCo have

come to their rescue. Who's next, Mr. Speaker?

Can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us: is B.C. Hydro

next? Maybe the Solicitor General can tell us if B.C. Lottery is coming to the

rescue next. Or maybe the Minister of Health: are the health authorities

becoming sponsors? Or WorkSafe B.C. — are they coming to the rescue? Can

anyone from that side tell us: who is the next coming to bail out VANOC from

these Crown corporations?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member has his numbers a

little bit wrong, because the domestic sponsorship is a tremendous success

story. As I said, they've already raised $615 million. They are projecting not

another $100 million, but they're actually projecting another $145 million.

We made it quite clear to all the Crown corporations that if

they are going to be part of any kind of Olympic sponsorship arrangement, it

has to be on a purely commercial basis, and those have all been vetted by the

Auditor General in the province.

OLYMPIC VENUE

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

N. Macdonald: Today we learned VANOC's contingency for

venue construction is down to $55 million. That's only 9 percent of the

estimated cost. VANOC has also built a $100 million contingency into the

operating budget. That's only 6 percent of the total budget.

Here's the problem. The Premier's friend, Ken Dobell, is chair

of the finance committee. He's the same person that led the convention centre

and let them bill $400 million in cost overruns. That's 100 percent over

budget.

Given this government's deplorable record on the convention

centre expansion project, does the Premier honestly believe that the 6-percent

contingency is going to get the job done?

Hon. C. Hansen: When you look at the venue construction,

it's actually a very good success story. There's a $589 million budget in

there. As I pointed out last fall, there was at that time a $67 million

contingency in place, which was a very sizeable contingency getting the

remaining uncontracted services that still had to be contracted for.

There was actually a schedule, which is up on my website for

everybody to inspect, that specifically identifies the rate at which VANOC can

charge against the contingency. They have a contingency that is well in excess

of what is allowed at this point. There is every indication, as verified by

Partnerships B.C., that they will be well within their budget for the

remaining challenges that are there on the venue construction.

We are working very closely with VANOC on a day-to-day basis to

make sure that we are doing our due diligence. We're working hand in hand with

them to make sure that all of the risks are managed and that the costs to

VANOC are going to be delivered and the games are going to be delivered well

within their budgets, whether it's on venue construction or on their operating

budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Well, here's the problem with a speech like

that. We can go back to November of 2004, and we can find speeches from the

Premier and we can find speeches from minister after minister that say the

exact same thing.

But the record for this government is clear — $400 million over

budget on the convention centre, despite speeches like that. The reason the

convention centre is over budget is that it's a cost-plus contract. Mr. Dobell

and government officials negotiated that.

[1410]

Today's business plan does not go into the specifics of the type

of contracts that are used, but I want this minister or the Premier to assure

the House that they have not used cost-plus contracts. If they have, how many

are cost-plus contracts?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, I'm surprised that the member would

ask a question like that, because his answer is actually posted on our

website, and it's been there for about the last eight months. It is a report

that was done by Partnerships B.C., which is very comprehensive and actually

looks at all of the venues and all of the risks.

We put in place a performance and accountability agreement with

VANOC, which is being adhered to. They're providing regular updates, and we're

working with them on a day-to-day basis. So if the member would actually take

the time to go on my website, as anybody else can do, he can look exactly at

how those contracts are put in place and can identify how much is still

remaining in terms of uncontracted tenures that is covered off by the $55

million contingency that's there.

G. Robertson: The minister refers to his website as

listing all sorts of valuable information. Unfortunately, there have been no

contracts listed on his website for the last six months with this information.

Can the minister clarify when those contracts will be listed on the website,

the nature of those contracts and how many of those are fixed-price contracts?

[ Page 7691 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: Last year Partnerships B.C. did a very

comprehensive review of all the venue construction and capital obligations of

VANOC, and that is posted on…. It will inform the member in terms of how those

venue agreements are put in place and how the contracts are managed. In our

performance and accountability agreement that we have in place, it actually

provides for an ongoing program where we monitor that.

We use Partnerships B.C., and quite frankly, they're doing an

excellent job on ensuring that the performance and accountability agreement

that we have with VANOC is being adhered to.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: Let's try this again. The minister said

that the detail on these contracts was listed on the website. The detail is

not listed on the website. For six months there's been nothing about these

contracts listed on the website.

You can assure us that Mr. Ken Dobell and Partnerships B.C. are

doing all they can to make sure that there's accountability here. The members

in this House and probably most of the people in British Columbia would

question that assertion.

The taxpayers of B.C. are on the hook for the cost overruns.

Look what's happened in the convention centre. We have no information on the

website to go with. When will the minister guarantee all of the information on

these contracts is listed on the website?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll correct the member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: The province of British Columbia is not

"on the hook" for any cost overruns. If the member would like to learn more

about the guarantee that the province has provided to the IOC and the Canadian

Olympic Committee, I'd be pleased to provide that for him.

What is on the Ministry of Economic Development website, through

the Olympic secretariat, is the detailed report that was done by Partnerships

B.C. looking at all of the challenges around the venue construction. The

process of contracting and all of their due diligence that has to be done are

in there. The performance and accountability agreement is posted on the

website as well, and it is there for the member to read.

CALL FOR INVESTIGATION INTO

REAL ESTATE PRACTICES

D. Thorne: Yesterday I asked the Solicitor General if he

would be having his ministry investigate the questionable real estate

practices that are taking place right now in my riding. Today on the noon news

I understand that the Solicitor General talked about civil contract law as

being the protection for people in British Columbia. Well, civil legal action

is very expensive and well out of the reach of most British Columbians.

[1415]

It's obvious now that the B.C. government is refusing to step up

to the plate and help the people in my riding who are being ripped off by

unscrupulous developers. I ask again: will the Solicitor General say today

that he will take real action to ensure that other people are not faced with

these same situations?

Hon. C. Taylor: The Real Estate Development Marketing Act

is the act which in fact governs the marketing of new developments. For

instance, it protects deposits that are put forward by consumers. The

superintendent of real estate is the person who is responsible for ensuring

that act is being met.

As of noon today, which was the last time I checked, he had

still not received any complaints to his office about this situation. But

because he was aware of the difficulties and the issues being talked about in

the press, he personally is looking into it to ensure that the act is being

upheld.

M. Farnworth: Well, yesterday the question was taken on

notice. Today we hear that we have not heard any complaints. Yet this story

has been across the provincial media. It made national media on the weekend

and at the start of this week.

So my question to the Minister of Finance is this. Will she

instruct the superintendent not just to investigate this particular case but

to investigate and ensure that these type of practices that are resulting in

people losing their deposits and their dream of home-ownership are not

occurring in other parts of British Columbia, bring back the results of that

investigation, and, if legislation is needed to solve that problem, table it

in this House so that people are not jeopardized the way that we have seen

over the last number of days?

Hon. C. Taylor: I will repeat again: it was exactly

because of this issue being in the press and being in the public attention

that the superintendent has undertaken to look to ensure that the act is being

followed.

M. Farnworth: To the Minister of Finance: this has come

about, as the minister just recognized, because of news over the last few

days. Her government wasn't aware of it. She's asked the superintendent, and

the superintendent has indicated that he's looking into it.

My question is…. Don't just look into this, but ensure that

these practices are not occurring in other parts of British Columbia. Will the

minister ask the superintendent to do just that?

Hon. C. Taylor: Again, the Real Estate Development

Marketing Act is in place and has a superintendent of real estate who is

responsible for ensuring that the act is being followed. Generally, he

responds to complaints that come into his office. As of noon today, his office

had not received any complaints. However, because it is clearly in the public

domain, the superin-

[ Page 7692 ]

tendent has taken it upon himself to look into this situation and ensure

that the act is being followed.

FUNDING FOR

NANAIMO FAMILY LIFE ASSOCIATION

L. Krog: The Nanaimo Family Life Association has been

forced to cancel seven of its highly respected programs that provide

invaluable services to 2,000 people in my community. Those programs include

sexual abuse services, an eating disorder clinic and mental health outreach.

The president of the association told the

Nanaimo Daily News :

"The Ministry of Children and Family Development has underfunded programs and

expected agencies like Nanaimo Family Life Association to radically diminish

service provisions."

Will the minister commit today to remedy this chronic

underfunding and ensure that Nanaimo Family Life receives the funding

necessary to provide these invaluable services to the community of Nanaimo?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member is correct. The Nanaimo

Family Life Association has, for a number of years, provided valuable services

to the citizens of Nanaimo — to children and to families. The ministry has

been advised by the association that they wish to terminate their contract

with the ministry.

[1420]

We're now working with both the association and other service

providers in the Nanaimo area to ensure that there is a continuity of

important services to children and families in Nanaimo.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, that's a bit disingenuous. The minister

knows what's happening here. The fact is that this agency, after years of

funding cuts by this government, has simply given up and said: "We can't

handle it anymore." Vulnerable members of my community are going to lose

invaluable services.

I've spoken to the president of the board, and I've spoken to

the executive director. Board members of the Nanaimo Family Life Association

were told by the Ministry of Children and Family Development that if they

spoke out, the government would impose even further cuts.

My question to the Minister of Children and Family Development

is simply this. Is it standard practice to cut the funding to agencies that

speak out on behalf of the vulnerable in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member's suggestion is

preposterous. We have thousands of employees in the Ministry of Children and

Family Development that day in and day out are serving children and families

in communities right across this province. They commit exceptional service to

the people of the province, and to suggest that threats would be used against

organizations is completely unfounded.

We work with service providers across the province to ensure

that services are being provided in communities. It is unfortunate that

Nanaimo Family Life Association has chosen to terminate its contract with the

ministry, but we will continue to work with other service providers in that

community to ensure that there is a seamless transition in the provision of

services to children and families.

FUNDING FOR AGENCIES PROVIDING

SERVICES TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

M. Karagianis: If a family who is known to the Children

and Families Ministry, who is under protection, refuses to get counselling for

sexual abuse when they're directed to, this government can step in and seize

their children as being further abused by not getting that counselling. But

this government is denying funding to organizations like the Mary Manning that

we discussed in this House yesterday and the Nanaimo Family Life Association

that we're discussing today, forcing these organizations to lay off staff or

cut programs, and they consider that to be perfectly acceptable. If that is

not the height of hypocrisy, I do not know what could be more stark.

I would again ask the minister: will he commit today to fund

these two programs for vulnerable children here in the province of British

Columbia?

Hon. T. Christensen: The Ministry of Children and Family

Development, as I said yesterday, continues to provide significant funding to

the Mary Manning Centre for the important services that they provide. We're

certainly willing to continue to provide funding to Nanaimo Family Life. They

have chosen to terminate the contract with the ministry.

The reality is that funding for the Ministry of Children and

Family Development has never been higher in this province. Our budget this

year is $1.9 billion. That funding has been increased in each of the last two

years. It will be increased in each of the next two years. We will be working

with service providers and with communities to ensure that we apply those

dollars in a way that makes the greatest difference and impact on children and

families right across the province.

FUNDING FOR BUY B.C. PROGRAM

C. Evans: Three business organizations — the Investment

Agriculture Foundation, the B.C. Ag Council and the B.C. Food Processors —

came together and considered the question of labelling British Columbia food.

They asked 50 businesses that make food, from farmers to processors to

retailers, if they would "be in favour of keeping Buy B.C. as their brand."

All 50 — 100 percent — said yes. Their reasons were: "I like the

logo. It is a recognized brand. The public like it. It is an effective

program." My favourite is: "There is public money invested in it already."

My question is real simple for the Minister of Agriculture. Will

he now, six years later, reinstate public funding for the Buy B.C. program?

[1425]

[ Page 7693 ]

Hon. P. Bell: I'm glad that the member has taken the time to

ask a question on agriculture. We have one of the most exciting, vibrant

agricultural industries anywhere in Canada, right here in B.C.

What I can tell the member opposite is that I think he knows

that the B.C. Ag Council actually has control of the Buy B.C. brand. I think

even more exciting is the work being done by the Parliamentary Secretary for

Agriculture Planning, who is putting together an extensive package — a plan

for agriculture for British Columbia not just for the next five years but for

the next ten, 20 and 30 years. It's going to be a great plan.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong:

I call in this chamber second reading of

Bill Pr402, Mission Foundation Amendment Act, and in Committee A, Committee of

Supply — for the information of members, continued estimates of the Ministry

of Community Services.

Second Reading of Bills

MISSION FOUNDATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

R. Hawes: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

R. Hawes: This bill amends the name Mission Foundation to

Mission Community Foundation, which better reflects the broader service they

provide than just within the district of Mission. They provide a great service

to the surrounding area as well. They believe that this name change will

better reflect the service they provide.

By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr402, Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2007, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

MISSION FOUNDATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr402;

H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

R. Hawes: I move that the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:29 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

MISSION FOUNDATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Bill Pr402, Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2007, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[1430]

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply, continued

estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $12,819,670,000

(continued).

A. Dix: My question is, of course, to the Minister of

Health. I want to ask him a few questions about the announcement that was made

with respect to hospitals in Kelowna and Vernon in the last couple of days.

There has been some interest, so I thought I'd just ask the minister some

questions right now.

The minister will know that an RFQ has been produced and

published on B.C. Bid. The RFQ states, amongst other things, that…. For those

watching at home, they can go onto the B.C. Bid site. It's request for

qualifications 2006-07 040. Its issue date is May 7, 2007.

I note, amongst other things, that in the

request-for-qualification document there's a request for the provision of

non-clinical services to be privatized. I'm citing from the document:

"Provision of non-clinical services at the KGH ACC and the VJH DTB, which will

encompass plant operations and housekeeping and may include these services to

the full sites, subject to the market determination of value for money."

Obviously such statements, given the history, cause concern to

those people who are working in Kelowna and in Vernon as we speak.

[1435]

I'd like to ask the minister if he thinks it is reasonable,

given the hard work that hospital workers do, to

[ Page 7694 ]

again threaten hospital workers, in the context of this project, with 350

job reductions and — if we understand the history — a significant cut in their

pay and benefits and the elimination in many cases of their benefits.

Does the minister think that makes sense in the context of this

request for qualifications? Why is the minister pursuing that option as part

of this initiative put forward by Partnerships B.C.? Does the Interior Health

Authority support and did the Interior Health Authority support this notion?

This notion appears to come from Partnerships B.C. directly.

If I may quote the CEO of the Interior Health Authority

yesterday, he seemed considerably less enthusiastic. In fact, the Interior

Health Authority in general has resisted just the kind of contracting-out that

the minister appears to be, through RFQ, attempting to impose.

I want to ask the minister if he could comment on the request

for qualifications.

Hon. G. Abbott: We are not imposing anything. We are

attempting to ensure that the British Columbia taxpayer gets maximum benefit

for each and every one of the approximately $200 million that will be invested

in the major expansion, remediation and redevelopment of Kelowna General

Hospital and Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

These are the most substantial investments that have ever been

made in health infrastructure in the North Okanagan and Central Okanagan.

They're tremendous projects, and we are going to ensure that we obtain maximum

public value for every one of those $200 million in taxpayer funds. The RFQ is

of course supported by Interior Health. They are the ones that posted it.

A. Dix: I wanted to ask the minister…. He's talking about

value and values. Of course, he may be surprised at the concern people have

with respect to the behaviour of the government. He will of course remember

the Premier of the province of British Columbia going to members of the

Hospital Employees Union and telling them that they had nothing to fear, that

their contracts would never be ripped up. Not in ten million years would they

be ripped up. "I'm making a solemn commitment."

Of course, not only did he attempt to do that in a contract

round; he actually did it by legislation. He took away their rights by

legislation. I'm wondering if the minister thinks it's desirable to continue

to slash the wages and have hospital workers subsidize and pay for the

additional costs of going the P3 direction — the additional costs in terms of

interest costs, the additional costs that we see in Abbotsford.

I wanted to ask if the minister really thinks it's fair, when

everybody else in the health care system — I mean everybody else, maybe even

the Minister of Health; we'll see — is getting a fairly significant raise,

that this group of workers should be targeted to make sacrifices of this

nature — I am talking about sacrifices from a living wage to a non-living wage

— and why he thinks that these 350 health care workers in Kelowna and Vernon

should be forced to pay the price.

Hon. G. Abbott: The opposition Health critic is

fearmongering and fearmongering in a most reckless way here in the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia. What has been posted is a request for

qualifications. A request for qualifications is precisely that. It invites

potential proponents who may have an interest in this project to provide us

with their qualifications.

To speculate at this point about job losses is utterly reckless.

I know the member just reflexively opposes anything in the nature of a

public-private partnership, despite the fact that in the latter years of the

NDP's tenure they appeared to be embracing public-private partnerships. Now

they go out of their way to oppose them at every turn, regardless of whether

it is manifestly in the interests of the taxpayer or not.

[1440]

We're not bound by that kind of ideology. We believe that we

should be open to a range of proposals on these things. I'm not going to at

this point, as we go into requests for qualifications, start speculating

recklessly about potential job losses. I think that's foolish.

Anyone who looks at the current curve we have with respect to

health care consumption in this province and looks at the demographics of our

society, who looks at the emergence of chronic diseases in our society…. There

is not going to be any shortage of jobs for health care workers in this

province.

In fact, we could use today 2,000 more nurses in this province.

We have tried to correct the NDP's complete neglect of that area in the 1990s

where we actually saw the number of nurses graduating in this province plummet

from the early '90s to the late '90s. We've turned that around. We're

graduating more nurses than ever before in British Columbia, but there's a

great future for nurses. We could use 2,000 more nurses today than what we

have.

There are, as our society ages, going to be endless

opportunities to do this kind of fearmongering, to say: "You know, I don't

really like P3s." You should just get up and say: "I don't like P3s. I don't

want to have a P3. I want nothing to do with it. I want to build these just like

we built the fast ferries." He can do that if he wants, but to speculate on

job losses here is absolutely irresponsible.

A. Dix: Well, what's irresponsible is putting people's

jobs on the table in a backhanded and indirect way. These are real people

here, and I'll read the contract again. I'll read the request for

qualification again. "It may include these services to the full sites."

I know the members who stood up and proudly voted for Bill 29

don't care about this sort of thing. They don't care about the fact that there

are people in communities who are hard-working people, who work hard in my

constituency and saw their wages slashed, who saw their jobs privatized.

There's a mother in my constituency who lives on Euclid Avenue.

I know that they don't care over there. It makes them angry to talk about real

people who get up in the morning and work hard and work in hospitals. I know

it makes them angry, but I think their stories deserve to be told here as much

as other workers in society. This is why we have democratic debate.

[ Page 7695 ]

You know, there are constituents of mine who are single parents

and have children. They work very hard, and their jobs were privatized. Their

wages were slashed, and they now work 70 hours a week. Those are hours taken

away from their children that they'll never get back.

So I think it's quite reasonable to ask why the hon. Minister of

Health is fearmongering by putting into this request for proposals the jobs of

those health care workers in Kelowna. I think that's a reasonable question to

ask, because those people are asking that question. Those people are asking

how they ended up in the minister's RFP.

I think it's a reasonable question to ask: whose idea was that?

Where did it come from, and why would the people at Partnerships B.C., who

happen to be some of the highest-paid people in the public sector, be putting

the jobs of some of the lowest-paid people in the public sector in their RFQ?

Hon. G. Abbott: If anyone is fearmongering in this House,

it is the hon. opposition Health critic who is fearmongering here. He's

speculating wildly. He's speculating irresponsibly, and I think it's most

unfortunate that he would do so.

Anything that is done pursuant to this request for

qualifications and the request for proposals that will follow it will be

entirely within and consistent with the laws of the province of British

Columbia. We will not be doing anything that is not within the bounds of the

laws of the province.

[1445]

The member, I'm sure, was terribly disappointed that not so many

months ago we were able to not only conclude a collective agreement with the

Hospital Employees Union, but we were able to conclude agreement with the B.C.

Government and Service Employees Union — with many thousands of health care

workers across this province and indeed with tens of thousands of public

servants across this province.

All of that was done without a day of striking. We've got a

better relationship with public servants in this province than we have ever

had before. We are working through a whole range of issues with the health

employees that serve this province, and our relationship has never been

better.

A. Dix: Right. You can tell that to the thousands of

hospital workers who were specifically promised that their contract wouldn't

be ripped up, and it was ripped up. All the members over there stood up and

did that. It was the Premier….

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Minister of Transportation says they proudly

got up. The Premier goes to workers before the 2001 election and says he won't

do it. He says he absolutely won't do it. Then they double-cross those

workers, and the Minister of Transportation is proud of it. Well, there you

go. That's just the way it goes, you know.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, can we please allow the questioning

to proceed.

Member, continue.

A. Dix: I'm delighted that it's an estimates debate. I'm

sure that members will participate in due course.

My question is — it's fairly simple: why was the decision made

on this project to include the current employees of those hospitals? It seems

like a reasonable question. That's the fearmongering. If it wasn't in the

request for qualifications, there wouldn't be any fear. But people are

justifiably fearful because they've been misled before. The Premier didn't say

in 2001: "We might rip up your contract." He said he wouldn't do that, and

then he did. So I think people are reasonably concerned about that.

I think the minister would agree with me that hospital workers

are as important to the health care system as any other group of workers in

the health care system. He can call it fearmongering, but they can read it as

well as anyone else. I'd like the minister to be clear, and be clear today,

and say that those 350 people are not going to see their wages slashed and

their jobs lost.

Hon. G. Abbott: Led by the Minister of Finance, we have

concluded some 140 agreements with public sector unions in recent months. All

of those agreements were produced without one day of work stoppage. It was the

most remarkable exercise in labour relations ever in this province, and for

the member to….

The member wants to relive history over and over again. I'm a

student and a passionate fan of history, so I don't mind doing that as well.

We can relive history all day here if we like. The member and I were both

around in the 1990s. I'm sure we could share our mutual perspectives on what

occurred during that period, and I'm sure the viewing audience would be

fascinated. Would they learn a darn thing about the estimates of the Ministry

of Health? Probably not, if we want to spend our time reliving history.

After extensive analysis with respect to how to secure the best

possible value on the Vernon Jubilee and Kelowna General Hospital projects, we

have concluded that the best prospect for securing maximum taxpayer value for

the approximately $200 million of expenditure that will be involved on those

huge projects in the Central and North Okanagan…. The best way to do that is

to proceed with a request for qualifications in an appropriate fashion,

consistent with the laws of British Columbia. That is what we have done.

[1450]

I fully expect that what we will see is considerable market

interest in these projects. We look forward to that. We will look forward in

the years ahead to see those projects constructed on time and on budget, just

[ Page 7696 ]

as the two major projects that have been undertaken on a P3 basis.

Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre — a $355 million project

if I recall correctly. That project is on time and on budget. It will employ

health care workers, and it will employ more health care workers than the

current Abbotsford hospital does because it will have more acute care beds. It

also has cancer care capacity that doesn't currently exist in that portion of

the Fraser Valley.

It's not only a huge win for the taxpayers of British Columbia,

but it's a huge win for all of the hospital employees that will be added at

Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre. Was it a huge problem that it was a P3?

No, not from our perspective. In fact, it was absolutely the right decision to

proceed with it as a P3. It was entirely over the opposition — the fervent,

violent opposition of the members opposite — that we proceeded with that P3

model there, but government had the courage to do it. We proceeded, and it's

been a huge success.

Similarly, the Gordon and Leslie Diamond Centre, the ambulatory

care centre in Vancouver Coastal Health — a $95 million project. Again, on

time, on budget. Tremendous project — just providing tremendous services to

date. Another P3.

Again, the government stuck its neck out. Again, the government

showed some courage. Again, the government did the right thing. Again, they

did it over the vehement opposition of the New Democratic Party who, I suspect

out of some combination of respect and fear for their public sector union

leadership, absolutely oppose anything to do with a P3. That's fine. They can

take that position. It is not the position which parties of comparable

ideology in Britain take. It's not the position that parties of comparable

ideology even in Saskatchewan take.

For whatever reason, the New Democratic Party in British

Columbia is fervently opposed to P3s. I guess they're welcome to that

position, Mr. Chair, but these projects will be a success just as the Gordon

and Leslie Diamond ambulatory centre is a success, just as the Abbotsford

hospital and cancer care centre is going to be a success.

A. Dix: My question was very direct. I'll ask it again.

Can the minister assure those 350 workers that their wages won't be cut and

their jobs won't be lost?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I've said earlier in these estimates,

it is far too early in the process here to speculate about any jobs being

affected by this RFQ, which will be followed by the RFP. That having been

said, we know that in fact more jobs will be created by this expansion at both

Vernon Jubilee and Kelowna General Hospital. There will unquestionably be more

jobs. There will be plenty of jobs five years from now, ten years from now, 20

years from now and 30 years from now for anyone who, we hope, wants to be a

part of an exciting career in the delivery of health care.

A. Dix: Of course, hon. Chair, we asked the minister the

direct question on whether he can assure those workers that their jobs won't

be lost and their wages won't be cut. Of course, the answer was that he gave

no such assurance.

[1455]

I'd just like to ask the minister, in the case of these

hospitals, whether the minister plans to table publicly and release publicly

all contracts in full related to the construction of these hospital projects.

Does he plan to let every British Columbian know and be able to assess the

situation?

The minister talks about the $355 million project in Abbotsford

— which as he knows, because his government announced it, started as a $211

million project. But I guess that's on budget; I don't know. It's in the range

of being on budget.

My question to the minister is very simple. Does he intend to

make this public-private partnership a fully public process by releasing in

this case all of the contracts involved, so people can judge the value of

those contracts?

Hon. G. Abbott: The Abbotsford hospital is,

notwithstanding the member's comments, on time and on budget. The member may

recall that the new hospital for Abbotsford was announced, I think, three

times during the 1990s by the former NDP government. It was not proceeded

with. Our government made the commitment to proceed, and we did proceed.

We have expanded the scope of that facility to include a

comprehensive cancer centre, and I think that is a wonderful thing. Certainly,

the tertiary cancer facilities that will now be available in that end of the

valley will be very welcome by all the citizens of the east end of the Fraser

Valley.

Our guiding principle is maximum transparency in respect of

contracts. There are principles of commercial confidentiality that need to be

observed and will be observed, but beyond that, our policy is maximum

transparency.

A. Dix: I'd like to ask the minister, briefly, another

question about a majority-women workforce, the IHA, and the decision to

displace or lay off 11 nurses at Kootenay-Boundary Regional Hospital.

I just wanted to bring it to the minister's attention, because

he answered this question in question period in a way that didn't seem

consistent with what happened. But you know, people have different views,

always, of what happened.

I want to bring to his attention the views of Dr. Ron Cameron,

who was so incensed about the displacement of the 11 nurses that he has

actually written to the B.C. Nurses Union, giving them his full support. They

do seem bizarre, because the minister has talked about the nursing shortage.

Everyone has talked about it and understands that there's a significant

nursing shortage.

[1500]

Can the minister explain why it would be that the Interior

Health Authority would lay off these workers? As Dr. Cameron says, it's

ill-conceived at a time of national nursing shortage. He described the

leadership involved as "appalling." Those are his words, not mine.

[ Page 7697 ]

He says that the nurses are the front-line workers, the ones on the ground,

the cornerstone.

As the minister will know, Mr. Marino, the community

administrator in Trail, justified the cuts as being necessary to "standardize

the staffing patterns." But the reality is, of course, that it's new nurses

that will be bumped, and in the Kootenays, anyway, and everywhere, there is

considerable competition for nurses. In fact, as Dr. Cameron says, this

undermines years of recruiting, all done without consideration of the nurses.

It's a big step backward.

I know the minister has had some time to consider again what Dr.

Cameron calls the imposed, ill-conceived displacements at the time of a

nationwide nursing shortage. I'm wondering if he has any comments on what Dr.

Cameron has to say and whether he thinks it's a good idea in the context of

that shortage — which he has oft referred to already in this debate — for the

Interior Health Authority in Trail to have laid off those nurses.

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't have any comment with respect to

Dr. Cameron's comments. He is certainly welcome to whatever opinions he has

formed on whatever basis he wishes. I can say this though: yes, there is a

nurse shortage in British Columbia. Yes, it is about 2,000 nurses that we are

short. Yes, it is entirely related to the pathetic failure of the former NDP

government to continue to educate nurses in the 1990s, to see the number of

nurses that graduated actually being reduced during the course of the 1990s.

Yes, that shortage is entirely due to their neglect of the system. So I hope

that the opposition critic and I can agree on the point that, yes, we have the

shortage and, yes, it is entirely due to their less-than-benign neglect of

nurse education in the 1990s.

Let me follow through on the other portions of this. Yes, we

have a nurse shortage. No, we have not laid off those nurses. The nurses in

question have been redeployed, reassigned to somewhat different roles, but

none of them will leave the system. They will not lose their employment. The

changes were made consistent with the terms of collective agreement that exist

with the B.C. Nurses Union.

A. Dix: Well, of course, the changes were made consistent

with the collective agreement of the B.C. Nurses Union. I mean, that goes

without saying. That says nothing. The question is: why did they make this

decision? Why did they make this decision there — at the Kootenay Boundary

Regional Hospital — which is going to cost them nurses? That's the question.

You know, I love the minister because half the time he says,

"You know, every province has a nursing shortage," and half the time he says:

"Oh, it's only in the 1990s that issues come forward."

In fact, we don't just have a nursing shortage. The minister

will know, because he's heard from the health authorities, we have a shortage

of care aides. The minister got up in this House and imposed a 15-percent pay

cut on care aides, and that may have contributed to that. We have a

significant shortage in every part of the health sciences profession, and the

minister may have contributed something to that.

The fact of the matter is that I think what people want to know

in all of these areas is: is their a comprehensive plan going forward? We'll

have an opportunity in the next little while to discuss that in some detail.

I want to ask the minister about another group of primarily

women workers who the minister has seemingly not respected. I want to talk to

him about certified dental assistants and ask him a few questions now, and

then we'll move on to other issues. It seems to me, and the minister will

know, that certified dental assistants do outstanding work in British Columbia

— 6,100 of them, all but 11 of them, women. He will know that they applied for

a college; they applied for status in September 2002, prior to the disbanding

of the Health Professions Council.

[1505]

Since then I think it's fair to say that this group of people,

who do an important service in society, have been run through a bureaucratic

maze that has taken years to resolve. They have been disrespected by the

minister. Their work has been disrespected.

I want to ask the minister how he explains what happened to

their September 2002 application, how he defends the decision to give status

to other dental disciplines — dental hygiene, dental technology, denturists

and dentists. They've all met the criteria and been designated. In the case of

dental assistants, their application was completely ignored and completely

disrespected.

I'd like to ask the minister what happened to their application

when the decision was made to disband the HPC in December 2002. Why was it

that it took years for the ministry to respond, and why is it today that this

group of workers who have their aspirations and have made their case to the

minister, to the ministry, consistent with the law and the act and respect for

the act, weren't allowed to go through the same process as every other one of

the professions in question? Why did the minister and why did the government

not treat this group of workers with respect?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll respond to the member's latter

question, but first I do want to emphasize again, in response to the issue at

Kootenay-Boundary Regional Hospital, that the nurses are not being laid off.

There are no layoffs. There is a redeployment so that the skills of those

nurses can be more effectively used — consistent with the recommendations that

came from the Albo report, an attempt to ensure that the redeployment is

consistent with the best patient care, with the best admission and discharge

policies, all of those things.

I know sometimes I get a sense, and I hope it is an unfortunate

sense, from the opposition that any kind of change is unwelcome in their

world, that even when you can manifestly improve things, you should never

change things because somehow change is hostile to the whole notion of

effective health care delivery and that we should never have any flexibility

in respect of these matters.

[ Page 7698 ]

In fact, Interior Health is doing the right thing here. There

are no jobs being lost. The nurses are going to be redeployed in different

roles — no layoffs. It is entirely the right thing for Interior Health to be

doing, and I think they are doing it in a way that is sensitive and

sympathetic to the personnel involved. I think that point needs to be made.

In terms of the request to create a college of certified dental

assistants, this is an issue that has been under consideration. I have

concluded and have advised the proponents of a college of certified dental

assistants that we have concluded that we do not see, on balance, merits in

creating yet another college for dentistry. We currently have a College of

Dental Hygienists. We have a college of dentists. We have a College of

Denturists. We have a College of Dental Surgeons. It is within the College of

Dental Surgeons that the certified dental assistants are regulated.

In my view, and in the learned view of people who have been

working in this area of health policy for many years, it is not in the

interest of the public to create yet another college of dentistry.

A. Dix: Prior to December 2002 we had a process to deal

with these applications. Clearly, this group of people….

[1510]

Interjection.

A. Dix: I know the Minister of Small Business doesn't

care about this group of people, but that's okay. We're going to ask these

questions anyway.

The 6,100 people made an application that was legitimate in the

process. It was a serious application. The minister will know that. In

December 2002 that process was disbanded. Ordinarily when that happens, and

you have your application in, you're fairly treated. Instead, they went

through a period of years where they were told a whole bunch of things by the

ministry. They were told repeatedly to go meet the dentists, who are their

employers and, presumably, also the overseers now of their professional fate.

They were told to see them.

It took over 30 months — maybe the minister can explain this —

after the application and after the disbanding of the HPC, for the Minister of

the then Health Services to decide to tell this group of people that the old

process was no longer in use and, furthermore, that there was no decision on

any new process for the investigation of professional regulation issues

formally dealt with by the HPC.

Why did it take 30 months to tell this group of people even what

the process was? Can the minister explain, for example, since the decision is

his to reject their application, whether in advance of rejecting their

application, he ever met with them?

Hon. G. Abbott: He says 30 months. I don't know that to

be a fact, but I'm sure that if it was one day less than that period, we would

have been criticized for not taking sufficient time to devote to the merits of

the argument that the proponents were making.

I think the opposition Health critic has a fundamental

misunderstanding of why the college structure exists. The college structure is

not an employee association. It is not a proponent association of the group

involved. Colleges are structured and exist for the purposes of regulating,

for the purposes of the protection of the public. It is not to advance the

employee interests of certified dental assistants. It is to protect the

public.

I hope the member doesn't mind that we did a very thorough

assessment from that perspective of whether there would be an enhancement to

the interests of public protection by the creation of yet another dental

college. The conclusion was no. If the member believes otherwise, he should

say so and tell me why he thinks it would be in the interest of better

protection of the public that yet another dental college be created.

As I noted, we now have, at this point, four separate colleges

for dental-related professions: the hygienists, the dentists, the denturists

and the dental surgeons. The view that was concluded from an extensive

analysis that was put forward by the proponents was that there would be no

significant enhancement of protection of the public by having the regulation

of certified dental assistants in a separate college versus the way they are

regulated today, which is within the bounds of the College of Dental Surgeons.

A. Dix: Well, the minister didn't hear what I had to say.

It wasn't 30 months to get to a decision. It was longer than that. It was

considerably longer than 30 months to get to a decision.

In fact, in March 2005 they were told there was some mysterious

process now that would assess it — not the old process of the HPC but some

mysterious new process. It wasn't until March '06 that the Certified Dental

Assistants of British Columbia received a letter from the ministry stating:

"The minister has directed me to inform you that under the

section 7(3)(

a) of

the Health Professions Act, your application has been refused."

Now, isn't it a reasonable question — since the minister made

this decision and it took them 30 months to explain what the new process is?

If the minister would answer this simple question: when he made that decision

about the professional status of 6,100 people….

[1515]

I'll just read it to the minister, because I think they've made

the case very well for themselves here. I want to read from Sheryl Haynes, who

is the former president of the Certified Dental Assistants of British

Columbia. She says:

"It might come as a surprise to British Columbians to

learn that in a time when the need for formal skills and training to minimize

the spread of infection and disease has reached a new urgency, a B.C. dental

assistant is whoever a dentist says is one — no training, no examination, no

certification or licence.

[ Page 7699 ]

"If a dentist declares such an individual to be a dental

assistant in his office, then that person is recognized by the Ministry of

Health as a dental assistant, able to sterilize instruments, install oral

barriers and perform other intra-oral procedures on thousands of B.C. patients

every day.

"When government makes the dentist the regulator and boss

and allows him to use his judgment to bow out of both responsibilities and

hire unqualified individuals in his dental office, it forces certified dental

assistants to face the situation of: 'If I raise this issue with my employer

or the regulatory body, will it cost me my job?'"

They have made a very compelling case, and yes, I say to

the minister, I'm on their side. My question to the minister is, because the

minister didn't hear that from them directly…. He made this decision. It's a

question of administrative fairness.

There was a process before December 2002, and the government

abolished that process. What process did they replace it with? Will the

minister say, yes or no — because it's a fairly simple question, I think — did

he meet with this group beforehand to discuss in detail their application

before he made his decision? If he didn't meet with this group, can he explain

what other groups he met with?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think I need to just set the context

here again so that the member understands it. I know he will reflexively

attempt to form a political allegiance with anyone that strikes him as meeting

the political purposes for himself and his party, but I haven't heard yet a

sustained argument in terms of what the public policy benefit would be for the

change that he is suggesting he supports.

First of all, the role of identifying and managing, certifying

disease in respect of dental health rests with the dentists. The role of the

colleges…. Again, we have four of them in dental-related areas. We already

have four of them.

The question is: would the benefit of the public be enhanced by

adding yet another college of dentistry to the mix? Would somehow the

protection of the public interest be advanced by doing so? If the answer to

the question was yes, after our analysis, then likely we would have accepted

their proposal to create a fifth college of dentistry in this province. But we

did not, because a college exists to regulate the profession and to protect

the public interest.

It does not exist to advance the economic or other interests of

the profession involved. They have their own professional association which

does that. The college aims at protecting the public interest in these

matters.

[1520]

In terms of the certified dental assistants, of course they play

an important role in the provision of dentistry. That's why they are board

members in the College of Dental Surgeons. That's why they're part of that

college that regulates them. They have full voice within the realm of that

college.

Would the public interest be served by yanking them out,

creating yet another separate college? I personally think — and apparently

pretty much every jurisdiction in Canada has reached the same conclusion —

that we can manage these things within the existing four colleges of dentistry

in this province. We don't need to add yet another separate college.

A. Dix: Of course, except that I know the provinces of

Saskatchewan and Alberta are…. Maybe the minister thinks they're minor

provinces, but they recognize independent governance of dental assisting.

Ontario is heading in that direction as well, I understand. For the minister

to say that no one is considering it is just incorrect, which is not

surprising.

Let me ask the question again. I'll try not to add any extras to

it so that the minister will actually answer it, because I think there's an

issue of administrative fairness here. Did the minister, before he made the

decision to say no to this application — after four years of waiting — when no

Minister of Health met with this group after they made the application…?

Will the minister tell this House whether he did meet with this

group or didn't meet with this group? That was the question. It's a simple

question. It's a yes-or-no question. Can the minister answer that question,

whether he met with the organization that made the application for the college

or not?

Hon. G. Abbott: I should have noted that I'm joined to my

immediate left by Craig Knight who is the assistant deputy minister

responsible for this area of public policy within the Ministry of Health.

In terms of discussion, I know I had at least a telephone

conversation with a proponent on behalf of the certified dental assistants. I

don't recall at this point, but I'm sure my staff are checking in my daytimer

to see whether I actually met with them at some point. I know I did have at

least a telephone discussion, and I may have met personally with them.

I do know from the ministry that there were numerous meetings

between the designated officials and my ministry that deal with the health

college issues. So there were plenty of meetings. I don't know where the

member is going with this. I presume it is the construction of yet one more

conspiracy that I'm sure he thinks guides the creation of public policy in

this province.

The fact of the matter is that the decision was made advisedly.

Like many other decisions, I'm sure some people will agree with it, and some

people will disagree with it. I have to say that we concluded, based not only

on discussions with the group at the ministry level but also looking at the

experience of Ontario, when most jurisdictions in Canada…. There were no

merits from a public protection, public service basis in creating a fifth

college of dentistry when we already have four.

A. Dix: The minister — and perhaps the recollection of his

staff would be different — in March, I understand, made the decision after

four years to reject this application. In May he talked to the group.

These are reasonable questions. It's not a conspiracy. I think

the minister will acknowledge that a group

[ Page 7700 ]

makes an application for a college…. It made a compelling case, certainly

in their view. I've met with them, and I think they've made a compelling case

for the college.

They present their application in September. The government

changes the process, doesn't tell them what the new process is for 30 months

and then, without really having the decision-maker meet with them, makes a

decision a year later that they're rejected. Then the minister phones them two

months after that.

[1525]

I want to ask the minister whether he thinks that is fair. The

minister has said he hasn't heard a compelling case; he hasn't heard from this

group at all. I think that regardless of whether one agrees with this group of

people or disagrees with them, they have a case to make. In other

jurisdictions they've made the case, and their status has been recognized. I

agree, not in all jurisdictions. I agree it's a decision for the government. I

just think that the government should be fair in treating this group of

workers, as fair as they would be in terms of treating other professions.

My question is simple. Given that they went through the process

of having the process changed in midstream, not being told what the new

process would have been and then having their decision rejected without

meeting the decision-maker, does that strike the minister as a fair process?

Will he quite reasonably — because this is a very committed group of people

who take the issues in their profession and their professional life seriously

— agree to meet with them now and to go over in detail why he made that

decision?

They didn't tell me at length what the minister talked to them

about, but the minister was asking them some questions in his meeting with

them. They deserve to know from the minister, after having waited four years

for a decision, why he made that decision. Really, I think the minister and

the ministry could have done better here in terms of listening to this group,

who are seeking what other groups have sought and successfully obtained.

Hon. G. Abbott: I would be pleased to meet with the

proponents. I don't know that we've had any meeting request from them, but if

we receive one, I would be pleased to meet with them and explain all of the

reasons why the decision was made.

Was the process fair? Absolutely, the process was fair. The fact

that the answer was no sometimes seems to lead people like the opposition

Health critic to conclude that a process was unfair because we said no to

somebody.

The member says they made a compelling case. From the ministry

perspective they did not make a compelling case. The merits of their proposal

were analyzed very carefully. There were extensive discussions between

ministry officials and the proponents for an additional college. The arguments

that they had advanced were carefully analyzed and scrutinized. The fact that

the answer was, "No, we are not going to create another college," does not in

itself suggest that the process was unfair.

There is nothing that I have seen to suggest the process was

unfair. They may disagree with the conclusion of the process, and they're

welcome to do that in a free and democratic society. People disagree every day

in our free and democratic society, and they can join a long list of people

who occasionally disagree on public policy issues. In fact, I think at times

people even disagree with the opposition Health critic in some of the things

that he says. I guess that's a theoretical possibility.

Was the process fair? Yes, I believe that it was. Did my staff

give full consideration to the merits of the proposal that was being advanced?

Yes, I believe they did. Did they conclude from that that we should form

another college? No, they did not. They formed the conclusion that the

creation of another college which would be based around the principle of

regulating a profession — not the employees within the profession but

regulating a profession — would not in any way advance public benefit, public

interest, public protection.

That was the conclusion they formed. The member may wish to

belabour this point further. It's his nickel and his opportunity at estimates

here. He's welcome to do it, but I'm satisfied that my staff gave a full and

proper consideration to the request. The fact that they formed their

conclusions advisedly suggests to me…. It's the decision that was made, and I

believe it to be the right decision.

[1530]

A. Dix:

I think that when citizens come forward to us

with their concerns and their beliefs and their ideas, they should be treated

with respect. If the person making the decision…. The process here changed

halfway through…. The process did change. It changed from the point of

application. The application process allowing other professions to succeed was

changed, and it was changed as a decision of the government.

In a general sense, in other places, other government ministers

have said that there's been a reluctance to add, just for broad public policy

reasons, more colleges — that the government was desiring to go in another

direction. That policy decision happened to come up, and it seems to have

taken this issue as well. Certainly the same process that was applied to other

professions wasn't applied to this profession. I think it's reasonable to ask

about the process.

I'm delighted that the minister has agreed to sit down and meet

with this group of people. I think the case they make is compelling. Hopefully

when they meet with the minister and his officials, they'll bring information

to bear that will change his mind. That would be a positive thing. I'm

delighted to have brought an issue to the minister's attention here in

estimates that he clearly hasn't given a lot of consideration to heretofore.

Hon. Chair, I now want to ask the minister about another set of

questions regarding the Medical Services Commission and the process around the

decision on the Copeman clinic. The minister will know that the ministry in

September 2005 — in the person of his

[ Page 7701 ]

Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Knight — wrote to the Copeman clinic and

said that in the opinion of the government, they were violating the Medicare

Protection Act and the Canada Health Act.

He further wrote, I believe, on February 1, 2 or 3, 2006 — in

that range — to say to Mr. Copeman: "Your business model is violating the

Medicare Protection Act and the Canada Health Act." He did that on February 2

or so, and I'm sure the minister will correct me on the date.

He said very clearly in that letter to Mr. Copeman, asking Mr.

Copeman to stop those practices…. Mr. Copeman, I gather, defied the

government. Since then, February 2006, the government decided that what was

taking place there — in the opinion at least of Mr. Knight, and presumably he

was speaking for the minister — was a violation of the Canada Health Act and

the Medicare Protection Act.

Those business practices haven't changed. We're in May 2007. Is

the minister satisfied with the length of time that it has taken to apply the

law in British Columbia? Is he satisfied that these extensive delays that have

taken place are in the public interest? Is he satisfied that the Medical

Services Commission has the resources to deal with these issues, given the

extraordinary delay from the sending of Mr. Knight's letter in September 2005

and the date we're standing at today, May 2007 — with no action having been

taken?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let's begin by correcting one of the

first statements that the opposition made here. Mr. Knight did not say that

the Copeman clinic was out of compliance. Mr. Knight stated his apprehension

that they may be out of compliance, and that is the reason why these matters

get referred to the Medical Services Commission — that they may be out of

compliance.

It is for the Medical Services Commission to conclude whether an

organization or an individual practitioner may be out of compliance — not for

me, nor the ministry to conclude that.

[1535]

Further, it is not my role to be either satisfied or

dissatisfied with the Medical Services Commission. The Medical Services

Commission is an independent body. They operate to their own direction. I

don't tell them what they must investigate. I don't tell them how they must

investigate it. I don't dictate how they, in short, go about their business,

because the Medical Services Commission is an independent body.

If there are complexities which require the Medical Services

Commission to take a certain length of time in order to form definitive

conclusions about a matter, i.e., whether Mr. Copeman is within compliance or

out of compliance with the laws of British Columbia, then that is the amount

of time which they will take.

So for the member to suggest somehow that I should upbraid the

Medical Services Commission for the amount of time they are taking is entirely

inappropriate, Mr. Chair.

A. Dix: Well, no one said anything about…. Upbraiding —

was that what the minister…?

Hon. G. Abbott: Upbraiding.

A. Dix: Excellent. Excellent stuff. I just wanted to be

clear. I didn't quite hear what he'd said, so I wanted to be clear what he was

suggesting I'd asked him to do.

Well, in February 2006, Mr. Knight wrote to Mr. Copeman and

asked him to stop those practices. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: The letters from Mr. Knight to Mr.

Copeman…. There was more than one letter. We want to be certain that we're

discussing the same correspondence as the member is discussing. Those letters

are on their way in, and we'll be able to work with the precise wording of the

letters.

Perhaps we could leave this point aside for the moment and then

come back to it when we have those letters.

A. Dix: No problem, hon. Chair.

I want to ask the minister about the process, because the

minister frequently says that he will only act to refer issues to the Medical

Services Commission, and in recent times a number of these extra-billing

questions have been referred. Really, the Copeman case…. I think it's fair to

say, and the minister can confirm this, that this is the first case of its

kind that the Medical Services Commission is dealing with. They often do

practice audits, and that's been their core business of doctors, as I

understand it. Maybe the minister can confirm this.

My understanding is that this is the first major extra-billing

case of its kind that has gone through this process. The minister frequently

says that if we have issues to bring to his attention, which we occasionally

have — specific cases, which we have…. We've in fact brought those cases to

Mr. Vincent's attention, the chair of the Medical Services Commission, at

various points as well.

Does he not think that, given his responsibility, the Ministry

of Health should take a proactive role to ensure that extra-billing doesn't

take place in British Columbia — that he should be examining these questions,

that he should be using the full provisions of the former Bill 92 from the

2003 parliament, to address these issues, to ensure that British Columbians

are not being extra-billed in a manner inconsistent with the Medicare

Protection Act?

For example, just in the case of False Creek Surgical Centre,

does he not think, given the fact that the minister knows that False Creek

Surgical Centre has in the past charged facility fees, that it would be

appropriate to do a comprehensive audit, in that case, to make sure that the

surgical centre is in compliance with the laws of British Columbia?

[1540]

Hon. G. Abbott: We take the issue of extra-billing very

seriously. Whenever we have, from any source, an allegation that there has

been inappropriate or extra billing levied by a health care practitioner,

inconsistent with the statutory framework in this province, the Medical

Services Commission is advised of those

[ Page 7702 ]

allegations. Whether the Medical Services Commission follows up in a

particular way on that is not for us to say, but it is our responsibility to

ensure that they are aware of each and every allegation that is made.

The Medical Services Commission is an independent body, a

quasi-judicial body, which in fact attempts to determine whether those

allegations are well-founded and, where they are, to take remedial action to

correct them.

A. Dix: I don't want to get into the issue. There was an

issue of a member of the House, and he had some extra-billing done on this

thing. I don't want to get into that, because I think that sometimes when

there's a lack of services, it's really unfair to blame the victim. I don't

want to get into that.

But at the time the issue was raised, the then Minister

of Health, who is now the Minister of Economic Development, said very clearly

he was surprised, when the information was brought to his attention, how many

private clinics charged facility fees in addition to charging the MSP. I'm

wondering if the minister or the Ministry of Health has conducted any

investigation or done any work on any data that would seek to understand to

what extent the MSP system, the public system, underwrites and subsidizes the

private system.

For example, has anything been brought to the minister's

attention — any analysis by senior ministry staff, using the DAD system out of

hospitals — to determine whether surgeries that are charged to MSP are also

subject to a facility fee? Does he have any information based on information

or reviews brought to his attention? Have any such reviews taken place? When

did they take place? And can he share them with the opposition.

[1545]

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, on any occasion when we receive an

allegation with respect to an inappropriate billing practice by a physician —

extra-billing, in short — there may be an audit conducted by the Medical

Services Commission to determine the veracity of the allegation —

appropriately, if there is an allegation tendered about inappropriate use of a

facility fee by a surgical centre. Again, if a beneficiary makes such an

allegation, it may well be that the Medical Services Commission will

investigate and take appropriate remedial action to conclude that.

At one point, the member, or a constituent of the member, raised

the issue of St. Paul's Hospital and Mount Saint Joseph Hospital charging

inappropriate diagnostics fees. When that allegation was made, I asked my

deputy minister and assistant deputy minister to look into that. They did and

brought back a very comprehensive report on that, which has been publicly

released and which we've followed up on to ensure that the principle of

fairness and the proper respect for law were observed.

That's what's been done. I'm not sure exactly where the member

is going with this. Perhaps further along the line of questioning, we'll have

a better idea.

I think we have a good system in the province. If someone feels

aggrieved with the times that they have paid for some either insured service

or non-insured service, they lay a complaint, and we are able to pursue it

through, at times, the ministry initially and then, where we feel there's some

basis for it, the Medical Services Commission.

A. Dix: Of course, the minister didn't answer the

question. My question was about the Ministry of Health.

My question was whether the Ministry of Health, because the

minister seems to feel that…. It's true. He makes reference to the Mount Saint

Joseph's and the St. Paul's issue, which we brought to the minister's and the

government's attention. Our view of that issue was confirmed by the subsequent

investigation.

It's true that it is the job of all of us to ensure that the

laws of British Columbia and the laws of fairness, the laws against

extra-billing, are applied. It's also, it seems to me, the responsibility of

the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health.

It's not just the responsibility of the opposition, although I,

the Leader of the Opposition and others have brought forward issues that are

currently under investigation and have been under investigation and have been

confirmed, as the minister suggests. But it's also — it seems to me, anyway —

the responsibility of the Ministry of Health to ensure proactively that people

aren't being extra-billed.

I think it should be said, in fairness, that people often, when

they're dealing with the health care system, face real challenges and real

fears in terms of coming forward with information. So I just want to ask the

minister a very specific question. I think that I just asked it of him, but

I'll ask it of him again.

In the Ministry of Health, has the Ministry of Health reviewed

data, hospital data, the DAD data from hospitals? Have they reviewed that

data? Have they provided reports to the ministry that would show the

subsidization of the private system by the MSP system?

In other words, have they reviewed MSP surgery billings to see

if those MSP billings are consistent with hospital discharges? Have they done

that review? Have they, in fact, done such a report? Have officials in the

ministry done such reports using the DAD to assess the number of surgeries

that take place that might well be qualified as extra-billing?

[1550]

Here's what happens as I understand it, and I don't know, but

here's what I'm told sometimes happens. Patient A goes to the private clinic.

The private clinic charges a facility fee. Patient A pays the facility fee and

goes home. The private clinic charges MSP with the cost of the surgery.

I would like to know specifically if officials of the Ministry

of Health have reviewed that data with an eye to assessing the degree of

subsidization or not.

Hon. G. Abbott: If I am understanding the member's

question correctly, he is asking: has there been an

[ Page 7703 ]

analysis done of discharge and admission data from private clinics? The

answer is no. The clinics do not provide us with that data. There is nothing

in law that obliges them to provide that to us, and they do not provide that

to us.

However, we do audit surgeons and their billings, whether in

public or private settings. Those audits may be on a random basis or on a

complaint basis, but we are able to pursue those matters through those audits.

A. Dix: I just want to be clear. I'm referring to the

discharge database of public hospitals and other facilities.

Say we've got a hypothetical situation where a patient goes to a

private clinic, they pay a facility fee, and they go home. The last they know

of it is that they paid a thousand bucks, two thousand bucks, whatever the

amount in question might be. The private clinic then charges MSP. As I

understand it, and I may be wrong on this, the charge to MSP doesn't

necessarily state the location where the surgery took place. It's just a

charge to MSP.

I'm asking if there was an analysis done in the Ministry of

Health. You have a list of surgeries that are either done at public hospitals

or not done at public hospitals. By reviewing the database on public

hospitals, whether any such review has taken place in the ministry…. You

compare that to the list of surgeries that come in through MSP to decide or to

try and understand the number of surgeries that take place outside of the

public system and are charged. Has such data work in fact been done by the

ministry?

That's the question in a nutshell, using the public hospital

database. I understand that the private clinics refuse to grant that

information, and the government, I guess, refuses to go and get it. It's kind

of: "Don't ask; don't tell."

Has the ministry done a specific review based on the public

hospital DAD information, comparing it to MSP bills that come in from private

clinics, to determine how many of those bills come in from private clinics and

to help determine the degree of subsidization in the system?

[1555]

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a number of points that need to

be made in response to the member's question here. The first is that

physicians bill us for surgeries, not the private clinics. Only in the case

where a contractual arrangement exists with a health authority and a private

clinic would the clinic be billing the system for those surgeries. In every

other case it would be the physicians that would be billing for the cost of

those surgeries.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Physicians now are required to advise where the surgeries are

being performed, so now part of the billing practice is a location code which

will advise us of what surgical venue was used to provide the surgery. To

conclude, we have no evidence or analysis that surgeries have been performed

in a private clinic and then claimed to have been performed within a public

setting — i.e., a public operating room.

I'm not sure if that's where the member was going with his

question or not, but the short answer is: we have no evidence which suggests

that hanky-panky of that character is being undertaken.

Interjections.

A. Dix: The Attorney General is here; I think that's why

the term "hanky-panky" was used. It's a technical term, isn't it?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's a well-known legal concept.

A. Dix: The Attorney General calls it a well-known legal

concept. I like that.

Hon. K. Krueger:

It comes from the Latin "hankius

pankius."

A. Dix: You know, we're getting all kinds of

contributions now. The minister responsible for mines was quoting Latin to me.

I think it was Latin.

Just to ask the minister on that specific point, and I think the

point I was making was…. I'll ask him this: at what point did MSP start

requiring a location code? When was that decision made?

Hon. G. Abbott: October of 2006.

[1600]

A. Dix: We're on a roll here. I sense the momentum

building here. I guess I'm asking the minister…. The point I was making wasn't

that they were saying one location and doing it in another. My point was that

prior to October 2006, presumably, they could be ambiguous on that point by

not putting the location code. Therefore, if the choice is, in terms of the

code…. You could find out, presumably, which surgery took place in the

hospital and which took place not in the hospital system by using the public

DAD records.

I'm asking if the ministry had ever done a review of that type

to determine potentially the extent to which…. Otherwise, without the location

code…. I applaud that. I think that's a good innovation. But without the

location code, the way to determine whether it's in the public hospital or a

private clinic would be to review those records, and then you would see the

ones that aren't in the public hospital. So I wanted to ask the minister

whether in fact such a report exists or if it doesn't exist.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that the tool of the audit is

the way in which information of that character would be secured. For example,

if Mrs. Mary Smith had back surgery on such and such a day from a surgeon Dr.

Jones, and Dr. Jones's bills…. There's an allegation made about some

inappropriate billing practice. Part of the audit would be, undoubtedly, a

[ Page 7704 ]

series of questions from the auditor to Mrs. Smith inquiring as to when and

where and the nature of the procedure which she secured. So that kind of

information would come to us. Normally, one would expect that where something

inappropriate had occurred, that it would be uncovered through that process.

A. Dix: The question is very simple, though — whether in

fact the ministry conducted or didn't conduct broad, random audits of that

information or reviews or assessments of that kind — used that technique that

we've just described — in order to bring broader issues to the minister's

attention.

I assume that what a broad audit of that data would show — and

it's all easily obtainable by the ministry staff — is the extent to which some

of those surgeries which are being claimed were being done in private clinics.

I wanted to know: if the ministry did such a review, did they

provide that to the minister? Really that's the question I'm asking. I

understand that when specific allegations are made to the minister, specific

allegations would involve a specific response. But most ministries might well

consider being proactive about that.

I just want to ask the minister if the ministry ever conducted a

kind of comprehensive or random or targeted review on its own initiative of

that data. That's the question I've asked a few times, and I'm just going to

ask it again. It's not really a hard question.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I hope we understand the question

correctly. When the member uses the phrase "broad audit," one senses that this

would be something akin to a formal review of a broader set of billings, as

opposed to the specific audit that one would do with a particular practitioner

and the response to a specific complaint. So I presume he is talking about

whether the ministry conducted broader audits or reviews of a more expansive

character.

[1605]

The answer would be no, that it would be extraordinary to do

that. The closest thing that I and staff can think of at this point, as to

where I think the member is going, is the work that was undertaken in respect

of the inappropriate use of diagnostic billings at St. Paul's and Mount Saint

Joseph. Beyond that we're not coming up with what might be called broad audits

on other issues.

A. Dix: I'll take that as a no, hon. Minister. What we'll

do now is…. I know that the minister is coming back with some stuff on the

Copeman clinic, but my colleague from Saanich South has a few questions on

this line of questioning with respect to the Options clinic. Maybe he'll go,

and then we'll do Copeman afterwards. I'll defer it to my colleague.

D. Cubberley: Thank you to the minister for the

opportunity to ask some questions. I unfortunately don't have the full benefit

of the issue-canvassing that has gone on prior to my coming here, so I

apologize if I go over some of the ground that you've already covered.

The questions I want to ask are within the framework of a

private health clinic that has set up in my own constituency, around which I

have had questions raised by constituents, who have asked me if I could find

out whether in fact the clinic is operating entirely under the rules of the

game — is billing appropriately and the like.

Based on my own reading of materials, which I drew down from the

Internet and the like, it was obvious that the clinic was offering a blend of

public and private services. I recognized some similarities, I thought, to the

Copeman model in charging a membership fee of some kind and then offering an

array of services, some of which were entirely outside of medicare, some of

which were within medicare and presumably would be billed, and then a grey

area in between the two, which is probably the area of greatest concern.

In any case, I drafted a letter to the Medical Services

Commission in which I outlined some of this concern to the chair of the

commission and asked that an investigation be commenced. I didn't make a

judgment in my letter, but I'll just give you what I said: "In reviewing the

Options Health System website and reading its published materials, I am unable

to determine whether or not infractions of medicare legislation are occurring

or could occur, and I am therefore requesting that you initiate an

investigation."

In response to that I got a letter quite quickly, within a week

or so, back from the chair of the Medical Services Commission, thanking me for

bringing the matter to his attention but unable to say to me yea or nay on

whether they would commence an investigation.

This has led to me beginning to ask myself questions about

whether I am in fact in the right place. Is the Medical Services Commission

the right place to bring this information? Do they have an obligation? They

would appear to have from the letter, but I'm asking for the minister's

response on this. Do they have an obligation to deal with a complaint once

brought to them? Is this a formal process? Where does a citizen stand relative

to the commission in bringing this information to them? What does diligence

look like on their part?

[1610]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member in our reckoning has, to use

his words, come to the right place in respect of his concerns. I think the

member appropriately, if he had apprehensions with respect to whether the

clinic was within the bounds of compliance of the rules respecting insured and

non-insured services in the province, has raised the issues with the Medical

Services Commission. That's appropriate for him to do.

The Medical Services Commission will have to form its own

judgment about how far they would go in terms of reviews, investigations,

ongoing audits or any of that. Those are decisions which the Medical Services

Commission would have to make, and as we discussed at some length earlier,

those are decisions that an independent, quasi-judicial agency makes in

respect of

[ Page 7705 ]

those things. They are not directed by me. They are decisions which they

make.

I do want to note, though, that my assistant deputy minister,

Craig Knight, and other ministry officials have also met with Options to

discuss their business model. There was a lack of clarity, in the ministry

official's view, with respect to whether the services provided were

non-insured services under the provisions of the act. For that reason, the

ministry officials have asked the Medical Services Commission to look at this

issue as well.

D. Cubberley: I would take from that — I want to ask

another question — that they are actually looking into Options and/or there

has been a request sent from the ministry to the Medical Services Commission

asking them to examine it.

I haven't been and visited and gone through that process for

obvious reasons. But the materials on the Web appear to be offering

preferential access in some form to members. They appear to be offering

consultations with physicians of a kind that are not permitted under MSP —

half-hour defined appointments, accelerated access and an array of things that

led me to feel some concern along the lines that you were probably alluding to

on the part of your officials.

In asking the commission to look at that, I was quite specific.

I mentioned that I'm concerned that facility fees not be used to confer

preferential access to insured services and that members not receive insured

services of a quantity or quality that are not available to the general public

so that fair and even conditions are there for all members of the plan.

In the response that I got from the commission — and I guess

this is where I find it challenging to see this as a complaint process that

can work — the chair of the commission says: "I appreciate your bringing this

issue to the commission's attention. I regret that

section 49 of the Medicare

Protection Act precludes me from discussing the MSC's audit plans at the level

of detail you seek in your letter."

That led me to feel some concern, and I did follow this up by

contacting the chair of the commission. He was quite willing to speak to me

about it. But it led to a concern on my part — which I couldn't satisfy,

really, through the conversation — that I would not have any idea of whether

the Medical Services Commission was or was not going to proceed to investigate

this matter. That letter wouldn't give me any sense of whether they were.

[1615]

I want to just ask the minister to respond to that. For someone

making a complaint, it's odd not to have some element of process elaborated

that would tell you how it's going to be handled.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member appropriately asked about what

clarity there was around what had happened and what will happen. We can say

with clarity that the ministry has tendered to the Medical Services Commission

a request for them to look at the structure of Options and to ensure that it

is within bounds in terms of compliance with the statutory framework that

governs the delivery of health services in the province.

We cannot say with the same clarity what the Medical Services

Commission will do with it. These are frequently complex matters. The Medical

Services Commission has to ensure that all of the privacy provisions which

govern our lives are taken into account. They have to ensure that they proceed

with what's termed "administrative fairness" so that there's no preconception

of bias or outcome in respect of these matters.

I think they have to ensure that as they proceed, they do so in

a comprehensive way so that the decisions that are ultimately made are

manifestly defensible, because there may be additional challenges to the

conclusions that they reach.

These are complex matters. Again, I just have to reiterate that

this is an independent body. It is not a body which is directed by the

ministry. It is a body which acts independently. It goes about its business in

a very thorough way, but they set their own direction in terms of what they

take on.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for that. I understand

it's an independent body, and that it should be. I think that in order for it

to work, it has to be able to operate in an independent way. But it also has

to be seen to be operating in a way that meets the tests of administrative

fairness. There are tests on the side of someone who might be investigated,

but I think also that probably there are tests vis-à-vis someone who is asking

to have a complaint taken seriously. So there's a question of diligence on

both sides of that equation.

Well, let me put it this way. I brought the matter to the

commission's attention. How would I know that the Medical Services Commission

was carrying out an investigation? How would I know that they had completed an

investigation? How would that be reported to me, and how would I understand

what determination they had reached? How would that be conveyed to me? Where

would it appear?

[1620]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has raised a particularly

complex area of public policy here. We are needing to make reference to both

the act that governs the Medical Services Commission and the Medicare

Protection Act.

[1625]

Section 49 of the Medicare Protection Act, for one piece,

suggests that except in the cases of fraud — i.e., things that would be

relevant to court proceedings — the release of other information of a

non-fraudulent nature can only be made consistent with the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and under other circumstances. So

in some instances there may not be public disclosure of the outcome of an

audit or a review by the Medical Services Commission.

I want to get the member a really comprehensive answer to that

question, but I'm not sure I'm going to

[ Page 7706 ]

be able to provide it without holding up estimates here for a longer period

of time than I would like to. That's sort of at least a partial answer to the

member's question, but I want to get him a better answer to the question. I'll

endeavour to do that through the course of today or perhaps tomorrow.

If the member can come back and raise the issue again, we'll try

to plumb the depths of the legislative and regulatory framework that guides us

here and get him a better answer in addition to what I've given.

D. Cubberley: I do appreciate the complexity of it,

having wrestled a little bit with it myself. I'm aware of

section 49 which, at

one level, makes perfect sense around auditing practices and, at another

level, would appear to bang right into the proper functioning of this body as

a body that receives complaints about practices under the law and that

examines those to determine whether in fact infractions are occurring.

There is obviously a need for some transparency in that process.

In fact, most complaint processes that I'm aware of have some element of

public process about them so that some component of the process has a public

element, if only when a determination is made — the provision of both the

determination and a rationale for the determination.

What I see from looking through the annual reports that I've

been able to look at is that I may see a

summary line indicating that 15

audits were conducted,