2006 Legislative Session: Second 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)

MONDAY, MAY 8, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Steve Nash

Hon. I.

Chong

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Payday Lending Act (Bill M206)

Fleming

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Emergency preparedness

Mayencourt

Contributions of B.C. nurses

C. Wyse

Human early learning partnership

Sultan

Emergency preparedness and

climate change

Simpson

Contributions of B.C. nurses

Hawkins

50th anniversary of Sir Wilfred

Grenfell School

A. Dix

Oral Questions

Legacies Now funding

H. Bains

Hon. C.

Hansen

C. James

Emergency services at Vernon

Jubilee Hospital

Cubberley

Hon. G.

Abbott

C. Wyse

Acute care services in Nelson

C. Evans

Hon. G.

Abbott

Death of Kewal Singh Dhanda at

Richmond Hospital

Chouhan

Hon. G.

Abbott

ICBC review of cell phone use and

road safety

J. Brar

Hon. J.

Les

Committee of the Whole House

Safety Standards Amendment Act,

2006 (Bill 25)

L. Krog

Hon. R.

Coleman

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Safety Standards Amendment Act,

2006 (Bill 25)

Committee of the Whole House

Health Statutes Amendment Act,

2006 (Bill 29)

Cubberley

Hon. G.

Abbott

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Health Statutes Amendment Act,

2006 (Bill 29)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

Hon. G.

Abbott

Cubberley

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation

Hon. K.

Falcon

Chudnovsky

Robertson

Simpson

Simpson

Sather

Trevena

Chouhan

Horgan

Ralston

C. Wyse

J. Brar

[ Page 4489 ]

MONDAY, MAY 8, 2006

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. W. Oppal: It is with great pleasure that I introduce 46 grade ten students from Killarney Secondary School in my riding. Accompanying the students are teacher Ms. Janet Nicol and student teachers James Mack and Megan Jones. Would the House please join me in welcoming the students and the teachers to the gallery.

D. Chudnovsky: I'd like to introduce to the House today David Shillington, who's a retired social worker and who has been a strong supporter of the coalition to save Eagle Ridge bluffs. Mr. Shillington is a family man. He and his wife Sally, a retired nurse, have four children. All of those children were raised in the Horseshoe Bay house they lived in for 37 years, which looks at Eagle Ridge bluffs. Could the House please make them welcome.

M. Polak: In the House today it's my privilege to introduce two guests. One is Susan Fonseca. She's the vice-president of the Langley Teachers Association. The other is Diana McNeil, the first vice-president of the district parent advisory council in Langley. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us today in the House are four members from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and beyond Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows — from the Blue Mountain and Kanaka conservation group. They were here today to see the Ministers of Environment and of Agriculture and Lands, and they are Duanne Vandenberg, Jim Bradshaw, Yukiko Tanaka and John Castiello. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are several distinguished, eminent guests who took

part in an event this morning to mark the start of Hypertension Awareness Week. Hypertension is something that a few of us might know in this chamber. We live in a lifestyle that occasionally promotes that particular aspect of life. It is always reassuring to note that we have very remarkable leaders in public health care who can assist us with these important issues.

[1405]

With us today are Dr. Arun Chocklingham , secretary general of the World Hypertension League and national coordinator for World Hypertension Day 2006; Dr. David MacLean, dean of the faculty of health sciences at Simon Fraser University; Bobbe Woods, CEO of the B.C.-Yukon Heart and Stroke Foundation; Dr. Michael Golbey, president of the B.C. Medical Association; Bill Mackie, B.C. Medical Association council on health promotion; Sharon Shore, also with the B.C. Medical Association; Alan Hicke, a member of the B.C. Pharmacy Association board of directors; Dr. Mark Gelfer, former president of the B.C.

Medical Association and medical director of VSM MedTech, Coquitlam B.C.; and finally but certainly not least, Assistant Deputy Minister Paula Bond, B.C.'s chief nurse executive, who not only took blood pressures this morning but also represented nurses as we marked the start of National Nursing Week.

This week, May 8 to 13, was proclaimed today as Hypertension Awareness Week in British Columbia. I want to thank our guests for helping us raise awareness of this important health concern and for doing such a remarkable job in building better health outcomes for British Columbians.

R. Fleming: Joining us today in the legislative precinct are parliamentarians and eminent persons connected to a variety of oversight work that Canada's legislative assemblies do. They are Michael Eastman, who is the executive director for the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation, and Rita Dionne-Marsolais, who is chair of the Committee on Public Administration in the Quebec National Assembly.

John Williams, the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons, is here, as well as Doug Griffiths and Art Johnston, members of the Public Accounts Committee in Alberta, and Ken Stewart, former Chair of the Committee on Crown Corporations in B.C. and currently municipal councillor in Maple Ridge. Fred Dunn is here as well, the Auditor General of Alberta; and Ron Salole, vice-president, Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. They're all attending the 2006 summit on results-based management, which is being held here in Victoria today and tomorrow.

Would the House make them all feel welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: At lunch today members from both sides of the House attended a luncheon put on by the Victoria advisory board of the Salvation Army, Canada and Bermuda territory. At that lunch the Salvation Army presented to the government of British Columbia the government partnership award.

Tributes

STEVE NASH

Hon. I. Chong: On the weekend — in fact, yesterday — Victoria heard some very, very good news. Mr. Steve Nash was selected as the most valuable player in the NBA for the second year in a row. As has been noted, he joins basketball legends like Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Magic Johnson. I am pleased to say that Mr. Nash is a former constituent of mine. He's become a household name, as we know, in North America.

He started off in Gordon Head playing basketball at a number of high schools and in fact was, for a short time, at my former high school as well. The student body there very much remembers him and pays great tribute to him.

Mr. Nash is a great diplomat for his hometown, for this wonderful province of ours, indeed for all of

[ Page 4490 ]

Canada. I would ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating our hometown basketball superstar and future hall-of-famer, Steve Nash.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PAYDAY LENDING ACT

R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Payday Lending Act.

R. Fleming: I move the bill be read for a first time today.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: I'm pleased to introduce the Payday Lending Act before the House today. The Payday Lending Act addresses the urgent need for reform of the payday lending industry in this province. It will establish the groundwork for an industry that provides services to people in a manner that is both legal and fair.

[1410]

The current unregulated, unlicensed state of affairs for the payday loan industry does not ensure this. It does not protect the interests of B.C. consumers in what is a fast-growing industry, whose presence is visible on the main streets of our towns and cities in British Columbia.

Payday lenders currently loan money at a rate that typically is greatly in excess of the annual rates allowed by

section 347 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This industry is out of compliance and in violation of the law as a matter of course in its daily business practice. Unlike five other provinces, British Columbia does not have any licensing requirements for payday lenders, nor does it engage in any serious regulation of the industry.

Through introducing this bill, we will hope to bring integrity back to the payday loan industry and protect vulnerable consumers from illegal gouging and other harmful and predatory practices, like the rollover of loans that produces a difficult debt trap for individuals.

Section 18 of this bill deals with the most pressing issue, which is the illegal rate of interest that the payday loan industry levies on a regular basis. By an order of the Financial Institutions Commission, this

section prohibits payday lenders from charging more than the maximum allowed to be charged as a cost of credit for the renewal, extension or replacement of a loan or for the default under a loan.

Currently, the federal government retains the authority under

section 347 of the Criminal Code to regulate the charging of illegal rates of interest. This legislation anticipates and encourages changes at the federal level that will grant provinces the authority to regulate payday lenders. Passing this legislation would position British Columbia to take advantage of these changes immediately.

Recognizing the limitations to the implementation of this bill, certain sections of the act can be enacted without federal changes to the Criminal Code. This includes

section 1, which outlines the

definitions.

Section 19(3) requires that information provided to borrowers be clear and understandable — the notion of plain language.

Section 20(1) provides for borrowers to cancel the loan within 48 hours, and

section 22 provides the borrower….

Mr. Speaker: Can the member pose the question.

R. Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important step and one that I hope will be part of a broader effort by the province to protect consumer interests in B.C. I ask all members to review and support this bill.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill M206, Payday Lending Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements (Standing Order 25

B) EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

L. Mayencourt: I rise today because today is the very first day of Emergency Preparedness Week in British Columbia. This week schools and communities across the province will be organizing events aimed at the importance of planning for emergencies.

This government is committed to ensuring that we as a province are prepared for any kind of emergency. Municipalities and emergency service personnel across British Columbia are working hard to be prepared, but there is an element of individual responsibility as well.

The theme of this year's Emergency Preparedness Week is "72 hours: is your family prepared?" In the event of a disaster, it may take emergency crews some time to reach citizens. Thus, it is essential that families are prepared to survive for up to 72 hours on their own.

We've seen the devastation and loss of life caused by the tsunami in Asia, Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the earthquake in Pakistan. What we must remember is that disaster can strike anywhere at any time. Here in B.C. we have seen the terrible impact of forest fires, floods and mudslides, and we are often reminded of the potential for an earthquake. In fact, there are 57 identified hazards in this province, including natural disasters like extreme weather, earthquakes and tsunamis. But there are other types of disasters as well — hazardous material spills, disease outbreaks and the threat of terrorism.

I encourage all British Columbians to set aside some time this week to prepare your families, your homes and your workplaces. There are several things that you can do, from putting together survival kits to drafting a family emergency plan and ensuring that you have a supply of water on hand. All of the information to make sure that you and your family

[ Page 4491 ]

are ready for an emergency can be found at the government's provincial emergency program website: www.pep.bc.ca. I encourage all families to get ready and prepared for 72 hours.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF B.C. NURSES

C. Wyse: This week is National Nursing Week, a week in which we celebrate and honour the work of nurses and the invaluable contributions they make to our health care system. The work of nurses affects Canadians every day. Nurses ensure that people receive appropriate care.

[1415]

A nurse works with patients before discharge from the hospital to arrange for needed nutrition counselling, physical activity, occupational therapy, mental health supports, social services as well as medical support. Nurses have long cared for the ill and have been powerful advocates for appropriate and accessible health resources. Nurses advocate on behalf of their patients to ensure that services are available to address mental health services, to facilitate the mobility of people with chronic diseases and to reduce environmental pollution — to name but a few issues.

In B.C. nurses have spoken on the impact that bed cuts have had on patients, the effects staff shortages have had on the nurses' ability to deliver quality health care and the need to value and respect nursing leadership at the worksite level. In B.C. nurses recognize the important achievements in their recently ratified contract. This contract allows nurses to deliver better health care by allowing the nurses to work more closely with their patients, as many obstacles that prevented this practice have been eliminated.

Today I hope the House will join with me in thanking and honouring British Columbia nurses for all they do for patients and for all they do to encourage us all to lead healthier lives.

HUMAN EARLY LEARNING PARTNERSHIP

R. Sultan: It turns out that as we evolve from womb to kindergarten, there is a connection between our social environment and our biology. Differences in family experience, education and economic status affect brain development and our central nervous system. Scientists use the buzzword "biological embedding."

The World Health Organization is funding a UBC-based research team leading a global network called HELP, an acronym for Human Early Learning Partnership. In B.C. HELP involves over 180 faculty and graduate students from all six of our universities in the medical, biological and social sciences. Led by Dr. Clyde Hertzman, HELP recently published the B.C. Atlas of Child Development. Fascinating. Every MLA must read this book. HELP is funded primarily through the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development and other provincial and federal agencies and foundations.

We already know that age zero to five is critical. What happens to you then massively influences what happens to you for the rest of your life. Early childhood development must remain a top priority.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND

CLIMATE CHANGE

B. Simpson: As the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard pointed out, this week is Emergency Preparedness Week — a week when we're supposed to be building awareness of the importance of planning for emergencies.

According to the provincial emergency program website, there are 57 identified hazards in British Columbia. However, not explicitly listed in the identified hazards is climate change. Yet insurance companies, which must constantly evaluate and update potential hazards and risks, now view climate change as the most significant hazard in the coming decades. In fact, according to the president of the Reinsurance Association of America, climate change could bankrupt the insurance industry.

The Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, which was formed by the Canadian insurance industry, states that Canadian cities are particularly exposed to increased risks as a result of climate change. It states that this increased vulnerability is due to rapidly aging infrastructure; management decisions based solely on cost-efficiencies; and increasing poverty, which exposes a greater proportion of urban populations to the effects of extreme weather events.

The institute also points out that coastal communities are under increasing threat of sustained flooding and storm surges as sea waters rise — a fact highlighted last week when the Sierra Club released a map of the lower mainland showing the areas that will be under water due to global warming. The chair of the international panel on climate change captured the essence of this issue when he stated that the frequency and magnitude of natural disasters will increase in a warmer world.

As we focus on emergency preparedness this week, we should embrace the fact that the risks and hazards of climate change are already upon us and that we must take a leadership role in preparing our communities for the increasing impacts of this global emergency.

[1420]

CONTRIBUTIONS OF B.C. NURSES

S. Hawkins: As someone who spent 12 years as a nurse and someone who comes from a family of nurses — both my older sisters are nurses — I would be remiss if I didn't rise today to recognize the incredible contributions that nurses make to our health care system.

Today marks the beginning of National Nursing Week, and I think it's a great opportunity for us to honour nurses and to reflect on the incredibly vital role that they play in our health care system. As I said, not

[ Page 4492 ]

only was I a former nurse, but I'm also a current patient, so I believe I can speak from experience of that demanding, challenging job that nurses tackle every day in in-patient and out-patient units across the province.

I think it takes a very special person to become a nurse. I'm proud of our nurses, and I know that I'm not alone. When I hear from constituents in my riding of Kelowna-Mission about the care they received while at a facility in our community, they always praise the compassion, the professionalism and the skill of nurses they encounter. I believe I wrote, when I was in the hospital, that every one of my nurses should win a nursing recognition award. They were just absolutely, incredibly wonderful.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that British Columbians recognize the fact that B.C. nurses are amongst the best in the nation, if not around the world. Our government also recognizes how important nurses are to our health care system. That's why we've increased nursing education seats by 62 percent, and that's why we brought in nurse practitioners to fill the growing demand for nurses here in British Columbia.

I would join with the member who rose earlier, and I would ask that all the members of the Legislature and everyone across the province join me in making sure that British Columbia nurses know that their hard work and dedication make a positive difference in our lives every single day.

50TH ANNIVERSARY OF

SIR WILFRED GRENFELL SCHOOL

A. Dix: Last Thursday, May 4, Grenfell elementary school in my constituency celebrated its 50th anniversary. Staff, students and parents all participated to make the celebration of this landmark date a terrific success. Students worked diligently to decorate the school into decade themes to portray Grenfell through the years. In the evening well over 100 alumni joined parents and staff to attend an outstanding performance by the students, which was introduced by the principal, Mrs. Donna Procter.

Grenfell elementary over the years has been recognized for teaching excellence, for student involvement and for parent participation. Besides all the preparations that went into the 50th anniversary, every day exciting events happen that reflect Grenfell's community involvement — like peer educators, like a track and field program with over 120 students participating, like an outdoor education program — and student involvement in every aspect of school life, from school patrol to the Grenfell support team initiated by older students.

Grenfell also has a wonderful parent advisory committee and parent volunteers who support many of the activities initiated by teachers and students at the school. I'm sure all members of the House will join me…. If I may say as a digression, hon. Speaker, that I believe the next 50 years at Grenfell will be even better if the school's minor capital request is accepted by the Minister of Finance. I want to congratulate, on behalf of all members of the House, Grenfell on its 50th anniversary.

Oral Questions

LEGACIES NOW FUNDING

H. Bains: Last week and the week before during our estimates, I asked the Minister of Economic Development a question about Legacies Now funding. The minister didn't answer, so I will ask that question again in this House. Will the minister tell this House how much money in total, from each of the ministries, Legacies Now receives in total funding?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is not correct. I did answer it last week. He can find that answer in Hansard. As I indicated to him at that time — and I shared with him the amount of money from the Ministry of Economic Development that has gone to Legacies Now — I do not have information on other ministries.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey-Newton has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Yes, this is the same answer we received during the estimates. That is not the answer.

Mr. Speaker, the members from that side of the House may find that answer satisfactory, but the people of this province don't find it satisfactory.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: We have found at least $41 million that is not included in the $600 million envelope, which is outside of the $600 million. Last week the minister said there was money from different ministries that Legacies Now receives. Will the minister tell this House once again: what and how much money is Legacies Now receiving from different ministries?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a process for this. It's called public accounts. In June of every year there is a report filed by the Minister of Finance that sets out all of the contributions that all of the government ministries make to organizations outside of government. Legacies Now is a perfect example of that. The member can do his homework and go into public accounts from previous years and find that information. I know that when the Minister of Finance tables public accounts in June of this year, that information will be contained therein.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton has a further supplemental.

[ Page 4493 ]

H. Bains: As Minister Responsible for the Olympics, you would expect that the minister would have those answers — how much money is flowing to the Olympics from different government ministries and from different government programs. This minister isn't coming clean.

He told us, also during the debate, that Legacies Now's primary source of funding was the provincial government. Why won't he tell the House how much and from where and what ministry?

Hon. C. Hansen: Legacies Now is doing some great work around this province. There's no secret to the kind of work they're doing, because I know they keep members of the opposition regularly informed.

They're working with the spirit committees that are actually working on a whole range of projects in British Columbia. They are looking at how to encourage volunteerism. They are looking at ways of promoting amateur sport in British Columbia. Their scope of activity goes way beyond the Olympic involvement that they may have.

As I told the member last week, and he seems to overlook this, Legacies Now is a not-for-profit organization outside of government. They actually relate to government through the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. The member obviously either didn't hear my answer in estimates or hasn't gone back to check.

C. James: Well, the minister is correct that there is no secret to the good work of Legacies Now. The only secret is how much of the government money is going to Legacies Now and why the government won't come clean on that issue.

I'd like to quote the minister: "There are other revenues that 2010 Legacies Now will get from the provincial government." The minister has already acknowledged $10 million from his ministry that went to Legacies Now. The opposition obtained the statement of operations from Legacies Now, and it shows that since 2002, Legacies Now has received over $90 million in contributions. My question again to the minister: how much is Legacies Now getting from the taxpayers?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, maybe the Leader of the Opposition wasn't listening when I answered her colleague a few minutes ago, but I indicated how much has come from the Ministry of Economic Development. I indicated that in estimates, and the member has that information.

I don't have information at my fingertips of what other ministries may be contributing to Legacies Now, but I can tell the member that Legacies Now is involved in a whole range of projects around British Columbia that are involved with promoting amateur sport and tourism and community pride — the whole spirit campaign in British Columbia. All of those financial details come out as part of public accounts.

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

[1430]

C. James: I'd like to quote the minister again. He said that Legacies Now is another kettle of fish. He told the House that the primary source of funding for Legacies Now was the provincial government. Our tax dollars are going to fund Legacies Now.

This is not a debate about the good work of Legacies Now. This is not a debate about the work that's being done. It's a debate about taxpayer dollars — a very simple question about why the government won't come clean on how much of our taxpayer dollars is going to fund Legacies Now.

I would like to ask the question of the Finance Minister. We know that money is going to Legacies Now. We know that apparently it's buried in other ministries. So my question is to the Finance Minister. How much of taxpayer dollars is going to support Legacies Now, and will you come clean with those dollars so we can have assurances about our taxpayer money?

Hon. C. Hansen: I can say that in the ten years I've been a member of this House, it's nice to see that the NDP are finally becoming a little bit concerned about taxpayers' dollars, because they sure didn't….

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to engage some of her research staff, it is all public information. She can go into public accounts from last year, from the year before, and she can see how much money was transferred to Legacies Now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: When public accounts come out this June, she'll have all of that information with regard to the fiscal year that just ended.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

AT VERNON JUBILEE HOSPITAL

D. Cubberley: Well, another week and another hospital emergency room in crisis and more doctors speaking out — this time doctors in Vernon raising concerns about the state of care at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. Eighteen patients admitted in the emergency room because there are no other beds available in the hospital, and the hospital itself being operated significantly over capacity. One ER doctor called the conditions untenable.

What is the Minister of Health going to do today, now, to fix the problems at Vernon Jubilee Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the first thing I'd want to note is that certainly I am aware of some of the concerns that arise — and arise not regularly but periodically — at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. It is a very important hospital to my constituency and to other constituencies in that area. We certainly are looking forward to working with doctors and with nurses and with hospi-

[ Page 4494 ]

tal administrators to find ways to improve the ER flow at Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

I am happy to note, on a positive note, and advise the House that on Friday the B.C. Nurses Union endorsed a new collective agreement with this government; 97.1 percent of nurses endorsed the new collective agreement. This comes on the heels of more than 94 percent of doctors in this province approving that agreement.

We look forward to building a stronger, better health care system both at Vernon Jubilee Hospital and across this province in partnership with our health professionals.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich South has a supplemental.

[1435]

D. Cubberley: Just to bring the discussion back to the topic of Vernon Jubilee Hospital's emergency room.… I was interested to read today in the Vancouver Sun …. I know the minister doesn't like that source. Debra McPherson, president of the B.C. Nurses Union, says, "Hospitals will be courting disaster if they add to the burden of caring for too many patients by requiring nurses to look after patients in hallways, where basic equipment such as oxygen, suction or call bells is not readily available" — such as exists at Kelowna General Hospital, not very far down the road.

K. Krueger: Why are you smiling?

D. Cubberley: I'm smiling because we have changes that need to be made in the health care system, and I believe that I've just spoken to the denial on the other side of the House. That pleases me — to bring it out in the open.

Mr. Speaker: Member, direct your questions through the Chair.

D. Cubberley: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

ER doctors in Vernon have been warning about the conditions at the hospital for months. The minister knows this. Dr. Cunningham, president of the medical staff, said, "More days than not we have gridlock," and: "There are often days where patient care is at risk or the ability of doctors or nurses to provide care is compromised." That was just two months ago, and Vernon Jubilee is still in the same deplorable situation.

Why is the Minister of Health ignoring overcrowding at Vernon Jubilee Hospital? Is he actually comfortable with ER doctors telling him that patient care is at risk?

Hon. G. Abbott: I always welcome the comments and suggestions of health care professionals across this province. We are always open to those suggestions. In fact, what we are going to do is honestly address these issues — not do what the former government in the 1990s did, which was to deny that there were ever any challenges and to never take any steps.

This opposition often says: "Add beds." Well, a bed is a metal frame with a mattress until you have a health care giver who can actually work with the person, the patient who's in that bed. That is the fact.

What we saw in the 1990s was an absolutely shameful neglect of educating the nurses we need in this province, educating the doctors we need in this province. We saw absolutely no investment in human resources. We saw very little investment in important health institutions like Vernon Jubilee Hospital. Under our government, under our leadership, we'll be seeing that investment across this province.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you don't refer to people across the House by their names, please.

C. Wyse: I would like to return to this year, 2006, where people would like to be put into a bed so they could begin their health care treatment rather than being left in ambulances and in the hallways.

Now, despite its record of consistent overcrowding, Vernon Jubilee was left off the list when the Minister of Health announced his band-aid funding last week. ER doctors know overcrowding is affecting patient care. In March Dr. Cunningham warned: "Sick people are often sicker by the time we get to them."

Does the Minister of Health really believe that this is an acceptable situation, or is he prepared to listen to ER doctors and get more beds open so patients can get the care they need?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I addressed on, I think, three occasions last week in this House, the aim of our first meeting with respect to the health care leaders from the 15 largest and busiest emergency room hospitals in our province was to create a model, to create an understanding of how leadership teams could be created in facilities. We are going to build on that model so that every hospital with an emergency room in this province will create the team and every hospital will benefit from that team. That's the fourth time now I've explained that, and hopefully it comes clear.

I think we should look at the facts. This is from the University of British Columbia. During the 1990s that former NDP government reduced the number of acute care beds and other beds in this province by 3,334. I'm glad to update the members on this. In terms of our government — and this is over five years: 1,500 net new residential care and assisted-living beds, a tripling of palliative care beds, and many, many more health and addiction beds in this province.

[1440]

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo South has a supplemental.

[Applause.]

C. Wyse: I would like to recognize that thunderous applause for me getting up for my supplemental question.

[ Page 4495 ]

Vernon Jubilee Hospital is in a constant state of overcrowding because this government closed down hundreds of beds within the Interior Health Authority. That's where this conversation is in the year 2006. In fact, the IHA had the largest cut to acute care beds of all, with a 24-percent reduction. That's 400 acute care beds that have been cut and more than 900 residential care beds that have been closed since 2002. I'm trying to stay within this century. Patients are waiting in hallways or ambulances because IHA hospitals don't have the bed capacity to treat them.

The minister's band-aid solutions are not working. How many more doctors have to speak out? How many more ERs have to become untenable? How many more patients need to be admitted to a hallway before this government moves on to a real solution?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know the members opposite don't like going back to the last century, and I don't blame them in a lot of ways. I'd be terribly embarrassed about going back there too. I know the general economic direction actually often reflects the 19th century rather than the 20th century.

Notwithstanding that, I want to get the numbers here right, because I think it's important that we do that. What we saw in the 1990s was a 23-percent reduction in acute care beds in this province. There has been nothing like a 23-percent reduction in acute care beds under our government. In fact, what we are seeing is a huge investment in residential care and assisted-living beds. Often the most common reason why acute care beds are inappropriately occupied is the absence of those. By the end of 2006 we'll have between 2,500 and 2,700 net new beds for residential care and assisted living in this province.

ACUTE CARE SERVICES

IN NELSON

C. Evans: I'll start by saying that nothing about my life in the 1990s causes me any embarrassment. I'm hugely proud of…. I would like to.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: The most challenging work I ever did in that decade was a short period of time when I served as Minister of Health and learned what a lousy venue question period is to sort out public policy on health. As a result of that, I haven't yet participated in the question period debate with the Minister of Health since my re-election.

However, I did believe that, in private, it was a good idea to approach the minister with Nelson city council and the regional district of Central Kootenay last year…

Interjection.

C. Evans: We'll get to the question.

…to articulate to the minister the devastating effect on Nelson of a 42-percent cut of acute care beds and to offer two solutions of what he might do about it.

My question to the Minister of Health is: did you believe the brief and the argument of the city councillors of the city of Nelson last year, and if so, what did you do about it?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's questions and the member's comment. I did enjoy, as I'm sure the member did, the visit that I had with the city council and with the regional district. They are all old friends, as I know they are to the member and former Health Minister.

The issue is an important one. It's around health investments. We continue to make very important health investments in Nelson and throughout the Kootenays — no question about that. There is, I think, a difference of opinion — and I don't want to put too fine a point on it — among some members about whether there should be more than one regional hospital in the West Kootenays. I think we can only have one, and that regional hospital is in Trail.

[1445]

I know that some members would like that regional hospital to be in Nelson or they'd like it to be in Castlegar — and fair enough. We have looked at that issue, and I can tell the member that we will continue to invest in health care, as we have, and Trail will continue to be the regional hospital for the West Kootenays.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston has a supplemental.

C. Evans: I do. I don't think there was anything in my question or in the presentation of the city of Nelson or the regional district of Central Kootenay last year that attempted to set up any kind of parochial debate between communities, as the minister has just done. I am not attempting to argue that some communities should have something else. Nelson, Trail and Castlegar lost 42 percent of their acute care beds. The Nelson health watch committee of the regional district last weekend said that the situation has become dangerous, and private interventions with the minister are no longer appropriate. It needs to be discussed in public.

I don't care; my citizens don't care where the investment goes. We are past parochialism. We're talking about people's well-being. There are empty floors. There is an entire empty hospital in the Kootenays. The question isn't: where are you going to put it? It is: if you have the assets — the physical assets are still sitting there — will you put back enough of the acute care beds so that the dangerous situation — described by doctors in the regional district, not politics — can be rectified while the minister decides his geographic intentions of the future?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asked me what I thought was quite an open-ended question from the

[ Page 4496 ]

meeting which I had, he had and we had with the city council and the regional district. The one issue that I remember very prominently in that meeting was the one which I mentioned in our last question. I'm glad to go back and review the minutes and the correspondence that flowed from that particular meeting.

I know the member is advocating for his community and his constituency. There are 78 other members who advocate for their communities and their constituencies. I can tell the member that we have recently announced a major investment at Castlegar. We'll be announcing investments in Nelson and Trail in future weeks and months.

We believe that we are on the right track. The members opposite often say: "Well, there's a certain magic here in the number of acute care beds." Well, if there was, why the heck did they cut so many in the 1990s?

DEATH OF KEWAL SINGH DHANDA

AT RICHMOND HOSPITAL

R. Chouhan: Last week, on Monday, one of my constituent's relatives, Mr. Kewal Singh Dhanda, was admitted to Richmond Hospital for minor knee surgery. Following the surgery, Mr. Dhanda complained about chest pains. On Tuesday evening the pains became so severe that he was screaming for help. At one point he moved out of his bed, wanting to call his family. He suffered cardiac arrest and later died in the hospital.

The family is looking for answers about the care Mr. Dhanda has received, and they are not satisfied with the answers so far that they have received from the hospital. Would the Minister of Health ensure that a proper investigation into this matter is conducted to get to the bottom of this issue and to answer why a man going to the hospital for minor knee surgery ended up dying from an apparent heart failure in the hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm going to be very cautious in addressing the issue raised by the member. I do want to say at the outset, though, that our sympathies go out to the family of the deceased. I know this has been a terribly difficult time for them, this period. Obviously, they didn't expect that this very sad passing of their father might occur.

[1450]

That having been said, I think that this member and all members of this House and anyone who wishes to understand this should take the time to have all of the facts at their disposal before they form conclusions with respect to how the care of the deceased was conducted. I believe that that is the best advice I can provide. It is in fairness to the family, in fairness to the caregivers, in fairness to the institutions that all of the relevant facts be gathered in respect of this case. I strongly urge all members of this House to have those facts at their disposal before forming any conclusions.

ICBC REVIEW OF

CELL PHONE USE AND ROAD SAFETY

J. Brar: Last week 31-year-old Tammy Karen Frost lost her life in a car accident. The RCMP investigating the case pointed out that the driver was not paying attention because she was talking on a cell phone at the time of the accident.

The most recent report available from ICBC on the use of cell phones on driving task performance is a study conducted from October 1999 to February 2002. My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Will the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General tell this House if ICBC currently collects statistics on the role of cell phones in accidents?

Hon. J. Les: Indeed, last week there was a very tragic event — an accident in Chilliwack that involved a bicyclist being struck and killed. Our thoughts are with the families on both sides, frankly.

It raises certain questions around driver behaviour and the things that distract drivers as they negotiate our roadways across British Columbia. I have asked for all of the research material to be reviewed, and in fact I find that ICBC is constantly reviewing these kinds of issues and accessing research material from other places around the world. What we find is somewhat of a mixed bag in terms of the evidence that is presented, but I look forward to reviewing more of that material in the days ahead to see whether there are things we can do in British Columbia to help make our roads even safer than they are today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge has a supplemental.

J. Brar: Yes. The minister actually didn't answer my question. The question was: is ICBC collecting information on the use of cell phones at this point in time or not? That was the question.

You know, I understand that research can be done on various issues and that it might be being done at this point in time. But certainly it seems at this point in time that if you look at the report and at the answer given by the minister, clearly the minister has failed to allow ICBC to collect information and publish reports on the important road safety issue, which is the use of cell phones while driving.

I will try again. Will the minister commit today to order ICBC to conduct a thorough review and produce a report with a recommendation on the use of cell phones in vehicles and the role that these phones play in accidents?

Hon. J. Les: I encourage the member opposite to listen closely. I clearly indicated that ICBC had delivered certain research information to me and that they were in fact involved in gathering that information on an ongoing basis.

[1455]

I'm proud to say that here in British Columbia, we have been leaders in terms of advocating for driver

[ Page 4497 ]

safety, particularly as it relates to young drivers in British Columbia. We have put together measures, for example, that limit the number of passengers a novice driver can carry. We have an absolute zero tolerance for alcohol consumption amongst novice drivers, and we're always on the lookout for taking further measures like that. Quite the contrary to the member's allegation, we are leaders in British Columbia in promoting road safety.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call committee stage of Bill 25. That, for the information of members, when it is completed, will be followed by Bill 29. In

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

Committee of the Whole House

SAFETY STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 25; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:59 p.m.

section 1.

L. Krog: I want to welcome to the chamber the minister's able assistants in this matter, who are no doubt going to illuminate and drive away some of the ignorance I might have around this bill.

As I understand it, the Safety Standards Act presently applies to premises that are defined in the statute, and that means "land, a building or a structure in, on or under which a regulated product is located or where regulated work is done." Regulated product then goes on to talk about

section 2(1)(b), which refers to amusement rides, passenger ropeways, etc. My understanding of this is that we are now extending this to include residences. The whole point of the bill, according to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, is to target and shut down marijuana grow operations more quickly and more efficiently.

[1500]

The concern I'm raising is that if that is in fact the intent of the bill, by virtue of the definition of residence under the amendment…. When you take that in conjunction with the existing definition for premises, I'm just wondering: are we not leaving out a number of what I will call commercial premises across the province, which will not in fact be covered by the legislation as it will stand once amended — if, in fact, it passes as proposed?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just before we start, to my right is Lori Wanamaker. She is the associate deputy minister for the office of housing and construction standards. To my left is Kristina Stevens. She's the director of the safety policy and liaison branch of the office of housing and construction standards.

First of all, the residences are already a regulated product because electrical systems are a regulated product, so they're already covered. Secondly, the bill is not intended to cover anything but residences because power, usually, in businesses can vary so much more dramatically because of the use that the business may use to put on a premise. So we are able to actually measure this.

The bill is really about electrical standards and safety. That's what it's about. It may catch some grow ops, but it also may catch some people who have improperly wired something that could be a hazard to their own residence. It has really targeted electrical standards. Obviously, the member knows that under the pilot project, there were a number of operations that turned out to be grow ops and that were shut down as a result of the pilot project.

M. Karagianis: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Karagianis: I have in the House today guests from Campbell River. I have my daughter, Rebecca Fahey. I have my three grandchildren. I have Hunter Fahey. I have Payton and River Fahey, and it is Payton's tenth birthday. I would ask the House to please make them welcome here today.

Debate Continued

L. Krog: I think I understood his answer to be that, in fact, it will not cover all of the commercial premises in British Columbia; that we are simply talking about extending it to residences only, but that, for instance, the existing act does not cover warehouses. In fact, it now only covers premises that are set out in the regulation, and if amended, it will cover residences. Am I clear that we're not going to cover warehouses and other premises on the basis that the minister has explained it — that electricity consumption will go up and down?

Surely, we are simply now creating — with respect to legal language — a rather large loophole for the drug dealers in this province to drive a truck through.

[1505]

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe I just got a little ahead of myself. All properties that have electrical product are regulated locations. Nobody is being exempted here. I got ahead of myself in saying it's going to apply mainly to residential, simply because that's where we can measure. Further on in the act, we deal with that. I don't want to confuse the member, but really where a regulated product is located or where regulated work is done…. That's including all electrical systems.

[ Page 4498 ]

L. Krog: Do I take it that, in fact, simply having the presence of electricity in a warehouse means that under the changes or under the existing act, it is possible for someone to go in and do the kind of…? Local government may in fact request that information. In other words, if local government today is concerned about what's happening in a warehouse in Langley, they have the authority under the existing statute to request information from Hydro and other electrical suppliers. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. R. Coleman: The act covers all regulated electricity. That means any warehouse. The

section that we will deal with, which is residential electricity information, only deals with residential product further on in the act. But the definition covers all. Further in the act, we deal with residential electricity.

L. Krog: I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think it's a fairly simple proposition I have advanced. What we're seeing is that the only premises in British Columbia for which local government can request electrical information under the statute, once amended by this section, will in fact be residences but not commercial premises.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member is not trying to be difficult. I'm just going to try and get to where I think we're trying to get to here.

Residential information can be obtained by blanket request based on average consumption. That's what this act is going to allow us to do with regards to residential. The commercial operations don't lend themselves to that type of blanket request, because they have different power needs as they go through. But it can be obtained on a site-specific basis under FOI. This is geared to the residential aspect of being able to look at blanket requests based on the average consumption.

L. Krog: I would never accuse the minister of trying to avoid answering the question directly, being the man of incredible veracity and integrity that I know him to be. But I think I heard him just say that the only premises in this province which will be subject to having local government request their electrical information in general will in fact be residential premises. So in fact, we are going to drive the grow ops of this province into the commercial districts, into the warehouses, into the business premises of the province. Am I right, or am I wrong?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: Theoretically, you're right. However, the police can request under FOI with regard to commercial premises, individual premises.

L. Krog: Then my question to the minister is: why are we making a change that is only going to apply to residential premises when we understand that the criminal element in this province is not that stupid?

In fact, we are simply going to shift the safety concerns, which this bill is supposed to address, out of residential neighbourhoods into commercial premises that may in fact be located in areas where — if there is an explosion in one premise located next to a gas plant — the potential for damage and loss of life and property is enormous in comparison to the damage that might result from one residential house blowing up.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, electrical inspectors can and do regularly inspect commercial and industrial properties with electrical systems on an annual basis. They don't do that on residential properties. That's number one.

Number two, I don't know that if we went out and checked a bunch of marijuana grow ops that we might find in commercial properties, we would find 40-some-odd children living in those properties at a high risk to public safety of a neighbourhood.

We do have inspection standards already on the commercial side where annually their systems are inspected. That's done. But we don't have that in residential. What we found was the number that we had here — the 119-odd grow ops — with that number of children in them…. I think that tells us there's a public safety issue here with regards to the electrical inspection. It was 49 children, just for the record.

So that's the difference, I think. There is a regular inspection of commercial electrical systems. We're told it's done annually. They're regularly done sometimes more often than that with electrical systems in commercial properties, but that doesn't exist in residential properties.

L. Krog: I appreciate the danger to neighbourhoods with children living in them. But again I come back to my point. The Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General made it very clear that the purpose of this legislation was to help shut down marijuana grow operations. This is a public safety issue. Essentially, what the legislation proposes to do is make it easier for local government, who in turn can pass that information on to the authorities — very easy for local government — to simply make this request. It's not an FOI request; it's a simple request in writing that they do. But we're not going to give that same authority to local government to make that request of businesses.

I'm no cash-crop farmer, but my understanding is that one can grow these things in a great deal less than a year. What it means is that organized crime will simply shift from premise to premise from time to time, warehouse to warehouse, and with the kind of cash money available to organized crime, they can buy building after building and keep shifting it around the province. Essentially, this legislation is creating a loophole which will encourage the development of grow ops in commercial premises.

Again, my question to the minister is: why not simply bring forward an amendment? I suppose the minister's response may be: why don't we? Why not amend this so that it applies to all premises? It should apply to all premises if it is to be effective legislation.

[ Page 4499 ]

I predict here in this House today that the end result of this will be that we will see grow ops moving out of neighbourhoods into commercial premises that may be located, as I've emphasized already, in industrial premises where the possibility of explosion and property damage and danger to human life is considerably exacerbated by their presence next to other deleterious substances. A system that simply allows for annual inspections which may or may not take place…. As a small business operator, I can assure the minister I don't get fire-inspected by safety regs every year. We are in fact creating a dangerous situation.

It's more of a comment rather than a question to the minister. I think the government needs to seriously look at the intent of this legislation and how effective it's going to be in ensuring public safety and shutting down grow ops across the province.

[1515]

Just so I'm clear again. We are going to rely on existing safety inspection in commercial premises, but with respect to residential premises, we are going to have a much broader opening by virtue of this legislation. In other words, this legislation makes it a very simple process,

whereas with commercial premises there's no such easy process — a simple request in writing. Am I correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, even though the member didn't ask me a question — as he said, it was more of a statement — I will try and assist him in understanding his concerns. This closes a loophole because there are currently no regular inspections of electrical services to residential properties in British Columbia. There are regular inspections of commercial residences and properties in British Columbia.

I can tell the member that when I was a small business man, I saw them a lot more than once a year. It seemed to me I saw the fire inspector about once a month. Maybe he just liked the particular restaurant that I was invested in at that particular time.

Average power consumption is only meaningful in residences because of the different types of operations in commercial. What I would say to the member is that this is a tool to go forward and make some changes. I think if we find, as we go forward, that the issues the member is highlighting become an issue, we'll have to look at future legislation with regards to that. But at this stage this is a tool that's been requested by the UBCM and municipalities that have experienced this in the past and asked us, with regards to the public safety issue, to try and provide that tool. That's what this is.

I take with fair comment the member's criticism of the other aspect of this. But knowing that we are inspecting commercial properties and we don't have the power to do it in residential…. Average consumption on a residential property will certainly show us spikes that we would be able to detect as something unusual, versus commercial properties, which may all be operating different types of equipment and operations in a commercial area — and depending on square footage and all the rest of it.

I take the member's criticism and concern. I think that as we move forward and see how this impacts, whether it has success as it moves forward, we will take those concerns into consideration in future legislation.

L. Krog: The minister received a letter dated April 6 from the Information and Privacy Commissioner in which he stated: "As a general point such initiatives amount to a form of surveillance involving compilation and use of information about entire classes of citizens without grounds for individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Such initiatives are multiplying at all levels of government in Canada and are a cause for concern. They are, in my view, to be avoided whenever possible, including because they are not subject to prior approval by the courts."

I would just like to hear the minister's comments on that

section of Mr. Loukidelis's letter.

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess I could do one of two things. I did write the Information and Privacy Commissioner back. I could table a copy of the letter for the member's information with regards to those concerns he had.

It was early on in the act when he asked these questions with regards to it. Basically, I told him in my letter to him that it's intended to help local government combat local safety problems by providing them with information on electrical power consumption in residences.

"As you noted, provincial and local safety officials have concluded that the existing information disclosure system for electric consumption is not adequate." That's what he had written me.

"Electrical consumption information is not within the biographical core of personal information that would require the higher privacy protection given to personal information such as medical records." I went on for four more paragraphs, actually — to the member. I'm happy to provide him with a copy of my response to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

L. Krog: The minister is also in receipt of a letter from the British Columbia Real Estate Association dated April 11, 2006. They raised a number of issues and, in particular, suggested that it should be both the owner and the occupier with respect to the new proposed

section 19.3.

They also expressed concern in relation to notice of and information regarding suspicious electricity consumption, asking such basic questions as: "Will such notice be shared confidentially among authorities or made available publicly? Under what circumstances will the notice be updated to reflect actions taken by authorities or changes in electricity consumption?" "Will there be a process in place to ensure updates and corrections are made?"

I'm just wondering if the minister could comment on that.

[1520]

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member: we've had some discussions with the Real Estate Association. They've

[ Page 4500 ]

been informed that the guidelines that we're going to work with UBCM on will emphasize that it should be done so that the owners are also notified. But the issue here is that the owner or the occupier of the residence should be notified because of a public safety issue with regards to power consumption in the residence.

I had some concerns about some of the issues with the B.C. Real Estate Association, because they already have a fairly substantive property condition disclosure statement that they have their agents fill out. One of the questions they added a couple years ago was: "Has this residence ever been used for drug manufacturing or a grow operation?" They added that to their property condition disclosure statement, which would have to be signed by the owner of the property prior to sale, and they would actually just have to disclose that. They have to disclose that now.

Their concerns, when we're dealing with power consumption from a public safety basis versus what may have occurred on the property, do not mesh the same. This is because, frankly, the power consumption records can be asked for from the owner of a property relative to the property condition disclosure statement. It's actually part of a number of questions that I think are relative to that, on that statement.

I think their request is a little outside of what their normal operational side would be. I think we'll see that the guidelines that will be developed through UBCM will probably end up incorporated on their documents in the future, because they're pretty proactive when it comes to that sort of thing.

L. Krog: I'm not trying to put the minister in a difficult position. I just received a copy of this letter myself, dated May 8, from the British Columbia Real Estate Association. I'm wondering if he has that letter. It's a page and a half long. In it, they comment:

Having followed second reading of the legislation, BCREA remains concerned about wording in the bill with respect to notice being given to the property owner or — not "and" — tenant of a property about to be inspected. We believe that notification to the owner should be mandatory following decision of authorities to conduct an inspection.

Reasons for this position include: should an

illegal drug operation be discovered, responsibility for termination of the tenancy rests with the owner, and should there be an illegal drug operation on the property, responsibility for the rehabilitation of the property rests with the owner. The owner may want to act to minimize any further damage to the property. In many communities, local government bylaws already exist, making the owner responsible for terminating the illegal drug operation.

We believe that an amendment to reflect this

right to notification would strengthen the legislation. Should an amendment not be possible, then we ask that you —

referring to the minister

— provide guidance during legislative debate that authorities who conduct inspections should ensure that property owners are made aware of inspections at the earliest opportunity.

Again, I'd appreciate the minister's comments on that letter.

Hon. R. Coleman: Frankly, that goes to guidelines which we would work with UBCM on. Let's also be clear about something else. What the B.C. Real Estate Association doesn't care to mention in its letter is that we rewrote — a plain-language rewrite — the Residential Tenancy Act a couple of years ago.

When that was done, an inspection going in and an inspection going out became the responsibility of owners. At that time the Real Estate Association asked us to include in the act the ability for an owner of a property to inspect their property once a month so that they can make sure there wasn't that type of activity taking place. Frankly, I think that it's covered in other legislation, and responsible owners of a property should be doing the inspections on a regular basis to protect their tenants and themselves for safety relative to protection of their property.

[1525]

I don't think the building standards act, which is to really look for safety issues with regard to electrical consumption, should be where the B.C. Real Estate Association should set policy or try to work on policy guiding the relationships between landlord and tenant and purchaser and seller. We've advised them — we will in writing, because the letter just came in — that we will be working with UBCM for guidelines for that type of notification as we come through this with municipalities, which they've asked us to do, as we worked towards the regulations. I think that sometimes they forget legislation already pre-exists, which allows for a lot of these activities to take place.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

L. Krog: This section.… The addition of "prescribing one or more ranges of levels of electricity consumption for the purposes of the definition of 'residential electricity information' in

section 19.1…." I'm wondering if the minister can tell the House how those guidelines are going to be regulated.

As the minister might recall, during second reading debate I indicated I'd be concerned that somebody who runs a hot tub fairly regularly may in fact end up having the safety inspector or the police show up at their door. Given that this legislation — although laudatory in terms of purpose — is going to provide further inroads into the privacy that all of us enjoy in our society, it seems to me that one should be protected from unnecessary search and seizure. We're talking the great Charter here and running King John down at Runnymede, it seems to me.

I'm wondering if the minister can give the House some assurances today that there will be very close attention paid to what constitutes residential electricity consumption.

Hon. R. Coleman: As an owner of a hot tub, I'm glad to hear it won't trigger…. It did remind me of a humorous story I heard on the weekend, which I won't

[ Page 4501 ]

relate to the House. I might actually relate it to the member privately with regards to a separated couple, where one decided that he who was paying the utility bill should pay for heating the pool in the middle of the wintertime. It was quite a humorous little ditty that I was given with regards to that.

The level is set basically by a technical committee with representation from the British Columbia Safety Authority, B.C. Hydro and others. The trigger is only a trigger for the purpose of saying that there's a spike. Then there's a two-year record actually, which comes along with that with an analysis tool from B.C. Hydro and Microsoft Excel. It's not a case of just saying: "Oh, we've got the trigger." The level of the trigger will be very high.

Hydro, in their analysis, know who's got electric heat. Electric heat in the wintertime, as the member knows, is higher than in the summer months. That trigger is taken into account. There are two years of analysis given with that. It's then that you can analyze the spike on the analysis, and that's when you'd get to where you'd do the safety inspection.

[1530]

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, we're not talking about analyzing the information for two years from the date that the spike is touched. We're talking about analyzing information over a two-year period so one can see that if this high use has occurred for, say, three or four months, that in fact would be likely to trigger the request for information.

Hon. R. Coleman: When the municipality asks for information, there's a trigger level that says these ones might be within the trigger level. Then they're provided with the two-year history, as the member described, which allows them to analyze it and see if somebody is really spiking. Then they would do the safety inspection.

It's not a case of saying: "Well, we've got one spike here, and we've got no related information." You may have a neighbourhood where you have two or three homes that have spiked. Given that there might be two or three in a neighbourhood outside the average, the request is made. So then they would give them the two-year history of those residences that have spiked, which are above the average, and that two-year information should, frankly, drive the information with regards to the safety inspection. It's not a case of just willy-nilly picking a number or something like that.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:33 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

SAFETY STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Bill 25, Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2006, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 29.

[1535]

Committee of the Whole House

HEALTH STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 29; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:37 p.m.

section 1.

D. Cubberley: I would like to make a few general remarks on the bill and then proceed to some specific questions. Initially, several of those are of a general nature, and they follow from the briefing that we were given — and then specifics on a number of the clauses. I hope it won't be too long or too arduous.

We've spoken previously to the general intent of the legislation on second reading and expressed our support for its stated purpose, which I could summarize as: to create and designate health information banks as data sources for research and as platform sources for the creation of individual electronic health records. The legislation also provides for consequential changes to various Health Professions Act clauses — changes with which we have no basic issue, in part due to their somewhat incomprehensible nature. We are assured by our briefing from staff that they're innocuous.

Recently we did receive a detailed briefing from the Health Ministry staff who were involved in drafting the legislation and in designing the electronic health record and the modes of access to this information. I do want to say that we appreciated the comprehensive approach towards this important health care initiative as well as staff's forthrightness and candour in responding to our questions. Thank you for that.

We're encouraged that the Information and Privacy Commissioner was involved in actually developing the legislation and was given an opportunity to comment on draft sections and that he believes the outcome does strike the right balance.

Going into the briefing session, we did have some questions regarding the design of the system as it

[ Page 4502 ]

would apply, in particular, in individual doctors' offices and in regards to the potential for aggregated data in a single repository to be accessed by — for lack of a better word — foreign agents with purposes other than those intended by the legislation.

[1540]

While inexpert in this area ourselves, we were pleased to learn of the measures that staff have taken the trouble to embed in the design of the system to minimize the potential for unapproved access to the information to be aggregated — information which, of course, if it did fall into the wrong hands, could have negative consequences for individuals or groups or classes of individuals.

In short, we're both strongly supportive of the initiative overall to develop an electronic health record in the province, including the decision to create a standard template as we understand for general practitioner access rather than having individual doctors or groups of doctors developing separate templates for electronic health records and separate modes of access. We are also assured that the security of personal health information has been carefully designed into the electronic system from the ground up.

Having said that, I did want to clarify a couple of things that came to mind following the briefing — no need for furrowed brows. I did read in a newspaper

article — I know it's folly to take these as sources of information, but it prompted some thinking — a statement which I believe is attributed to Dr. Golbey of the BCMA, summarizing him, saying: "If a secure and fully integrated system is implemented, physicians throughout the province should be able to record and share by computer patient information which is not controversial, while some patients will be able to access their comprehensive records on line."

What I wanted to understand better is: is that contemplated as part of the design of the system — that patients could directly access their health record on line? And how would that access in and of itself be secured in some fashion so that didn't become a portal for inappropriate access to the information?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me try to provide an answer to the member for his very good question, to kick off here. I think some of the issues that were raised in the initial comments will have more scrutiny as we go through the subsequent sections of the act, but first let me say thank you to the member for his constructive comments in respect of this area of public policy. I think the comments were thoughtful and constructive as well.

I do want to introduce, on my immediate right, Deputy Minister Penny Ballem; on my left, Ron Danderfer, who's assistant deputy minister. We are also joined by Andrew McBride from the Vital Statistics Agency, and John Cheung, who is an executive director responsible for this area of public policy in the ministry.

We will, I think, in later sections actually go to the heart of the patient access issue, but I guess the short answer is that patients will be able to access those records. There will be some steps that will be required for verification and authentication before they can get at it. Obviously, there needs to be some safeguards around it so that one does not see inappropriate access of those patient records by others.

[1545]

Similarly, on the physician side in terms of their use and dissemination of those records, again a patient verification is very important in the management of this. The access to information will be through the physicians almost exclusively. There are always modes of authentication and verification to ensure that the information is used appropriately, so the provider's first step in electronic health record is their access for patients.

D. Cubberley: I just want to follow along a bit. Dr. Golbey from the B.C. Medical Association made the comment, which I would appreciate some comment on, that in his view patients own their medical records, and doctors are mere custodians. It raises the question in my mind as to whether that is an accurate statement. Is that the view that the bill is predicated upon? Or is there a situation in which there is co-ownership of it?

I hadn't thought of it in these terms. I don't know if it's the appropriate terms to think about it in, but I guess it is the ownership of a piece of.… Whether it's intellectual property or not, I don't know. But the question is: who does own the health record?

Hon. G. Abbott: An important question that the member raises. The discussions that have transpired around ownership of patients' records by Canada Health Infoway, by the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner and other officials are that patients do have ownership of the information. They own their own records in a kind of legal and ethical sense. The obligation to safeguard that information, though, rests with the people who hold it.

D. Cubberley: Let's jump into a data bank of some kind like PharmaNet. PharmaNet tracks prescriptions; they're linked to individuals. That data presumably comprises part of what might be part of what is aggregated into a patient's health record. That database is also a prime database for mining information about prescribing trends.

Is there permission required from the individual patient for the data in PharmaNet to be used as part of an aggregated record or to be used, say, for research purposes? Does the type of agreement that we have endorsed for allowing for information-sharing and projects somehow cover off the fact that this is a piece of personal information that could comprise part of a health record which someone owns?

I'm not meaning to try and trap by asking this. It is just my mind wanting to go out to the margin and ask: what are the implications of that, if there are any?

[1550]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member may wish to follow up on this point to make sure that we've addressed the

[ Page 4503 ]

example, which he poses as an example of the broader direction of what will occur with the passage of this legislation.

To use the example, as the member did, of PharmaNet, PharmaNet is a data bank, and there is the ability to access that data bank for a particular purpose. However, it is important to note that access to that bank of data would require an information-sharing agreement. Under the terms of this legislation and corresponding legislation, the information-sharing agreement would require review by the Privacy Commissioner. It would also require sign-off by cabinet through a

ministerial order. Those are the protective mechanisms around that, and the personalized data is protected in the way it is aggregated and distributed.

D. Cubberley: That was useful as a response. I want to move to something else, which is another aspect of this — back to the patient and the control over the medical record.

It's interesting that if a patient requests access to a copy of a paper health record, there's a requirement that the patient or a designated third party be provided, by the doctor, with a copy of that unless — according to the College of Physicians and Surgeons rules — there is "a compelling reason to believe that information contained in the record will result in substantial harm to the patient or others." The illustrations of what the exceptions are usually about have to do with psychiatric patients.

I was just again thinking about this and thinking: what's the status of psychiatric records? Do they have a special status, within the design of health records, that has a sensitivity, if you will, beyond the sensitivity even of other forms of highly personal information? Is there any blanket shielding that's built in around psychiatric health records? How do you establish patient permission around that aspect of contribution to a general data bank of some kind or access by other parties to it?

I don't have a preconceived notion of how you would do that. I'm just trying to get a sense of whether it's been thought about.

[1555]

There is a joint policy discussion continuing between the college, the ministry and the commissioner of freedom of information and privacy to look at how the intent — the policy intent around the dissemination of paper-based records — can also be carried over into the transmission of electronic health records. If I am understanding the issue correctly, and I think I am, the aim will be to have the same kind of safeguards around the movement of e-health records as one might aim for in the dissemination of paper-based records. Obviously, there is lots of work that needs to be done around that.

Again, it is a different way of disseminating that information, but the aim is to try to have many of the same kinds of safeguards in place as one would have on paper-based records.

section 2,

section 10.1.

D. Cubberley: I'm speaking to the

definitions under "Health Act" on page 1 of the bill. I'm looking for a little bit of clarification on the definition under 10.1.

A health care body…. It appears to provide four

definitions. There is provision here for the ministry, public agents, not-for-profit societies and then a fourth one, "a society that reports to the Provincial Health Services Authority."

My question is: can a health care body include a private for-profit entity? If it can, are there any additional controls that are contemplated if and when it does?

[1600]

The Chair: One minute, minister. For clarification, shall

section 1 pass?

Section 1 approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: That scenario would only be possible were a private health care body to be defined as such under 10.1(1)(b), under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

D. Cubberley: Would that include a for-profit private entity? Can it be construed under that act as a public health body?

Hon. G. Abbott: An interesting question from the member. Having canvassed the brain trust assembled here to manage these questions, none of us are aware of an example of a private for-profit body that would qualify at this point — subject to a change in the definition of FOIPPA — to be here. It has always been contemplated that there would be the transfer from private bodies — i.e., MDS — into the public repository but not access to that information out of the public repository.

Section 2,

section 10.1 approved.

section 2,

section 10.2.

D. Cubberley: Under 10.2, designation of health information banks, 10.2(6) — this is a curiosity question — says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may exempt databases by name or class. I'm just interested in whether someone could give me an example of a database that the Lieutenant-Governor might be asked to exempt and why you would want that provision.

[ Page 4504 ]

[1605]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that the intent of 10.2(6) is that the minister not make any designations that would, for example, create a registry that already exists in another act. For example, to have an order that would create the assembling of a database which is already contemplated and established under another act is what we're aiming to avoid here.

Section 2,

section 10.2 approved.

section 2,

section 10.3.

D. Cubberley: This regards authorization of disclosure of personal health information, which is 10.3(3). Under (a): "if disclosure is inside Canada…(

v) for the purposes of investigation or discipline of persons regulated by governing bodies of health professions."

I'm just interested in what that clause is designed to do and how it relates to the intent of the act.

Hon. G. Abbott: This

section and the applicable paragraph that's referenced by the member would read, just for clarity: "An order made under

section 10.2 may authorize the disclosure of personal health information" — and then moving down to paragraph (v) — "for the purposes of investigation or discipline of persons regulated by governing bodies of health professions."

The best example here, and perhaps the only example here, would be the College of Physicians and Surgeons accessing case information that would allow them to form conclusions with respect to the appropriate treatment of a patient.

D. Cubberley: Thank you for that. I just wanted to clarify it, so I had a clear sense of what the words were enabling.

Likewise, in 10.3(3)(b): "if disclosure is inside or outside Canada," item (iii) identifies "a purpose for which the individual whom the personal health information is about has consented."

This is back to what we canvassed before, but it's trying to understand how it would work. Are all data banks containing personal information subject to patient approval? That's an off-the-top question, which seems unlikely to me because of the nature of some of those data banks and the way in which information is collected.

[1610]

We spent a lot of time last year looking at ways in which data that might be accessed through something like PharmaNet would be made anonymous in the course of its management to protect individual patients. Is what this area aimed at applying strictly to an individual health record created…? I was going to say created by a doctor, but it's moving into a dimension beyond created by a doctor, because the method of aggregating the information is collecting information beyond the doctor's office.

I'm looking for what form that consent takes and how far consent extends. It's not a trap question; again, it's just trying to understand.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I'll invite the member to ask additional questions here. This is the best answer, as I understand it. If, for example, a patient wanted to go to the Mayo Clinic in the United States and wanted to have a procedure done there and the Mayo Clinic required the paper or electronic health record for the patient in Canada, in every instance informed consent by the patient would be required to see that information move from Canada to the United States — or, indeed, to any other international jurisdiction. It would require, in every instance, informed consent.

[1615]

Inside Canada or inside British Columbia — if, for example, a patient had a serious accident in Victoria and their home and their health records rested in Kelowna — if everyone was authenticated within the care group, then that information could move without the informed consent because the patient may not be in a position to provide it at the time. Anyone who is not authenticated within that caregiving structure would require the informed consent of the patient for that information to move out.

Section 2, sections 10.3 and 10.4 approved.

section 2,

section 10.5.

D. Cubberley: Madam Chair, I'm hoping there's a question embedded in this. If not, we'll just take it as a statement for the minister.

I was interested in the notion of complaint and just in understanding better what it's trying to entrench. What I'm taking from it is that it's a protection for individual privacy — in the instance where someone is seeking access to the information, who does not have the appropriate approval or authorization to seek that. That's the primary purpose for which this right of complaint is there.

If I'm correct, then the commissioner, if he believes there's substance to that, would investigate it. He would make a determination, and then he might require that the person making the request desist and that any information collected would be destroyed, or something of that kind. So that's the sense in which privacy is being respected. It's not more expansive than that.

Hon. G. Abbott: This section, I'm advised, is not about patients and their access to the information or their complaints. A scenario that might be contemplated in this

section would, for example, be a pharmacist who had collected data in respect of PharmaNet or Pharmacare and then, for whatever hypothetical reason, refused to share it appropriately with the ministry or the health authority in terms of collecting that material. That would be the scenario contemplated here, and that's how that would play out. It's not in regard to the patient.

[ Page 4505 ]

[1620]

D. Cubberley: So it could be exercised by either, for example, the minister complaining about the non-availability of information for which there was a valid authorization, or it could be a complaint by the person requested to provide it, who believed that authority was being exceeded. Would it run both ways?

Hon. G. Abbott: The act as it's set out here would provide only those who have been asked for the information to file the complaint versus the reverse.

Section 2,

section 10.5 approved.

section 2,

section 10.6.

D. Cubberley:

Section 10.6 on information-sharing agreements: subsection (3)(

a) through (

h) identifies who the person responsible may enter into information-sharing agreements with, and the list of them is given. I'm interested in (e), "a health service provider," and want to ask the question: does health service provider include, potentially, a private for-profit service provider, or would it refer only to a health care body, which would be the entity contracting with the private service provider to supply the service?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question would be that a health service provider could be a private or for-profit provider, a walk-in clinic, an MDS type of health operation.

D. Cubberley: To move to (h), I'd just like an illustration of what "a prescribed body that is public in nature" is — an example of that.

[1625]

Hon. G. Abbott: The provision in paragraph (

h) is to permit those entities which are not specifically contemplated in paragraphs (

a) through (g). Examples of entities that would fit the bill — a prescribed body that is public in nature — might be Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canadian Patient Safety Institute, B.C. Reproductive Care Program. Those are the kinds of prescribed bodies, public in nature, that would be contemplated in (h).

D. Cubberley: Thanks, Madam Chair. We're getting very close now.

It says in here somewhere that information-sharing agreements must identify a range of things, including who has access, the circumstances in which personal health information may be disclosed. Then it says: "the limits, if any, on (

i) the disclosure of personal health information by the administrator of the health information bank….

My only question is why the phrase "if any" is in there. Would there not always be some limits applicable to the disclosure of personal health information? Why was the "if any" put in?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that the phrase "if any" in paragraph (

c) reflects, more than anything, the ever-vigilant legal drafting which tries to contemplate every circumstance that could present itself, such that if, for example, the data bank had little, if any, information in it, there would be little, if any, requirement to put limits on it.

[1630]

Section 2, sections 10.6 and 10.7 approved.

Sections 3 to 37 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Bill 29, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call estimates debate for the Ministry of Health.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Mayencourt in the chair.

The committee met at 4:35 p.m.

On Vote 35: ministry operations, $11,767,963,000.

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I'd like to introduce the staff that are with me today. On my immediate right is Deputy Minister of Health Penny Ballem. On my left is Assistant Deputy Minister Manjit Sidhu. They are part of a large and, I think, very effective team in the Ministry of Health.

Obviously, given the size of the budget that we're contemplating here today and seeking approval from the House, there are a large range of functions, programs, policies and issues that the ministry is certainly confronted with on a regular basis. It's a challenging

[ Page 4506 ]

ministry, and I am thankful each and every day for the remarkably capable, hard-working and thoughtful staff that support me as minister and have supported me now for…. Sometimes I think it's 11 months, or sometimes I think it's 11 years; I'm not sure which. I think it's actually 11 months.

It has been a very interesting time. I have learned a remarkable amount from the remarkably capable and knowledgable people around me. I do want to thank the ministry for all the work they do and express my appreciation for that.

I also want to take the opportunity early in estimates to thank the approximately 120,000 people who get up each and every morning in the province, whether they're doctors, nurses, pharmacists, health professionals, front-line health care workers, orderlies or cleaners — everyone across the system who works hard each and every day to provide the best possible care to British Columbians.

I think 120,000 people, if translated into municipal terms, is a large city in British Columbia. Occasionally things go wrong. Occasionally the infrastructure fails. Occasionally people make errors of judgment or mistakes. Those things happen, but I do know that we all benefit from the dedication that is displayed by those 120,000 people on a daily basis.

A second point, which I think speaks to how remarkably well served we are by the health professionals and front-line health workers that we have in the province, is that British Columbia has been recognized by more than one source in recent months as a national leader in the delivery of health care.

For example, the Conference Board of Canada, when it conducted its very comprehensive review of health care systems across Canada — and this is all available on the Web for those who are interested in seeing more — looked at 119 different indicators to assess the health of health care delivery systems in the nation. We were certainly pleased that on a number of measures and as a system overall, the Conference Board of Canada rated British Columbia number one in terms of health care delivery.

Similarly, the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada stated what I think is certainly correct and appropriate. The Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada noted: "B.C. has the best-funded and most timely access to cancer drugs within a strong, well-organized, population-based cancer control program coordinated by the provincial cancer agency." It also goes on to note that B.C. has the best cancer outcomes and lowest cancer mortality — something which I think we can be very proud of. Certainly I am, and I'm proud of the many people who work in the area of cancer care delivery. They do a remarkable job, and it is something to be very, very proud of.

[1640]

While we're proud of the record, we also appreciate that the system is not perfect. In a system as large and complex as the health care system, there is always room for improvement. The Conference Board report was a signal to us that we should redouble our efforts and try to build an even bigger, better, stronger health care system for British Columbians than we have today.

That's why, in the throne speech earlier this year, we announced an extensive dialogue with British Columbians to hear their views on how we can make a very good health care system an even better one. We do want to have a conversation with people about how we can create a sustainable health care system, notwithstanding some of the demographic and other challenges which we face in the system.

Health care has certainly grown over time, both in terms of the number of dollars that are devoted to it and in the percentage of the provincial budget which it occupies. I think it was back in about 1996 that the Health Minister of the day indicated that health now had assumed some 35 percent of the provincial budget and thought that might be an appropriate figure to hold the line at. It's been tough for everyone to do that. Today we are hovering around 44 percent of the provincial budget.

We've moved from $8.3 billion in the budget back in 2001 to just about $12 billion today — in fact, well in excess of $12 billion if one considers the $1.8 billion that will be devoted to capital works in the next three years.

There are lots of challenges. It appears to me, based on my 11 months here, that there always appear to be insatiable demands for more services. Those always, for better or worse, come with a cost. We need to be ambitious, but we also need to be judicious in terms of the allocations that we make.

We have built our reputation as a health care leader through innovation leading to transformation. There are a great many examples of innovations in our health care system which have resulted in better, faster and safer patient care. Between 2001 and 2005, for example, we dramatically increased the number of surgeries being performed. Knee replacements over that four-year period are up by more than 65 percent. Hip replacements are up by more than 35 percent over that four-year period; cataract surgeries, up by 20 percent; coronary bypasses, 7 percent. Angioplasties, now becoming increasingly common heart procedures, have increased by 52 percent over those four years.

All of those, I think, point to the advance in the number of surgeries that we are performing. In the one area, hips and knees particularly — notwithstanding the fact that many more procedures are being performed — we have, because of the demographic challenge, a demand that is growing as quickly as the additional surgeries that we're performing here. That is a big challenge.

Recently, as members probably know, we have undertaken a commitment for eliminating that or reducing the surgical backlog, particularly in the hip and knee area but across the board. We've invested some $75 million over three years for surgical wait time initiatives such as the Centre for Surgical Innovation at UBC Hospital, which will specialize in hips and knees and see approximately 1,600 additional or incremental hip surgeries done a year at that centre.

[ Page 4507 ]

Again, when we look at the magnitude of the challenge, which is probably estimated at a backlog of somewhere between 4,000 and 4,500, the 1,600 incremental surgeries a year will be very helpful in, hopefully, beginning to move that wait time for those surgeries in a positive direction.

[1645]

The Centre for Surgical Innovation is based on the pioneering work at the Richmond hip and knee reconstruction project, where the number of hip and knee surgeries increased by 40 percent, in part by making the best use of operating room resources. There was actually a very interesting

article in the Vancouver Sun not long ago, which laid out very clearly how the reorganization and realignment of operating room resources was instrumental in improving the productivity of the surgeons in that centre.

In February this year we announced funding to add another 1,000 elective pediatric surgeries every year, further reducing wait times and providing timely access to surgery for young patients.

In addition to these innovative programs, we are building additional capacity in hospitals around the province. We're building a new state-of-the-art emergency and urgent care facility at Surrey Memorial Hospital and expanding critical and acute care beds, part of an estimated $215 million project to complete in 2010. We're providing $140 million over three years for startup and first-year operating costs for the Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre, due to open on time and on budget in the summer of 2008.

For those who were listening, we are also in the earlier stages of an electronic health record project, for which the legislation we were just debating is the foundation. We've expanded or launched a number of e-health projects that will benefit patients by giving health professionals the most relevant and accurate patient information at their fingertips so they can make the best possible decisions about patient treatment and diagnosis.

We recently announced $150 million to be invested in e-health. Canada Health Infoway will contribute $120 million to electronic health initiatives in our province, and our government will contribute $30 million. One example of an e-health project that will be expanded across B.C. is Fraser Health's and Interior Health's lead to implement a provincial diagnostic imaging system.

This project is one of the biggest of its kind in Canada. It's a fascinating piece of medical technology and will have profound benefits for all British Columbians but particularly those from more rural or remote locations. At Fraser Health, staff and physicians are able to electronically capture and share patient X-rays, MRIs and CT exams across 12 hospitals. Projects like this one result in better patient care, make the best use of radiologists' time and provide long-term cost savings throughout the system.

We'll also be expanding access to existing programs such as PharmaNet to doctors' offices so that doctors can immediately access prescription information for patients, and we'll be further expanding telehealth service capabilities to improve access to specialist care for people living in remote and rural communities.

In the research area I think you'll want to note, Mr. Chair, that the province has a remarkably proud record around research. We have been investing not only in the future of our health care system but in creating more opportunities for health research as well.

We've carried out the commitment in our throne speech to provide $70 million this year to the Michael Smith Foundation, adding to the $30 million we provided to this amazing organization and thereby fulfilling our $100 million commitment for health research.

This funding will help maintain B.C.'s position as a world leader in disease and illness prevention and will ensure the best health care outcomes for patients today and for generations to come — research projects across the spectrum of health research, including prevention of hip fractures, new methods for cancer diagnosis and a better understanding of brain physiology. Our investment in the Michael Smith Foundation has already resulted in significantly more funds from federal research agencies coming into the province over the last five years.

In the area of cancer B.C. is a leader, with some of the most favourable patient outcomes in North America and, I think, across the world as well. In fact, the B.C. Cancer Agency is a leader in providing access to promising new treatments and is one of the reasons B.C. has such good survival rates. Through our continued investments in prevention, treatment and research, B.C. has created a cancer care system recognized as a model not only for other provinces but, I think, for the world. British Columbia is known worldwide for its excellence in cancer research, an important part of building a strong future for our health care system.

[1650]

We are building a sustainable health care system by focusing on disease prevention and health promotion. We are undertaking a number of programs to encourage British Columbians to make lifestyle decisions that promote health and well-being. We know that British Columbia is the healthiest province in Canada, and there are a number of measures for that. We should be very proud that we are active, smoke less and live longer than those in other provinces — longest life expectancy, best health outcomes and some of the best cancer survival and incident rates. We are, in fact, the model to which many other provinces aspire.

ActNow B.C. provides British Columbians with the support and encouragement to make healthy lifestyle choices, helping them to remain active and independent and enjoying every possible moment of their longer life expectancies. Some 224 communities from Armstrong to Zeballos have taken up at least one of the ActNow B.C. challenges, including Action Schools.

I was proud to be part of the unveiling of this program just two or three years ago. Action Schools has a remarkable 97 percent of school districts participating, representing 753 schools and having over 123,000 students taking

part in improved access to physical activ-

[ Page 4508 ]

ity. That's a remarkable participation rate, and I'm very proud of that.

Tobacco control initiatives. Tobacco-related illnesses are still the leading cause of preventable death in our province, killing more British Columbians than drugs, motor vehicle collisions, murder, suicide and HIV/AIDS combined. Those tobacco-related illnesses cost us. They cost in terms of dollars, but more importantly, they cost in terms of human lives and human potential. They fill hospital beds and operating rooms, and they contribute to chronic health conditions like lung and heart diseases.

That's why these initiatives, including school resources such as B.C. Tobacco Facts and Honour Your Health in smoke-free homes and vehicles, are so important in providing British Columbians with the tools and information to get and stay tobacco-free. ActNow supports healthy choices — choices that can and do make a real difference in not only our health but also the sustainability of the entire health system.

Recently, for example, it was noted that British Columbia's men now live longer than men anywhere else in the world, eclipsing Japan — where apparently too many Japanese men are still smoking. We're now number one there, and it's a remarkable improvement. I think it relates very much to all the things ActNow B.C. encourages us to do. We're aiming to make this province the healthiest jurisdiction to ever host an Olympic and Paralympic Games.

We all recognize and support the very important role of non-profit organizations as partners in healthy living. That's why we've invested $30 million to promote healthy living in B.C. — $25.2 million to support the goals of the Healthy Living Alliance; a blue-ribbon coalition of health-related organizations, including the British Columbia chapters of the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Centre on Aging, part of the University of Victoria. We've provided $4.8 million to 2010 Legacies Now to support physical activities and a healthy lifestyle.

In conclusion, our government is committed to a sustainable health system, and sustainability is more than just carefully managed budgets. It requires the support and involvement of health care professionals who share an obligation to educate their clients about health services, health promotion and prevention.

We said in our throne speech that British Columbia will define and enshrine the five principles of the Canada Health Act, and we will add a sixth, the principle of sustainability, in provincial law. We'll also create a foundation for health care innovation and renewal to help identify best practices in health care from around the world.

Throughout this process, what we need to remember is that we're dealing with human beings, and the greatest accountability we have is: did I provide the quality of care that I should have to this individual? That's why we asked in the throne speech what the fundamental changes were that we must make to improve our health and to protect our public health care system.

[1655]

In closing, I would like to end with a brief quote, one that outlines how we're changing the way we consider our health. Almost 300 years ago British physician Dr. Thomas Fuller wrote: "Health is not valued till sickness comes." British Columbia has the best health care system in the country, and we're building on those successes to ensure that it remains a sustainable system for the future.

I welcome questions that the opposition Health critic or other members of the House may have in respect of the budget and programs of the Ministry of Health.

D. Cubberley: I appreciated hearing the minister's comments about his views of the health care system in British Columbia. As always, it's good to see that he has pride in the health care system in this province.

He points to evidence — and, I think, substantial evidence — as to why we can all be proud of the health care system in British Columbia. I just want him to know that I, too, am proud of it and that members on this side are proud. We have a very long connection to the health care system in the province, with members on this side — some of them — and our predecessors having managed the health care system in the province for a good ten years.

I know the minister was there for a portion of that time. In fact, he alluded to it. I thought it was interesting, in going back to 1996 and the 35-percent figure…. At the time there was hope that would be the upper end of investments in health care.

In fact, my memory is vague about some things, but I believe I do recall that when the Martin ministry inflicted the reductions in health care spending and social transfers to the province, it effected an immediate reduction of $800 million to the province. There was a loss between one year and the next. The amount of money coming from the federal government was the equivalent of $800 million. I believe you indicated, minister, that the budget was in the order of $8 billion at the time.

Hon. G. Abbott: That was 2001.

D. Cubberley: In 2001. You can imagine the impact of a reduction of that kind.

Just for members present and others who may be watching this, as an indication of how times change, at the time and afterwards, the opposition of the day said: "There is enough money in the system now. It is not a question of spending more money on health care. It is a matter of how we spend it." And they were insistent upon that.

Therefore, I think it's an interesting progress and a maturation of point of view. I think it goes with governing to come to understand that it is indeed a question of how we spend it but not solely a question of how we spend it — that there are increases in the demand for health services, particularly in a growing

[ Page 4509 ]

province with an aging population, and that those demands are indeed likely to increase.

It is intriguing to contrast the situation we are in, collectively, in British Columbia today with the situation we were in during the '90s, in the second term of office of the NDP when it had to deal with an $800 million cut in a single year. I would be interested in knowing the exact number, but a rough calculation suggests to me that today we have in the order of $2 billion of additional federal transfer money flowing into British Columbia in health and social transfers, over what we were receiving in 2001.

That is a substantial new investment in health care. Now, a number may appear at some point in time, and that will be a good thing. But I think a rough calculation puts us in that position where today, while we are spending more, one of the main reasons we're spending more is because we have tremendously increased federal transfers. In fact, government cut areas of program expenditure in other social services — indeed, contracted the provincial budget.

I think there are challenges in funding health care, and there always will be, but the situation today in terms of the revenues flowing to the province is better than it was in the past, quite frankly. Part of that comes from the dialogue that was held Canada-wide through the Romanow commission. It arrived at some consensus about the priorities for change and investment in our health care system and, following that, the commitment of $40 billion over a ten-year period to help carry out those changes, to help us renew and modernize elements of health care that may not have moved forward as quickly as we would have liked.

[1700]

It's interesting too. I think there is a lot to be proud of, and I think members on this side are proud of the health care system, and we're proud of what we inherited. Because the NDP didn't invent public health care; it took it over from another government that had been in office for a long time. That system had many strengths when we took it over, but it also had challenges. The response to some of those challenges, I personally am proud of, I hope other members in the House are proud of, and indeed, I hope the minister is proud of.

I hear members opposite talk about Pharmacare. Well, Pharmacare was brought in by the NDP government in the '90s. Reference pricing was brought in as part of Pharmacare, and it indeed is part of what has given British Columbia the leanest Pharmacare costs in the country and has allowed us to, I think, provide equivalent or better service than most jurisdictions, most other provinces, because of economical management.

Now, there are indeed some challenges to continuing with that in the future. Hopefully, we'll have an opportunity in the course of the next few days, at a point that we agree on so that staff aren't caught by surprise, to look at Pharmacare and where that may be going.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Initiatives like the therapeutics initiative, an independent assessment of the claims made by drug companies about the products that they wish to see listed…. I think that was innovative, and it remains innovative. Most provinces have not come to a point where they have that. So I'm very proud of Pharmacare.

I'm also very proud of the cancer strategy. The cancer strategy was elaborated under the NDP. Many of the building blocks of the cancer strategy, which allow us those excellent reviews that the minister talks about via the Conference Board, come from the foundations set in place in the NDP era in the '90s. I know that in this community, the building of the cancer care facility was achieved prior to the new government taking office, and that allowed them to take over and build upon — which they have done — an excellent foundation for delivering those services.

Something else that I think we can and should be proud of are the incredible initiatives we have shown in the area of tobacco control. The reason that we have the lowest smoking rate in Canada today is because of the initiatives of the 1990s undertaken by the NDP government of the day. We could enumerate all of those. I won't bore the House by doing that, but I think that when we see the central role that smoking rates and the lower rates of lung cancer play in the incidence of all kinds of disease, we can see that one of the main building blocks that gives us those good marks today is the population health we enjoy in the area of smoking relative to other populations.

I'm almost certain that one of the main contributing factors to the longevity of males in British Columbia, the longevity that the minister referred to in his remarks, has to do with the low rate of smoking that we have. I think that means that we need to renew our focus in the area of tobacco control, because as we know, smoking is the most preventable cause of disease, disability and death in the country. It is the area most susceptible to responding to population health initiatives, and it is a place where, in the future, we can continue to make substantial gains. We look forward to being able to canvass that more closely, moving forward, as they like to say.

I do want to go back briefly to the comments that the Conference Board of Canada has often invoked and the glowing report about British Columbia in which it did achieve the best rating in two of three areas that were assessed. Two of the main contributing areas are health care outcomes, which the minister talks about, and population health.

While I would argue that health care outcomes resulting from the system in British Columbia are a collective work of successive governments and are not something that this government or a previous government can lay any exclusive claim to, I do agree that we are achieving those collectively and that the current government is building on some strengths in that regard and also getting the benefit of the strengths put in place in a previous era.

I would also like to make the point, and to dwell on it briefly, that apart from the cancer strategy, which is

[ Page 4510 ]

an excellent strategy, and the smoking reduction and the tobacco control strategy — which have an enormous, positive impact on our outcomes and affect incidence of all kinds of disease and therefore generate a lot of those higher marks we're getting — the other reason we have such high marks is because of population health due to a higher level of physical activity than any other jurisdiction in the country.

[1705]

Of course, we have had that since the year dot, since it was measured. I'm certain, if the figures were kept, that it was there under Social Credit. It was certainly there throughout the NDP era, and now it's there in the era of the current government. One of the things it would behoove us to do is not to lay claim to this as something that we have accomplished, because we have not accomplished it.

It is a result of factors that are not understood but can be inferred, which is the rather greater opportunity for outdoor recreation, given our climate and our access to nature and the self-selecting nature of these things. In-migration of population tends to favour those who would like to lead a more active lifestyle. A more physically active population generates vastly better numbers than a less physically active population in any kind of objective assessment of how a system is doing.

In terms of population health, we are very, very far ahead. In terms of an overall health care system, we have a good health care system, but a system about which we are concerned — and this is where we differ with the government. Some of the things that are occurring today are not carrying it forward in the way that we would like to see it done and are not improving it. In those areas we will have questions. We do differ, of course, on a daily basis, so I'm not telling you anything new.

There's one area in which I see no focus at all. Given the amount of reference to the positive rating that we get from the Conference Board of Canada, I think that it would be, shall we say, a more balanced approach to mention that we have serious challenges in terms of patient satisfaction with their access to the health care system. We have the worst rating of any province in Canada for patient satisfaction with access to the health care system. It's sustained; that wasn't just a bottom line. That is in a variety of categories — actually, I believe, five different measures of lack of patient satisfaction.

To my mind, to crow about how well we're doing when the patient who, if we were to refer to the New Era document, was to receive care when and where it was needed…. If the patient is dissatisfied — or more dissatisfied or less satisfied on average than patients elsewhere in Canada — we should want to focus on that and ask ourselves why. If we can take the time to credit ourselves with doing things well — and we do many things well — we can take some time to focus on things that we are doing less well, or to ask ourselves: "In what areas do we need to improve?" I think there are some obvious responses to that, and they are showing up in some places in our health care system.

I do want to say that over the course of the past year…. It's hard to believe, and I think the minister will share this opinion, how quickly the time goes by. It is a year or thereabouts since we were elected to office. I have had the opportunity, in that period of time, both to go to many health care facilities and to meet with many health care providers at many different levels. Like the minister, I believe I share a sense of admiration for the dedication of those who work in the system. I share tremendous respect for their continuing commitment to patient care.

I am mindful of the fact that there are many different levels to a health care system. Some of the workers in the health care system and some health care providers enjoy, shall we say, greater opportunity, greater support and better working conditions within which to express their commitment. What impresses me the most is how hard people w