2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements

Anthony Humphreys

Mr.

Speaker (Hon. B. Barisoff)

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Preservation of agricultural land

Sather

Child and Youth Mental

Health Day

M. Polak

Foundation skills assessment

Macdonald

Ward Clapham

J. Yap

North American Occupational

Safety and Health Week

Puchmayr

Bob McNary

I. Black

Oral Questions

Disclosure of documents in B.C.

Rail court case

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Ralston

Government action on forest

industry

Routley

Hon. R.

Coleman

Puchmayr

Macdonald

Passenger safety on SkyTrain

Farnworth

Hon. J.

van Dongen

A. Dix

Hon. K.

Falcon

Tenancy dispute resolution

process

Thorne

Hon. R.

Coleman

Notice of Motion

Committee of Supply to sit in

three sections

Hon. M.

de Jong

Petitions

H. Lali

R. Hawes

Second Reading of Bills

Health Professions (Regulatory

Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25) (continued)

A. Dix

H. Bains

J. Brar

H. Lali

Puchmayr

Karagianis

Hon. G.

Abbott

Health Statutes Amendment Act,

2008 (Bill 26)

Hon. G.

Abbott

A. Dix

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests

and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)

Chudnovsky

Hon. R.

Coleman

Sather

[ Page 12091 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2008

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Hogg: We are joined in the House today by two

people who are making their first visit to Victoria. They are great contributors

to the community of South Surrey–White Rock. Would you please welcome Ms. Bev

Poole and Jack Boyce.

Hon. C. Richmond: I have some very special guests visiting

us in the House today. I'd like the members to welcome Jeff Riley from CAYA,

Communications Assistance for Young Adults; Susan Blockberger from the

International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication; Ms.

Melinda Rundell and Peter Martin, who are recipients of some of their devices;

Jill Elvins, Melinda's caregiver, and her husband Bruce Elvins. Would the House

please make them very welcome.

[1335]

N. Macdonald: This is a particularly special day for me. We

have a class of students that have come all the way from Lady Grey Elementary

School in Golden. They came by bus. That's Rogers Pass. That is Three Valley

Gap. That is the Coquihalla. They know it all well. For some of them, it's their

first trip on the ferry.

They are here with parents Larry Lindequist, Cheryl Beech, Barry

Klassen, Heather Sadler, Neil Allkins, Wanda Johnson, Joe Devlin, Caroline

Cuyler and of course their teacher Kara Hunt.

I want you to welcome the group that has travelled the furthest, I

think, in the history of B.C. to watch us in action. So please join me in

welcoming them.

K. Whittred: Hon. Members, on behalf of Mr. Speaker, I

would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of public servants seated

in the gallery. They are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure

workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. The workshop provides a firsthand

opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the

relationship between the work of their ministries and how that work affects this

Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. McIntyre: I'd like to introduce two special guests today

who are here in the gallery. They're very special to someone who is special to

me, my excellent legislative assistant Cayley Brown. They are her grandparents

Mac and Dorothy Atkinson, who are visiting here today from Nanaimo and whom I

had the pleasure of meeting before they went to lunch in the legislative dining

room.

I learned that this month they will be celebrating their 85th

birthdays as well as their 59th wedding anniversary. I would like the House to

join me in congratulating and welcoming them today.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I want you to pay close attention to

this next introduction, because you know how proud I was when my first

granddaughter Kayla was born. The Minister of Tourism and Sport has a special

announcement to make.

Hon. S. Hagen: I have two introductions today. The first

one — I would like to introduce her to the world, actually. Born this morning at

9:35, our first granddaughter.

Hon. K. Krueger: Does she have a name?

Hon. S. Hagen: I haven't managed to trace that down yet.

In the legislative precinct today we have a group of 40 grade 10

students from Mark Isfeld Secondary School in the great Comox Valley. The

students are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Barry Walker as well as some

parents and chaperones. I look forward to meeting with them in my office after

question period. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

D. Hayer: I have three special guests here today. The first

one is Dalminder Del Virk, notary public. He's the director of the B.C. Notaries

Public and a community leader in Surrey who's really helping the community out.

The other ones are Wayne Braid, executive director of the Society of Notaries

Public of B.C., as well as Kenneth Sherk, president of the Society of Notaries

Public of B.C. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Statements

ANTHONY HUMPHREYS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, as you know, Tony Humphreys, the

Sergeant-at-Arms, has been absent from the chamber for several weeks. I'd like

to inform members that this afternoon Tony is undergoing multiple bypass surgery

at Royal Jubilee Hospital. His surgery is likely occurring right now as we

speak. I know that the members will want to join me in sending Tony the best

wishes for a speedy recovery.

[1340]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

M. Sather: Farmland is one of the most valuable resources

we can have in our community. Local economies rely on it being used wisely for

agricultural production and other agriculturally oriented farm-

[ Page 12092 ]

income-generating pursuits. In my communities, Pitt Meadows — the

sixth-largest agricultural area in British Columbia in terms of economic

significance — has annual gross farm receipts of just over $50 million. In Maple

Ridge the annual gross farm receipts are approximately $39 million.

Farming contributes to the local economy, provides greater food

security, protects environmental values, maintains rural character, supports

local business and provides local employment. Farming can bring tens of millions

of dollars of economic value to communities with varied production of anything

from berries to dairy.

As a result of the Agricultural Land Commission Act in 1972,

approximately 4,744 hectares of land were initially reserved for agriculture in

Maple Ridge. In 2003 that total consisted of 3,679 hectares, or approximately

14.3 percent of the area of Maple Ridge. This represents a 24 percent reduction

in land base since the ALC was established, in comparison to a 7 percent decline

for the whole of the Lower Mainland.

Preserving our agricultural lands is a high priority for citizens

around the world in an age of peak oil and rising costs. We know what we must

do. The challenge for governments, however, is to commit to preserving and

conserving agricultural lands for our future so that we may all survive and

thrive.

CHILD AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH DAY

M. Polak: When we consider the health of our children and

youth, we most often think of their physical well-being. We're much less likely

to think of the significance of mental illness in the lives of our young people.

In reality, mental illnesses surpass all other health problems in

terms of the number of children affected and the degree of impairment. One in

seven, or an estimated 140,000 children and youth, will experience a mental

disorder serious enough to cause significant distress and impair their

functioning at home, at school and with their peers and family.

Today we recognize Child and Youth Mental Health Day. Through its

proclamation, we seek not only to raise awareness but also to provide hope and

support to those who can often feel hopeless and unsupported.

Over the past five years, we've witnessed a significant shift in

how children's mental health is approached in B.C. There's a greater emphasis on

prevention through initiatives like the Friends program, which has served 90,000

grades 4 and 5 students through a partnership with the Ministry of Education.

There's a renewed vision for early intervention as the child and

youth mental health plan has been implemented. Public education has been

enhanced through a partnership with the Knowledge Network and the Children's

Health Policy Centre. Sexual abuse intervention programs have been assisted

through training and new standards of quality and consistency.

As a province we've recognized that without effective treatment,

children and youth with mental health problems can be robbed of their ability to

become contributing members of their community as adults. We've taken leadership

in providing support to 19,000 B.C. children and youth with a mental health plan

that's the first of its kind in Canada.

On this Child and Youth Mental Health Day, I know that my

colleagues in this House join me in offering support, encouragement and hope to

those who need to know that they are indeed not alone.

FOUNDATION SKILLS ASSESSMENT

N. Macdonald: Last week The Vancouver Sun published

a ranking of elementary schools put together by the Fraser Institute. They used

the foundation skills assessment test results.

I've administered FSA tests as a teacher and as a principal, and

they are very specific skills that are being tested. In math, they test word

problems. The FSA test is on word problems not because it's the most important

skill; it is just one of thousands of skills. FSA is not meant to be used the

way the Fraser Institute uses it. It's like measuring and ranking MLAs, using

data like the number of business cards handed out.

What parents and educators know is that a good school is about

teaching a wide range of skills, but it's also about developing honesty,

tolerance, work ethic, self-confidence, appreciation of the arts, sportsmanship

and a whole host of things that you cannot measure.

[1345]

Kara Hunt is here. She taught my daughter 15 years ago. She came

back from university, and I told her that Kara was coming. Her first words were:

"I loved Kara Hunt. I remember that she made me feel good about myself. She made

us all love what we were doing." That is an intangible that the Fraser Institute

will never measure.

The Minister of Education talked about the school that was ranked

at the bottom of the Fraser Institute list, and she said that it was an

exceptional school. The Minister of Education has the ability to judge that, and

the Fraser Institute does not.

WARD CLAPHAM

J. Yap: The long arm of the law just got a little bit

shorter in Richmond. After seven years with the Richmond detachment of the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police, Supt. Ward Clapham recently announced his retirement,

drawing an illustrious policing career to an end.

Entering the RCMP in 1980, Ward spent the first 17 years of his

career in various Alberta detachments, moving to Vancouver and Nanaimo before

coming to Richmond in 2001.

As a cop, Ward was unique in that he believed in preventative

policing. Under his watch, Richmond's RCMP detachment has become a model for all

others in the delivery of community and youth-focused policing. Ward believed

that in addition to enforcing the law, it

[ Page 12093 ]

is a police officer's duty to be a positive role model for youth, especially

those at risk of becoming offenders. Ward challenged his officers to spend time

reaching out to youth, and many followed his lead, participating in sporting

activities like basketball to allow youth to interact with policemen and

policewomen in a positive environment.

One of his lasting legacies will be the onside positive ticketing

program in which youth are given rewards for good behaviour, rewards such as

sports passes and movie tickets. This program is helping to change the thinking

and attitudes of Richmond's youth, one young person at a time.

Ward's innovative approaches to policing garnered him

international attention not just from other police forces but also from groups

such as the Stephen Covey organization. Ward engaged the community in supporting

police initiatives. He's also a tireless supporter of worthwhile community

causes and service organizations like Rotary. He's a member of the ActNow B.C.

leadership council.

It is said that the Mounties always get their man, and with Ward

Clapham, they were lucky enough to keep him for 28 years. His legacy of goodwill

and relationships will live on in our city, and I'd like to thank Ward for his

contributions to public safety in Richmond and our province.

I ask all members to join me in wishing Ward Clapham a happy

retirement from the RCMP and best wishes for the next

chapter of his life.

NORTH AMERICAN OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY

AND HEALTH WEEK

C. Puchmayr: Today I rise to acknowledge North American

Occupational Safety and Health Week. It's a time for all of us to reflect on the

important reminder and focus on ensuring that we do everything in our power to

fill the gaps and enhance the standards of protection for all workers. Whether

young, old, white-collar or blue-collar, we all need to be aware of our hazards

and stressors that we are exposed to as we earn a living every day.

There are many challenges to this endeavour. Long hours and

fatigue are causative of shorter life expectancy. Unmanaged stress is also

related to working environments. Safety hazards and chemicals in a workplace are

causative contributors to injury and even death.

This year's theme is "Commitment for life." This is intended to be

a reminder for every employer and employee and partners that the public is

focused on the importance of preventing injury and illness in the workplace.

A week centred on occupational health and safety has been

recognized in Canada for over 20 years. In '97, with growing economic

integration of North America, the awareness has extended into Mexico. This is a

reminder that the world becomes smaller. We must use every day to arrive…. From

around the world, we must develop and export good safety standards for all.

Involvement in Occupational Safety and Health Week has been shown

to raise awareness, improve attitude toward safety, and increase understanding

of occupational health and safety. This week is a time to prevent accidents and

recognize the hazards of our daily toil. The success of this week is rooted in a

community-based approach. Speakers will be going to high schools and speaking to

students.

Last year a record number of young people died on the job in

British Columbia. Most of the injuries and fatalities happened to workers in the

first six months of their employment.

We are the ones with the ability here to change the conditions in

B.C. and create and export best practices throughout the world. This is a good

week to take the time to reflect on the ways we can make a difference. Remember,

focus on hazards, report unsafe conditions, do not perform unsafe work, follow

safe work practices, and look out for yourselves and others. Let's all devote

ourselves to treat every day and every week as Occupational Safety and Health

Week.

[1350]

BOB McNARY

I. Black: I read a humorous quote a couple of days ago on

the topic of volunteering, which said: "Don't ever question the value of

volunteers. Noah's ark was built by volunteers. The Titanic , on the other

hand, was built by professionals."

Bob McNary is a man in my community who could have built that ark

single-handedly. In the 45 years since Bob moved to Coquitlam with his family,

he's been responding non-stop to the calling of, and lending his gifts and

experience to, dozens of organizations throughout the Tri-Cities, playing the

role of president, board member or dishwasher — whatever was needed. There was

no job too big or too small for Bob McNary.

To the likely chagrin of his beloved late wife of 49 years, Marge,

he's never been a guy who can say no. He's got an enormous heart, a delightfully

grumpy demeanour, a wickedly dry sense of humour, and he'll tell you exactly

where you stand.

Let me tell you where Bob stands. Bob is one of only ten Freedom

of the City recipients in Coquitlam. Bob has touched more lives and helped lead

more organizations than I can list off in these two minutes. Notable ones of a

partial list include the Coquitlam Public Library board, the Special Olympics,

the Sportsman Club, Eagle Ridge Hospital Foundation, Crossroads Hospice, Douglas

College, the Coquitlam Foundation, the Festival Coquitlam and InnerVisions.

This guy is a rotarian, a kinsman and a Chamber of Commerce

Citizen of the Year winner. Knowing his quiet modesty I can tell you, because

he's watching right now, he's pretty choked that I'm doing this.

You can learn a lot about a person when you ask him: "What are you

most proud of — completing a project? Your kids? A prized possession?" I asked

that of Bob, and here's what he said: "I'm most proud of securing Coquitlam as

the host city for the B.C. Special

[ Page 12094 ]

Olympic games twice in ten years. I'm most proud of securing a new home for

the public library, and I'm most proud for helping start the Evening of Caring

fundraiser for the Eagle Ridge Hospital."

He also jokes that one of his biggest accomplishments was staying

the heck out of politics for all these years. Please join me in saluting a great

friend of Coquitlam and a role model of mine. He's one of the good guys — Bob

McNary.

Oral Questions

DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS

IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

L. Krog: In 2007 during debates in this Legislature, the

Premier repeatedly told this House that neither he nor anyone in his office had

anything to do with the disclosure of government documents in the B.C. Rail

corruption trial or investigation. He said: "The Premier's office does not have

a direct input into that."

Court affidavits recently obtained by the opposition completely

contradict the Premier. The RCMP wanted to question various government officials

and cabinet ministers including Gary Collins and Judith Reid about three

specific documents.

The court affidavits show that these three documents were

discussed with Ken Dobell, the Premier's deputy and closest adviser. He made the

decision to disclose them just to the RCMP.

My question to the Premier: does he stand by his assertion that

his office, that his deputy, that his political staff had no involvement with

the disclosure of the documents?

Hon. W. Oppal: We've been very clear about this. We're not

going to engage in any specifics as to what took place. This matter is before

the courts. The opposition members know about it. We're not going to talk about

it.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: I would have thought integrity is just the thing

we'd want to talk about in this Legislature. In an e-mail from the government's

own lawyer George Copley to Ken Dobell, Mr. Copley states: "After discussing

these documents, your instructions were to waive privilege with respect to these

confidential documents for the limited purpose of the proposed investigative

reviews."

That is absolutely unequivocal. There is nothing to interpret. Ken

Dobell gave very specific instructions about the disclosure of documents —

documents that went to the heart of this corruption investigation. It completely

contradicts everything the Premier has said.

Again to the Premier: who's telling the truth? Who's right — the

Premier or the government's own lawyer?

[1355]

Hon. W. Oppal: Let me quote from what the member for

Nanaimo said on November 2, 2006: "It is essential to the rule of law that the

integrity of the judicial process not be interfered with. High-profile

prosecutions have failed in the past because politicians felt compelled to make

comments in the public that were later deemed prejudicial."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a further supplemental.

L. Krog: The questions are not about the documents, and

they're not about the outcome of the corruption trial. They are about the

Premier's credibility and his integrity in this House. They are about comments

this Premier made in this House.

The government's own lawyer has directly contradicted statements

the Premier has made. Mr. Copley is now on record as saying that Mr. Dobell

discussed documents and issued instructions about their release. The RCMP then

used those documents to interview Ministers Collins and Reid.

Will the Premier finally come clean and tell British Columbians

what he and his office were trying to hide and who they were trying to protect?

Hon. W. Oppal: These issues are all before the Supreme

Court of British Columbia. They will be judged in the Supreme Court of British

Columbia as they should be discussed and judged in that court, not in this

House.

B. Ralston: The Attorney General has a unique

constitutional position in the government and in the cabinet. He, in one

respect, is a political member of cabinet and participates in political debate,

but he has a second part of his duties which is as the guardian of the public

interest. He is to exercise that in a non-partisan way. His job goes beyond

running political interference for the Premier.

The Premier said here in this Legislature in 2007 that the

Premier's office did not have direct input into that — referring to the

disclosure of documents. Why did the Premier try to hide the fact that Mr.

Dobell, his deputy minister, his alter ego, reviewed crucial documents in this

case?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, that member got it partly right. I do

have a special role, and part of my distinctive role in government is to protect

the integrity of the process and the independence of the courts. For that

reason, we don't comment on whatever takes place in the courts. The member is a

lawyer. He knows better.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 12095 ]

B. Ralston: Part of the difficult job of the Attorney

General is when questions like this arise and involve other members of cabinet.

He has the duty at that point to exercise his independent jurisdiction. That's

something he's not prepared to do, obviously, and it's shameful.

Mr. Dobell reviewed crucial documents in this case. He did not

sign an undertaking, as did the other four people who had access to these

documents. That protocol requiring the signing of those undertakings was to

protect the integrity of the investigation and the integrity of the evidence.

How can the Premier convince anyone that Mr. Dobell didn't speak

to him about those documents?

Hon. W. Oppal: Whatever Mr. Dobell did or didn't do is

something that will be determined in a court of law, and we should wait for the

judge to determine what he did or he didn't do and if it did impact on the

system. That's entirely within the…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: …jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. We don't

comment on those matters. That's pretty basic.

[1400]

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST INDUSTRY

D. Routley: Today, on the very day when 500 people in

Nanaimo find themselves without jobs, our Forests Minister is quoted in the

media saying that there's nothing he can do. He's thrown in the towel again.

Hundreds of families have lost their jobs, and the best he can offer is: "I

can't stop bad business practices."

Well, the worst business practices in B.C. flow directly from that

minister's offices and into our communities. When will that minister do his job

and do something — anything — to protect the jobs of forest-dependent

communities on the coast of B.C.?

Hon. R. Coleman: For the member's information, they're back

in court with regards to Harmac right now, and there's been no decision made on

Harmac.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: That's not offering the people of Vancouver

Island and the coast anything. Mr. Speaker, 535 people are losing their jobs at

Harmac, and the minister knows it — and 251 last week in Mackenzie.

One thousand people lost their jobs last week. Those are big

numbers, but when you get down to it, they're ones and twos — one worker, one or

two kids, a coach, a volunteer here and there. At the heart of it, it's about

hard-working people paying for that minister's mistakes.

This Minister of Forests is not a Minister of Forests. He is the

new Nero fiddling while the communities of B.C. burn. When will our new Nero put

down his fiddle and do something for the forest-dependent communities of B.C.?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think there's been a government

that's had better policies and been more progressive in the forest sector….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm as worried about Harmac and those

workers as he is. We're trying to find solutions for it with the courts. At the

same time, our people are prepared to work with whoever may be a proponent that

may want to buy that mill to make sure the fibre supply is there for that mill.

We've always done that. We've always managed to get the fibre supply.

The fact of the matter is that on the coast of British Columbia

and across this province, this government has invested hundreds of millions of

dollars in the forest sector in the last three years.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, I think what the members

opposite would like us to do is go up and buy the Harmac mill.

I don't know what he's asking for. We've always said we'll have

the fibre for Harmac, but I'll tell you what. I mean, the member opposite is

getting excited and inflamed. I know what he wants us to do. He wants us to do

another Skeena Cellulose, which we're not prepared to do.

In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, all you have to do is go back to

April 30, 2008, where the Leader of the Opposition said: "You know, the days of

bailing out old mills are gone. I'm very clear about that. I've said that

publicly."

C. Puchmayr: The minister recently announced $25,000 to

laid-off forest workers in Prince George so that they can have a meeting. But

it's not just Prince George forest workers. It's Campbell River. It's Nanaimo.

It's New Westminster. It's all over British Columbia, and the minister won't

even formally meet with many of those that are losing their jobs. Why Prince

George, but not New Westminster?

When will the minister admit that his ad hoc, knee-jerk approach

just isn't working?

[1405]

[ Page 12096 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: The United Steelworkers, which is the

union that actually represents forest workers all over the province of British

Columbia, asked us to provide the $25,000 to Prince George, and we did.

Hon. Speaker, in British Columbia today there is $5 million for

research for forest management and $17 million for forest health, $32.65 million

to UBCM for fire threats in communities, $642 million since 2001 for the

mountain pine beetle and $300 million in addition to that from the federal

government, and another $25 million to Forestry Innovation in order to put money

into finding use for the fibre on the coast, to find new markets for the fibre

on the coast and to build the future of forestry in the province of British

Columbia.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested. As we do that,

we're going to continue to work with forest workers in the province to actually

have them transition and be able to help them look to a strong future in

forestry in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

C. Puchmayr: The minister talks about community transition,

but certainly that's not going to keep schools open. That's not going to pay the

mortgage. That's not going to replace those valuable jobs in those communities.

Transition money will not create valuable jobs in those communities. Those jobs

are leaving those communities.

Can the minister explain to the forest workers in a town like

Mackenzie why he doesn't have anything for them to keep their pulp mill open at

the time when prices of pulp are extremely high and profitable? Why can't he

supply the fibre for that town so that those jobs can remain?

Hon. R. Coleman: We can supply the fibre to Mackenzie. We

can find the fibre for Mackenzie, but the member should recognize that presently

that operation is before the courts in receivership and doesn't have a financier

that's prepared to fund its operation. That's why we're looking for another

purchaser for the mill.

N. Macdonald: The government's forestry policy is a

combination of do-nothing, it's a combination of ad hoc, and it's partisan. The

minister goes to his cabinet minister friend's community of Fort Nelson, and he

gave the mill there a massive break on the cost of logs. It was a massive break.

When he's not feeling the heat from colleagues at the cabinet

table, he does nothing. Every other community in the province is left with

nothing. It's completely inconsistent and politics of the worst kind.

Can other communities now expect the minister to come to their

communities and give their mills access to cheap logs or to logs at all?

Hon. R. Coleman: I should remind the member that he's got a

mill in his community that is, quite frankly, supportive of the softwood lumber

deal, which you guys want to abrogate, which you would flush down your own mill

on behalf of the policies of your own opposition. It's a sad state when you get

up and want to talk about that, but you want to ignore the fact of the great

things they've done.

So the softwood lumber deal got back…. Millions of dollars came

back to British Columbia companies. They can survive this downturn because they

got those deposits back.

They have a 15 percent tax at the border today when they had a 29

percent duty before, and it went on every dollar of value that went down into

the United States. Today that's dropped down with a high-value cap of $500,

which is a real benefit for forestry in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. Member, let's remember that we have a market pricing system

in the province of British Columbia in our timber in the areas where we have

sawmills, and there is not one in Fort Nelson. In that case, the market pricing

system has seen the price of stumpage come down by 50 percent in the last six

quarters.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just wait until you're recognized, please. The member has

a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Okay, let's understand this, and let's see if

the people of B.C. can understand it. For three years this minister has stood up

and said he can do nothing. He watches as the forest industry collapses in this

province.

[1410]

The critic has given him the things that he should be doing in a

list again and again and again, and he does nothing. The only time he does

something is if it's somebody who sits beside him or whispers in his ear, and

then he goes up and gives him a special deal. That's how it works.

The minister should have been doing something three years ago. If

he's doing something, it should be for each and every community.

So the question is this. Can the minister explain to the people of

Castlegar, Kamloops, Campbell River, Nanaimo…? The list of failed mills goes on

and on. Can he explain to them why they get nothing, but the Minister of

Energy…? His mill gets whatever he wants because he sits beside you, and he sits

in cabinet. How's that for forest policy?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, that's just absolute nonsense. It

doesn't matter whether it's Merritt or Kamloops or any community. We sit down

with people that

[ Page 12097 ]

have issues around fibre on a daily basis in this province to find a

long-term solution for them. The only thing your critic would like to do is

abrogate the softwood lumber deal and flush the rest of the industry in the

province of British Columbia.

On the coast of British Columbia alone, we have the coast recovery

plan. We've been successful in moving towards hemlock. We've been successful….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

We are not going to continue if this carries on.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, we have the coast recovery plan

— $21 million to transition from old growth to second growth. It promotes the

value-added sector where we've invested over a million dollars in B.C. wood in

addition to another value-added investment of $1.8 million with FPInnovations,

which is actually finding markets for our value-added sector in places around

the world.

We supported a competitive pulp and paper sector, which is

actually working in the province. We're investing in new technology with that

sector. We've improved the viability — something they don't like. We've improved

the viability of first nation tenures, and we put more wood out there for small

operators, which is very important to the future of forestry.

PASSENGER SAFETY ON SKYTRAIN

M. Farnworth: My question is for the Minister of Public

Safety and Solicitor General. Six criminals are at large riding SkyTrain with

impunity after a savage swarming and beating because of a failure of the

security cam system. This has happened six times since 2002. This failure

continues. What is the minister responsible for public safety doing to stop

these failures?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The province of British Columbia is the

first jurisdiction in Canada to have transit police. That force was put in place

in 2005. We have 127 armed officers. We also have on SkyTrain 360 SkyTrain

attendants.

Certainly, videotape evidence is helpful in convicting criminals.

The videotape system is the jurisdiction and under the management of TransLink.

I understand that they will be putting in a new system in July, and that will

have a longer running time to help collect evidence.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Videotape evidence is not just helpful; it's

crucial. Criminals don't operate on a two-hour loop, but clearly this government

does. This government has known about this issue for two years now. These

failures have continued for two years. We have had two years of excuses —

conflicting excuses.

Again, can the minister tell us why these failures have continued

and give a guarantee as to when these failures will cease?

[1415]

Hon. J. van Dongen: Public safety is a partnership between

the police and communities and, in this case, TransLink. I need to inform the

members, remind the members, that this government is returning 100 percent of

all traffic fines to local police forces, which has resulted in the hiring of

significant additional police — 950 additional police officers.

I need to remind the members that the deployment of police

resources is up to the police. They manage their operations. It is inappropriate

for me to interfere in their operations. They manage those resources to the

needs in the community.

A. Dix: Supplementary to the Minister of Public Safety. I

think those words, those comments, about fines will be cold comfort to Sheshleen

Datt, who is the victim of this assault.

The fact of the matter is that TransLink has repeatedly refused to

put a live person at SkyTrain stations when it's in operation and repeatedly

refused to live up to its promises to keep security 24-7 at SkyTrain stations.

Here's what TransLink says to the travelling public, and I say

this to the Minister of Public Safety. They say: "If someone truly needs

assistance, they just have to wave to the camera."

Clearly, nobody was watching in this case. In fact, the excuse

used by TransLink is that they taped over this because someone at head office

who presumably was watching decided to tape over a six-on-one assault. It's not

possible.

When will this government take action to ensure that transit

riders are safe on our SkyTrain system?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said, there are now 127 armed and

trained police officers on the SkyTrain system. If they feel they need more

resources, they would make representation to the TransLink board.

I've also said that TransLink has confirmed in July that they will

be implementing new cameras, new video systems, that will have a longer running

time. But they will be legally limited to one week, and those cameras will be

installed.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Clearly, the minister isn't listening to

constituents in Vancouver and along the SkyTrain line — clearly not listening.

There are serious concerns. These have been real assaults. The government has

taken no steps. TransLink has taken no steps.

I know that the Minister of Public Safety can't do anything about

a do-nothing Minister of Transportation. I know he can't do anything about that.

But he's responsible. He's responsible in the cabinet for public safety.

Interjections.

[ Page 12098 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: We have a Minister of Transportation who finds his

way to support more money for the board of directors and fare increases for

transit users, but does nothing on the issue of transit safety.

When will he intervene to deal with the very serious security

issues on TransLink? When will he take steps to ensure that what Sheshleen Datt

suffered isn't suffered by other constituents in Vancouver-Kingsway and across

the transit system?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, I'm sure all sides of this

House share the concern for that young woman who went through what must have

been a most horrifying experience. But for this member opposite to say that this

government has done nothing when the member knows that the SkyTrain police

complement in the last two years has gone up by a third…. That's 127 officers

that now look after that system today.

[1420]

But let me just give actually a more concrete example of what

doing nothing is all about. Doing nothing is when the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant, when she was part of government, flew to London with a bunch of

bureaucrats, spent $80,000 to look at a gated system in London and came back and

did absolutely nothing.

What's the difference? This government is going to make sure we've

got a gated system on all the SkyTrain stations to make sure that young women

can feel safe on SkyTrain throughout the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

TENANCY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS

D. Thorne: When he revised the Residential Tenancy Act, the

Housing Minister said that if it didn't work, he would fix it. Office closures,

downsizing and a phone-in system for dispute resolution have now created a

system that is in shambles.

Last year June Ross moved into a new apartment and immediately had

to move out, due to an infestation of rats. Two failed arbitration hearings

later, June Ross was lucky enough to find a lawyer who would work pro bono. She

went to Supreme Court and won her appeal, but most renters in B.C. cannot find

lawyers who do free work.

I want to ask the Minister for Housing today if he will live up to

his promise and do what is necessary to fix this phone-in dispute resolution

process. Or will he continue to rely on the Supreme Court to settle tenancy

disputes in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: To respond to increasing demand for

dispute resolution, we are today adding 32 staff members and opening a call

centre in Kelowna. That is a huge increase in the number of staff. We're

training additional dispute resolution officers. We've increased…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …the budget by over $2 million so that we

can…. We've streamlined administration to speed up the dispute resolution

process. For instance, hearing packets previously available two days after

application are now available to clients within minutes of the application. We

have also simplified the application notice forms and put them in plain

language.

We've made significant improvements to the system and are

investing in people to speed up our call times and our response times at the

branch.

[End of question period.]

Notice of Motion

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY TO SIT IN

THREE SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to advise members that I'm

tabling today a motion that would provide for the creation of a second committee

room for the purpose of referring non-contentious committee stage debate. I'll

provide a copy to the Opposition House Leader. In the event that the opposition

seek to avail themselves of that option, I'll be pleased to receive that

information from them.

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

H. Lali: I have a petition with 662 signatures of residents

in the Princeton area who are protesting the cuts to the health care services at

the Princeton hospital. My constituents want the Legislative Assembly to keep

the ER room open and to reinstate surgical services at the Princeton hospital.

N. Simons: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I'd like to introduce four people who have all

in their own ways contributed to the health and safety of children in this

province. I'd like to introduce Warner Adams, executive director of

Carrier-Sekani Child and Family Services, and Mary Teegee, program director for

Child and Family Services, along

[ Page 12099 ]

with Karen Isaac and Lincoln Heaney. Will the House please make them all

welcome.

R. Hawes: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

R. Hawes: I am presenting a petition from 1,250 people

regarding Grand Street Lodge in Mission, requesting that it be kept open.

[1425]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second

reading debate on Bill 25 and in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the

information of members, continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of

Forests and Range.

Second Reading of Bills

HEALTH PROFESSIONS (REGULATORY

REFORM) AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

A. Dix: It's good to continue debate on Bill 25, the Health

Professions Amendment Act, 2008. When we were starting to discuss the bill

yesterday, we talked about some of the key issues, particularly around retention

of health care workers, which I think is a key part of our efforts to deal with

health labour shortages and with professional issues.

I wanted to get more into the detail of the bill in this second

reading speech — a bill that the opposition supports in principle at second

reading — and, in particular, just go through the key clauses of the bill and

then go through them in detail to discuss some of the issues involved.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

What the bill intends to do is create, amongst other things, a

health professions review board that will assist qualified health care workers

or health workers to fully utilize their skills. They're going to set up

advisory panels to assist this process. In addition — and this is in addition on

that line of the bill — they're going to attempt to ensure that health

professionals who are certified to practise in other Canadian jurisdictions will

be welcome to practise in British Columbia and have their credentials

recognized.

Further, there are proposals with respect to restricted licences

that will allow internationally trained physicians to practise in their specific

areas of qualification. To quote from the minister: "A new framework will be

developed and implemented to allow Canadian citizens trained outside of Canada

to practise in British Columbia." So that's one set of elements of this bill.

There's another set of elements to this bill that deals with

issues of professional transparency, issues that have been raised as a result,

in particular, of a number of cases in recent times where it would appear that

the inconsistent standards by various health professional colleges have kept

information that might have been helpful to members of the public in protecting

their interests…. Those cases indicated that we had a problem, and this bill

attempts to address that problem. This is the second set of issues.

Of course, connected to that were a series of throne speech

initiatives which are non-legislative but which attempt to address and support

the initiative found in the bill.

One of the notions of the legislation is a new notion — what we

call scope-of-practice reform. In a general sense, certainly the opposition

supports this, as do many of the people in health care. The idea is to break

down — while protecting, in all cases, the security and protecting patients, we

would hope — the historical notion, the historical idea of what you call

professional exclusivity so that if a single profession has performed certain

services and procedures, by definition other professions cannot perform those

services.

We've found — and, of course, this has happened over time and is

in place over time — that there is considerable overlap in responsibilities

between doctors and nurses, between nurses and licensed practical nurses and

others.

The idea of this kind of reform is to address some of the

difficulties and to widen it in such a way that the system is governed by, on

the one hand, what you call a scope-of-practice statement — which are

descriptions that are non-exclusive — and then within that also have a defined

list of very important, maybe more high-risk activities that must not be

performed by any person. So it's a more mixed system as opposed to a system

based on notions of professional exclusivity, which in fact may not be

appropriate any longer.

[1430]

One of the most important areas in Canada which shows…. It's one

of the important things proposed by the opposition in the 2005 election. I'll

just repeat a little bit of what we said then and how it's certainly consistent

with our support for the expansion of the role of nurse practitioners. At that

time we proposed to expand the role of nurse practitioners to emergency rooms.

"Nurse practitioners will begin work in B.C. in 2005. They

bring advanced training that allows them to carry out a broad range of health

care services, including diagnosing, prescribing medications, ordering

diagnostic tests and managing common and acute and chronic illnesses. While

experts in community-based primary care and prevention, the NDP will also make

sure their skills are utilized in B.C. hospitals to deliver better patient care

and take the pressure off existing physicians and nurses."

This idea of nurse practitioners is of course not a new

one in Canada or even in British Columbia, and I think the idea of promoting it

is very much part of virtually every reform of primary health care proposed by

all governments in Canada. We're obviously encouraged

[ Page 12100 ]

to see that role developed with one caveat, which we will talk about in a

moment.

It's important to talk about it, because I think there have always

been suggestions out there that…. This is sometimes the case because the use of

nurse practitioners has occurred sometimes in regions and communities where

there are doctor shortages. So the notion is that we go to this model simply

when the preferred option or the default option isn't available for some reason.

I'm sure the Minister of Health would agree with me that this is

not really the right approach — that in fact there is a great deal more that

nurse practitioners can do and that this notion that they can only be used when

a doctor can't be found is in fact the wrong notion.

There was a landmark Canadian study in the early 1970s looking at

family practices in Burlington, Ontario. What it showed pretty clearly at the

time was that the appropriate use of nurse practitioners with the appropriate

additional education — and we have outstanding nurse practitioners in British

Columbia….

They did this in one family practice, which was kind of

overwhelmed, in Burlington. This is dating back to the 1970s. In that case, the

nurse practitioners took care of 67 percent of patient visits.

What all of the recent research has shown and confirmed — this

goes to this idea and this broader notion of scope-of-practice reform, which is

contained in this legislation and in other actions by this and other governments

— is that nurse practitioners can do more. They can work very well in providing

a wide range of services. In fact, they do so now, and they can do more.

For example, there are studies all over the health care system,

and they confirm this. I think what they also confirm — and it's very

interesting. These two studies are American studies, one in the Journal of

the American Medical Association and the other in the American Journal of

Public Health . The first is called "Primary Care Outcomes in Patients

Treated by Nurse Practitioners or Physicians." The other, in the American

Journal of Public Health , issue 72, if people are looking at that, is by

Ramsey: "Physicians and Nurse Practitioners: Do They Perform Equivalent Care?"

What these studies show pretty clearly is that especially for

minor injuries and illnesses requiring care on the day in question, patients who

see nurse practitioners do as well — and in some cases better, because in some

cases they get more attention — as patients visiting doctors. The research also

showed — and I think this is important — that they're just as healthy in the six

months following the treatment.

This idea is one thing that we have to work to break down. This is

particularly true in the area — which I know something about as a patient, as we

spoke to on the previous bill — of issues of chronic disease. It's particularly

true in that area, including issues of hypertension, diabetes, asthma and other

chronic diseases.

What they show is that sometimes patients respond better to nurse

practitioners in those areas than they do to physicians. This isn't because

physicians do a bad job, but it's because in some respects — and this is what

the evidence shows — nurse practitioners sometimes tend to ask more questions.

And in some cases, although of course this isn't always the case, they may be

prepared to spend slightly longer with patients, answer more questions and be

able to offer more options to patients.

[1435]

Here's an important study. It's the study from the American

Journal of Public Health . What the study did was look at two groups, and 99

percent said that they would be prepared to see a nurse practitioner again. What

that indicates to me — and I know the minister would support this — is that the

increased use of nurse practitioners in the health care system, given their

availability, is a good idea.

In fact, those people that use nurse practitioners seem to

validate that in a rather dramatic way; 99 percent is a pretty high test score

for anybody, I would suggest. Certainly, what it indicates is that the work done

by nurse practitioners is outstanding.

That's an example of that part of the legislation, this idea that

in fact there are often overlaps and that the system, within careful review —

and this is what the intention of the legislation is to provide — should become

more flexible in this regard. That is what, hopefully, the various advisory

panels and review boards will help to facilitate as well.

Obviously, one of the questions that is raised and dealt with by

the legislation is the issue, in addition to that, of doctor shortages. Of

course, the member for Yale-Lillooet knows the issues and its implications for

health care in Princeton at the moment. I think those issues are pretty

significant.

We've heard — and I know the member for Kamloops–North Thompson

would know this — of the challenges that the community of Clearwater is going

through with respect to attracting doctors to deal with their issues. These are

very significant problems for communities. They can indeed sometimes affect the

very economic life of rural communities. In a sense, one of the reasons why

people stay in communities — this is particularly true of seniors — is access to

a family doctor and to medical services.

It's one of the challenges for communities when services, as they

have been quite frequently under this government but not exclusively under this

government, are centralized. So what you have when services are centralized, it

seems to me, is a taking away of the very supports that doctors, nurses and

other health professionals — but in this case particularly doctors — want to

see.

In most jurisdictions — and this includes British Columbia…. We

have to, clearly, engage in more of this in terms of rural doctor shortages.

Most of the Canadian provinces have various incentive programs to address and

bring doctors to rural and remote areas. This is the case, but the interesting

part of that…. There are lots of good ideas in this area, some of which have

been implemented and some of which haven't — ideas like forgiving student loans,

ideas such as financial incentives.

But what the evidence also shows — and this is a real challenge

for policy-makers — is that it's not just

[ Page 12101 ]

an issue of financial incentives. We all know this because we all know our

family doctor and other doctors. You know that doctors often or for the most

part don't do what they do for money. They have many options in terms of finding

successful remuneration.

Often the incentive programs, things such as signing bonuses….

There was a recent study in Quebec called "Evaluation des Mesures Incitatives

Visant l'amélioration de la Répartition Géographique des Médecins au Quebec,"

which essentially looked at some of the incentive programs used in that province

in terms of bringing doctors to rural areas.

What they found is that, for example, forgiveness of student loans

ranked 22nd out of 23 factors. In that case, signing bonuses ranked 21st out of

24. They found that incentive programs won't work alone. They need to go hand in

hand with modern facilities and high-quality infrastructure.

That's what the studies have shown. I think what that shows to all

of us is that when we centralize services…. If we take services out of a

community such as Princeton, it becomes more difficult for a doctor to go in

there or want to go in there.

[1440]

In addition, obviously, lifestyle issues become an increasingly

important part of the equation. But the very cuts that are sometimes made in the

centralization of a health care system tend to mitigate the success of programs

to attract rural doctors to communities. It's something that I think we have to

remember when we're closing down regional hospitals and centralizing services.

This has a real impact, I would argue, on our ability to attract doctors.

That having been said, some of the measures in this legislation,

hopefully, will assist, in particular — and we hope in combination with the

expansion of residency and access to residency for foreign-trained doctors — in

increasing the number of doctors who are eligible to come here.

Of course, there's always this sort of archetypal story of a

doctor who is trained and is needed, who is doing something other than

practising medicine — the archetypal story of driving a cab, for example. Not

that that isn't something extremely valuable to do. But it's often very

frustrating for a health professional and for a community in need of doctors

when they hear such stories.

That's why we support the ideas, first of all, of a restricted

licence to allow physicians to practise in specific areas of qualifications;

increased access, clearly, to residencies, which is important to allow

foreign-trained doctors to meet, if they require, Canadian standards; and a more

reasonable approach to cutting through the red tape that is often put in place —

often for legitimate reasons of professional quality control, but which ends up

being a deterrent to people coming and practising in British Columbia and in

other jurisdictions.

We are hopeful that this will have the effect of addressing some

of these issues of doctor shortage. With respect to that, I think that the

measures on the bill — and I know my friend from Surrey-Newton will speak on

this question as well — come some of the way to responding to that problem, and

we are happy to support those measures.

Certainly if you ask British Columbians, hon. Speaker, I think

what they'd say is that they would, under most circumstances, support all

efforts to ensure that while quality standards are maintained — and I think

that's the intention in this case — people who are qualified to practise, be

they doctors or nurses or other health professionals, be able to practise in

British Columbia. That will require, beyond legislative action, a lot of work to

make that happen.

But in saying that, we shouldn't forget that these answers to

these questions, which is increasing supply, require a public health care system

that is appropriately funded, appropriately supported in communities across

British Columbia and that provides health care where and when you need it. It's

a reasonable place to work. We discussed this yesterday.

One of the challenges we have, especially on the question of

nursing shortage, is not just the issue of recruitment but the issue of

retention in the context where hospitals are often not given the support they

need. I spoke yesterday in this House about the situation in New Westminster,

but it really could be about the situation in Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George,

Vernon, Nanaimo, Victoria or any of the other communities that I have visited as

opposition Health critic. I think this is a key point that we have to consider

as we go forward.

It's certainly a key point for the B.C. Nurses Union on these

broad issues of scope of practice that we hope to address, these systemwide

issues of scope of practice. What many nurses say to me is that they very much

support efforts to expand their scope of practice, but they often look at them

with concern because they feel — I think justifiably, and probably the Minister

of Health would agree with this — that what it will mean, when their workload is

already unacceptable, is merely a piling on of more work that will make their

position less and less sustainable.

[1445]

I'll just quote from a nurse in Victoria who said that going home

at the end of the day feeling that they haven't done what they ought to have

been doing is common, that they don't have time to talk to patients and that

nurses are fully capable — as long as there is enough time and manpower — to do

more to in fact expand the scope of practice to do things such as suturing,

allergy testing, local anaesthesia and cardiac stress testing. All of these are

things that nurses are prepared to do, but they need to be given the opportunity

to do the extraordinary work that they were trained to do.

Instead, what they say to me — and this is typical…. In this case

what the nurse Victoria McCallum says is: "To free up time, nurses need to stop

answering phones, doing paperwork, folding laundry and running around finding

equipment."

The minister has recently visited Royal Columbian Hospital, and

I've recently visited Royal Columbian Hospital. What they tell me is that they

go in early to

[ Page 12102 ]

try and secure linen privately and in advance because there's never enough

linen, and they're always racing around.

So the cuts to other services have made it very difficult for

nurses to envision an expansion of the scope of practice. They clearly support

it, and good evidence-based practice argues that nurses can do more. We have to

support that, because I think it's the right decision for a public health care

system. But in order to make it work on the ground for nurses, we have to

provide them with the support they need.

It seems to me that one of the key issues for nurses is, for

example, better security and safety in hospitals. Many nurses feel, especially

since the privatization of those services — this is what they say — that their

security has gotten worse, that cleaning has gotten worse, that the quality of

food has gotten worse. They feel they have to go around the halls and not look

people in the eye because people have so many problems with the support services

that if they meet up with someone, they will not be able to make it through

their rounds.

So it takes more, it seems to me, than expanding the scope of

practice, which is an excellent idea. But if it's not combined with efforts to

in fact ensure that nurses are not overwhelmed with these other tasks outside of

their scope of practice, if you will, it will not or cannot succeed. I think

that's a key question — not just what happens in the Legislature or in the

legislation but how that jibes with the reality that nurses feel on the ground.

That same circumstance and view are, I think, shared by many

health sciences professionals. Health sciences professionals are highly trained.

They provide critical services to people in every community in British Columbia

— medical lab technologists, diagnostic imaging, respiratory therapists,

occupational therapists, physiotherapists. That association — the Health

Sciences Association — represents pharmacists and other professional groups.

What they are saying is that there are profound shortages. Unlike

other professions, principally doctors and nurses, very little has been done in

their area. So we're seeing and running into extraordinarily serious shortfalls

that are having an effect — I think a profound effect — on the ability of those

health professionals to do their job.

We need more of them. We need to support more of them. Right now

there are not — in terms of the Ministry of Advanced Education or the Ministry

of Health — plans to address what is a growing catastrophic shortfall in those

professions. We all know this. Everybody in this House knows that proper

diagnosis is essential for patient care.

If we don't have the lab and the medical imaging technologists to

provide the tests, run the tests and get the tests done, then treatment is

delayed. The consequence of treatment being delayed is that the entire system

gets backed up.

We're going to go through the numbers because the numbers are

quite dramatic. There are reports from both the Vancouver Coastal Health

Authority and the Fraser Health Authority. Just to put them in context, just to

show what a significant shortfall there is in these areas…. Those professionals

deal in diagnostic, clinical and rehabilitation. Those are the basic areas of

what they do.

[1450]

Medical technologists: a shortfall by 2015, according to the

Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, of 85 percent. Radiation technologists: 18

percent shortfall. Diagnostic stenographers: 72 percent shortfall. In those two

areas combined: a 58 percent shortfall.

The Fraser Health Authority did its own study, its own report —

again, not a report by the opposition — that said that B.C. will need an

additional 1,154 full-time-equivalents in diagnostic imaging alone by 2015. That

was their estimate.

This is not an area where we've added sufficient spaces or really

very many spaces at all. BCIT is the only institution in the province that has a

diagnostic imaging program, and they're going to train only 600 additional

technologists by 2015. Assuming all of them come into the system in B.C., that's

a shortfall, according to the Fraser Health Authority, just in that area alone

of 554 imaging jobs, or people to do the jobs we absolutely need to get done in

the health care system.

The Fraser Health Authority reports that there are 165 vacancies

right now in six health sciences professions. I think this is an area that we

have to get at and get to. I know that the Premier and the Minister of Health

have met with representatives of the Health Sciences Association, but clearly we

have not done enough in spite of the fact that these jobs are very rewarding.

They're very important positions, and they're very challenging

positions. I think we need to make a more significant effort to invest to

provide the staff we need in this area, be they physiotherapists or diagnostic

imaging specialists or others, to ensure that the health care system not in some

distant time in the future but in the short-range future has sufficient staff to

do the job.

Look at what we're talking about in terms of physiotherapists.

Just to give you a sense, the Interior Health Authority — let's not just talk

about the Fraser Health Authority — needs to hire 44 physiotherapists right now

to address current service levels.

Well, the only institution in B.C. that trains physiotherapists —

and they had serious problems last year, as the minister will know — accepts

only 40 students per year in British Columbia. What we have are efforts and

investments on the doctors-and-nurses front but insufficient efforts — and we

have to do significantly better — in dealing with the issues of health sciences

professionals.

They will tell you that a plan focused exclusively on doctors and

nurses, which ignores the important role of health sciences professionals but

also ignores the important role played in the system by LPNs and care aides and

others, will unfortunately lead to serious issues in the not too distant future

— in fact, serious issues now. I think this has shown a bit of a disconnect

between the Ministry of Health, which surely sees all this stuff coming, sees

these issues coming….

We often say — and the minister often says, and others often say —

that it takes ten years to train a

[ Page 12103 ]

doctor, and so on. It takes two to six years to train health sciences

professionals in these areas.

We have to get going now. We have to increase the spaces now to

deal with the situation, or the system that we have set up, which depends on the

extraordinary work done by health sciences professionals, will in fact break

down. It is a concern that I know is shared by all people around this chamber,

but it's one we have to address now. It's what puts the meat on the bones, if

you will, of this legislation.

We've seen scant increases in the number of spaces for health

sciences professionals, certainly nothing to address the growing demand. There

have been small increases — one in Prince George and a small increase at BCIT

last year — but nothing that will address this critical long-term shortage.

I think that as legislators, we need to both promote these

professions — because they are extraordinary career opportunities for people if

they want to take on these jobs — and provide the spaces necessary to allow

health authorities and others to have the health human resources that they need

in the future. That means training more technologists, stenographers,

physiotherapists, speech pathologists, pharmacists and others.

[1455]

That is a key area, I think, of the health human resources picture

that we are not succeeding at. We are not making progress at it right now, or at

least nothing like the progress we need to make in order to address a crisis.

It's kind of a daily crisis for people.

I meet with health sciences professionals all the time who tell me

about their discouragement, their real discouragement, at their sheer workload,

the volume of overtime that they have to do, and that there seems to be no end

in sight. Positions are left unfilled. This is a real crisis. It's not a crisis

exclusive to this government. It's a crisis in other jurisdictions, but it's one

that, if we don't address it, is going to have the effect of making all of our

health care system less effective in the coming years. In fact, we're facing

those stresses now.

We talked about this a little bit yesterday. We talked about the

government's key initiative in health human resources — we'll be talking about

this more when we get to the next bill on the

schedule — which is its impact on

the shortages of care aides, LPNs and others in the system, many of whom are

represented not just by the Hospital Employees Union but others and who play a

critical role in our system. Many of them, of course, are not represented

because of the efforts of this government to take away their representation as

well as their jobs and, in many cases, their salaries.

I think what that shows, even before the Supreme Court of Canada

said that what the government had done was illegal in what it did to health care

workers and that three sections of Bill 29 were illegal…. Even before that

happened, the market was saying to the government that their policy of slashing

wages and privatization was failing.

The member for Nanaimo knows very well about what's happening at

Nanaimo Seniors Village, where we've seen a consistent pattern of using mass

layoffs to try and drive down wages, and the disruption that that means to

people.

A strictly elitist approach to health human resources fails on

that, because in the current marketplace the work done by LPNs, care aides and

other health care workers is actually extraordinarily valuable. They, in this

time, have market power. All that is left — often to the government's financial

supporters, who own some of these facilities — is to do these mass layoffs,

which are disruptive for everyone. They're sure disruptive for seniors.

But what they also do is what we absolutely can't allow to happen,

which is the message they send to people. The message they send is: don't become

a care aide.

It is absolutely vital to our health care system. The work they do

on a daily basis is extraordinarily personal. We had a message sent by an entire

government, 77 MLAs — well, 76 actually, because one member on the government

side, the current member for Peace River South, opposed the legislation — that

essentially this work may be valuable, but don't do it.

According not to me but the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority,

there is a dramatic shortage that they're facing by 2015 in care aides. So it

takes more than legislation, I suggest. There's also a shortage, according to

the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the Fraser Health Authority, of LPNs.

There's a shortage in those two categories. It seems to me that's

partly because of efforts to cut the salaries and also to diminish the value of

the labour that is done.

If we're going to address these health human resources issues, we

have to provide the legislative framework — hopefully, what we're doing today

will help assist in that; we're certainly hopeful that it will — but also

provide the support and encouragement to people and in a sense send the message

that this is extraordinary work. It's work that is valued by society. We don't

say that the work done by doctors is great, but the work done by care aides

doesn't have value. We say that they both have value, because we know that.

When we visit any care home in British Columbia, the quality of

care — how a senior feels in that care home — is often, on a daily basis, more

dependent on the work done by a care aide. So the decision on the government's

part, which I think was extremely wrong-headed, to devalue that work was wrong.

[1500]

If we're going to address these broad health human resources

questions, it seems to me that we've got to reverse that message. We've got to

send a different message that we believe that people in the health care system

can actually do more. We have an expectation that people should be fully able to

utilize their training, be they doctors or nurses or others in the health care

system. But we also have to say, I think, very clearly that all of the work is

valued.

I think what has happened with care aides and LPNs in particular

in the last few years is that the government's position, which sent a message….

You can't

[ Page 12104 ]

send a stronger message than a piece of legislation that targets two groups

and devalues their work. That's a pretty strong message to send. We can't have

that any longer in British Columbia. We need to do the reverse. We need to

encourage people to do that important work in our public health care system. It

may seem like a long shot, but I hope that the government has learned from its

mistakes in this regard.

Equally — and this is dealt with by the provisions of this

legislation in part and by the government's announcements in its throne speech,

which are connected to these — the changes in scope of practice for ambulance

paramedics…. Again, one could be very supportive of an expanded role. But what

ambulance paramedics are telling us is that when they raise issues around their

work or the challenges of recruitment in the context of a $2-an-hour wage, in

some cases…. It's not really a wage. It's a per diem or a small stipend. That

isn't good enough to provide the recruitment opportunities.

The government rejects that. They take all of those issues off the

table. They say the union is collective bargaining when it does that. The

changes that the government proposes would allow ambulance paramedics to

diagnose and release, rather than transfer to hospitals, in many cases — so

increase their responsibilities. There's a concern on their part — a legitimate

concern, I think — that the intention of this isn't a broader care but to limit

access to health care and to limit transfers to hospital and therefore be a cost

containment measure.

I don't think it needs to be strictly a matter of that, but what

it requires with it is addressing enhanced training opportunities and providing

an adequate support and wages for ambulance paramedics. We've raised in this

House the stories and the issues in communities such as Alexis Creek and others.

There are stories from around British Columbia, including the urban areas, of

ambulance paramedics under pressure to meet targets that are increasingly on

paper but not really vested in reality.

Ambulance paramedics feel, for example, that they haven't been

consulted in this regard. The changes aren't in place now, so that's fine. They

need to be consulted, obviously, and the regulations would have to be prepared.

I think that without, again in this case, the resources and

training and support and the commitment that this isn't just an issue of

limiting access to health care choices we could be supportive of this, but it

requires all of those resource issues. It's not a simple matter of saying:

"Ambulance paramedics can do more, but they're already overstretched and

overburdened, so they'll just do more on top of that."

This is an area…. The increased authority for ambulance paramedics

in this case would have to be accompanied by all those other tools for ambulance

paramedics to properly do that, or you'd be in a very serious situation. Of

course, there are significant liability issues above that that ambulance

paramedics face. So that's another example of where expanding the scope of

practice may well be a good thing, but it certainly requires, in the case of

ambulance paramedics, a greater commitment to their work than the government has

shown in recent years.

Equally, expanding the roles of midwives, something that the NDP

government previously did…. You look at studies of the work of midwives.

Certainly, the NDP government in the 1990s was innovative in this regard. The

major North American study of the work of midwives showed that 98.7 percent of

mothers…. I won't round that up. I'll just say 98.7 percent. But if you were to

round that up, 99 percent of mothers who used a midwife would choose a midwife

for the birth of their next child.

[1505]

That's a pretty impressive satisfaction rate for midwives. So I

think that the innovations that it brought in and ensuring, in fact…. I'll just

quote from the national society representing obstetricians in Canada. I'll quote

from a policy statement from 2003, which you can find, if you're checking this

at home, in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada . What did

they say? They said: "The integration of midwifery into the obstetrical health

care team is fostering excellence in maternity care for Canadian women and their

families."

Clearly, following up on the innovations of the previous

government and potentially expanding the role and the responsibilities of

midwives and promoting the use of midwives in our system is a good idea. It's an

evidence-based idea, and expanding on that effort — on which, of course, the NDP

government in the past took the lead — seems to me to be an excellent idea.

Having dealt with some of those issues, which are very important

in this debate, we want to talk about the issue of transparency. This was a

case, I think it's fair to say — I think the minister would agree; he even

mentioned it, I think, in his scrum on the legislation — where the role of the

media in this regard, raising issues, played a critical role in seeing this come

forward — in particular reports by journalists for the Victoria Times

Colonist , Lindsay Kines and Jeff Rud, who I think has left the Times

Colonist but is of course an outstanding journalist.

What they showed in many cases, be they a case of "a pair of

Vancouver Island chiropractors, each facing multiple counts of sexual assault,

continue to practise under the condition that they see female patients in the

presence of a chaperone. The presence of the chaperone must be documented" — in

that case — "and those records are checked by the college on a regular basis…."

But here was the kicker. The chiropractors were under no obligation to notify

patients why they are practising under those circumstances.

What happened — and I think it's why the legislation is useful —

is that in the different health professions…. Some had on-line registries; some

did not. The different health professions, even though they all perform critical

work, all had different standards. Clearly, in terms of transparency and

accountability, the idea would be to ensure that a public right to know — which

is necessary in these cases, which is I think central — is in place and also, on

top of the idea of the

[ Page 12105 ]

public right to know, a consistency in standards. We shouldn't have some

colleges being significantly more transparent than others.

Hopefully, the effect of these changes will be to ensure that that

situation is properly dealt with. I think it's critical to the successful

practice of all the medical professions, be they chiropractors — and I didn't

cite that case to single them out in particular — or physicians or whatever

profession you would like to note, that the idea of public confidence, the sense

that the public can have access to information and know when they're choosing a

chiropractor or choosing another health profession, that the public would have a

reasonable expectation to be able to know if there were issues regarding that

professional…. I think it is an important one. It will build, I would argue,

public confidence in the professions, not take it away.

That aspect of the bill I think we'll deal with in more detail at

committee stage. To go through the minister's thoughts on that part of the bill

would be useful, and useful for the professions. On that question, we are

generally supportive of those proposals, especially here at the second reading

debate on principle.

These are critical issues for our health care system that we're

discussing today, and I know other members will take up some of those issues. We

live in a time where many people in British Columbia have difficult access to

primary health care, and it's a critical issue. I'm going through it now;

everybody's going through it. Many people are going through it, particularly

people who are, because of income level in some cases or economic circumstance

in most cases, unable to find a family doctor. People who move around a lot and

aren't able to maintain stable places of residence are in this position. I think

these are issues that matter to people.

[1510]

Now, for some people…. We saw this recently with the proposal of

the False Creek Surgical Centre to sort of take advantage of this situation.

They saw a shortage of family doctors, and they saw a business opportunity. I

think most people would argue that instead of going to a community that needed

family doctors, setting up a business opportunity to try and have people pay for

primary care isn't the right course. Both myself and, I believe, the minister

spoke out on that issue. I think that if you look at that situation, that's

their response to it, and that's sometimes the response of for-profit health

care.

I think the truth of the matter is that a strong public health

care system supported with adequate resources, combined with legislation that's

flexible and can allow people to come into the system; a training program that

doesn't just focus on some professions but looks at all of the needs of all of

the professions, be they represented by unions or professional groups or

whatever; and a strategy that looks at all of them and doesn't focus on some are

what we need in British Columbia.

It's one of the reasons why, in our positive approach to this

debate, we will be supporting this legislation at second reading. Unlike the

government, no matter where ideas come from, if they're good ideas, we support

them on this side of the House. If they're ideas that will improve health care

for our constituents, we support them on this side of the House. That's a

contrary position to the ideological approach we often see across the way.

We know people who could benefit from the work of nurse

practitioners. We know people who need a family doctor. We know doctors who

haven't been able to get certified and should get certified in British Columbia.

We know health care workers whose work was demeaned and the impact that that had

on our health care system. Every day we meet health sciences professionals who

struggle to meet the increasingly unreasonable demands on their work who are

saying: "Where's the plan to address our issues?" We know these people.

We think this might be a small contributor to that, and we'll

support it, but what's required, as well, is a commitment to public health care

that, sadly, we frequently don't see from this government. When you brag about

going from second to seventh place in supporting health care, most people would

say you're on the wrong track.

We need to get back on the right track with public health care. We

will support good ideas wherever they come from, and our support for this

legislation is consistent with that principle. Our party founded public health

care in this province. We know that addressing these health human resources will

help ensure that the next generation will have access to that.

What is also required…. A second element is required; that is, a

government that truly believes that public health care is central to British

Columbia life and deserves commitment and support. That's what we need. That's

what we'll be campaigning on, going forward between now and the election. We

think that's the difference between us and them.

It's not that we have all the ideas. It's not that they don't have

any good ideas. When they come up with one, we'll support it. I remember saying,

when the trans fat ban, which was an idea that was promoted, as you recall, and

put on the political agenda by NDP Member of Parliament Pat Martin…. When the

Premier came forward and said, "We want to do a trans fat ban," what did I say?

I said: "Even the Premier finds an acorn sometimes." That's what I said.

An Hon. Member: You didn't raise it once in here. Not once.

A. Dix: So the minister…. When the member for Nanaimo

introduced private member's legislation in this House…. The member for Nanaimo —

the minister will remember that. It was with respect to smoking in cars.

Interjection.

A. Dix: Oh, we'll talk about trans fats. Three years of

promotion from the NDP to get the attention of this government to that issue,

and finally, we got their attention. We're very pleased with that.

[ Page 12106 ]

But we believe in health care where, to use the Premier's term —

one that he's since abandoned, one that he's buried in his policy backyard…. We

believe, unlike the government, in health care where and when you need it.

That's what we believe in. That's not what they believe in. That's why we're

supporting good ideas wherever they come from. That's why we're supporting this

legislation, and we will continue to fight to ensure that public health care is

there for the next generation and the generation after that and the generation

after that.

[1515]

H. Bains: I am indeed also honoured to speak on this issue,

Bill 25. I think it goes quite a way toward dealing with some of the issues that

we face in health care today. I think one thing that is on our citizens' minds

on a constant basis is whether they will receive health care and whether health

care will be accessible to them when they need it.

The minister, for whatever it is worth, brought a number of bills

here in order to fix some of those problems. We on this side have examined all

those bills, as we are doing with this bill. I think some of them don't make

sense at all. I think that's a waste of time, and we have said that in this

House.

There are others that we want to talk about. I think they have

some elements in those bills that we can support because they do go towards

dealing with the issues that we have in the delivery of health care in this

province.

One of the areas that I want to talk about is the accreditation of

the foreign-trained professionals, especially the medicare professionals. I've

been following this for a number of years now. There are a number of activists

and organizations who actually have been bringing this issue to the forefront.

They are trying to bring awareness — organizations such as Capacity B.C. and

people like Patrick Cody and Priti Shaw. I want to thank them for bringing this

issue, having a debate over this issue and bringing the details about how far

and how deeply the problem exists.

I think we have heard…. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has said

and many have said before that we have seen fully qualified doctors driving

taxis or working in the construction industry. It's not that those occupations

are not worthy of being in there, but I think these professionals who actually

took training and invested a lot in their professions wanted to work in those

areas. They couldn't because there was no process in the province for them to

get their credentials recognized so that they could come and help in their area

of choice and help the people of this province at the same time.

We've seen, I know, some cases of people with PhD degrees in

marine sciences and in medical sciences. They are not working in the field that

they chose and have expertise in. When that happens, you know what happens? They

suffer; they lose. The province loses, and overall, the patients of this

province lose. We have seen the long lineups at the ER. We have seen long

lineups trying to get in and get some of the MRI or other diagnostic tests done.

The reason — and the minister has said this many times — is that

we don't have enough professionals in that particular area. Well, guess what.

When that was going on, for the last seven years nothing was done by this

minister, the minister before him or by this government.

Finally, I say that there is a small step in the right direction

in Bill 25 to deal with this issue. Now, I will be waiting, going into the next

stage of this bill's debate, when we question the minister clause by clause, to

see how this will be unfolding and how, actually, it will be helping those

professionals who are anxious to get into the field of their choice but can't

because of the barriers and the obstacles that they face. So I think that's

where I will wait; I will wait for the details.

We have also heard a very famous case where a world-renowned

doctor, a specialist, came to teach at UBC. He taught and trained our doctors,

but he was not allowed to practise in B.C. I mean, that's how bad the situation

was.

[1520]

I know the Attorney General hears all those issues from the

community all the time. I know that he also is aware and that he wants to do

something about this. I'm not so sure until we see the final details and the

next stage of the debate. I think we'll find out how far this goes to deal with

the issue.

I know Ontario has actually taken the lead by bringing in

legislation. Bill 124 was brought in just to deal with these issues, and not

only to talk about the health care professionals. That bill dealt with and deals

with professionals in all areas. It deals with how those professionals'

credentials are going to be recognized, and similar to what this bill talks

about — having an overview board to oversee the registration and accreditation

process going through — there is a fairness commissioner that has been appointed

by Ontario under that bill.

That commissioner actually looks and oversees how those

professional organizations will bring about changes that are required under the

Bill 124. So it's an ongoing thing. It doesn't deal with only one profession; it

deals with all of the professions. I think that's where we need to go in order

to deal with all of the issues that we face in the area of foreign-trained

professionals.

I have seen and I have heard many people — I'm sure the Attorney

General and the many other members who live in the Lower Mainland have heard,

walking down the street and you come across…. Hardly a day goes by when you

don't come across somebody, and sometimes they use very harsh language about how

we treat these foreign professionals. Many call it a fraud. I've heard it, and

I'm sure other people have heard it.

I think why they call it a fraud is because the Canadian

government and B.C. government representatives go all across the globe trying to

promote and ask those professionals in those countries to come and practise in

this country and this province. But as soon as they come in and land at the

airport, they start to face the

[ Page 12107 ]

reality that their credentials, which they once were told are needed in this

province and this country, are no longer good enough.

I think the journey of painfully establishing themselves in this

province starts right there. No wonder that we have doctors and other

professionals doing other jobs that they're forced to do but don't want to. They

want to stay in their own profession. I think that's why people call it a fraud.

No wonder some people have said that if you wanted to have a heart

attack in the province of British Columbia, it's safer, actually, to do it in a

taxi in Vancouver someplace rather than a block away from Surrey Memorial

Hospital where…. You know, trying to get into the Surrey Memorial Hospital,

there's a six- to seven-hour wait trying to go through the system.

You know how the nurses, doctors and other health care

professionals in Surrey Memorial Hospital are overworked, overloaded with very

few resources, thanks to this minister and thanks to this government.

So I think that's what we need to…. I think this bill actually

goes in a small way….

Interjections.

H. Bains: I don't think the minister of small revenue likes

to hear the truth.

Interjections.

H. Bains: Small Business and Revenue — I correct myself.

You know, maybe what I said inadvertently fit the minister, but I wouldn't go

there.

I think the Minister of Small Business and Revenue doesn't want to

hear the truth. I invite that minister. I invite the Minister of Health to come

to Surrey for one hour. Come to Surrey for one hour, and then walk with me and

stay in the emergency ward for one hour. Stay in there for one hour, and then

see with your own eyes the experiences and the pains that the patients have to

go through trying to get the very basic health care services that they deserve

and need.

[1525]

That's all it takes. Come down to Surrey and walk with me on the

streets of Surrey. Walk with me on 72nd Avenue. Walk with me in front of the

Sikh temple. Maybe we should go and visit. Maybe there is a time to atone for

your sins, and then they'll be given the opportunity.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order, please.

H. Bains: I think we need to get back to the bill. I was

actually distracted by the Minister of Small Business and Revenue, who didn't

want to hear the truth.

Let's talk about Bill 25. I want to talk about the area of

shortages in health care professionals. I think if we do it right, this bill

probably will deal with some of the issues that are faced by us, and I think we

need to also talk about why we are at the situation that we are today. Why is

there a shortage of health care professionals? There have been seven years where

we have seen that this government has shown nothing but disrespect and contempt

for health care workers, and if you…. I think the Minister of Small Business and

Revenue would like to hear this as well.

This is another fact. Bill 29 was brought in. You know, when you

see thousands of hard-working health care professionals…. They were told, "Your

services are no longer needed because we want to bring in our friends," who will

come in and make profits at the expense of those workers' wages. They were let

go. Many of them, actually, were not allowed to get hired again by the

contractor, because the instructions to those folks were: "Well, if they come

back, they probably will bring a union in." That's how badly they were treated.

When you treat your employees, your workers, with disrespect the

way it was done by that government, you get the desired results. It means that

those professionals will stay away, and they stayed away. They stayed away, and

now we see all kinds of shortages.

I also want to talk about those who stayed away and those who came

here because we told them that we needed their services and that we needed their

skills, because we need them. We have a shortage of those.

But let me talk about the other area that hasn't been talked about

so far. We have, probably, thousands of Canadian-born students who can not get

spaces for the training that they need in the health care professions, whether

they want to be doctors or nurses. They could not go through the universities

here because no spaces were available. They end up in foreign countries.

My daughter, along with her friend, after waiting one year, could

not get into their chosen profession at UBC or any other university here in the

province. They ended up going to Europe to get the training. Now they will be

incurring hundreds of thousands of debt. If that isn't bad enough, when they

come back, they will be told: "Your credentials are not good enough."

That's how the system worked in the past. I think it is

unacceptable. It is really serious stuff, and that's why I said to the minister

that it was long overdue.

Finally we have it before us, and finally we will be standing with

the minister to support this bill. It's not the case that when the minister or

the government brings in any legislation, that we as opposition always oppose.

When we see that the minister has some wisdom to put some common sense into the

legislation, we support it.

Here's another example. Thank you, Minister, for listening to all

those activists who actually woke you up one day, and you realized that

something needs to be done, and you have tried to fix it. Like I said, I will be

watching the details in the next days of the debate here.

[1530]

So here we go. I think I talked about all those folks who have had

to leave the country to get training and many of those who are here who are not

able to get their credentials recognized. I think we as a society have a duty.

We as legislators have a duty to see how

[ Page 12108 ]

we want to fill all those vacancies, whether it's health care or other

professional areas.

My priority and, I'm sure, everyone else's priority is that we

train our own here. We have our children, who are our future, who will be taking

over from us, who will be running this country. Those are the people that we

need to give all the tools and resources to for them to stay here and train so

that they can take this country to the next level. Well, we're failing them as

well. Like I said, thousands of them have to leave this country because of lack

of spaces.

I'm not only talking about the health care professionals or the

health care area. I'm talking about, generally, all skilled categories. We don't

have an apprenticeship system here where we could fill the vacancies, which we

need. We used to have a pretty good apprenticeship system. Alberta does a better

job than we do.

We're failing our younger generation, which needs our help. We as

legislators have been elected to do the right thing and give them the resources,

the opportunities for them to excel in their future and their chosen fields, but

we haven't done enough. I think that's another area that we need to work on.

We want to talk about this bill and what the details are. I want

to draw your attention to Bill 124 from Ontario. Although Bill 124 isn't the

answer to everything, there are some really good sections in it that the

minister could take some advice from. For example, the purpose of that bill is

similar to what we are trying to do here, although that one covers a whole host

of other professions.

The purpose listed in Bill 124 is that a regulated profession has

a duty to provide registration practices that are "transparent, objective,

impartial and fair." That's what we need to establish. I hope that this bill

will go in that direction, and I hope that the board of review or the board that

will be overseeing this will be able to move us in that direction.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Then it talks about specific duties. It says:

"A regulated profession shall provide information to

individuals applying or intending to apply for registration by the regulated

profession and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it shall

provide (

a) information about its registration practices; (

b) information about

the amount of time that the registration process usually takes; (

c) objective

requirements for registration by the regulated profession together with a

statement of which requirements may be satisfied through alternatives that are

acceptable to the regulated profession; and (

d) a fee scale related to

registrations."

I think that was one of the areas that people like Priti Shah and Dr.

Patrick Coady have brought to the forefront — that there wasn't a one-stop shop

where they could click on something and all of that information would be

available. I think that is the area that we need to move in. Like I said, I will

be really looking forward to the next stage of the debate, where we could find

the details of how this bill will be applied.

I want to also thank our counterparts in the federal NDP, who also

have been in the forefront trying to promote this issue and deal with this

issue. Olivia Chow, an MP from Toronto, has put forward a position paper where

she also lists a seven-point proposal that would actually deal with this issue

or go a long way to deal with this issue. I want to thank them as well.

I think it was the hard work by those that I mentioned before,

Capacity B.C., Priti Shah, Patrick Coady, Olivia Chow…. And many others who are

the activists in this field have been working hard trying to promote this issue.

Finally, we see some results — some results, I want to emphasize — in seeing

that this issue might get resolved in the area of the health care profession.

[1535]

My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway talked about many of the good

things in this bill. He mentioned a few. I want to go over some of those that I

think are the right things that this bill will do.

I think having a review board probably will work well if they are

given the tools and the resources they need so that we see all of those

different areas of transparency, accountability as far as the registration

part

is concerned — if that review board is given those tools and resources. That's

what we need to find out — if that is there. Those were some of the key points I

wanted to talk about.

I want to talk about some of the real challenges that the health

care professions and the health care facilities are facing, both in the

Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and in the Fraser Health Authority. When we

talk about what we see in the growing communities such as Surrey, which is the

fastest-growing community in the country, actually…. We have probably the most

diverse community in the country. At the same time, it brings with it its own

challenges — the fastest-growing community with the different needs of that

diverse community.

When I look at the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, there are

many shortages that they have identified. On nursing, by 2015 there will be

about a 39 percent shortage if we don't start to work on and deal with this

issue, and LPNs, 8 percent.

Interjection.

H. Bains: The member is asking some questions about what

happened about seven years ago.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: I'd just like to see what happened in the last

seven years, and as inaction of this government…. These are the numbers put

together, not by me…. These are the numbers put together by the health

authorities themselves.

Interjections.

H. Bains: You think this government is trying to do

something right. When you hear some heckles and

[ Page 12109 ]

some comments from those ministers from the other side, you think: do they

really mean it? You start to question that. You question whether they really

mean it.

These are the numbers put together by the Fraser Health Authority,

by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. They are the numbers that are saying

that the nursing shortage by 2015 will be 39 percent; LPNs, 8 percent; care

aides, 75 percent. So the total in this area of nursing — a 42 percent shortfall

is anticipated by 2015. The members on the other side basically are dismissing

this.

I'm surprised that the minister is dismissing this. I don't

understand, and the people at home listening to this debate don't understand.

The health authorities put these numbers together. These, according to the

minister, are professionals. They deal with the issue on a daily basis, so they

have to actually put in place a plan and a forecast of what they need to deal

with in coming years.

This is what they are saying. Diagnostics area, medical

technologists — 85 percent….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: I think it's no different than a few days ago.

When you start to put some facts together, to bring the truth out, you start to

get heckled from that side, because they don't want to hear the truth.

[1540]

Here the list goes on. For the radiation technologists there will

be a shortfall of 49 by 2015, 18 percent; diagnostic stenographers, 72 percent —

a total of 58 percent in the diagnostic area. In the therapy area a 14 percent

shortage of physiotherapists is predicted by 2015; speech pathologists, 4

percent. For pharmacists a 34 percent shortage is predicted, and community

health workers, 76 percent. So when you add all of that up, there is a

prediction that, thanks to this government's inaction, a 41 percent reduction or

shortfall will be seen and experienced by 2015.

I want to talk about Fraser Health. I want to talk about Fraser

Health shortfalls. They have put together some numbers as well. They're saying

that for the medical lab technologists, we will have a 19 percent shortfall by

2015; diagnostic imaging, a 17 percent shortfall; respiratory therapists, 12

percent; occupational therapists, 12 percent; physiotherapists, 11 percent.

So when you are looking at these numbers and when you couple that

with the fastest-growing community and the challenges that we face at Surrey

Memorial Hospital, and you add that up with the delay by over a year that this

minister is allowing in completing our emergency room expansion and the

ambulatory unit to be built, then you see that these issues will actually

triple, or they will be multiplied in equal proportions.

Anytime you talk to the minister, anytime you talk to the Liberal

MLAs from that area, they think everything is fine, but everything isn't fine.

The health care system is in crisis.

I think this bill goes, like I said, a small way in dealing with

the issues of recognizing credentials for those who have actually got their

training outside of Canada, who came to Canada because we invited them, because

we told them their skills are needed. We told them that we have a shortage of

those skills, and when they came here, they could not practise in their chosen

fields because of government inaction — of not putting a system in place and a

process in place so that those credentials can be recognized.

The Ontario government, like I said before, saw it over a year

ago. They wanted to deal with the issue, and they actually put steps forward to

deal with the issue. They didn't just make these statements. Like I said, it's

not the overall answer to deal with that issue. But this government made nothing

but statement after statement, announcement after announcement, photo op after

photo op. That's all we've been seeing in Surrey.

I actually stopped counting how many times the minister and the

Premier have been in Surrey, trying to make the same announcement about the

expanding of the ER, the building of the ambulatory unit. Every time they go,

it's the same announcement, but a little bit delayed, which is hidden in some of

the small print — that it will now be completed, "not at the same time that we

promised you last time we were here, but it will be completed sometime in 2011."

So that is what the people of Surrey have been experiencing for

the last seven years. Seven years of broken promises. I want to draw your

attention….

I have some family members who have gone through the Surrey

Memorial Hospital, and you know what? They have nothing but admiration, nothing

but good things to say about the health care professionals in Surrey. But they

saw, as well, that the reason they could not get timely health care service is

because this government didn't give those professionals the resources or provide

them the help that they needed. Instead, all they have seen, actually, over

seven years was disrespect and contempt towards the health care workers —

disrespect and contempt by this minister, by this government.

[1545]

I think that what we are seeing here in Bill 25 is, in a small

way, the minister trying to deal with the issue. But you know what? This is one

small, good thing in the overall number of bills that the minister has brought

in, and I think we will be supporting that.

Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I think my time has run out.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Remarks are addressed through the Chair by members who are

recognized.

J. Brar: I am pleased to speak to Bill 25, and I would like

to continue the debate in the same spirit that the

[ Page 12110 ]

members for Vancouver-Fairview and Surrey-Newton have kind of started.

The fact that we have public health care in this country makes me

proud to be Canadian. It makes me proud to be a British Columbian, and it makes

me proud to be a new Canadian. There has been, from time to time, debate about

public health care versus private health care. In my opinion, that debate is

over.

We have had a Canadian commission looking into that question. Mr.

Romanow has brought forward a report, talking to the people of Canada in almost

every part of the country, and it made it very clear that the people of Canada

want public health care. I think that debate is over. In light of that comment,

I support any idea, any action, any innovative ideas that support and strengthen

public health care.

This bill has a number of things that I would like to touch upon.

To start with, there are some good ideas in this bill, as I said before. The

first one that I would like to speak to is that this bill basically talks about

establishing a new board called the health professions review board.

The role of that board, as I understand from the notes I have from

the bill and in the absence of the discussion we are going to have at committee

stage, is basically that the people who are going to apply to different

regulatory bodies for a licence…. In the case that their application is

rejected, they can go and appeal to this review board.

I think that's a good step. I have been a member of the council of

physicians and surgeons as a public member for three years, and I have seen that

there are people who come from other countries. If and when their application

was rejected, they didn't have any place to go. This bill will provide a place

to go where their application can be reviewed and probably can take a different

course.

I remember the case of four physicians who came from different

countries when I was there. All of them made the application for a licence to

practise medicine in the province of British Columbia. Somehow, at that time,

under the criteria the college had at that time, they were not given a licence.

As a result of that, they basically went to the Human Rights

Commission at that time, and they also went to the other side of the border to

the United States to practise in their area of profession. It was very

surprising to note that almost all of them — all four of them, who came from

different countries, not from one country — were actually given the licence to

practise medicine in America, when they had failed to get any licences in this

province.

[1550]

The Human Rights Commission, after going through all the

deliberations, listening to both parties — the College of Physicians and the new

applicants — at the end of the day decided in favour of those four applicants.

The college has to pay them the damages and all that kind of stuff, and the

college was also required to make a number of changes when it comes to the

licensing process.

We are talking about only one college. We need to do this to make

the system fair, open and accessible to all the bodies, and this bill talks

about all the health profession bodies. So that's why I say this is a step in a

positive direction.

I remember a joke. People say that if you have to have a heart

attack in Canada, you should have it in a cab, because we have a lot of people

who are professionally trained doctors, professionally trained physicians from

other countries, but somehow they could not get a licence in this country, and

they are driving cabs.

So that's the situation. This review board will not completely

turn the page, in my opinion, but this will provide at least a review and a

chance to get in. I hope there will be some progress made when this review board

is established at the end of the day. As I said, I support the idea to establish

a review board where people can go and make an application if they lose the

chance to get a licence from a professional body.

The number of people who come from other countries…. Whether they

are doctors, nurses or other health professions, they come to this country for a

better life, for a better life for their kids. After leaving their own country,

where they probably were established and knew what to do and knew the tools of

the trade, they came to this country and made this country a new home. But I

know many, many professionals who, once they find out that, in fact, they cannot

practise in their area of profession…. It's a huge, huge setback to those

people.

For many, it's very hard to digest as a family, as a person,

because that's the profession they are qualified for, that's the profession they

know, and that's the profession they want to be in. When they actually get the

"no" from the professional bodies, it's very hard for those families, when they

come here, to accept. That, of course, would be hard for anyone.

The second thing that I think this board will serve, in probably a

positive way…. We have in this country a shortage of health professionals, or

many of the professions, and particularly doctors. When we talk about doctors

and nurses, there's a huge shortage.

The member for Surrey-Newton and the member for Vancouver-Fairview

have spoken about that. We have a number of people coming to this country from

other countries, and there are a significant number of people who are trained

professionals, health professionals, who came to this country with

qualifications and experience, but they don't get in. So that shortage to some

extent, you know…. If this review board is really effective and has impact, to

some extent this will probably impact that particular part when we talk about a

shortage of health professionals, because we can bring in people who are

actually trained, who are now doing similar professions.

This will also allow, to some extent, if the review board is

effective, as I said before…. In any licensing process, in any process, we need

to have a fair and just process. In the current system, with any regulatory

body, once they say no, nobody can go anywhere else. But this particular board

will allow those people to go and review their application.

[1555]

[ Page 12111 ]

It makes the system to some extent better and fairer for those

professionals who come from other countries. Frankly speaking, it also makes

those bodies accountable, because at this point in time, it is basically in

their hands. If they say no, that means no, and that's the end of the chapter.

But this way, those people can go to the next level.

This also raises the question that we are talking about, under

this particular proposed bill, only health professions bodies. There are a

number of other regulatory bodies where people from other countries —

particularly I'm talking about professional people who come to this country — go

through the same process and face the same kind of challenges. I think that if

this bill is a message to this government, then we must expand the same kind of

process to all those bodies rather than limiting it to health professions, as

this bill limits it to those bodies only.

The other thing I want to speak about is that this bill also

provides a framework to allow Canadian citizens trained outside Canada to

practise in Canada. As the member from Newton just spoke a few minutes ago, I

know a number of young people who are, at this point in time, going through

training programs to receive medical degrees outside Canada. A number of young

people of my friends and my relatives are taking that training outside the

country because they could not get in, in this country.

Those young people are Canadian. Those young people are our kids.

Those young people are the future of this country. I think it's very important

for us to open the access, to open the door to those people so they can come

back and practise medicine in this province.

As I said before, we have a huge shortage of health professionals

in this province and in this country. That certainly makes the case that those

people can come back and have some hope that they can practise in this country

rather than the majority of them, at this point in time, going to the USA or

other countries to practise their profession. So this will be a step to the

positive as well.

My interest in this one is that I have from the very beginning, as

a member of this society and as a member of this Legislative Assembly, been

supportive of public health care. The second thing that I have been concerned

with from the very beginning, from the very first day I came to this House, is

the situation we have at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

At Surrey Memorial Hospital the capacity, particularly at the ER

room, is to serve almost 50,000 people per year. In fact, the number of people

walking in is over 70,000. That is an issue. The hospital is way over capacity

because Surrey is the fastest-growing community in the province.

This government has been in power now for seven years — seven long

years. As far as Surrey Memorial is concerned, we have not seen any action from

this government and from this minister. Yes, they have done announcements —

announcement after announcement after announcement. We know about that.

I would like to make a point here that during the middle of the

election in 2005, the Premier went particularly to Surrey to make an

announcement. The announcement was that the Premier was going to fast-track

actions. Under that, the Premier asked the Fraser Health Authority to put

together a report to address the health care capacity in the city of Surrey and

at the Surrey Memorial Hospital.

That report was actually prepared and presented to the Premier and

the Health Minister that we had in December '05, which is now almost two and a

half years ago. There were three excellent recommendations made in that report

to build the health care capacity in that city.

[1600]

Those three recommendations were…. The first one was significant

expansion in the ER room, and that was to build a.s.a.p.; the second one was

building a new out-patient hospital, and the third one was to add 62 acute care

beds a.s.a.p. Particularly, I think the deadline was given as November '06.

This government and this Premier and this Health Minister have

made seven different announcements for that, but they have not given us even one

2-by-4 to build the hospital. That's the situation. The only thing they have

done, the Minister of Health, is delayed the construction of the ER as well as

the new out-patient hospital, and that is a shame. Surrey is the fastest-growing

community in the province, in the country, and we need actions right now.

But actions in Surrey were promised and then delayed. That's a

very, very big surprise to me and to almost every person in the city of Surrey.

As I have said on many other occasions, whenever I go door-knocking, every house

has a story about the ER room at Surrey Memorial Hospital. We need to fix that

problem, and to do that we need to build the capacity at Surrey Memorial

Hospital.

When we talk about this bill, Bill 25, my concern when we talk

about Surrey Memorial Hospital is that what we have seen f