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, APRIL 30, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Patient Care Quality Review Board

Act (Bill 41)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Insurance Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 40)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Election Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 42)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2008 (Bill 43)

Hon. W.

Oppal

The Grassy Plains Community Hall

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr403)

MacKay

Bridge River Valley Flying

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr401)

H. Lali

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill M206)

H. Bains

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General,

report 2, 2008-2009, Strengthening Accountability in British

Columbia

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Bountiful and polygamy issue

C. Evans

Errol Wintemute

Roddick

Mary Pichette and Servants

Anonymous Society

Hammell

Langley downtown ambassadors

M. Polak

Riverside Secondary School cancer

awareness events

Farnworth

Support for speech and hearing

disorders

Rustad

Oral Questions

B.C. Place roof replacement

Macdonald

Hon. S.

Hagen

Farnworth

Government action on forest

industry

Trevena

Hon. R.

Coleman

Routley

L. Krog

Simpson

Call for review of sewage

regulations

C. Wyse

Hon. G.

Abbott

Respite services for disabled

children

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

Feed supply for hog farms

C. Evans

Hon. P.

Bell

Second Reading of Bills

Medicare Protection Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 21) (continued)

Karagianis

Gentner

Thorne

Puchmayr

H. Bains

J. Brar

Cubberley

Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community

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

(continued)

Sather

Hon. I.

Chong

C. Wyse

Karagianis

Fleming

Simpson

Horgan

Thorne

Macdonald

Farnworth

Routley

Fraser

[ Page 11771 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a

very special group of visitors to the House today. In the members' gallery this

afternoon is the Order of British Columbia Advisory Council. They have gathered

in Victoria to review this year's nominations for the order and to select the

recipients for this June's investiture. I understand that this year there were

162 nominations, submitted by many members of both sides of the House, from

every single corner of this province.

[1335]

The advisory council is chaired by the hon. Lance Finch, Chief

Justice of the Court of Appeal of B.C. It includes our Speaker — a man of fine

judgment, I might add; the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Susan

Gimse; the president of Royal Roads University, Dr. Allan Cahoon; Robert Lapper,

Associate Deputy Minister for Intergovernmental Relations; and two members of

the order, Sudarshan Bakshi of Vancouver and Josephine Mills of Mill Bay.

I would like the House to make them welcome and give them thanks

for the work that they're doing.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some of

my friends from the B.C. Nurses Union. Please join me to welcome them: the

president Debra McPherson, Melanie Leckovic, Linda Pipe, Kathryn Dempsey, Joyce

Procure, Sharon Costello, Wendy Strong and Kathy Turner.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'd like to introduce to the House today a

great person in my community — a volunteer, a leader, a mother, a friend. But

most importantly, she's my wife of 33 years, Michele. My wife, Michele Coleman,

is in the gallery today.

Hon. G. Campbell: Today we have in the House a number of

young British Columbians. I know every political party is energized by the

dedication of young British Columbians as they look to their future, as they

suggest to us the ways that we can move forward. I'm pleased to welcome today,

and I hope the House will join me in welcoming, members of the B.C. Young

Liberals to the precinct this afternoon.

M. Sather: I'm pleased to introduce today in the gallery 35

of the best young British Columbians. They're students from Thomas Haney

Secondary School in Maple Ridge. It's a self-directed program and really has a

great reputation.

They're here with their teacher Chris Connolly and are going to be

spending three days in Victoria. Would the House please join me in welcoming

them.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Joining us in the members' gallery this

afternoon are representatives from Hong Kong, one of British Columbia's most

valued international partners with long-established cultural ties to our

province. Ms. Maureen Siu is the director of the Hong Kong economic trade office

in Canada. Mr. Y.C. Chan is deputy director, and they are accompanied by Ms.

Catherine Yuen, principal consultant for western Canada. I ask the House to

please make them all very welcome.

B. Simpson: I would like to introduce my constituency

assistant who is in the gallery today, Tobias Lawrence. Tobias just joined my

office and is still full of enthusiasm and energy, and I'm sure that over the

next few months, that will get metered a little bit. I ask the House to please

make her feel very welcome here today.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Justin Shaw was born and raised in

Victoria, playing community football since the age of six. Justin is currently

on a scholarship playing for the University of Manitoba. Today Justin was

drafted by the B.C. Lions. Justin's mother, Judy, works in my deputy minister's

office. I would ask all members of this House to join me in extending our best

wishes to Justin on his return to British Columbia and an exciting career with

the B.C. Lions.

R. Fleming: I would like to introduce to the House a group

of students and their teacher Miss Caitlin Schwarz — a class of 29 grade 5

students, boys and girls, from Northridge Elementary School in Saanich. Will the

House please make them feel welcome.

[1340]

J. Nuraney: In the gallery today I have two friends. One is

Aziz Kara of LifeLabs, which used to be MDS, and another budding young hotelier

called Karim Punja. Please help me make them both welcome in this House.

N. Macdonald: I'd like to make an introduction. My

constituency assistant Joy Orr is here. As with many people, if they tried to

describe what the constituency assistant does, very often people are left

wondering what we do.

It's certainly the case with Joy. She does a tremendous amount of

work and tries to make me look good. I appreciate that very much, and I wonder

if everyone else would join me in welcoming her to the House.

Hon. G. Hogg: We are joined by 29 grade 5 students and

their teacher Miss Thorvaldson from the wonderful elementary school that I

attended. Please welcome these students from White Rock Elementary School.

B. Ralston: I'd ask the House to welcome today Melissa

Sanderson, who works as my constituency assistant. She deals with the varied

demands of the job with great skill and aplomb, and I'm very lucky to have her

working for me. Would the House please make her welcome.

[ Page 11772 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, as you know, there was an

election a short time ago in Saskatchewan. They've now got a new Premier, a very

dynamic Premier, Brad Wall. I'm also pleased to say that we've got the new

Saskatchewan Minister of Highways and Infrastructure and Minister Responsible

for the Public Service Commission here with us today. I would ask the House to

give a warm welcome to the new minister of transportation and highways, Wayne

Elhard, who is joining us today in the gallery.

I. Black: I stand today with some mixed emotions because my

legislative assistant Sabrina Loiacono is leaving our fine place at the end of

this week. I wanted to acknowledge the tremendous service that she has been to

me and to others in the east annex. To mark the occasion, she's also got her mom

and dad here today.

I would be remiss if I didn't ask your assistance in giving a

very, very warm welcome to Rosa and Giuseppe Loiacono, who are here to wish

their daughter well as she goes on to the next phase in her career. Would you

join me, please.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PATIENT CARE QUALITY

REVIEW BOARD ACT

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Patient Care Quality Review Board Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 41, entitled the Patient

Care Quality Review Board Act, be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: We're moving forward in meeting our 2008

throne speech commitment to establish new patient care quality review boards for

each health authority. The review boards will give British Columbians a clear,

consistent and transparent quality assurance process in which to register

concerns they may have on the quality of health service delivery they or a loved

one received.

Patients will have easy access to a complaint review process

through the establishment of patient care quality offices in each health

authority. If they're not satisfied with the results of the review by the care

quality office in their health authority, they can ask the independent patient

care quality review board to examine their complaint.

The boards will have the ability to make recommendations to the

health authority and the minister on how to improve the future of our health

care system from lessons learned. The board will also report annually to the

minister on their activities and on trends they see, again with the goal of

improving health care for the future.

Improving public confidence in the quality of the health care

system should be a goal of government each and every day. Through this new

legislation we'll be able to examine concerns, address them at the local level

where they occurred, and also take those lessons and apply them across the

province where necessary.

In the Conversation on Health the public told us that transparency

and accountability are the two key principles of a world-class health care

system. We enshrined those principles in the Medicare Protection Act earlier

this session, and we are putting those principles into action today with the

Patient Care Quality Review Board Act — greater transparency and greater

accountability for British Columbia.

I move that Bill 41 be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1345]

Bill 41, Patient Care Quality Review Board Act, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Insurance Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I am pleased to introduce amendments to the

Insurance Act that will clarify the act's provisions and enhance consumer

protection. The proposed amendments will protect consumers through improved

coverage, better access to documents and enhanced dispute resolution mechanisms.

The amendments strengthen the language on fire coverage and will provide

consumers with more consistency across insurers. These changes are the result of

a comprehensive review that included submissions from industry, consumers, the

public and the legal community.

In addition, in reviewing and finalizing these amendments, we

worked very closely with Alberta to develop harmonized legislation. This

standardized approach will allow businesses to compete more effectively in both

of our jurisdictions. To highlight this harmonized approach, this cooperation

between our two provinces, my counterpart in Alberta is today introducing their

Insurance Act amendments in the Alberta Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 40, Insurance Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on

[ Page 11773 ]

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move the bill be introduced and read a

first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I am pleased to introduce Bill 42, the

Election Amendment Act, 2008. This bill makes amendments to the act that governs

provincial elections in British Columbia.

The bill strengthens voter identification requirements to ensure

that everyone who exercises their right to vote does so in accordance with the

law. It encompasses a number of recommendations that have been made by the Chief

Electoral Officer. In March 2006 the Chief Electoral Officer made a number of

recommendations to modernize the act.

The bill regulates spending by parties and candidates during the

period beginning 120 days before a scheduled general election. As the Chief

Electoral Officer noted in his report, currently that period is not regulated,

and parties and candidates may spend whatever they like. To ensure fairness and

balance, the bill also reintroduces spending limits for third parties, which

would also apply to the 120-day precampaign period through to the general voting

day.

The bill also increases fines for all offences under the act.

These fines have not changed since the last time the act was significantly

amended in 1995.

Finally, the bill takes numerous technical amendments on the

recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer to modernize and streamline the

administration of the act.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 42, Election Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

[1350]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2008

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2),

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I am pleased to introduce Bill 43,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008.

This bill amends the following statutes: Employment Standards Act;

Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007; Home Owner Grant Act;

Insurance (Vehicle) Act; Judicial Compensation Act; Law and Equity Act; Local

Government Act; Motor Vehicle Act; the Municipalities Enabling and Validating

Act; Petroleum and Natural Gas Act; Private Career Training Institutions Act;

Provincial Court Act; Representative for Children and Youth Act; Supreme Court

Act; Transportation Investment Act; Treaty First Nation Taxation Act; Vancouver

Charter. In addition, the bill makes minor and technical amendments to a number

of other acts.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

THE GRASSY PLAINS

COMMUNITY HALL ASSOCIATION

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2008

D. MacKay presented a bill intituled The Grassy Plains Community

Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008.

D. MacKay: I move that a bill intituled The Grassy Plains

Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, of which notice

has been given on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Motion approved.

D. MacKay: I move that the bill be referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and

Private Bills.

Bill Pr403, The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and referred to

the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills.

BRIDGE RIVER VALLEY

FLYING

ASSOCIATION

(CORPORATE RESTORATION)

ACT, 2008

H. Lali presented a bill intituled Bridge River Valley Flying

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008.

[ Page 11774 ]

H. Lali: I move that a bill intituled Bridge River Valley

Flying Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, of which notice has been

given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

H. Lali: Some of the communities affected by this are

Bridge River Valley, Gold Bridge, Bralorne, Tyax, Gunn Lake and also the Spruce

Lake wilderness area. The benefits are to tourism, recreation and economic

development and, especially now, trying to get the air ambulance in and out.

It's about a two-and-a-half-hour drive to Lillooet Hospital there. It will also

increase tourism, economic and other opportunities.

I want to point out that the society was struck off in November of

1991, and it is not possible to carry on the business of the Bridge River Valley

Flying Association. Obviously, it has to be a special act of the Legislature to

revive this.

I want to thank Donna James of the BRVFA, the Clerks of the House

and also the Minister of Finance for helping to make this happen.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee

on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401, Bridge River Valley Flying Association (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and

Private Bills.

MANUFACTURED HOME PARK

TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

H. Bains presented a bill intituled Manufactured Home Park Tenancy

Amendment Act, 2008.

H. Bains: I move introduction of the Manufactured Home Park

Tenancy Amendment Act, 2008, for first reading.

Motion approved.

H. Bains: The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act,

2008, amends sections 42 and 44 of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act by

(1) requiring that a park owner provide 12 months' notice of eviction when the park

is redeveloped for uses other than a manufactured home park; (2) requiring that

a park owner, at the time of eviction, pay a tenant 12 months' rent or $10,000,

whichever is greater, for relocation expenses; and (3) requiring that a park

owner pay those tenants who are unable to relocate their home because their home

failed to meet the transportation safety standards or local building standards

an amount equal to the fair market value of the manufactured home as

compensation.

The current act has failed the manufactured home owners all across

this province and has left many homeless. This bill is designed to provide

protection to manufactured home owners — many of whom happen to be elderly and

disabled — who worked hard, paid their taxes all their lives and helped build

their communities and this province.

[1355]

By protecting their homes from land developers trying to cash in

on high real estate values, this bill will provide respect and dignity and peace

of mind in their retirement years. Further, this bill protects the affordable

housing stock that this province badly needs. We as a society have an obligation

to not only say that we look after our seniors but back it up through

legislative safeguards so that they can live and enjoy the last few years of

their lives without the fear of becoming homeless. This bill does that, and it

brings back fairness and balance in dealing with a situation where the park

owner decides to develop the land for other use.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M206, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2008,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, just to advise the House that

in accordance with the agreement reached between the government and the

opposition to have government legislation tabled in its entirety prior to the

end of April, the presentation of Bill 43 today does represent the completion of

the government's legislative agenda for this spring session.

In the days ahead, in the next few days, the Opposition House

Leader and I will endeavour to arrive at a

schedule that would see the work

completed in a mutually agreeable fashion, and I'll report back to the House in

due course.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a

report of the Auditor General, report 2, 2008-2009, Strengthening

Accountability in British Columbia.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) BOUNTIFUL AND POLYGAMY ISSUE

C. Evans: I'd like to use my two minutes of non-partisan

time today to talk about Bountiful in my constituency in Creston.

The issue of polygamy at Bountiful is a huge issue for the people

involved, for citizens generally, for the government of British Columbia and

also for Canada. Canada has historically had a great deal of difficulty figuring

out how to deal with polygamy within the law. Meanwhile, we have failed

collectively for a quarter century, as far as I know, to find a single person

living at Bountiful or elsewhere willing to make an accusation of abuse and then

defend that accusation at court.

Attorneys General of all parties would, I think, have liked to

resolve the issue on their own, and thus far

[ Page 11775 ]

they cannot. Thus the polygamy question must be seen as a societal conundrum

that is in need of broad-based solutions that belong, essentially, to all of us.

I ask that the federal, provincial and state governments from Canada and the

United States meet to discuss the legal and societal issues related to

polygamous communities in comprehensive and open dialogue. I ask that this

happen now, while it is in the public's mind on both sides of the border by

virtue of the seizure of the children in Texas.

Similarly, I ask that every ministry in British Columbia and all

elected officials that are in any way connected with Bountiful at any level also

meet here in British Columbia in open dialogue to discuss how we might end

cross-border immigration that facilitates polygamous marriage, how we might

actively assist citizens at Bountiful who are in need of services to assist them

to leave the community, how we might assist those who are already expelled from

Bountiful and, lastly, how we might use all the services and educational

activities at our disposal to assist children at Bountiful to understand the

greater society that lives outside their walls and to lose their fear of the

outside world.

Hon. Speaker, I ask that we end partisan behaviour and blame on

this subject now and that we deal with it together now.

ERROL WINTEMUTE

V. Roddick: The person of a man may leave or be taken away,

but the best part of a good man stays. It stays forever. Delta South lost a

pillar of the community recently, Errol Wintemute, at the age of 91. He was a

quiet, respectable, nice man who was always there to help the community,

particularly young people, and he got the job done.

Errol was passionate about his work in the coastal lumber

industry, specializing in yellow cedar. His knowledge, vision, integrity and

work ethic earned him the respect and admiration of colleagues throughout the

Pacific Northwest. His last day on the job at Delta Cedar Products, which was

founded in 1965, was Thursday, April 10 — the day before he died.

[1400]

Errol Wintemute was a man of immense energy and enthusiasm. He

chaired and was a major contributor to the capital campaign to build the Boys

and Girls Club clubhouse in Ladner that bears his name. Delta Hospital benefited

through an endowment fund from Delta Cedar. In addition to promoting parks and

playgrounds in Delta, he was also a founder of the Mount Seymour Ski Club.

He did so much for us all. We will remember and, hopefully, learn

from him the joy he took in life's simple pleasures. These pleasures he

unfailingly welcomed with two words: "Oh boy." Errol Wintemute had a great run.

MARY PICHETTE AND

SERVANTS ANONYMOUS SOCIETY

S. Hammell: I spoke this weekend with a woman whose name is

Mary Pichette. Mary is a sexual assault survivor, a survivor of a drug addiction

and a survivor of years on the streets during her youth. Mary is now the

executive director of Servants Anonymous Society, an organization dedicated to

rescuing girls and young women from the sex trade.

Mary told me that research suggests that one man out of ten buys

sex from women, and approximately 100,000 purchases of women are made daily in

B.C. from various outlets, including the Internet. Each woman on average is

bought ten times a day.

Hon. Speaker, 30 percent of the young women SAS serves are second

generation homeless, and the remaining 70 percent come from every other walk of

life imaginable. They are recruited from schools, campuses, churches and malls.

They are often vulnerable, with issues of self-esteem.

Mary told me that none of the young women she has worked with have

chosen to be prostituted. Mary and SAS — with the help of donors, business,

government and the Surrey Firefighters Charitable foundation — provide a

wraparound service of outreach, safe homes, education and ongoing support for

the young women who want to escape life on the streets. They provide in-depth

life training and mentors for the young women, mentors who themselves have

exited the sex trade and gone on to successful careers.

Education is central to Mary. She understands that SAS is engaged

in long-term change and that commitment sometimes takes years. Mary believes

deeply that if you educate a woman, you change a generation.

Mary has been nominated for the Making a Difference award of

Soroptimists International and will be competing with women nominated in North

and South America. Will the House please join me in wishing her success in that

competition.

LANGLEY DOWNTOWN AMBASSADORS

M. Polak: At the heart of downtown Langley city is a

one-way

section of the Fraser Highway that has become a favourite spot for all

manner of shopping or just a quiet cup of coffee. It is also the area of town

that is home to my constituency office. Owing to our location, my office

receives a high number of drop-in visits from constituents every day.

I suppose I shouldn't have favourites, but I can't help it. I love

it when the downtown Langley ambassadors drop by. With their distinctive blue

shirts and smiling faces, these volunteers contribute their time to making

downtown Langley a welcoming place for visitors and residents alike.

Today the downtown Langley ambassadors will launch their fourth

season as some of the best examples of that well-known Langley hospitality. Last

year they logged 1,366 hours between May and September. This year their

20-member-strong group will once again be touring the city streets, providing

information and assistance to tourists as well as local people.

Langley was among the first communities to have an ambassadors

program, joining others such as Nanaimo, Kelowna, Prince George and Maple Ridge.

The program began as an initiative of the Downtown

[ Page 11776 ]

Langley Merchants Association. It was an innovative way to add extra eyes and

ears for the business community in order to curb vandalism and prevent vehicle

break-ins through a partnership with ICBC.

As the ambassadors program evolved, it became apparent that due to

their friendly nature, these volunteers were providing far more than crime

prevention. These are people who love their city, and their enthusiasm has led

them to focus more and more on creating a downtown that lives up to Langley

city's motto "The place to be."

[1405]

I'm proud to say that our downtown Langley ambassadors have been

recognized for their exceptional work in our community. In 2007 they were

awarded the Business Improvement Areas of B.C.'s Best in the West Award for

social and safety initiatives. They've also expanded their program to include

heritage walking tours of Langley's historic downtown.

RIVERSIDE SECONDARY SCHOOL

CANCER AWARENESS EVENTS

M. Farnworth: Cancer is a disease that touches nearly

everyone — in this chamber, in the province as a whole, even young people.

That's why it's really terrific to see a high school in my community taking on

this terrible disease and trying to raise public awareness.

Riverside Secondary in Port Coquitlam, in the first two weeks of

May, will be holding a cancer awareness two-week time. They'll be using that

time to raise awareness among students and the public about cancer and the fight

against cancer. They'll be doing it by the use of the school newspaper, by

bulletin boards and in the classroom. They'll be sharing stories about the

fights against cancer and the victories against cancer. Truly remarkable.

On the 8th of May they'll be holding a wear yellow day, in which

the school will be encouraging all the students, teachers, parents and the

public to wear yellow to show support for the fight against cancer and to raise

awareness about it.

It truly is reflective of the initiative of our students in

British Columbia and the students of Port Coquitlam, and I'm extremely proud of

them. I'd like to recognize three students in particular and their teacher, who

have done an awful lot to get this initiative going and to organize it. They are

Kate Olszewski, Carly Moy, Smruti Shah and their teacher Raquel Chin.

I know the first two weeks in May are going to be a truly

remarkable, successful event, and I know that May 8 will be a very special day

when Riverside School and the community will be wearing yellow to raise

awareness about the fight against cancer. I ask all of us in this House to

congratulate the students of Riverside Secondary.

SUPPORT FOR SPEECH AND HEARING DISORDERS

J. Rustad: I'd like to draw attention today to a topic that

affects one in ten Canadians. These are people who have speech, language and

hearing disorders. In this province alone there are 200,000 British Columbians

with a hearing loss. As politicians, we rely on communications. Imagine what it

must be like to not be able to participate in this basic function. For some of

us in this House, perhaps having a hearing challenge could be considered

beneficial. But seriously, for many others, this can be a huge barrier in life.

To raise awareness of this situation, our government has

proclaimed May as Speech and Hearing Awareness Month in B.C. This is one of two

announcements the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance and the member

for West Vancouver–Capilano made this afternoon. They also announced a one-time

grant of $500,000 to the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.

With this grant, the Western Institute will provide assistive

equipment to over 400 low-income British Columbians who have a hearing loss.

These low-tech devices range from vibrating alarm clocks to visual signals

devices for their phones.

I had the opportunity to participate in a ceremony at lunch today

with some of the Western Institute's clients, and I saw firsthand how they're

making a huge difference for the lives of British Columbians. Please join me in

congratulating the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing for the

great work they're doing in our province.

Oral Questions

B.C. PLACE ROOF REPLACEMENT

N. Macdonald: For two years the B.C. Liberals have

stonewalled questions about the roof of B.C. Place to cover up their gross

mismanagement of this file, and taxpayers are going to be left holding the bag.

My question to the minister responsible for this mess: will he

finally release the report he's had for two years on the state of the B.C. Place

roof — a complete, undoctored report — today, or is he going to continue to hide

facts from British Columbians?

[1410]

Hon. S. Hagen: I would just like to inform the member that

the report he's referring to is not a report referencing the roof at all. The

report has been released. If he has a complaint about the way it's been

released, he should contact the commissioner and take it up with the

commissioner.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: That's openness, B.C. Liberal style. I'll

tell the public what that report looks like. It is 15 pages long, and 14 pages

are stroked out with black pen. That is absolutely typical of every single

document we get from this minister.

In May 2006, 25 years after the original roof was built, the NDP

asked if the roof was in need of

[ Page 11777 ]

replacement. The B.C. Liberals said: "Don't worry; everything is fine." The

minister said: "It will last up to the Olympics and well beyond."

In January 2007 the world saw the roof collapsing. There are now

650 days until the Olympic opening ceremonies. It will be viewed by billions of

people worldwide, and the Liberals are scrambling to replace it.

British Columbians have a right to a very basic question. Let's

put this in context.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: The life span of the roof of B.C. Place was

up — what? — two years ago. That should have been a clue. The NDP asked about

the roof two years ago: was it sound? That should have been a clue. A secret

report on the state of B.C. Place was received by the minister over 20 months

ago. The roof collapsed 15 months ago. That should have been a clue. The whole

world saw that, but apparently none of those have triggered action from this

government.

The question is: why has it taken so long for this government to

make any decision on the roof of B.C. Place? Explain that to the people of

British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, it is good to hear the member express

concern about a building that the NDP were opposed to building back in 1983.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Members. Member.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Hagen: I can assure all members of this House and

the public out there that safety is always a top priority, whether it's with

PavCo or any other government agency. Last January I committed to releasing all

roof inspection reports that have been done. I have done that. They're on the

website.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Even in a building where the question and

answer are linked very, very loosely, that must set a new standard. This

minister's incompetence has left us with 650 days to plan and build a new roof

on B.C. Place. We saw what happened with the convention centre expansion project

when you set that deadline.

Here's what the Auditor General said, and the Auditor General's

report should be read so that you get some sense of where we're headed with this

project. He says that having to complete the project within a short time frame

led to a procurement strategy that left the taxpayers with all the significant

risks. To remind British Columbians, that is $400 million worth of risk and

counting.

Again, to the minister: what will the taxpayers of this province

be forced to pay because of this minister and this government's sheer

incompetence?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not sure I heard a question there, but I

will make a few comments on what PavCo is doing. PavCo is working hard. They're

working diligently to prepare a report for the government, and we want to do it

right. The other thing is that we will end up with a project that the people of

British Columbia can be very, very proud of.

[1415]

M. Farnworth: Well, PavCo may be working diligently, but

clearly this minister and this government haven't been working diligently on

this issue.

In 2006 the minister responsible for B.C. Place said that it was

not anticipated that a significant capital infusion was needed. Yet today at

cabinet, the government is talking about how to replace the B.C. Place roof.

So my question to the minister is clear: when will he come clean

with the public, and when will he tell them what the options are and what the

costs are going to be to replace the roof at B.C. Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can assure the member opposite and all the

people in British Columbia that PavCo is doing their due diligence. They're

bringing a report and a recommendation forward to the government. The government

will look at those recommendations, will make a decision and will produce a

product that the people of British Columbia will be proud of.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: This government has known there's been a

problem since 2006. Each day that goes by without a decision sees an increase in

costs. Each day of delay sees more questions about uncertainty. With the

Olympics closing in fast, the public and the world want to know what this

government is going to be doing about B.C. Place.

Will the minister commit to release the options to the public so

that we know? Is it going to be a brand-new expensive roof because of the

inflated costs that have been going on, or is it going to be the old roof

flapping in the wind like a bad toupée? Come clean with the options.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: I would like to offer the opportunity for

the Opposition House Leader to rephrase the

[ Page 11778 ]

question. He might not want to talk about a toupée flapping in the wind.

But having said that, I can assure the Opposition House Leader

that we are doing our due diligence with the help of the PavCo staff. They will

bring forward the recommendations. The government will make a decision. As I've

said, the people of British Columbia are going to be very, very happy when they

see what we're going to deliver. I hope that the opposition, unlike what they

did in 1983, will support that.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST INDUSTRY

C. Trevena: Yesterday we learned that the No. 1 paper

machine at Elk Falls in Campbell River is closing permanently, so 145 jobs are

lost in Campbell River, in my community — 145 well-paid jobs — because of this

government's failure to take any action to respond to the largest crisis the

forest industry has ever faced. That's on top of the 257 jobs being lost in ten

days when the TimberWest mill next door closes down.

This is a direct result of the minister's choice to sit on the

sidelines rather than ensure that coastal mills have a secure supply of logs and

chips. It isn't market conditions. It isn't just that. It is government policy.

I'd like to ask what the Minister of Forests and Range is going to

do today to ensure that coastal mills have the raw materials they need to keep

people employed.

[1420]

Hon. R. Coleman: I just want to read the member something:

"While we knew 2008 was going to be one of the most difficult years in recent

history for the forest industry, the continued reduction of the United States

housing starts due to the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, extremely depressed

commodity lumber prices, continued strong dollar, the challenging Japanese

market and high cost of harvesting on the coast are all contributing to a

profoundly negative impact on our business." That was Western Forest Products

today.

For a member opposite to get up and say that market conditions are

not the problem here shows a complete lack of understanding. Housing sales in

the United States are at a 16½-year low. Housing starts are down by 66 percent

in the United States. The sub-prime mortgage market has tolled a disaster on the

U.S. marketplace, and the Canadian dollar is up to par.

I actually am concerned about the forest industry and its future.

I believe that the industry is trying to make the adjustments so that it will be

there to employ your people and your communities in the future. They have to do

that in order to survive.

D. Routley: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask you to remember along

with me when the Forests Minister told this House yesterday that there were 17

Western Forest Products logging sites in operation. Today we learned that 1,000

people lost their jobs overnight — 1,000 people; 1,000 families, 800 of them

from those very logging operations the minister was referring to.

Surely the minister must speak to people in the industry. Surely

the minister must have known. It's bad enough that he admits he's just a

spectator, but he's not even watching the game.

My question is: was this minister playing games with this House

yesterday when he said that those sites were in operation, or is he completely

out of touch with his file? One thousand families want an answer.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll just ignore the personal insults from

the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith. Quite frankly, the company yesterday

afternoon — probably because the markets close after or about the time question

period starts — had not informed anybody, because they are a public company.

The reality is that six of their operations, which were on the

list of 17 that I had yesterday, have now been curtailed for a couple of weeks —

some for maybe 30 or 35 days. They made it very clear that their mills are

continuing to operate and that they have lots of log supply. They have told

people that they will go back logging when they need the inventory, as long as

markets stay steady.

L. Krog: This Forests Minister has told us that selling off

B.C. forest lands is a strategy to protect jobs. Well, yesterday I think we

learned that's a pretty dismal failure. A thousand jobs lost — 1,000 people on

this island who are not going to have their mortgage payments met or their rent

payments made. They're going to be facing EI. The only thing that this

government has delivered is a do-nothing round table.

My question to the minister: were 1,000 jobs lost yesterday enough

of a wake-up call?

Finally, is it bad enough for this government to take some action

today to protect those jobs?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, you know, on Vancouver Island there

are seven sawmills and three reman plants run by Western Forest Products. They

curtailed some of their logging yesterday. Some of it is going to go back as

early as May 20, some on June 2 and some of it as late as June 24. They have

actually told the people what days they can expect to come back to go back

logging.

This is what happens in the marketplace, hon. Member. You actually

log to fill up your inventory for markets you can sell product to, and that's

what they're doing. They're managing their business, which I think is

appropriate in a very tough and difficult marketplace.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1425]

L. Krog: You know, that's the feeblest excuse that we've

heard from this minister.

The people who work in the industry understand that it's not just

about market conditions. They understand that it's government policy that

encourages wood to be left on the forest floor instead of being taken to

[ Page 11779 ]

the mills in the best pulp market we've ever seen. It's government policy to

ship out raw logs in this province. It's government policy that's transforming

forest companies into real estate companies. So I say to this minister: what's

he going to do today to save those jobs?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite may want to go to the

quotes from the Leader of the Opposition on CHNL this morning, where the Leader

of the Opposition said this: "It's not going back to the old system where it's

linked to mills, to cut licences. You know, the days of bailing out old mills

are gone. I've been very clear about that. I've said that publicly."

So you're actually thinking that we….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know. I know what you're asking.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Members, ask the question and listen to the answer.

Minister, continue.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know what you're advocating, hon.

Members opposite. You're advocating that we should say to some company: "Log

when you can't sell the log, mill when you can't sell the product, and mill when

you can't sell the product for a profit, because we in the NDP would like to see

every forest company in British Columbia go out of business because we don't

believe you should be allowed to manage your business."

B. Simpson: The sad reality is that overnight a thousand

families found out that they're now part of the collateral damage of this

minister doing nothing to address the deepening crisis in the forest sector. The

minister answered a question about the pulp sector with an answer about the

sawmill sector. He answered a question about the pulp sector with an answer

about appurtenancy. The minister shows that every time he stands up, he doesn't

understand the file he has in front of him. We need action now. This minister

says that he can't take action.

Here is my request to the minister. For the sake of these families

— particularly on the coast — who are struggling right now, will he take these

two concrete actions? We're in the hottest pulp market we've ever seen. Will he

keep pulp mills running on the coast by ensuring they can get the raw materials

they need to keep people employed, and will he stop the export of logs from the

coast so that other entrepreneurs can create jobs in the value-added and

remanufacturing sector?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe the member opposite could do his

research with regards to the one line on the one pulp mill, which was actually

shut down last September. He might want to talk to the company and find out that

the cost of actually chipping logs is too expensive for them to continue to

operate. They've made that very clear on their fibre supply.

The member might also want to look at the fact that someone like

Western Forest Products, who seems to be the target of this particular

opposition, actually exported 2/10 of 1 percent of the logs, which were logs

that they couldn't put through a mill off the Queen Charlotte Islands, in the

first quarter of this year.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: What troubles me here is that, again, the

minister stands up in defence of a company that we're not attacking. We're

asking the minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

B. Simpson: We're asking the minister to do his job.

Public policy determines who gets access to public forests. Public

policy determines at what price. Public policy determines if our pulp mill

sector on the coast gets access to the logs that they need to employ people.

Public policy determines if other people, other than Western Forest Products,

can get logs on the coast.

[1430]

All this minister has offered is a round table. At that round

table are two people from TimberWest, a company that prides itself on being a

land developer, a real estate company and a log exporter. Is that what's really

going on here, Mr. Speaker? Is that what's really going on — that this

minister's vision for the coast is land development, real estate and no jobs? Is

that the real agenda?

Hon. R. Coleman: That may be the vision for the NDP, but

the vision is actually to have sustainable companies making products for a

multitude of markets so that they have a sustainable future for the employees

they employ. They employ thousands of them on the coast of British Columbia.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, you get the catcalling from the

other side. They don't want to actually recognize the marketplace. They could go

and look at CIBC World Markets

summary of the future of forestry. They could go

do a little research.

The fact of the matter is that we are going to work with our

industry to survive this downturn, because when it comes out, they will be in

the most competitive place that they could possibly be for the future markets in

British Columbia.

[ Page 11780 ]

CALL FOR REVIEW OF

SEWAGE REGULATIONS

C. Wyse: John Wood of Hixon is out $25,000 as a result of

his septic field failing after it had been installed for only one year. The new

regulations authorize installers to determine what is legal or compliant. The

regulations do not allow a public health inspector to approve or condemn a

system design.

A coalition of professional organizations and individuals has

identified seven critical deficiencies with the 2005 sewage system regulations.

These deficiencies include loss of public health protection, loss of oversight

and greater cost to the public.

My question: will the minister commit to a complete review and

rewrite of the sewage regulations to correct problems and deficiencies that have

been noted since their approval in 2005?

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

think the sewage regulations have worked generally very well. What we have is

professional certification for systems. In virtually every case the system has

worked well.

I think the case that the member is referencing is one that I'm

familiar with, and I understand there are efforts underway to remediate the

issues which the member has identified in a general way.

RESPITE SERVICES FOR

DISABLED CHILDREN

N. Simons: Well, there's another sad day for families on

the Island, and that's the closure of Corner House today — a respite house for

kids with special needs. Unfortunately, this service is so important for

families on the lower Island here. Families don't know what they're going to do.

One grandmother, who has proudly and happily raised her

16-year-old granddaughter, is now wondering what she's going to do in order to

be able to continue to do that. A family with four children, two with special

needs, wonders how they're going to get one weekend a month to be able to sleep

through the night.

Families with children with special needs need more options, not

fewer options. So my question is to the minister. How can he justify to these

families by taking away their choice and giving them an option of a little bit

of money or this important resource? It's a choice of take it or leave it. How

can he explain that to the families affected?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member is correct that respite

services are an important part of a range of services that families with

children with special needs require to give them a bit of a break. CLBC is

mandated to deliver those services. They are looking at the ways that they can

serve the individual needs of children and families on the lower Island. They're

looking at how respite services are delivered across the province, and they have

made some changes that will enable them to serve up to four times as many

families in the Victoria area to ensure that they are getting the respite

services they require.

[1435]

They are working with each of the families that were receiving

service from Corner House, and 16 of the 18 families that were receiving service

have new arrangements in place. My understanding is that one other family is

considering a particular option, and the final family has been presented with

two different options but has declined those. In any event, CLBC will continue

to work with them to ensure that they receive the respite services they require

for their children.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: I met with three families earlier this week. If

there were 18 families…. He says that they've all received options. They

haven't. The three families I met with were not provided with options by this

government. I think this is a case where families across this province have to

recognize that services to their vulnerable children are being cut by this

government.

I'd like to know how he can justify saying that four families are

going to be served where one was served before, when those services aren't even

available in our communities. He is reducing the choice for families in this

province. How can he explain that to families?

Hon. T. Christensen: The fact is that today CLBC is serving

1,800 more children across the province than were served two years ago. CLBC is

serving an additional 1,200 adults across the province than they were two years

ago.

We will continue to work closely with CLBC to ensure that they're

able to improve services, that they're able to serve more families across the

province, and that the resources that are available are being used in a manner

that best meets the needs of children and families.

FEED SUPPLY FOR HOG FARMS

C. Evans: When the present outfit took office about seven

years ago, there were 50 hog farms in British Columbia, and they've managed to

reduce that to 32. The 32 are losing an average of $300,000 a year — $60 to $65

a carcass. Why are they losing money? Because, of course, feed grain is now

going into the production of ethanol to run cars.

My question is: how can a government that is subsidizing the

production of ethanol out of feed grain to the tune of $5 million a year let the

32 remaining hog farmers in the province go down the tubes because they can't

use that grain to feed hogs?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, it is a very difficult market,

particularly in the hog and beef markets right now across North America, but

we're working very closely with the hog producers. I met as recently as last

week with them. We're developing a strategic plan in con-

[ Page 11781 ]

junction with the hog producers across British Columbia to make sure that

they have a long-term, viable industry.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Evans: The government has expressed some interest in the

hundred-mile diet. The 32 produce only about 40 percent of our consumption in

British Columbia. If they go out of business, hogs will come from Idaho or from

Alberta into British Columbia to make up for what we used to do when they took

office.

My question to the minister is: when they print the kilometres

travelled on the package of bacon in British Columbia two years from now, how

many thousands of kilometres will it take to make up for what you used to have

when you took office?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: I find it a little bit ironic. All the member

has to do is look at his neighbour the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who's an

active advocate for biofuels and likes to run her vehicle on biofuels all the

time. So perhaps they should chat a bit back and….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Sit down.

Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. P. Bell: Perhaps the member should just chat with his

neighbour and get their position straight once and for all.

[1440]

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on

Bill 21 in this chamber and in Committee A continued debate on the estimates,

Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the

Ministry of Community Services.

Second Reading of Bills

MEDICARE PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

M. Karagianis: I'd like to resume my debate from last night

on Bill 21. It was with great interest that I read the minister's introductory

remarks on this bill. The minister referred to the bill and to the change in

language very distinctly by saying that the addition of these expanded

definitions will not change how the Medical Services Plan is administered nor

how the Medical Services Commission functions. So one has to ask: why is the

government introducing legislation that in fact doesn't change anything to do

with this act?

It is in fact an amendment act that the government has introduced.

So going back to my remarks last night, there is obviously much more at work

here than meets the eye. The government wouldn't be introducing a bill unless it

was going to significantly change the laws within this province around medicare

protection. This is an amendment to that act, and it's a very significant

amendment.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I'd have to say that for the last seven years, I have watched the

progress of the health care system here in British Columbia with great interest.

It comes as no surprise that we are seeing some legislative changes that are the

culmination of work that's been going on for seven years. In fact, for seven

years I have watched this government dismantle the public health care system

here in British Columbia piece by piece in a very stealthy way.

It started out with actions like Bill 29. In my community, that

had a very serious effect and still continues to have a deep effect on not only

jobs but the condition of the hospital. So when we look at Bill 29, which was

one of the most immediate actions of this government in the slow and steady

process of undermanaging, underfunding and dismantling the public health care

system…. We ended up seeing government move in with a fairly aggressive

privatization campaign and agenda on health services, including housekeeping and

food preparation here in the province of British Columbia.

When we look at seven years, six years or five years down the road

of seeing the results of Bill 29, what do we have now? Well, we have a

continuing and growing concern about dirty hospitals. We certainly have

notoriously bad food in hospitals. Certainly many of the privatized services

have tried in many ways to rectify some of that, because I think the issue

around dirty hospitals and bad food became so pervasive and such a huge public

concern that the government had to take some kind of steps around rethermalized

food.

Certainly there's an ongoing concern, a need now for steady

audits, for oversight at all times by health districts around the state of dirty

hospitals. We've seen a proliferation of things like superbugs. All of that has

taken place hand in hand with this Bill 29 privatization and with the resulting

dirty hospitals.

[1445]

Finally, it took a Supreme Court decision to force the government

to acknowledge some of the errors of their ways in Bill 29. But that wasn't the

only part of the health care system that they have undermanaged, underfunded and

handled very poorly.

There is the infamous and ongoing debate around long-term care

beds. I was fascinated today to see a story in the newspaper that said they're

announcing, finally, that 4,000 long-term care beds have been built

[ Page 11782 ]

— this from a government that promised many, many years ago that it would

build 5,000 long-term care beds. Here we are seven years later, and the

government has still not delivered on that promise.

In fact, it's a specious argument when we see them declare that

4,000 beds have been built. We look at the number of hospital beds that were

closed down, and we look at all of the supporting systems around seniors health

care that have also been underfunded, shut down or undermanaged in many ways. We

have seen the growing concern and the growing pressure on hospitals around

emergency room closures, emergency rooms being packed and jammed and code

purples and code oranges — all of that as a result of undermanaged health care

provisions in the province of British Columbia.

Frankly, I know there was the great purge that this government

undertook in its first couple of years in office, where anything that had been

built under the New Democrats in the '90s was fair game to shut down, to

dismantle, to undermanage, to do away with. It was a purge that went on. We

continue to hear it from the other side today. Anytime you question them on the

reality of the outcomes of the actions that this government has taken, they

immediately go back to this purge mentality.

I would say that the steady and incremental undermanaging and

mismanaging of the health care system has in fact been part of a larger plan

that we are beginning to see the culmination of here in the amendments to the

Medicare Protection Act before us today.

The chronic underfunding that has gone on under this government

has also borne out its own results and has steadily led us, step by step,

towards this argument that the government has put before us today — that somehow

we have to incorporate a sustainability clause in the act, that we have to amend

the Medicare Protection Act to include this concept of sustainability.

It's very interesting what that actually means. What does that

actually mean in terms of how the government has managed the health care system

to date, how the government has performed as far as its promises and its actual

outcomes, what it has said and what it has actually meant in terms of

on-the-ground action? I would say that the chronic mismanaging and undermanaging

of the system is very purposeful.

We've seen the government turn a complete blind eye to the growing

concern around private clinics. When the first issues in the province of British

Columbia came about — private clinics wanting to begin to charge patients fees

to go to these clinics and get the kind of treatments they needed — we saw the

government stall on any kind of action for a very long time. The government

purposely stalled. They were not proactive in going in and saying, "No, we're

not going to support this idea of fee-for-service private clinics. We're going

to actually ignore that" — until the outcry from the public and from the

opposition grew too great. Then the government reluctantly moved in and said:

"No, wait. You can't do that in these private clinics."

In fact, the government was prepared to ignore that for a very

long time. Had there not been that outcry from opposition and from the public, I

imagine we would have seen the kind of fee-for-service and "access to health

care if you've got money" kind of privatization. We would have seen that

escalated, I'm sure, at a greater rate than we've seen.

Now we come to this need for the government to somehow rewrite the

Medicare Protection Act and amend it with this new terminology around

sustainability. I know this is a real catchphrase nowadays that's used for

almost anything. It does have real meaning, and it does have real purpose, but

its application here is highly questionable.

I am not clear, from anything that the minister said in

introducing this bill or from any indications that the government has given us,

how they are defining this sustainability. But given their actions over the past

seven years, given this sort of predetermination by government to mismanage and

undermanage and underfund the system so severely….

[1450]

We have seen the kind of backups in the system. We have seen the

public outcry about hallway medicine. We have seen the proliferation of dirty

hospitals and bad food. We have seen the number of seniors who have no access to

long-term care beds and who become bed-blockers.

We see this system beginning to reach some kind of maximum

density, where now the government can come in and say, "Look at how unmanageable

the health care system is. Look at how much it's going to cost us. Look at how

unmanageable it is. We desperately need to include this concept of

sustainability," to justify more invasion by privatization into the system. I

actually have seen the progress of this, seven years leading towards this.

This concept of sustainability is a culmination of a plan that has

been taking place for some time. I know there has been a great deal of

fearmongering by this government on the cost of health care. We saw the Finance

Minister tell us that in a few years, health care will gobble up all the money

in the coffers. What complete nonsense is that?

We also have a government that has been playing with huge

surpluses. Now, those of course are dwindling away, but certainly a government

that has huge surpluses cannot be saying at the same time, "Health care is

gobbling up everything," because the reality is that as a percentage of GDP,

there's been very little change for 20 years in this province.

What we have seen, though, very clearly is that a government that

is spending less on non-health-care-related services in the province can

certainly then say, "Health care is taking up a larger percentage," but those

are misleading numbers. If you want to play with numbers like that, that's fine,

but come clean on what the agenda is for that.

This fearmongering that has gone on around the cost of health

care, I think, is completely inappropriate but, again, is driving us ever closer

towards this ration-

[ Page 11783 ]

ale for why the system has to be privatized. That is what this bill is about.

It is about an excuse for more privatization.

Frankly, across a number of bills over the last couple of years we

have seen this same steadfast forward movement to more privatization on every

single front, whether it's in the Education Ministry, in post-secondary

education, in transportation or now in health care.

I would say that this is, very frankly, a political and

ideological battleground. This has nothing to do with sustainability. In fact,

if you look at the real numbers, if you look at the percentage of our health

care spending to GDP, there is no rationale whatsoever for us to be claiming

that we are going to break the bank by our continued investment in health care.

Much of the pressure of all of this undermanaging and underfunding

and this steady move to create chaos within the health care system in order to

legitimize the idea of privatizing — where is this being borne? This is being

borne on the backs of ordinary working families.

The fear is that health care spending will outstrip our ability to

pay. The fear of privatized clinics — very expensive, exclusive privatized

clinics where you can go and pay extra money to get the kind of health care that

you deserve — is creating a great deal of anxiety and fear in most working

families.

The reality is that working people in this province are just

getting by. The cost of real estate, the ever-increasing cost of fees that this

government has dumped on the backs of working families every single day, coupled

with this concern around the growing pressures for privatized pay-for-service

health care, is going directly onto the working people of this province. I would

say that it is a completely unacceptable endeavour by this government to

continue to create an atmosphere where it legitimizes a health care system where

the wealthy will get better health care than the rest of the people in this

province.

Frankly, Madam Speaker, I include myself in that. I do not

consider myself to be wealthy, yet like many members of this House, I make more

than most British Columbians who are working right now trying to raise a family,

trying to pay the mortgage and trying to feed their kids, keep shoes on their

feet, get them to school and keep their lives going.

[1455]

We know that in this city it takes a minimum of two incomes

earning at least $15 an hour each in order to meet the needs of a lifestyle here

in my constituency. So the concept that in the future, public health care will

not be there for future generations or that you will have to be rich in order to

afford it is just appalling.

I am so suspicious about this sustainability concept that's now

being forced as an amendment to this act. I'm suspicious as to what the

motivation is for that. I am suspicious as to what the outcomes will be for

that, and I am darn sure, standing here today, that it will be on the backs of

working families in my community that any kind of sustainability will occur.

We've actually had a very interesting recent experience with

privatization. The provincial government has demanded that any projects over $20

million are required to go through Partnerships B.C. We have recently had a

hospital project here in this city, at the Royal Jubilee Hospital, where there's

been an ongoing need, we know, for at least 650 new beds in this region here in

the south Island, in greater Victoria.

Rather than allow the hospital board, made up of elected

officials, made up of individuals here within the city of Victoria who have been

responsible for hospital expansion in the past…. Instead, the government imposed

on us the requirement to go to a privatized tower at the Royal Jubilee Hospital.

As is very typical with privatized projects, it has morphed into something

entirely different than what the region needs.

We need 650 new beds. But under this privatized model, as it

morphed its way through the process of being forced down the throats of our

elected officials and our hospital board here in British Columbia, what are we

going to end up with? We're going to end up with a hospital tower that doesn't

even deliver 500 beds.

That is very typically what happens with privatization. Because

there is not a big profit to be made, the project gets downsized, gets scaled

back. In order for profit to be made by a private contractor and a private

partner, our need in greater Victoria has now suddenly been sacrificed to the

business case and profitability of a tower for the private partner. So where we

need 650 beds right now, by the time the tower is built and produces fewer than

500 beds, our need will be all the greater. This is very typical of the kind of

thing that happens in privatization.

We also know the pay-as-you-go kind of mentality of privatization

that we've seen at private clinics, where if you've got money, you can enrol for

$3,800 a year and get preferential health care. I can tell you right now that

most of the constituents in my community of Esquimalt-Metchosin sure as heck

cannot scrape up $3,800 so that they can get the kind of health care services

they deserve.

In fact, this dismantling of the public health care system, I

think, is the biggest tragedy of our time. This ideological drive to privatize —

that somehow by imposing a for-profit private partner into the health care

delivery system between patients and their health care is a good move, is a

sound business move and is in any way serving the public — is complete nonsense.

I would say that we are fighting right now the battle of our lives

against privatization. I know that the government, because of all their

enamoured behaviour with privatization through every single one of the other

ministries that we deal with here, whether we see it in transportation, whether

we see it in education, and now we're seeing it in health care…. I know there

will continue to be this drive.

It is unacceptable. The people don't want it. The people of

British Columbia understand that privatization will cost them more. They will

get less service. We will see exactly what we saw when privatized services came

in for cleaning and for food services — dirty hospitals and bad food. In the

case of the Royal Jubilee tower, we need 650 beds. But it's not profitable for

the

[ Page 11784 ]

private partner, so they're going to build only 475 beds. There is a vivid

example of what you get.

[1500]

So when the minister stands up and says that this is not going to

change anything and that this bill is simply a little bit of administrative

language of sustainability, be highly suspicious. We should all be very highly

suspicious, and we should vote this down with every ounce of passion we have

left in us. I urge everyone in this House to vote no to this bill.

G. Gentner: I rise to urge all members of the House to

defeat this draconian bill, Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act. It

is going to have profound, fundamental changes, as we know, to our medicare

system, which has been built primarily by the hard work of many British

Columbians and, of course, most Canadians who have worked very hard. Their

families, grandparents have fought hard and long to establish high-quality

health care in Canada and this province.

The fundamental changes that are being posed here today will of

course affect my community south of the Fraser, an area that is under massive

cutbacks and is well beyond the averages proposed by Canadian health

authorities. We probably have the largest health authority in all of Canada, yet

per capita we have the least amount of funding being spent in that area.

This bill, Bill 21 — it's called the Medicare Protection Amendment

Act — is really one to protect the interests of profit-making. It's a bill

that's going to see massive expansion of the private health care sector at the

expense of the public health care sector. We have to stand steadfast in our

resolve to defeat what this government is proposing with all the power we can

muster as an opposition.

It's interesting that these fundamental changes being proposed in

this bill are not supported by the federal government and are not supported by

any province. They are constantly opposed, and they don't understand, frankly,

where this province is going. Sustainability, which the Liberal government

comprehensiveness and portability.

Again, when you look at these fundamental changes, they really fly

in the face of the results of the Premier's own Conversation on Health. This

bill was to respond, we thought, to at least 1,200 British Columbians who

participated. They spent good time and measure. Papers were introduced. There

were many submissions made by organizations and associations who were very, very

concerned.

Those who did participate in that discussion never, in their

wildest dreams, thought we'd be here today with the complete upheaval of public

health care as we know it in the province of British Columbia.

The Premier of the province had a very different vision. He had

his mind made up before he even began his Conversation on Health. The

Conversation on Health in many ways was a snow job. It was a big show — lots of

airs about nothing but to pre-empt concerns about the real intent of what we saw

in the throne speech.

This is not about sustainability, however defined. It's a very

vague discussion or understanding. It is about a restraint program on public

health. It's going to tighten the noose; it's going to tighten the budget on

health expenditures. It's going to be a program of restraint. It's going to

curtail and suppress health care as we know it in the province of British

Columbia.

Sustainability is about curtailing spending. On public health

care, it's forcing British Columbians to spend more on privatized medicine. You

know, this bill is using sustainability to change the meaning and the value of

medicare itself. Bill 21 represents a continued erosion of medicare in the

province of British Columbia.

[1505]

I'm proud to sit on this side of the House, because it was the NDP

that championed the notion of medicare. Yes, we'll share all the assets and all

the credibility. Everybody wants to stand up and pound their chest and say: "It

was us." We'll certainly say, "Lester B. Pearson, kudos to you; you went ahead

and did it," even though we introduced it in Saskatchewan. We don't care; that's

great.

When W.A.C. Bennett came forward way back in the '60s, he called

it dealing with what he called the little people. Well, I don't think the

members opposite care about the little people anymore. They care about the

profits that we're seeing for those who are investing in private medicine and

private health.

You know, we're seeing a shifting of the health care costs now —

user pay — to British Columbians. That's where we're going. Gone will be the

progressive tax shelter that we've enjoyed in this province relative to health

care. The Liberal government's record has driven B.C. from second to seventh in

health care spending among all Canadian provinces. It's deplorable, absolutely

deplorable.

The acute care bed ratio in British Columbia is 1.8 acute care

beds per thousand. In Canada the goal is pretty close to 3.0. When you look to

forecasts and what the expectations are, the expectation when it comes to

primary acute care beds is 2.8 per thousand.

It's quite dismal south of the Fraser. When you look at Surrey

Memorial Hospital, for example, it's the worst — close to 1.4 acute care beds

per thousand. Talk about a squeeze we're going to see now in the province of

British Columbia from this government.

The current rate of bed capacity at Surrey Hospital is 610,

including 216 extended care beds, 45 psychiatric beds and ten psychiatric

assessment beds. According to the Fraser Health final report a few years ago,

Building for the Future , it suggests a shortfall of 50 beds to meet existing

demand.

Even then, a few years ago, Surrey Hospital should have been

operating with acute care bed capacity of 462 beds. So what do we have today? A

growing number of alternative levels of care — ALC — patients, primarily in need

of residential care beds, occupying scarce acute care beds. This further reduces

acute care bed capacity at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

We can go through my community and throughout the community of

Surrey and Delta. We look at what's

[ Page 11785 ]

happening in long-term care beds. We can talk about the new emergency care

facility where patients are now going to have to be moved into another private

care facility, basically those of the friends of the government.

That's the government's rationale of restraint. It's called

sustainable health care, privatized health care. Home support and residential

care resources in Surrey have not kept pace with the population growth. Could

this inability to keep up with the pace of population growth have anything to do

with the fact that Fraser Health and the B.C. Liberal government actually closed

almost 600 long-term care nursing home beds in 2001?

Yes, that's called sustainability in the eyes of the government.

Chaos is what we have seen in the health care delivery system at Surrey Memorial

Hospital, a lack of available medical beds creating backlogs in the emergency

department. This is crucial, because the crisis in health care is the need for

acute care medical beds that are full. Therefore, we have a backlog at the

emergency wards. Thus we have something known in today's lingo as code orange in

our hospitals. That is the government's view of sustainability.

We can talk about, in the report that was delivered a few years

ago, an additional 112 acute care beds that would be available to Surrey

Hospital, but the government hasn't delivered on that. It keeps delaying and

evading, and the rationale once again is based on the need to suppress, quell

and program a restraint.

The question remains: how long will it take the Fraser Health

Authority and the B.C. Liberal government to plan and build the acute care beds

required to meet the needs of the rapidly growing population in the North

Delta–Surrey area? It is the fastest growing and has the lowest per-capita ratio

of acute care beds anywhere in Canada.

[1510]

What do we find in Bill 21? A fundamental shift of more

privatization, not giving the people south of the Fraser their due. Now Surrey

patients are faced with the unprecedented health care delays and wait-lists. I

refer again to code orange alerts that cancelled surgeries while the government

continues to delay action on expanding the hospital.

Despite being told by the health authority in 2001 that the

emergency ER needed future expansion and again being told in 2004 that the

hospital's ER was in a crisis situation, the government still hasn't dealt with

the severe bed shortage at Surrey Memorial Hospital and in the Fraser region.

The Fraser region has major acute care bed shortfalls estimated to

be more than 550 beds, growing to at least 700 beds by 2010. That's a very

important year in the history of British Columbia, because we're going to be

embracing the world. But in 2010, where I live, we'll be 700 beds short as a

result of the growing population and the government's severe cutbacks in its

first term. That's the vision of sustainability.

Despite promising to fix the problems at Surrey Memorial Hospital

before the election in 2005, the problems worsened, and critical expansions have

been delayed until at least — now we're told — 2011. Just before the 2005

election the Premier promised action by as early as 2008 at the latest. It's now

looking like, again, it will be 2011 at the earliest.

In the meantime the Health Minister is telling people to get used

to the problems. The only solution we have is privatized health. I'm going to

quote the minister. He said in the Globe and Mail : "But a lot of this

demand is driven by a society that gets older. Year over year it is going to

continue to do so, so anyone who thinks that the problem is going to go away is

dreaming." That's the view.

Innovation, according to the government, is not a matter of

dealing with the issue, but one of privatization. The government's broken

promises at Surrey Memorial Hospital include a new out-patient facility, day

surgery and diagnostics at the Green Timbers site.

What we're going to see possibly is a P3 at a cost of $151

million, which could be increased by 20 percent or $30 million. This project

will not be completed until 2011 at the earliest, despite it being initially

planned for 2009.

An expanded emergency centre at Surrey Memorial Hospital at an

estimated cost of $88 million has once again been pushed back to 2011. The 62

new acute care beds and five critical care beds that were to be in place for the

end of 2007 have not been delivered on yet.

In November 2004 a report was submitted to the Minister of Health

stating that Surrey Memorial Hospital's emergency ward was truly in a crisis

situation. The government did nothing, absolutely nothing. Its solution is that

now we're in such a crisis, created by this government, that we have to

introduce more privatization.

This study built on another done in 2001, which recommended the

expansion of the emergency department at Surrey Memorial Hospital. No action was

taken by the minister on that report.

Just before the 2005 election as concerns reached a boiling point,

the Premier promised to fast-track the review on Surrey Memorial Hospital. This

move ignored the many reviews which had been completed previously pointing to

the massive and growing bed shortage.

At the same time the Premier promised the construction of a new

facility that was imminent, stating: "The money will be in our budget, and the

shovels will be in the ground as quickly as possible. I should tell you that in

terms of 'as quickly as possible,' that probably means 2007 or 2008 — early

2008."

That was the promise — didn't deliver. No, didn't deliver. We have

a different plan for the people of British Columbia. It's called privatized

health.

You know, in 2007 the opposition obtained a leak the planning

department authored by the FHA and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority

confirming that the lower region is currently short 550 acute care beds. The

health authority estimated that the shortfall will be more than 700 beds by

2010. By 2020 the shortfall will grow to 2,600 beds, the equivalent of six to

eight acute care hospitals.

[1515]

Now we have a bill stating that it's not sustainable. Well, it's

been driven that way by the Liberal govern-

[ Page 11786 ]

ment. The B.C. Liberals reduced the number of acute care beds between 2001

and 2004 by 457 beds in Fraser Health and 158 in Vancouver Coastal for a total

of 615 beds in the Lower Mainland, and 45 of these beds were in Surrey. So 300

to 500 patients leave the Surrey Memorial emergency ward each month after

waiting but not being seen by a doctor. There's the rationale for privatized

health clinics. It's a deliberate attempt. There's no attempt here by the

government to put in the proper money and the proper funding.

On the evening of March 12, 2008, Surrey Memorial Hospital again

declared the infamous code orange, which lasted until the following day and left

41 patients without a bed on the morning of the 13th. All the booked surgeries

for the day were cancelled.

Surrey Memorial Hospital is the second-largest hospital in British

Columbia, with the second-busiest emergency. I hate to say this, but maybe we're

being punished for voting for the NDP. The emergency department was built to

serve a maximum of 44,000 people. It now sees more than 70,000 patients a year

and more than 200 patients on an average day.

Surrey-Delta is Canada's fastest-growing area, with a hospital

opened way back in 1959. It served 75,000 people. Today over half a million

people depend on one hospital, primarily Surrey Memorial Hospital. The last

major expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital was the creation of a $62 million

new wing completed in the spring of 2001 by — guess who — the NDP government.

Let's talk about the dynamic '90s. Let's talk about Liberal

restraint on health care. We can talk all about it, but let's talk about the NDP

walk. What did we see in the '90s south of the Fraser? The new south building at

Surrey Memorial Hospital was built and opened, which included….

Interjection.

G. Gentner: "Whoopee," the minister opposite announces. No

big deal, huh?

It included a state-of-the-art operating theatre including

expanded surgical services, such as thoracic surgery; a new children's health

centre; new state-of-the-art single-room maternity units; a new adolescent

psychiatric unit; a new special care nursery; a new central processing

department; 300 spaces of underground parking; government funding, including

both capital costs and additional operating dollars, to support the new and

expanded programs; increased services for seniors; additional funding for

long-term care beds; increasing funding for community mental health services;

the first MRI for Surrey Memorial Hospital; and expanded renal dialysis

services, just to name a few.

Those were the dynamic '90s, and there was no need for any

privatization. There certainly was no need for this vision of what the Liberal

government calls sustainability. Sustainability is really the public health care

in repression. This is a health care repression. We're going into a restraint

program never seen before per capita by the government of British Columbia.

The Liberals reduced beds from 1,279 between 2001 and 2004. The

government, frankly, was looking at core studies, core reviews. That's all they

did for the first four years. They said: "Well, public health care is

expendable." They peeled away the onion so far that in the end they've taken

away all the essential assets of this province. It's a hollow province now.

There's not much left. What's left now is to rip apart our public health care

system.

What did we find, when they became government, south of the

Fraser? What's the first thing they did? They increased administration — this

elephant they created, huge elephant, south of Fraser, and 12 vice-presidents

never seen before. Throwing money out left, right and centre, not to the

delivery of health care. You know why? Because how they manage health care is

called crisis management.

[1520]

You move the chairs around on the Titanic . You create a new

org model, a new organization. You move people around. You say: "Look at us;

we've done something new, innovative." But they've done nothing, absolutely

nothing.

You know, hon. Speaker, this bill about future cuts doesn't have

to happen. We can be innovative. There's nothing wrong with surgical clinics,

but why not surgical public clinics? They work. They work in Winnipeg. Doctors

are very successful at surgical public clinics. They've worked everywhere else

in this country. But they certainly are going to work now only for the rich.

That is what this bill is all about.

When I go to my clinic on Scott Road in North Delta, you know,

there's a cutoff a day of 100 patients. Once those hundred patients are there,

it's cut off. Then you get to go back in line at Surrey Memorial, the worst

place you want to go. I tell my people in North Delta: "Don't go to Surrey

Memorial Hospital; go to Delta Hospital in Ladner." I can tell you, hon.

Speaker, that when my daughter had a broken arm, I took her to Delta Hospital,

because the backlog at Surrey Memorial Hospital is absolutely terrible.

Let's talk about the sustainability. This is really the slop test

for food that we're going to continue to see in our hospitals. The minister was

asked some time ago, last session, by the member from Maple Ridge to go do the

taste test. "Let's go on a taste test. Let's go check it out." I don't think the

minister really took him up on that offer. What happens when you talk about

privatized health, when it comes to delivery of food at some of the facilities,

is that they basically water down the soup, they water down the orange, all in

the need of profit-making.

That is exactly what we're going to now see more and more with the

delivery of health services, according to Bill 21 — food services now

compromised under Liberal budget targets. Newspapers refer to it as disgusting,

deplorable. Deloitte did a study in the Fraser Health Authority, and they

certainly did report on the food services. They talked openly of the Liberals'

failure and the poorly planned and implemented…. It was a disaster. It was a

disaster then; it's a disaster now.

[ Page 11787 ]

That is the record of this government, and it's going to get worse. It's

going to get worse after Bill 21. And now we're going to see more.

Sustainability means the cuts to health care delivery. Fees are

going to go up. It's a means of apology for what was happening and readdressing

what had happened with Bill 29. We're going to see that infections are up like

they never have been before in this province. It's really frightful when you go

to the hospital. Don't go to the hospital. If you have a virus, don't go to the

hospital, because there's another superbug waiting for you. Norwalk is breaking

out. We're seeing it over and over again. This government's solution is to

suppress, to restrict funding, to withhold and to crush the medical system as we

know it today.

Now, sustainability in the Liberals' eyes is more downloading of

health care onto individuals, the individuals who have the money to pay. You

know, the question about the bill is reasonable access to medically necessary

service. Really, there's the rub, isn't it? I mean, what is arbitrary? How is it

going to be defined? The government talks about value for money for taxpayers,

but where is the money for preventative health services? It's not there. No,

it's not there.

Will we see more eye care for seniors? No. More naturopathic

alternatives? No. Easier access to drugs or pharmacy for the needy? No. Then, of

course, this is another ability for the government to slip in something they

call medical savings accounts, the ability we saw happen in the good old U.S.A.

with George Bush — first, of course, initiated in part by our friend Bill

Clinton.

[1525]

Unfortunately, it's a system that is creating a two-tier system of

Medicare delivery in the States, and now the government's doing something

similar with what they call ILSA, this RRSP approach for long-term care for the

rich. Consequently, unfortunately, on the health care act, there are two rules.

There's a rule here for the delivery of health care, but there's a different one

here for the seniors' rights to delivery of health, particularly when we are

seeing an economy today at $800,000 to buy a home — where I live in North Delta,

$600,000. There's the inability to save money for an RRSP, and now you're told

that you'd better sock more money away for delivery of your medical savings

accounts.

Do you know what we're seeing? We're seeing that the Health Act

does not recognize the seniors' rights to care. We're going to see dental care

eroded, and we're now going to see, under this act, the beginning of Visa card

medicine.

This is what the government feels. They can promote it. Hospitals

can compete with one another. You can get your travel miles now by using your

credit card. That's what this government is employing. The marketing strategy of

the government is to provide more Air Miles to provide sustainability that

specifically works for the rich.

I talk to a lot of members at long-term care facilities. You know,

in many ways it's cheaper to go on a cruise. The meals are better for the same

price. The recreation is better. When it comes time to come back home to B.C.,

you'd better jump off the boat. You'd better jump off the boat because — you

know what? — we're coming back home to privatized medicine. Jump off the boat.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

What is most important here is that sustaining life is now

arbitrary under the Liberals. Life is all you have, and if you believe in the

higher entity — spiritual, your own assessment of what it means, is based on…and

others. But how you treat people is how you treat yourself. We are based on a

society that's built on the principles of medicare and delivery of which…. And

now we're going to see this individuality that's been created through Bill 21.

I also talked to a lady, Verna Demille. I'll give you an example.

She had a stroke. She didn't ask for it, but she was put on the DNR list. She

had a real problem with that. You know, those situations do happen, and it's

really very troublesome.

When you read George Bernard Shaw — I know that the minister has

spent some time reading good old George — read The Doctor's Dilemma. The

doctor's dilemma is that when you have limited resources, you have to make

decisions. It's a great play. Go read it. He had to make a decision on how he

should save somebody's life. Who should he save, and who shouldn't he? He had to

also think about the role of the private practitioner as a trusted authority

that is somewhat compromised by the financial incentives of keeping patients ill

for longer. It's an interesting play, and that is a view to which I think we're

heading.

You know, we look at the burden on seniors, the costs upon them.

They do a lot of good things with their lives, but really, what do they spend

their money on? Do they tax the system on education or legal services or even

going to jail? No. But for some reason, the government opposite is suggesting

that they are a burden, and they're going to cost us more money, and there's the

problem.

Well, you know what? We put more money per day into the convicted,

the felon. They get more money in jail than those in senior home care, and they

get better food in jail. They get better recreation. They get better education.

They get better health. They also probably get better drugs.

This is where this government is going. We're going to have more

social problems, more people thrown in jail, greater costs. When it comes down

to the delivery of the health care system, we are going to contain, suppress,

and we'll confine health care in order to smother their right for public, open,

accessible health care.

[1530]

As time is waning, I do have to quote one interesting comment from

the minister opposite regarding improvements for seniors health care. The

minister said to Gary Mason of the Globe and Mail : "Once guys like you

and I are dead and gone, things will be fine."

Great comment, Minister.

[ Page 11788 ]

Now, that's sustainable health. I don't respect any ill towards

the minister. I certainly don't suggest he take his life, but I certainly would

suggest that I believe we should put to death the bill, and in May 2009 I say

death to the Liberal government.

D. Thorne: It's with dismay, actually, that I rise today to

make a few comments on Bill 21, which is

an act, the Medicare Protection

Amendment Act, which presumes to amend the

preamble to add the principle of

sustainability to the five principles in the Canada Health Act.

It seems to me that this bill is based on the myth that health

care financing is currently — and I assume the opinion is that it will remain —

unsustainable. So we are adding the principle of sustainability. I believe, as

do many others, that this is a myth and that health care financing is already

sustainable. In fact, since the year 2000 numerous royal commissions around the

world and in Canada have found that medicare is financially sustainable.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

What's happening is that the aging society and changing needs in

health care are changing the whole need for the kind of health care we have —

the needs and our ability to meet those needs in the way that our health care

system is organized today. I believe that we need to change primary care to meet

those new needs and to ensure that health professionals are utilized to their

full potential and feel valued. Primary care available 24-7, as one example,

would ensure that emergency departments are available for real emergencies.

I believe that it requires strong leadership to make changes that

are best for society. I think that defining sustainability from a narrow

financial perspective is not the way to go.

I am quoting some of the things I'm saying from a letter written

by a former member of the B.C. Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. In

that letter the former CEO of the Toronto-Dominion Bank himself stated that

moving away from a single-payer, publicly funded system might in fact cost a

government less, but it will cost our country, the country of Canada, more. I

think that should worry all of us.

I don't believe that the Minister of Health or his government have

sufficiently explained to the people of British Columbia what this Medicare

Protection Amendment Act will actually do. I really don't believe that anybody

who is listening to the nightly news or reading the newspapers or perchance

listening to our debates here in the Legislature is aware of what this bill will

do to medicare in Canada. I believe that if they knew, they would be rising up

right now as we speak in great numbers to protest. If that happened, I believe

that would have to make this government sit back and take a sober second look at

Bill 21.

[1535]

Let's talk a little bit about sustainability. The mistake that

governments often make is to think that sustainability can be achieved by

continuing to operate as we do today and passing increasing costs on to the

patient. This thinking will not sustain medicare. I do not believe it will, and

neither does my caucus. I do not believe the general public does either.

I think that instead, this kind of a bill and what this will do to

the medicare system will effectively kill medicare. Certainly, it will kill

medicare as we know it today. I think this government that is proposing this

bill is failing to see what many business executives already know — that

Canada's health care system is an economic asset. This medicare system is

providing health insurance for all of us in Canada. That is taking a huge burden

off the business community. It's just taking a huge burden.

We always talk about the United States when we're defending

medicare. The reason we do that is because it is the best example we know of a

system that doesn't have medicare, where in fact an estimated third of the

population has no health insurance, not even basic health insurance. People are

turned away from hospitals and all kinds of things that we in Canada can hardly

believe when we hear the stories and the examples.

I find it impossible. I've sat here now for two and a half years,

and we've debated many, many bills. I'm sure the members across will probably

have a comment when I or other people say that we've been opposed to many of the

bills brought forward by this government. I can honestly say that in my opinion,

this one is the worst that I have seen since I have been here.

I find it very, very hard to believe that this government is

willing to basically abandon medicare at this point in time. "We just can't do

it anymore. We're going to bring in this Medicare Protection Amendment Act." The

title of it itself is very ironic because it does the exact opposite of protect.

It should be called the "medicare destruction act", because I believe that that

is in fact what is going to happen.

I just can't believe that the government understands what it is

that it is suggesting happen to medicare down the road. They live in this

province and have children and grandchildren, exactly like we do on this side of

the House. It's very hard to imagine that they don't believe that we're very,

very lucky to live in Canada and that one of the main reasons for that is our

health care system.

People all over the world envy us. That's the reason. They don't

envy us because of the mountains, although they may like the mountains. They

envy us because of medicare.

That we would willingly bring in

an act that uses words like

"sustainability," which are such new sorts of words…. Everybody is on the

sustainability bandwagon. Nobody wants to be caught out saying: "Oh, I'm opposed

to sustainability." It's like being opposed to green. I mean, you just don't

want to be known for being that kind of person.

But this amendment bill is a medicare destruction bill. That's

what I believe. I find it almost difficult, in one sense, to make my comments,

because it's so hard to believe that I'm having to do it. I feel like I'm on

[ Page 11789 ]

another planet or something that I'm doing this. But here I am in the

Legislature, and we're debating sustainability when, as I just said, we have

numerous commissions and people who know much, much better than I do and

possibly even better than the Minister of Health. They know better. They say

that it is financially sustainable.

That being said, I will acknowledge — I think we would all

acknowledge — that we need to make the health care system more efficient. Nobody

is saying that things are working in an optimal way. Nobody is saying that the

system is perfect. We do have an aging population. Every one of us here in this

Legislature, some more than others, are aging to the point where we're probably

all thinking we can see the light of retirement down the road.

[1540]

We are the people causing the problem, a good percentage of us

here in this Legislature. As I even look around now, there are exceptions — some

very young, blushing faces that I see in front of me. I'm just speaking about

probably a small majority of us looking down the road to retirement. I don't

want to go down that road. It's a scary road for me to even think about — almost

as scary as this bill.

Let's talk a little bit about sustainability, how much we're

actually spending and how much this spending has increased in the last 20 years.

I have some statistics here that I will go through. I like to read these

statistics, because then it goes into the record. It isn't just my opinion or my

thought; these are facts. We people in Coquitlam prefer to operate in facts —

right? They're facts.

In 2006 the Finance Minister projected that health spending would

reach 71 percent of provincial revenues by 2017 — if the current rates of growth

continued. This method overturned — overturned, Madam Speaker — nationally and

internationally accepted measures of growth based on the percentage of GDP

dedicated to a particular area of spending.

In addition, the percentage of government expenditures that goes

into health care depends on three factors, first among them the amount that

governments decide to spend on health. Two other important factors determine the

percentage of government spending that goes to health care.

The first is how much governments spend on non-health-related

items — important items, no doubt — such as education, police services and

social assistance — all things that we would all support and agree need to be

covered for the citizens of British Columbia.

The second factor is how much governments collect in taxes. If a

government reduces its spending on non-health-related items or cuts taxes, the

percentage of expenditures devoted to health care will increase automatically,

and that describes what has been happening in B.C.

This is a very interesting line of thought, very interesting. In

2008 the budget indicated that total government spending had declined as a

percentage of the GDP in 2006-07 after having remained constant from 2004-05 to

2005-06. This reflects the fact that the economy is growing faster than spending

in the province's health, education and social services sectors.

I found this extremely interesting. If I had, you know, sat down

and given it a lot of thought, I would have seen that that was the case, but

after reading this I looked up my budgets, and in fact, this is true. You know,

it's very, very true that the economy is growing faster than spending in the

province's health, education and social services sectors.

Now, the Auditor General accounted for this in his public accounts

in 2007, so we all have those reports. We can all check out these figures at any

time that we want. I'm assuming that, before this medicare destruction act was

brought forward, these facts were taken into consideration when the

rationalization for this bill was presented in the House.

So between 2004 and 2007, the growth in the provincial GDP was a

modest 3.6 percent, while government spending as a percentage of that GDP

decreased during the last year, along with revenues. Those revenues would be

taxation, revenues from natural resources, etc. It is this situation — not

health care — which is unsustainable. Now, I'm just going to say that again. The

growth in the provincial GDP — a modest 3.6 percent — and government spending as

a percentage of the GDP decreased during that year with revenues also. That is

the situation which is unsustainable, not health care.

[1545]

This fits in with what I was referring to earlier — the

commissions and the committees that have found, in fact, that medicare is

financially sustainable. They found that medicare consumes 8 percent to 10

percent, approximately, of the GDP. In 2005, 20 of 30 Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development countries — that's the OECD countries considered to

be similar to Canada — spent between 7.5 percent and 11.6 percent. Canada, at

9.8 percent, ranked sixth of 20.

So all of these different commissions, these statistics and these

facts, etc., all file nicely on top of one another. In different ways, because

they're different kinds of commissions and they speak a little differently, each

one, they're all basically saying the same thing — that yes, we do have a

problem of unsustainability, but it is not, in fact, in the medicare system.

That makes one wonder where this bill is coming from.

One of the other things that I heard here in the House was that

it's coming as a result of the numerous meetings on health care that were held

across the province in the last couple of years — that, in some way, this is

what people have said they want.

Well, I take issue with that. I attended a couple of the forums,

and I spoke to lots of people who went to the forums, and I read reports. I just

don't believe that the people of British Columbia across the province asked for

a bill to be introduced in the Legislature that would lead us down the road to a

situation where we would be forced to have more and more and more patient-pay

private health care. I don't believe it.

I await the day, the revelation, when the government actually

produces some letters from some people

[ Page 11790 ]

who will say, "This is what I want. Keep the system as it is, running along,

perhaps, not in the most efficient way but ticking along and doing the same

thing," just as if we didn't have such an aging population.

I absolutely believe that we need to make the system more

efficient. I myself have no health care background at all — I have a social

service background but no health care, other than members of my family being ill

and being in hospital and that kind of thing — and I can see several areas that

are causing the biggest problems to health care in my community.

Now, I am fortunate enough to live in the Fraser Health Authority.

I can say that because I love the area that I live in, and I love Coquitlam, the

area that I represent. But people who live in the Fraser Health Authority are

really, really nervous about the state of health care in our communities.

We are, I suspect, according to the growth in population…. I do

have the numbers here. The Fraser Health Authority has a 3.8 increase in

population as compared to the Vancouver Coastal, for instance, which has only 2

percent. So it's almost twice as much in the Fraser Health Authority.

Many, many of the government members who sit on the other side of

the House live in the Fraser Health Authority, and I have to believe that they

are as concerned about the Fraser Health Authority and the problems in the

hospitals, etc., that we have had.

In New Westminster at the Royal Columbian, which would be my

hospital…. For some of the other members on the government side, their main

hospital would be Surrey Memorial or Burnaby General, but I can speak more

personally about the Royal Columbian. My mother-in-law was just in the Royal

Columbian for seven weeks. She fell. She broke her hip. She's 94 years old, and

she was in for seven weeks.

Now, this is a woman who is very, very with it and lived on her

own until December 8 — I think it was — when she fell and broke her hip and

ended up in the Royal Columbian and was there for seven, almost eight weeks.

There was no reason for her to be in the hospital for seven or eight weeks.

[1550]

The reason she was there blocking a bed, if you excuse my saying

it like that…. That is in fact what she was doing, like many, many people. She

could not go back to her apartment — a tragedy for our whole family, but

especially a tragedy for her. She had 94 productive years, still cooking her own

meals and looking after herself, and she couldn't do that anymore. So she had to

go into care.

Well, I guess there was a shortage of care beds in the Fraser

region, in the New Westminster–Coquitlam area, and I don't doubt that there is a

shortage of complex care beds….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

D. Thorne: Anyway, back to my story.

Eventually a bed was found for my mother-in-law, and her bed at

the Royal Columbian was freed up.

What we have seen in British Columbia, and no less so in the

Fraser Health Authority — New Westminster and the Coquitlam area — is a

preponderance of new assisted-living beds. My mother-in-law probably felt she

would go to an assisted-living bed before she fell and broke her hip. She hasn't

walked since, so that was no longer an option. She needed what I used to call an

extended care bed. Now the nurses where she is call it complex care. I guess

it's the same thing.

There have been so few new beds added to that system. Yet many

people out in the general public probably think there are many new beds that

have been added, because now we add the assisted-living beds and the complex

care beds together. When the Liberal government originally promised 5,000

long-term care beds…. That was before I was elected in 2005. When they

originally promised that, they were talking about long-term care beds. At least

that was what they called it, so we all assume that's what it was.

It's long-term care beds or complex care beds plus assisted living

beds. I could, I suppose, but I haven't done a thorough count of how many actual

long-term care beds there are left in the province of B.C. I know that just in

Coquitlam and New Westminster alone, there are quite a number of new

assisted-living beds.

In fact, the government can say, "Why? We have fulfilled our

promise. There are 5,000 new beds," or "We're almost there," or "We'll be there

in two years," or whatever the press release would say.

Whereas, if in fact one

didn't know that they were counting those two kinds of care that are so

different, the general public would have no idea.

My mother-in-law is now in care, and I suppose she will be there

for the rest of her life, however long that life will be. She's getting very

good care. The nurses are wonderful. The staff is fantastic there, and she's

getting really, really good care.

I can only think back to the Royal Columbian, and I assume that

even now, as I speak, there are probably a dozen or perhaps two dozen elderly

patients like her at the Royal Columbian who should not be there blocking beds

and backing up into the emergency department where, as we know, occasionally

they have ambulances lined up outside the door. They can't even take their

patients from the ambulance into emergency. The emergency room is so

overcrowded.

[1555]

I was there with my mother-in-law the day she fell. I'm the one

who found her. I called an ambulance. She didn't live that far from the Royal

Columbian anyway, but they were there so quickly, and the attendants were so

wonderful. They got my mother-in-law to the hospital so fast. I was astounded

and impressed and grateful, really. When we got to the hospital it was basically

full, but they were able to kind of get her just inside the door, which is what

they did. So that was a good day, I gather.

They got her inside the door, and the ambulance was able to leave

again and go and pick up somebody

[ Page 11791 ]

else. Thank goodness, because as we know, they're always in demand. I

understand that the next day or the day after, when I was probably upstairs

visiting her, the ambulance drivers couldn't drop people off.

I'm just trying to illustrate my very strong opinion that I

believe there are ways — not necessarily horribly inexpensive ways, because

there's nothing cheap about providing complex care beds….

Assisted living, especially if it's done by a private operator, is

virtually cost free to the government. It's mostly user pay, and the people are

very with it. It's a very necessary and wonderful part of the continuum of

health care. I think it's wonderful. Who knows? I may be there sooner than I

think, and so may many of the people sitting on both sides of this House.

Some are younger, of course, and may not be there quite as

quickly, but others of us may be there. I'm very glad that option is there. I

would not want to give the impression that I'm opposed in any way to assisted

living, because I am not.

I just don't believe it should be counted in with long-term care

or complex care beds. I think it confuses the situation, and it perhaps makes it

easier for the government to sort of forget that they're not providing enough

complex care or long-term care beds, not enough to meet what's needed — the

demand.

I believe we need to do that. That's the first thing we need to

do. I think that move alone would free up so many beds in hospitals across the

province that the emergency room problems would be cut in half. I'm going to say

cut in half, because I know there are nursing shortages as well, and I think we

need to very seriously look at why we have nursing shortages.

I understand there is a delegation from the nurses association in

the precinct today. I think they met with the government this morning, and

they're meeting with the official opposition this afternoon. One of the things

they're very concerned about is the nursing situation because they are, of

course, the representatives of the nurses.

Providing new training spaces is fantastic. Nobody will ever argue

with new training spaces. Tomorrow I'm going to the opening of the health

sciences centre at Douglas College, which I brought up yesterday in question

period. That's very needed, and I'm very glad to see it finally opening in

Coquitlam.

I just wish that the other side of that coin wasn't the closure of

all the other programs so that we could open a new one. I wish we could sort of

have both — the programs for the brain-injured students and the disabled

students, etc., as well as the new health science centre.

I did digress a little there, but back to the nurse shortage. I

think there are many problems with finding nurses that are not related to having

enough trained nurses. That's one of the problems, but I think there's safety on

the job, security on the job, the workload…. There are a number of issues that

need to be worked on.

Certainly, I would be remiss to not mention that the biggest blow

to the community of Coquitlam–New Westminster, our area, was the closure of St.

Mary's. Our community has never recovered from the closure of that hospital. So

when you talk about sustainability, you have to think about those kinds of

issues as well.

I'm not sure how my time is going, but I did want to finish up,

because I have digressed from my conversation about the GDP. I love talking

about the GDP, so I just wanted to emphasize again that public health spending

as a percentage of the GDP did not rise significantly in British Columbia

between 1984 and 2006.

[1600]

In 1984 public health care as a percentage of the provincial GDP

totalled 6.1 percent, and that reached a high of 7.5 and fell to 6.9 in 2004-05,

where it has since remained.

I fail to see how this bill is necessary when we are not in an

unsustainable position. I don't believe we are in an unsustainable position, and

I believe the bill is wrong. I am speaking against the bill, and I know that my

colleagues are doing the same thing.

I hope that the reason for this "medicare destruction act,"

which….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Thorne: Okay, I'll finish on that note.

C. Puchmayr: Bill 21, called the Medicare Protection

Amendment Act, certainly causes some incredible concerns to us in the

opposition, to the people of British Columbia, and it should also cause great

concerns to the members sitting across.

I'm puzzled that this legislation is coming forward. This

legislation, in essence, changes the Canada Health Act and changes those

provisions, and it does so in a very legal and creative way that should be

troubling to all.

You know, we have a health care system in Canada that is really

the envy of most of the world. We have a system that by most accounts is a

not-for-profit system. Unfortunately, we're starting to see that turn into a

for-profit system.

We're certainly seeing that the pressures on the government across

in going that direction are the same kinds of pressures we're seeing in the

United States. One of the analyses of demographics, of course, is that the baby

boomers, which we are so favourably called, and the growth in the baby boomer

population…. People that are investing or looking to invest in profitable

ventures need to just target those types of growth patterns, and they can see a

very sustainable g