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)

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Burnaby Festival of Volunteers

R. Lee

Student exchange programs

Simpson

Bowen Island and Pemberton Valley

arts and music events

McIntyre

B.C. youth

Routley

University College of the Fraser

Valley

J. Les

Wandering Angels Lantern Festival

in Surrey

Hammell

Oral Questions

Regional aboriginal authorities

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

Fraser

A. Dix

J. Kwan

B.C. Place roof replacement

Macdonald

Hon. S.

Hagen

Government action on forest

industry

H. Bains

Hon. R.

Coleman

Routley

Petitions

B. Lekstrom

Second Reading of Bills

Medicare Protection Amendment Act,

2008 (Bill 21) (continued)

Chouhan

L. Krog

Fleming

Simons

Routley

J. Kwan

C. Evans

Simpson

Farnworth

Hon. G.

Abbott

Royal Assent to Bills

Budget Measures Implementation

Act, 2008 (Bill 2)

Small Business and Revenue

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 11)

Labour and Citizens' Services

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 13)

Utilities Commission Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 15)

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

(Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16)

Public Safety and Solicitor

General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 17)

Electoral Districts Act (Bill 19)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ralston

Gentner

Fraser

Estimates:

Management of Public Funds and Debt

Estimates: Other Appropriations

[ Page 11863 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker and hon. Members, on behalf of the Speaker I would like to introduce 14 new Legislative Assembly employees — eight summer tour guide staff and six Parliamentary Players. They are starting today and will work through to the end of the Labour Day holiday, providing tours every 20 minutes on a daily basis including statutory holidays and extending into evening hours on the weekends.

I'd like you to welcome Alexandra Bocking, Nicole Bowden, Jessica Chu, Elizabeth Effa, Heather Gordon, Danielle Janess, Jay Mitchell, Brad Poulsen, Whitney Punchak, Nicholas Ruskin, Dirk

vanDuyn, Elizabeth Weisenburger, Kaitlin Williams and Chris Wilson. Will the House please, with me, make them all welcome.

R. Lee: Visiting us in the Legislature today are 31 grade 5 students from an excellent school in Burnaby North, my riding — Holy Cross Elementary School. Accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Mariana D'amici, they are here to learn about the Legislature and also watch question period. Would the House please join me in welcoming them here today.

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased to be able to introduce 32 students and teachers who are here today from Van Tech Secondary School, but more importantly, about 27 of those students and their teachers are here from Auxerre, France, in the Burgundy area. They're here as part of an exchange of students. This is the second leg of an exchange between Van Tech French immersion students and students from France. They're here to visit us today as part of their two-week period in British Columbia and in the Vancouver area, and I hope the House will make our visitors from France very welcome.

[1335]

J. Nuraney: I, too, would like to welcome a school that is visiting around the precinct here today. They are the students in grade 5 from one of my favourite schools, called the Maywood Community School in Burnaby. They are accompanied today by their principal Sue Montabello, their teacher Connie Bradley and a student teacher, Meghan Edmunds. May I please ask the House to make the students from Maywood Community School in Burnaby most welcome here today.

D. Chudnovsky: Before today, only one member of my immediate family hadn't had a chance to visit us here in the Legislature, and I'm thrilled that she's here today. Our daughter Anna Chudnovsky is here, and I think her partner Chris Kinkaid will be here in a minute. Will the House please make Anna and Chris welcome.

L. Mayencourt: As all members will know, we are often blessed with great interns that come to work for us during the summer or during the latter part of the session. I've had the privilege of working with Danica Wong. Danica came with me up to Baldy Hughes and has stayed in my office and a whole bunch of things. She's been working on some great projects with me. I'm very, very proud to have her as an intern.

I also want to tell her parents, who are here today, that they can be very proud of her as well. She's an excellent worker. Would the House please make her parents welcome, Henry and Shelley Wong.

Hon. G. Hogg: We are joined in the House today by a woman who has a long and distinguished history of dedication to the community of South Surrey and White Rock. She has worked tirelessly in strengthening the community and has a passion for people, education, sports and for the underprivileged. She's championed many innovative programs. In fact, during the firestorms of Kelowna she walked llamas safely out of harm's way. Please welcome an over-23-year-serving member as a trustee in the school district of Surrey, Ms. Laurae McNally.

S. Simpson: I do want to make one other introduction. One of the students that participated in that exchange from Van Tech and went to France is my daughter Shayla, who is here helping to host our guests from France. Please make my daughter welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today are two members of our caucus staff that work in my office, Marc Chawrun and Richard Davis. Both are hard-working guys who keep the Whip's office working very well. So could the House please make them welcome.

J. Yap: Also in the House for a rare visit to the public gallery is another member of our caucus staff who works diligently to help our caucus stay on track and works on various projects for us. That's Melissa Nowakowski. Would the House please make Melissa welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Visiting the Legislature today for the first time is my uncle, John van Dongen, the same name as myself…

Interjections.

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's the one time I get to say it, Mr. Speaker.

…with his friends Craig and Jan Huisman, who are farmers from Chilliwack. I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

[ Page 11864 ]

J. Nuraney: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to once again introduce a class that has just walked in and sat in the gallery. They are the students in grade 5 from my favourite school in Burnaby, the Maywood Community School. They are accompanied today by their principal Sue Montabello and their teacher Connie Bradley. Please, House, join me in making them very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Small Business and Revenue. You're not wishing your wife a happy birthday? [Laughter.]

[1340]

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, as I've told you many times, you are the Speaker here, but I am the speaker at the apartment. Yes, my wife Yasmin….

J. Kwan: We don't want to know more. [Laughter.]

Hon. R. Thorpe: Well, you would never know by your debating skill that you support less rather than more.

But anyhow, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I would ask all members of the House today to join in the celebration of my wife Yasmin's birthday.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) BURNABY FESTIVAL OF VOLUNTEERS

R. Lee: Volunteers are a vital part of communities across British Columbia, and the generous donation of their time has helped to improve the quality of life for all of us. As this week is National Volunteer Week, I would like to thank the more than 1.5 million British Columbians who give back to their communities through volunteering, especially those who volunteer in Burnaby.

To help promote volunteerism and community services in Burnaby, the fifth annual Burnaby Festival of Volunteers will take place this Saturday, May 3, at Brentwood Town Centre from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Many of our local organizations — including the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Burnaby Optimist Club, South Burnaby Neighbourhood House, Burnaby North Community Association and many others — will put up displays to raise awareness about the services they offer, as well as, hopefully, to recruit some volunteers.

While learning about the many volunteer organizations, we will have entertainment staged throughout the day. The North Burnaby Retired Society will be performing a traditional Chinese dance. There's CheonDoong, Korean percussionists; the Youth for Christ Band and hip hop dancers; the Kabok Strings youth orchestra; Kanchan Lal, who will be performing bhangra dance; and Irene Lumayag, who will be singing for everyone in attendance.

I would like the House to join me in thanking the sponsors and organizing committee members Lee Faurot, Oscar Cruz, Amy Sundberg, John Renko, Ken Ryan, Cynthia Hendrix, Patrick Ng, Judy Chu, and volunteer Jane Leah and students from Alpha Secondary School for their time and energy to make this Burnaby Festival of Volunteers a success.

Volunteering is a rewarding and fun way to give back to the community. As founding co-chair of this festival, I would like to invite all members of the House and the residents of Burnaby to attend this wonderful event.

STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

S. Simpson: My daughter Shayla is a grade 11 student in the French immersion program at Vancouver Tech Secondary School. Recently she and a number of her classmates travelled to France for two weeks to stay with local families and spend time getting to know a little bit about France and to take another step on their maturation as young adults.

They travelled to the town of Auxerre, a community of 42,000 in the Burgundy region. Many of our students stayed in smaller villages around Auxerre, experiencing an environment that is very different than that in East Vancouver. Today 27 young people and their teachers are here on the second leg of this exchange — 15- and 16-year-olds who come from Auxerre and surrounding villages — many of whom have never previously been on an airplane and certainly have never been so far from home in either geographic or cultural terms.

I know Flor, the young woman who is staying with us. Her village is some 400 people. She is soaking up her exchange experience in Vancouver, visiting Whistler and here today to visit us in the Legislature or just spending time with her British Columbia student peers.

This is an invaluable opportunity for these young people from both nations. It broadens their horizons, makes connections and builds friendships that cross the world. Our world is becoming a more complex place, with discrepancies in wealth and opportunity that put hundreds of millions of global citizens at risk. British Columbians, like everyone else, need to become more global in our thinking if we're to contribute to the solution of these problems.

[1345]

Exchange programs offer an opportunity for our young people to begin to develop that perspective. Unfortunately, exchange is not cheap, costing about $3,000 per child to send students to France. While many parents could afford this, it is certainly not true for all. This is an opportunity that should not be decided by money, but too often is.

I would encourage the government and all members here to seek ways we can support these programs and, in particular, to ensure that those children who have this door closed on them because of money be given the same opportunity as everyone else.

BOWEN ISLAND AND PEMBERTON VALLEY

ARTS AND MUSIC EVENTS

J. McIntyre: I stand today to boast about two new and exciting arts and music festivals on Bowen Island

[ Page 11865 ]

and in Pemberton Valley this summer, which will showcase local and international talent. Bowen Island is renowned for its arts and culture sector, thanks to the effort of the Bowen Island Arts Council, which continually encourages and promotes local artists in the island community.

To help showcase Bowen Island's creative community, the province is supporting two BC150 events on Bowen this summer. In addition to the annual Bowfest held in August, this July 11 to July 13 will mark the first-ever annual Bowen Island festival of the written arts, called Write on Bowen. The three-day festival is designed for all readers and writers alike.

The village of Pemberton is also celebrating a new music festival this summer, which has received incredible hype across the country in addition to the huge encouragement from the local residents. This three-day festival will surely be a success, with an impressive lineup of bands — some of my favourites — including Coldplay, Tom Petty, Tragically Hip and Nine Inch Nails. Merritt is no doubt going to get a run for its money.

Although this new music festival will exhibit international icons, rest assured that our local customs and ecological values will be on display. Shane Bourbonnais of Live Nation, who is the driving force behind what we hope will be an annual event, has expressed that the festival will promote local produce and demonstrate our famous green reputation. Those who carpool with four or more people will get free parking. Hydro energy will be the main source of power, and farmers' markets will let the crowd sample the high-quality local ag products.

I would like to applaud the efforts of Kate Coffey, president of the Bowen Island Arts Council, along with her team and Shane Bourbonnais, along with the residents of Pemberton Valley–Mount Currie.

Creating new arts and music festivals highlights the growing demand in the B.C. arts and culture sector and ignites interest and pride among the local artists and residents. A vibrant arts and culture sector not only enriches individual lives but presents an excellent opportunity to attract visitors to our province. This summer's lineup should set a high standard.

B.C. YOUTH

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about the youth of British Columbia. When I think of the youth of British Columbia, I think of people like Chuck Seymour, a leader in our Cowichan Tribes community who is leading a reclamation of culture, and the Bench School students in the Cowichan district, who are leading a challenge to ban plastic bags. Those are great things, and they're leaders.

I think about demography. I think about David Foot, the demographer who pointed to my birth year, 1961, as the worst year to be born because we're a bit like a Cessna landing behind a 747 — very turbulent. We entered inflated markets with somewhat deflated expectations — inflated housing markets, inflated job markets. These are the challenges of youth.

I think we need to do our part to reconnect the youth to their vision, to capture their idealism, to invest in their hope, to avoid this growing reality of increasing debt and lowering incomes. They should not face this opportunity that the retirement of boomers offers them without us recognizing the challenge that that presents to them.

The reality is that we need to make a call. We need to be leaders in a call for respect of young people. We need to be leaders in a call for faith in young people. We need to invest for return in British Columbia, and we can do that by investing in young people — in training, in opportunity. We have to place our hope for British Columbia in young people. Most of all, we have to invest our faith in young people.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

OF THE FRASER VALLEY

J. Les: Easy access to quality post-secondary education close to home is essential for families across British Columbia, and that is why people in the Fraser Valley were ecstatic when on the 21st of April the Premier announced that the University College of the Fraser Valley will become the University of the Fraser Valley.

[1350]

Students, parents and community leaders across the valley saluted this announcement as a huge step forward to ensuring that students will be able to access a full university-level education close to home. This new university with 14,000 students will build on the strong history, success and traditions of the University College of the Fraser Valley.

This institution has come a long way over the last 40 years, from humble beginnings in the 1960s as a night school. The University College of the Fraser Valley recently received accolades from the Globe and Mail university report card, where it was rated at the top of its category nationwide for having the most satisfied students, the highest quality of education, the best library, the smallest class sizes and the easiest course registration process.

Today, with major campuses in Abbotsford and Chilliwack and facilities in Mission, the University College of the Fraser Valley is an education hub drawing students from across the valley, the province and from abroad — from India, China and elsewhere.

UCFV has an excellent reputation across the country and offers a wide variety of bachelor and applied master's degree programs in areas such as criminology, business, nursing and the arts. The future looks even brighter. Recently the Minister of Advanced Education opened Canada's most advanced trades-training facility at the new recently acquired 85-acre Chilliwack campus.

As a lifelong resident of the Fraser Valley and a parent of several grads of UCFV, I'm looking forward to my grandchildren, along with their peers from across the Fraser Valley, being able to obtain their post-secondary education close to home, taking full advantage of the wonderful learning opportunities that will

[ Page 11866 ]

be available for them at the University of the Fraser Valley.

WANDERING ANGELS LANTERN FESTIVAL

IN SURREY

S. Hammell: Two years ago late in the summer and early in the evening, I joined a large number of Surrey residents and wandered through the streets of Whalley with angels — beautiful, awesome and fantastic angels. We were all participating in the Wandering Angels Lantern Festival, a festival inspired and fuelled by the success of neighbourhood lantern festivals worldwide, including Vancouver's popular Illuminares and the yearly Lantern Festival that circles Deer Lake in Burnaby.

There's something about lanterns and the glow of candlelight at night that captures the child in all of us, and this evening of magic and delight met all those childhood expectations. There were lanterns of all shapes, colours and sizes held by child, parent and senior alike.

But the dominant lanterns were shaped as white floating angels that moved gracefully as they wandered high on sticks through the crowd. These angel lanterns also looked on from trees at the wandering parade of people, stilt-walkers and puppeteers. The parade of lanterns passed fire dancers and musical entertainment as they moved through their route.

The Wandering Angel Lantern Festival is returning to Whalley and central Surrey. The community artists' studio was opened last Saturday, and professional artists and community participants will come together there again to create lanterns that will light the evening and transform the newest of Surrey's urban parks, Holland Park, into a magical evening on August 30 of this summer.

I invite everyone in this House to join me in a stilt-walking or lantern-making workshop, or just come to Surrey's second annual Wandering Angels Lantern Festival. You will enjoy an amazing evening.

Oral Questions

REGIONAL ABORIGINAL AUTHORITIES

N. Simons: It's been six years since the Premier promised regional aboriginal authorities for child welfare to "enhance the capacity of aboriginal communities to make decisions for their children." They were supposed to be in place by 2005, then 2006 and then 2007. Yesterday the Premier broke their 2008 throne speech promise by pulling the legislation at the last minute.

After six years of failure and $39 million of wasted money or money misspent, who should the Minister of Children and Family Development hold responsible for this fiasco?

[1355]

Hon. T. Christensen: First nations leaders and aboriginal people across the province have told us that they want the right and the responsibility to care for their children. This government agrees. We had hoped to proceed with legislation this session to enable the establishment of aboriginal authorities so that those first nations who wanted to take advantage of that opportunity could do so. There are first nations who believe that the authority model is the one that will work for them.

We intended that any participation in an authority would be voluntary. What we've found is that there is significant opposition among some members of the First Nations Leadership Council and among other first nations across the province, and the level of opposition threatened to undermine the success of those who wish to take advantage of the opportunity.

Yes, government could make a choice to forge ahead in light of that opposition. But I believe that the prudent choice, the responsible choice, is to work with the leadership council and with first nations to try and address the concerns they have so that this can be successful in ensuring that aboriginal people do have an effective voice in serving their children and families.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: This is an example of incompetence and mismanagement. It has a direct impact on children and families in this province. The process was faulty from the start, and the minister knows it, except he just seemed to realize it publicly yesterday. Thirty-nine million dollars in six years. During these six years the percentage of aboriginal children in care went from 42 percent to 52 percent. There is chaos and disillusionment in the ministry, and there is anger among first nations.

How could this minister have bungled the process so badly?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member seems to be suggesting we should have pushed forward with legislation in light of the opposition. The member and members of the opposition have…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: …on numerous occasions raised questions in respect of the move towards aboriginal authorities.

I'd like to know: does the member support working with first nations and aboriginal people across the province to find models that work so services can be improved to those families? Or is the member content to continually try to undermine that process and ensure that it's not successful?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a further supplemental.

N. Simons: This government has known about first nations anger and concern for many years. This is not something that came up yesterday, and to claim that it

[ Page 11867 ]

is, is kind of ridiculous. I don't think anyone in this House or in the public believes that for a minute.

Instead of fixing the problem that was addressed a long time ago to the minister, they said they would consult more. In fact, they have some consultation planned. However, that consultation should have occurred before passing the legislation or even bringing it in.

How could they try to sneak it in yesterday? How can the minister expect that first nations are going to trust the word of this government when they've gone back on their word so many times?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member can't have it both ways. His first question was: why didn't the legislation proceed? He seemed to wish that the legislation would proceed in light of there being opposition. Now the member is suggesting: "Well, no, you shouldn't have gone forward with legislation." So you can't have it both ways. For once it would be nice if the members of the opposition made their position on any single issue clear in this House so that we know what they think.

We're certainly committed to working with first nations. This government is committed to working with first nations and aboriginal people across the province to ensure that we realize their goal of taking control and responsibility for delivering services to their children and families. That's our goal. We're going to continue to work with them to do it, and we're going to get there.

S. Fraser: Shocking answer from the minister. This is a minister that used to be the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. He said he's working with first nations on this?

[1400]

Well, he has received correspondence and complaints and concerns from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, from the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, from the Stó:lô Tribal Council, from the Chehalis Indian Band, from the In-SHUCK-ch Nation, from the First Nations Directors Forum — repeatedly.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Chehalis Band, the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council — they're not all wrong. They're on record as raising concerns, and this minister ignored them. They were sounding alarm bells, and this minister was planning on going ahead with a celebration yesterday.

Did he really think that after six years — six years — of delay and broken promises, he could bring in legislation dealing with aboriginal children in care by ignoring first nations leaders?

Hon. T. Christensen: That's nonsense.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: I would invite the member to sit down with the first nations who have said clearly to government: "We think this provides us an opportunity to ensure that we have a voice in the care of our children." Those are the first nations that today are ready to move forward with an authority model and wanted that legislation to proceed. They are disappointed today, as am I.

We are committed to working with those first nations to find how we can ensure that they have an effective voice in the delivery of services to their children and families immediately. Similarly, we are committed to working with the First Nations Leadership Council and those first nations who have expressed concern about the authority model to determine: what is it that we can do with them to ensure that they, too, have a voice in serving their children and families?

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The minister said he's committed to working with the leadership council. Well, he said earlier, in his response to the earlier questions, that the leadership council and those that expressed concern were actually threatening to undermine this.

This minister is working in a bubble. Not only has the minister set this process back to the detriment of aboriginal children in care, he has poisoned his own relationship with first nations people in this province.

Now, I'll bet that when the minister was ushering first nation elders out of this place yesterday, he wasn't taking responsibility for this bungling. I'll bet he was blaming others. He was blaming the leadership council, those first nations that he was not listening to.

To the Minister of Children and Family Development: will he stop blaming others? Will he stop blaming others and admit he failed, admit his incompetence and fix the process?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: I spent a little over an hour yesterday with first nations chiefs, council members, elders and aboriginal leaders who had come here to Victoria in the hopes that legislation would be introduced to enable them to have a strong voice in the delivery of services to their communities. They left that meeting heartbroken, as did I.

We are committed to working with those first nations to realize their goals. We are committed to working with those first nations who expressed concerns about the legislation going forward, many of whom I have spoken with in the last 24 hours and all of whom have committed to work with government to address those concerns and recognize that we do need to make progress. That's the commitment of this side of the House.

I'd still like to know: what does that side of the House think should happen in terms of the establishment of authorities and in terms of ensuring that first nations do have an effective voice in serving aboriginal children and families?

[ Page 11868 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[1405]

A. Dix: The members opposite can laugh and joke about this embarrassing failure by the minister and the entire cabinet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second, Member.

Do you want to start again?

A. Dix: I know they want to shout down these questions. Six years of failure. In 2002, the year this project was announced, they cut the Ministry of Children and Families budget by 23 percent.

Deadline after deadline — '04, '05, '06, '07 — missed, all missed, and $39 million wasted. Yesterday the minister himself humiliated after he was yanked off the stage by the Premier. The cabinet negligent — they all signed off on them. Every single one of them signed off on this piece of legislation that was coming into this House today.

How can the minister possibly expect British Columbians to have confidence in him after he's overseen this debacle?

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members to listen to the question and listen to the answer.

Hon. T. Christensen: It is obvious that making progress in terms of ensuring that aboriginal people have an effective voice in delivering services to their children and families is such a simple matter that the NDP for ten years failed to make progress in it whatsoever.

We proposed an opportunity, with the establishment of authorities, that would have been voluntary. For the members opposite to suggest that the work over the last six years in discussing options with aboriginal peoples, in working with aboriginal service providers and chiefs and delegated agencies to the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee to realize a vision where aboriginal people could have that effective voice, was a waste of time is offensive.

I will be the first to admit that I would be much happier if we were further along in reaching that final goal today than we are. But I can assure you this. We're much further along than those members ever would have been if they were in government, because they can't make up their mind what they stand for.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: You know, the members opposite…. Again, all they have is personal attacks because this is…. All they have….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member.

Member continues.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: A 12-year-old boy or girl at the beginning of this process will be an adult before they get it done. That's a record of failure.

What we're asking the Minister of Children and Families to do is take responsibility. He was humiliated yesterday. He discovered there was opposition yesterday after six years of claimed consultation. He discovered it yesterday and was pulled off the stage at the last minute. It was an embarrassing display, which would be just embarrassing if the stakes for children and families weren't so high.

So I'm going to ask the minister again: how can anyone in British Columbia have confidence in him when his performance on this dossier has been so very incompetent?

[1410]

Hon. T. Christensen: Well, perhaps the member will forgive me if I don't take his assessment of the situation too seriously.

I will continue to work with first nations leaders on the First Nations Leadership Council. I will continue to work with chiefs and councils across the province, both those who want to see an authority established and those who have concerns about it. We will find the path forward that makes sense.

But let's put this in perspective. You know, it has taken us well over a hundred years in this province to get to this state of affairs in terms of children and families and aboriginal children and families. We are trying to reverse that trend. We are making a sincere effort to engage with first nations leaders, with Métis leaders and with aboriginal people to ensure that we are working collaboratively and together to ensure that aboriginal children and families have a stronger future.

What I'd like to know is: what is the opposition doing?

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister should actually take a look at the correspondence that he has received from aboriginal leaders. In fact, they call the government action "a direct disregard of leaders and a vast majority

[ Page 11869 ]

of aboriginals in the region." This is a quote from Tyrone McNeil, the tribal chief from the Stó:lô Tribal Council. He goes on to say that this is also an affront to aboriginal rights as well as to the new relationship.

Why didn't the minister recognize that the aboriginal community leadership was against the government's plans on regionalization until yesterday? And why didn't the minister recognize that it is only when you have the support of the first nations leadership that the regionalization process for children and families will work and that to do otherwise will simply place children in harm's way?

Hon. T. Christensen: Perhaps the member opposite should talk to the first nations leaders, who were very clear that they wanted the opportunity to establish an authority, that they wanted legislation to be introduced and passed. We know there isn't consensus among first nations in terms of whether they want to participate in an authority. That's why it's voluntary.

Voluntary means that you get to choose whether you're served by an authority, whether you participate in an authority or not. We are committed to working with those who do not want to participate in an authority to ensure that they, too, can find a means to have an effective say in the design and delivery of services to their communities.

If the members opposite are suggesting that we should wait until there is consensus among the 203 first nations across the province, then I don't agree. But what I would agree with is that we have work to do. We're committed to doing that work.

Again, I would ask: are the members opposite in favour of enabling first nations to have a say or not?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. The minister is claiming that somehow he can't move forward because there isn't consensus and that somehow it is the leaders who didn't actually present that point of view to him until yesterday. False.

Here's what they said in the correspondence to the minister from Doug Kelly, Grand Chief of the Stó:lô Tribal Council. He said: "Despite the so-called new relationship, I understand that your officials did not engage members of the leadership council or other officials with the development of the proposed legislation."

Six years in the making, and the government didn't get it that they need to consult with aboriginal people around regionalization for aboriginal people and their children? I'm going to ask the minister this question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

[1415]

J. Kwan: My question to the minister is this. If he won't take responsibility for his actions — six years of bungling this file, $39 million later and having nothing but condemnation from the leadership of the aboriginal community — will anybody on that side of the House take responsibility today?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's unfortunate that the members of the opposition seem to want to take advantage of challenges in coming to agreement with first nations…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. T. Christensen: …about how they can effectively…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. T. Christensen: …work to improve the delivery of services to aboriginal children and families. There's a dire need to improve those services. There's a dire need to ensure that aboriginal people can exercise an effective voice in that work.

We are committed to continuing to work with leaders who are in favour of authorities, with leaders who have concerns about authorities, so that we actually meet the mutual goal that we share with first nations and aboriginal leaders in this province. That is to improve outcomes for their children and families.

B.C. PLACE ROOF REPLACEMENT

N. Macdonald: Today we're being told that because the government refused to listen to warnings in 2006, because of this minister's incompetence, we're not going to be able to reroof B.C. Place for the Olympics. A billion people are going to be watching the opening ceremonies.

The question for the minister is this. Why has the minister, why has this government put British Columbians in the position where the only viable option is a roof that has already collapsed?

Hon. S. Hagen: We're in the middle of a process now with PavCo, who are bringing forward suggestions to the government. They're bringing forward a solution. I've got to tell you, when the public sees the results of that work and when they see what the government has decided as a result of that work, they're going to be the proudest people in the world about what British Columbia is showing off to the three billion people who will be watching.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 11870 ]

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST INDUSTRY

H. Bains: Yesterday the Minister of Forests refused to take action to keep pulp and paper workers employed on the coast. Today he would have an opportunity to redeem himself. Mackenzie sawmill has and can continue to employ in work 110 family-supporting jobs, even in this market condition.

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister guarantee today that this mill's log supply source will not be allowed to export logs, so that this mill can continue to work?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the member opposite wants to tell a company when it should run, when it should lose money and how much money it should lose. It did that in the 1990s with Skeena Cellulose and flushed $500 million of taxpayers' money because they interfered in the marketplace.

Sorry, Member, you don't get the opportunity to do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not going anywhere until there's quiet.

Just take your seat.

Members.

Member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Consistently, this minister shows that he's not up on this file. Today he is exhibiting the same disqualification for himself.

[1420]

I'm talking about Mackenzie sawmill in Surrey. There is an application on the minister's desk right now asking for tree farm licence 38 and Soo TSA logs to be exported. Those are the log supplies for this mill. If this minister allows this log export to go ahead, that would jeopardize those 110 jobs.

The situation is so bad that the president of the Mackenzie sawmill has written to the minister and to the timber exporter advisory committee that they should not allow this application. This minister consistently said that there's nothing he can do, and he said the same thing today.

In this case, he has a choice whether this mill runs or this mill shuts down. Now, my question to the minister, again, is: will he commit today that the log supply for this mill will not be allowed to be exported?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite knows there's a surplus test on the export of logs, that log exports in British Columbia from Crown lands are virtually down to nothing. The company can actually put a blocking bid in place. They can actually go after the logs if they want.

But the other thing you don't understand, hon. Member, is that just because they come off some TFL doesn't mean somebody is going to go cut them — if there's no place to sell them where they can actually get a return on investment.

D. Routley: The Forests Minister says no to protecting pulp and paper jobs, even though it's within his power to do so. He says no to keeping sawmills open, even when it's in his power to do so.

The minister is so out of touch with his file that on Tuesday he stated that there are virtually no log exports from British Columbia now. But in January and February alone of this year we exported over 10,000 truckloads of raw logs from British Columbia, more than the entire year of exports for 1996.

We asked yesterday, and we're asking again today: will the minister commit to protecting family-supporting jobs here in B.C. and on Vancouver Island by immediately restricting the export of raw logs from this province?

Hon. R. Coleman: Your own leader was on radio up in Terrace saying there were times in the province's history that we should actually allow export of logs. You know, you can't have it both ways.

On one side, in one area of the province, whether it's the midcoast or the northwest, I guess you don't want to allow them to export a log. Therefore, all the jobs up there can disappear. On the other side of the coin, you decide that you're going to try and manage the trade. On the other side of the coin, all you want to do is say: "Nobody can work in forestry. Nobody can have a job. Nobody should have an opportunity."

And the other thing, hon. Member: your numbers are wrong.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: So he says no log exports, but 10,000 truckloads — and my numbers are wrong? I don't think so. His can't-do mentality is to say no to people. His "virtually no" doesn't mean anything to the people of my riding. To them, no means no. It means no job, no sawmill, no money for the mortgage payment, no money to put food on the table.

That's the reality of what this minister has brought, and the minister doesn't get it. Their no is real. His no action is the cause. When will the minister stop log exports and get the fibre to the pulp sector and sawmills that can run? When will he do something?

Hon. R. Coleman: Our annual allowable cut is somewhere around 70 million to 80 million cubic metres a year. In the first quarter of this year 250,000 cubic metres was the total export from Crown lands in the province of British Columbia.

I think it's astounding that this member gets up knowing full well that a company in his riding, which he keeps putting down, invested in the Saltair mill so that 124 people could be at work today in that community. I find it astounding that they don't recognize there

[ Page 11871 ]

are seven sawmills by one company, three reman plants by that company and work being done in the bush in one of the toughest economic times in the history of the forests in British Columbia.

[1425]

I find it astounding that the member for North Island just yesterday said: "There's nothing about market conditions here." It's all about how you've just got to make these guys run their mills and lose money. So the NDP forest policy would be: "You run your mills, go broke and throw out everybody. Nobody has a job, and there's no future in forestry." We will not make those kinds of decisions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

B. Lekstrom: I rise to present a petition from over 4,000 motorcyclists in British Columbia asking the government and ICBC to work towards the implementation of transferable plates for motorcycles in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second reading debate on Bill 21 and in

Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, debates on the estimates for the Ministry of Finance.

Second Reading of Bills

MEDICARE PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

R. Chouhan: I rise to oppose Bill 21, the so-called Medicare Protection Amendment Act. In this bill there's nothing to protect medicare. If you look at the introductory remarks made by the minister, he said that only the

definitions were expanded and that the administration of the Medical Service Plan will not be changed, nor the functioning of the Medical Service Commission. That begs the question: why, then, is the government introducing legislation that won't change anything?

The government has also added the sixth principle, sustainability, to the definition. What is it? Can somebody explain it? So far, we haven't heard any explanation — none, zero.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The minister has failed to describe it, because he cannot tell the truth. The truth is so different. If it comes out, people will know that the agenda of this government is to create more chaos in the public medical care system so that people can say: "Hey, it's not working. Let's have a privatized system."

That's what they're trying to do. By adding the term sustainability as the sixth principle of the principles of medicare, the B.C. Liberals are undermining the existing five principles that have served British Columbians and Canadians very well.

Everybody knows that if the truth comes out, people will start asking questions. That will hurt the Liberals' credibility, if they have any. Catchy phrases and deceptive slogans are not going to fool British Columbians anymore. They know the truth behind the real agenda of the B.C. Liberals because they have seen in the past how the B.C. Liberals have operated, how they have functioned.

We can give you many, many examples. The first one is the so-called Conversation on Health. Then there was also Bill 29 and the overall government agenda on privatization. That's what sustainability means. That's what this government is talking about.

[1430]

Now, when we talk about the Conversation on Health, the public won't trust this government, because what happened during that Conversation on Health…. The Premier promised that he would come and join and participate in those meetings. He was nowhere to be seen at any meeting anywhere. Hundreds and hundreds of people came. They attended; they participated. They let their views be known to everybody. They made it clear that they want a public health care system, not a privatized health care system.

As a result, the Premier didn't want to go there. He didn't want to listen to those views, because those were not his views. He would not like to see those people standing up and talking about defending public health care.

What people want is sustainable public health care, not catchy slogans to promote privatization through the back door. Public health care is for everyone, not for those who have maybe a heavy wallet, more money, maybe more beautiful fancy cars. In British Columbia everybody deserves a public health care system that everybody, at any time, can have when they need. That's what it is.

The Premier didn't show up because, also, he was not prepared to listen to what the public may have said. The public was very clear. All those who attended those meetings were very clear that they had no appetite for a private health care system.

The system that we have seen this Liberal government trying to make is for profit, for the B.C. Liberals' rich corporate friends. That's what they want to do.

Instead of accepting the people's verdict, the government is now trying to create an impression that the current system does not work. "It's not functioning. It's not sustainable. Therefore, let's privatize it." They're trying to create that impression in people's minds.

So Bill 21, which we are talking about, is not going to protect the public health care system that we are

[ Page 11872 ]

known for. Under the so-called added definition of sustainability, the government will download more and more costs onto the patients, forcing people to think that because of extra costs out of their pockets, there won't be much difference between a public and private health care — hence, more privatization.

I guess that's the meaning of the B.C. Liberals' sustainability. But the minister won't like to explain it, because if the real explanation comes out, the real agenda will come out. That's a problem.

As everyone knows, health care is the most important issue on people's minds in British Columbia. Seniors expected 5,000 long-term care beds to be completed by 2008. That was the promise made by this government a long, long, time ago.

Hon. R. Coleman: Is 2008 over?

R. Chouhan: The Minister of Forests is saying that we have a few more months, that they can complete 5,000 beds by the end of this year. That's good. I would like to see that happening.

Interjections.

R. Chouhan: End of the year. Okay, that's very promising. Very, very reassuring. That's very good. I guess it's another hollow promise like so many other promises we have heard before, like the promises this government has made and this Premier made to the health care workers before the 2001 election. Is that the kind of promise we are hearing today?

Let me tell you what happened. That promise that this Premier made to the Hospital Employees Union….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'm going to caution you, as we've had this discussion earlier in this debate, to confine your remarks, please, to the relevant topics in the bill.

[1435]

R. Chouhan: Madam Speaker, I am really confused now. I have a copy of the minister's speech, the opening comments, in my hands, and 70 percent of those comments that he made were totally irrelevant to Bill 21. He was talking about the NDP but nothing else. And now….

Interjection.

R. Chouhan: I'm not challenging. I'm just talking about…. I'm confused. I'm just seeking guidance.

Deputy Speaker: Member, continue your remarks, please, relevant to Bill 21.

R. Chouhan: I'm talking about Bill 21 and how relevant it is, because people are trying to find out how they can trust Bill 21 now when they could not trust Bill 29, with the promises the Premier made in the past. During that time, the Premier promised that they would not touch the health care workers collective agreement.

Is that what we are having here now under Bill 21 — another hollow promise made? At that time, the Premier said that at no time would the collective agreement be touched, but we know what happened shortly thereafter.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Speaker, you may have to, once again, reinforce the guidance which you've just very recently offered the speaker in relation to confining his remarks to second reading of Bill 21.

Deputy Speaker: Member, continue with remarks relevant to Bill 21, please.

Debate Continued

R. Chouhan: Madam Speaker, we are talking about Bill 21. We are talking about sustainability. We are talking about relevance of the comments made by this minister in the opening comments. All I'm talking about, Madam Speaker, is that under Bill 21 what the minister is saying, what the government is saying…. You cannot trust it, as we could not have trusted them in the past.

It's a pattern we are talking about. We are talking about the history of the B.C. Liberal government. They have shown again and again and again that you cannot trust them. That's what we are talking about.

More than 8,000 people lost their jobs because of that hollow, wrong promise that the Premier made in the past. For those who were left, 15 percent of their wages were rolled back. So what's happening under sustainability? What's happening under reasonable access? So are the people now going to be asked…?

Maybe the minister can explain. What's reasonable access? Is it 70 percent, or is it 80 percent or 81 percent? How can we trust the reasonableness of this minister that we are going to hear in this Bill 21? The impact of that Bill 29 in the past, as it's going to be under Bill 21….

That was so much negative impact on people's lives. The hospitals were left dirty. The senior people with experience — who were providing that health care to the seniors, to the patients — were nowhere to be seen because they were fired under that system.

Now under Bill 21, what happens under reasonable access? Does this mean that because the taxpayers won't have the ability to pay, we would have less service — less than what we have had in the past? Those are the questions the minister has to explain and answer.

Everyone knows that the Bill 29 fiasco that we saw in the past was a colossal failure. We are going to see, I think, the same thing under Bill 21. Workers suffered; the quality of health care suffered. The seniors were not attended to. The food quality went down.

A few months ago my own brother-in-law had a serious accident, and he was taken to Royal Columbian Hospital. He had a massive head injury. After a day and a half, the doctors told us that they could not keep him alive, that they were going to pull the plug.

[1440]

[ Page 11873 ]

We insisted: "Give us a second chance. Ask for a second opinion." After that, the second surgeon came, and he operated on it. My brother-in-law is living today.

What kind of reasonable access are we talking about? Under this sustainability, the reasonableness…? So people will be told again: "Sorry. We can't. We don't have a bed. We can't afford it. We are going to push you out?" What kind of system are we talking about?

Similarly, when we are talking about ability to pay…. I have heard that slogan so many times. I know. I come from the health care system. I was the director of collective bargaining. Every time I heard those words, "ability to pay" meant lower wages, more bad working conditions for workers. Similarly, when we are now hearing this phrase "ability to pay" under Bill 21, that would mean we would have less access to the public health care system, less services for patients and seniors.

Bill 21 talks about reasonable access. If we want to have a really sustainable kind of public health care system, then let's talk about how to make it sustainable. Let's talk about what's really needed. What are the elements that we have to look at so that we can help to make it sustainable? Show some respect to those who provide health care. Nurses are working in the system….

Interjection.

S. Fraser: I seek leave to make a late introduction, please.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed, Member.

Introductions by Members

S. Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to introduce students from, I think, Captain Meares Elementary Secondary School. That's in Tahsis. The member for North Island asked me to make the introduction today. My understanding is that there are 25 students, and that includes, I think, some parents — probably two. Sharon Parsey is the teacher.

I'd like everyone in this House to please make them feel very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

R. Chouhan: Well, let's talk about sustainability. If you are really serious about having a sustainable public health care system, I think the first step would be to consult with those who provide health care — the nurses, the health care workers, the doctors.

The nurses that we met with yesterday told us that there is a shortage of 2,000…. There are 2,000 vacancies across B.C. Let's fill those vacancies first. They're overwhelmed, overworked. How can they provide the services that are desired under Bill 21 if they are not capable, if they don't have the capacity to provide those services?

In Abbotsford hospital there are nine operating rooms, but only six will be opened because of the shortage of nurses. So if we want to do what the minister is asking us to do, then look at those things. What is lacking in the system?

Let's talk about overcapacity at 120 percent. We have seen code oranges in the hospitals. That's not the way to sustain the health care system.

[1445]

When the nurses are working overtime, when their workload is so heavy…. The nurses who are hired, the new nurses, to start their job, the orientation…. What they get is two hours on line — not real orientation, just two hours on line. They just go on and look at the system on the Internet, and they can orientate themselves. That's what Bill 21 is talking about, is going to do.

British Columbia is the first province to add sustainability in the provincial health legislation. The federal government has rejected the idea of adding sustainability to the Canada Health Act. In his 2006 throne speech the Premier signalled his intention to ask the federal government to amend the Canada Health Act to add the sixth principle of sustainability.

In a written e-mail Minister of Health Clement said: "The government does not intend to open up the Canada Health Act. We believe there is plenty of room for positive innovation within the current legislation." But I guess that message is not a good message for this government, for this minister.

They want to have their own sustainability to make it easy for their friends so that they can come through the back door, get more privatization, get more profit. That's what they want to do. They want to download the costs more and more onto the patients, onto the seniors, to make it difficult for an ordinary person to have this health care system when they need it, where they need it. It's a shame, what this government is doing.

This additional sixth principle, this sustainability, is a farce. It is an excuse to make public health care more costly for patients and seniors, to bring in privatization through the back door.

Look at what is happening at Royal Columbian Hospital. We have seen again and again people in the hallways. At Burnaby Hospital we have seen again and again people so crowded in the emergency ward, not attended to. They have been waiting for hours and hours. So how would this Bill 21 help those people who go to these hospitals and need help?

Earlier I mentioned the impact of Bill 29. What happened then is no different from what's happening now. Many of the services were privatized, contracted out. As a result, the private companies that had that contract laid off thousands and thousands of people — trained health care people, senior health care workers. They were unable to have those jobs.

I was just recently at Surrey Memorial Hospital visiting somebody, and I saw bloodstains in the elevator — a urine smell coming from the hallways. I saw the dirty laundry lying in the hallways on two floors. That's the impact of privatization under Bill 29.

Under Bill 21, how is it going to be different? The minister hasn't explained because he was so busy, in 70 percent of the remarks, just talking about the NDP. At

[ Page 11874 ]

no time was he able to talk and explain to British Columbians what the real meaning of sustainability is and what reasonable access is. At no time was he able to explain because they cannot explain that.

The public in British Columbia knows very well from past experience what it could mean, and that's why they're afraid. That's why they cannot trust this government.

Now, when Bill 29 was brought in and introduced, I was there. Prior to Bill 29, when the Premier came and met with our union, I was there. We recorded his meeting with us, with the Hospital Employees Union. We published his comments in our newspaper The Guardian .

[1450]

We told him again and again and reminded him. He kept saying: "No, no. I'm not going to touch it." But then Bill 29 came. With that kind of history, how could you trust this government? One of the members who lost a job was 45 years old at that time, a single mother with two children — university-going children. When she lost her job, she could not send her daughter to university. She had to work.

That was the impact of Bill 29. A hundred nurses were impacted directly under Bill 29. Over 8,000 people lost their jobs. Now we have in front of us a new bill, Bill 21, and the government is asking us to just give them a blank cheque. Just believe them. They're going to just do it. They're better than the federal government. The federal government may not even know what…. You know, when they turned down the request to add the sixth principle….

I haven't seen any evidence that this minister or this government can do a better job than the federal government. I don't know. I haven't seen the evidence for why we have to add this so-called sustainability.

The time has come. Stop fooling people, because people are not going to be fooled. The time has come to be honest with the public, because people expect that. Sitting here talking about the health care system, the minister's effort to help their friends, the rich corporations, to bring in the kind of health care system that we have seen in the United States is not going to help anybody.

I stand here to oppose this bill, and my colleagues will be opposing this bill. I conclude my remarks by asking the minister to withdraw Bill 21. It's not going to help anybody.

L. Krog: I have a 15-month-old granddaughter. Before the members opposite start jumping up and saying I'm not speaking to the bill, I trust they'll listen to me for just a few minutes as I make my relevant point. When she gets to that wonderful stage where her grandpa can read to her, I want to read her The Three Little Pigs , because as you'll recall, in The Three Little Pigs there's this wonderful little scene where the wolf gets dressed up in sheep's clothing, where that which appears on the surface to be innocent is in fact anything but innocent.

When she gets a little older I might read her The Iliad. I'll read her about Troy and the Trojan horse and how they snuck it in — those crafty Greeks — and brought down the Trojan empire. In my view, essentially, that's what I see when I read the Medicare Protection Amendment Act. On the face of it, who in their right mind could be opposed to a piece of legislation that calls itself the Medicare Protection Amendment Act? That's like putting a bill before this House that says "we support our mothers act" and somebody standing up here and opposing it. Unbelievable that anyone could oppose it.

However, I have read this bill, and indeed I have read the remarks of the hon. Minister of Health in his introduction in second reading and his remarks which, frankly, seemed to be more of a diatribe attacking the New Democratic Party and its history than it did about dealing with the Medicare Protection Amendment Act. But as that song of Cher goes: "Words are like weapons. They can wound sometimes."

The fact is that you have to look at this bill. You have to actually read it to understand that the title hides, I believe, things that are…. I won't say insidious or sinister. I don't think the minister is deliberately trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes here, to go back to my sheep analogy.

[1455]

But the fact is that courts interpret legislation. Courts review carefully the words that are spoken in this chamber and reduced to writing in the form of bills and acts. When the Lieutenant-Governor comes in here and assents to a piece of legislation, it has impact out there in the world. It isn't just the result of some funny exercise by a bunch of middle-aged folks in here screaming at each other across a few feet of red carpet. It has an impact.

Courts will look carefully at every word — every word — of this bill. They're going to have to interpret it in accordance with certain principles. Statutory

interpretation says that headnotes and explanatory notes…. Courts don't pay much attention to that. The Attorney General knows that. He's had the opportunity on many, many occasions to interpret legislation.

I don't know if he's had a chance to speak to this bill in debate, but I'd love to hear his comments on the wording and what I have to say about statutory

interpretation, because I think it would help illuminate this chamber if we heard from him. If he's already spoken, I apologize that I didn't have a chance to hear him.

When you read a statute, as the Supreme Court of Canada said in Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd., 1998, 1 SCR 27 , for those who are interested in looking it up…. Essentially, that case says: "The words of

an act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the act, the object of the act and the intention of parliament." You can substitute "Legislature" there. It'll have the same impact.

The

Interpretation Act, a statute passed by this Legislature and revised from time to time, says very clearly in

section 9 that: "The title and

preamble of an enactment are part of it and are intended to assist in explaining its meaning and object." I repeat: "…are intended to assist in explaining its meaning and object."

So if we go to the title, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, one would assume it is designed to

[ Page 11875 ]

protect what every foreign reporter who knows anything about Canada will describe as, if you will, the most cherished value of Canadian society — a national public health care system; the crowning achievement, if you will, the child of T.C. Douglas and those brave CCFers in Saskatchewan who, against insurmountable odds, including all the money of the American Medical Association, fought to bring in a provincial health care system in the province of Saskatchewan that led to Canada's national medicare system.

You know, no one in this chamber could speak enough gratitude to the people who took the political risk to do that. I'd rather be here today commenting about how this government was actually doing something to protect medicare by this statute, but I don't see it.

The

preamble in

section 1 is going to be changed by striking out the term "public administration" and substituting "public administration and sustainability." So we go from public administration being so important in the

preamble to it being read in conjunction with public administration and sustainability. To me, that means that they are equivalent, that a court will be required to interpret that part of the statute as having equal weight — both the public administration and sustainability.

Now, if there is ever a word that in the last few years has been thrown around in the public and probably little understood, it is the concept of sustainability. I think all of us understand that if we've got a credit card with a $5,000 limit and we keep spending and spending and spending, it's not sustainable. We'll get to a limit at some point. We understand that.

When we're talking about sustainability here, I think what the government's really trying to say is: "We want to be able to put a cap on medicare." That's what it's really saying. This isn't about protecting medicare or ensuring its full funding or ensuring its viability. This is, in fact, about putting a cap on health care spending.

[1500]

The

Interpretation Act, in

section 8, says: "Every enactment must be construed as being remedial, and must be given such fair, large and liberal construction and

interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects." What a court interpreting this change, if you will, is going to have to assume is that we're remedying something, we are solving some mischief, and it's to be given as fair, large and liberal a construction and

interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its object.

What's important here is that, if you look further at the

preamble…. The new

preamble talks about a number of things which, frankly, I'm not sure the people of British Columbia can agree with. The

preamble will now read: "Whereas the people and government of British Columbia are committed to building a public health care system…." Well, I rather thought we had a public health care system. I wasn't aware we had to build it. I thought we might improve it, expand it. But that's another matter for another day. It says: "…building a public health care system that is founded on the values of individual choice, personal responsibility, innovation, transparency and accountability."

Now, if you read them fairly quickly and you don't think much about them, they don't sound half bad — except we know that one of the great determinants of health is wealth. If you're poor, you're generally sicker. If you're poor, you generally don't get the kind of access to health care that you need.

To talk about personal responsibility…. If I'm an 87-year-old dementia patient, how am I going to exercise personal responsibility to take better care of my health? If I'm a three-year-old child living in a small, isolated northern community, is it my responsibility to get my inoculation? Is that one of the great commitments of the people of British Columbia? Is that something we really want to emphasize? Is that something we want the courts to read when they're interpreting this statute, when they're interpreting the Medicare Protection Act? Is that what we really want?

You know, I don't think so. I honestly don't think so. I don't think the members opposite have considered it in that light. Individual choice is something we'd all love to have in every aspect of our lives, but the minute we commit ourselves to living in communities, we will — if you believe in community — give up some of those choices, allow other choices to be made for us on occasion. We will share. Those are B.C. values — sharing, caring, but not individual choice, personal responsibility.

We like innovation. Many members on this side of the House have said: "Why doesn't this government start setting up the kind of clinics they did in the province of Alberta?" It's hardly an NDP haven. It's not a socialist bastion. Why don't you set up a clinic that's designed specifically to do with hip replacements? Run 'em through. It's efficient, saves the taxpayer money, gets the service done properly, and it's all administered, run and paid for under a public health care system in the province of Alberta.

The reason I want to emphasize that is because when it talks about transparency and accountability, I don't think anyone will disagree with the accountability

part in this

preamble. Accountability means you're going to be accountable. Where are you accountable? You're accountable in this chamber. You're accountable in the media. You're accountable on the election trail. You're accountable in your constituency office.

That's why, if we're going to be accountable, I need to hear from the Minister of Health what this sustainability concept means. What does individual choice mean? What does personal responsibility mean, particularly around the examples I've cited in this chamber today? How do you interpret that?

Whatever the minister has to say about his

interpretation, which might illuminate the debate here, or other members of the government side, I wonder whether it will, in fact, represent the

interpretation of the courts, because they approach things somewhat differently. Schofield v. Glenn , 1928, Supreme Court Reports, at 208: "In construction of legislation, the court must consider the mischief the legislation is intended to remedy, the provisions of the legislation as a whole and the particular language of the

section in question."

[1505]

[ Page 11876 ]

When the courts come to look at this, they're going to want to know what the mischief is. If the mischief is sustainability, what does that mean? Does that mean the court gets to say: "The provincial government isn't spending enough money on health care, and we order you to do so"? Or does that mean that the provincial government is entitled to say, within the context of a budget: "We've done the right thing, and we're going to get the courts to decide what the budget will be"? I don't know.

I just throw out the questions. That's my job here. That's the job of the opposition. I can't answer the questions necessarily, but I know the courts will. The courts are going to rely on cases and the case law that's been established for a long time. The city of Ottawa v. Hunter , 1900, 31 Supreme Court Reports, at page 7: "If the language of the law is changed, an intention to change the law is to be presumed."

So what's the change? What is the change that's occurring here? What will a court say is different as a result of the changes made by the Medicare Protection Act? I am fearful that what they will interpret that to mean is that government can either ration health care or make decisions that will have a negative impact on the delivery of public health care in this province. It's for that reason, among many others, that the opposition has real concerns about this.

You know, in Williams v. Box , 1910, 44 Supreme Court Reports , no surplus or meaningless words: "No part of

an act should be treated as ineffectual or as mere surplusage if any other construction is possible." Again, the courts are going to look at this, and they're going to say that the Legislature intended to do something here. If I'd heard from the Minister of Health exactly what that was and understood it, I might even be supporting it. I wouldn't be asking questions. I'd be applauding, perhaps.

But in the absence of that explanation — and believe me, having read the minister's remarks, it is absent — I just have a very uncomfortable feeling that maybe my little analogy about this wolf in sheep's clothing and the wooden horse might have a little application here today. What we are talking about is a statute that could and will, I submit, have an incredible impact on health care in British Columbia, both in the management of the health care system and the delivery of the health care system.

Having given this tiny legal lesson…. I don't claim credit for all the wonderful research, by the way. I know the Attorney General would probably accept and acknowledge, of course, that every well-prepared lawyer has been backed up by somebody doing some wonderful research.

When you look at

section 2 of the act, where it talks about the guiding principles, it reasserts:

"In performing its responsibilities and exercising its powers under

section 5 (1) and in performing its responsibilities under

section 5 (2), in addition to taking into account any broad policy issues" — boy, there's a barn door wide open, if I ever saw one — "and other matters the commission considers relevant, the commission must" — now, this is the good news; the commission must, and that's mandatory — "have regard to the following principles, as set out in sections 5.2 to 5.7: (

a) the principles established under the

Again, I come back to my earlier remarks. You've got subsection (

a) where you jam all the old principles into one piece and then, to highlight the importance of sustainability, you give it its own subsection, subsection (b). Stands on its own, arguably. Equally important, perhaps, is the way a court will interpret it.

[1510]

It may come as a great surprise to the government…. People come into my office, and they complain about poor management, about privatization in the health care system. They complain about the government not putting the dollars where they should go. They complain about the solutions the government tries to impose. But you know, they don't question that it is the public's responsibility — through the province of British Columbia's government, through all of its taxpayers…. They don't question that it is its responsibility to sustain our medicare system. That's one thing they don't question.

So on one level, you've got to ask yourself: why state the obvious? Surely it is the government's responsibility to sustain medicare. That's pretty clear, I would have thought.

Section 5.2 goes on to say: "The plan is publicly funded and operated on an accountable basis." I'm not sure what that means — maybe gilding the lily a little more. I thought accountability was a pretty basic principle. Governments pass legislation. Opposition opposes. It gets implemented. You face the people in elections. People get to write, complain, speak to their Members of Parliament, speak to their MLAs, speak to their school trustees. That's the way the system works.

Again, what's the court going to do with that? How is the court going to interpret what that means?

The

section that gives me probably the greatest concern is when we finally get down to sustainability. You know what? The courts aren't going to pay any attention to that heading "Sustainability." But under

section 5.7, it says: "The plan is administered in a manner that is sustainable over the long term, providing for the health needs of the residents of British Columbia and assuring that annual health expenditures are within taxpayers' ability to pay without compromising the ability of the government to meet the health needs and other needs of current and future generations."

Now, I wouldn't wish a biblical plague on this province. No one would wish a biblical plague on this province, but let's just say we had the big disaster, some huge health care disaster. Is the government going to tell the people of British Columbia that there's a

[ Page 11877 ]

cap on what we're going to spend to save the population? Are they going to come back to this statute and say — and I'm reading the minister's words, because this is his bill: "…without compromising the ability of the government to meet the health needs and other needs of current and future generations"? Does this mean that we can't go into a deficit to meet a disaster?

I'm not old enough to have lived through the Second World War, but I've got to tell you that we all know that when duty called — when government had to step up to the plate, when the money had to be raised and the ships had to be built and the guns manufactured and the soldiers mobilized — nobody contemplated any limit on what was necessary to defend freedom and democracy.

That's what gives me real pause about this. If the government is telling us that they don't have the authority to control the spending of taxpayers' dollars now, I suggest they go back to basic poli-sci 101. They've got it. That's the way our system works.

You remember how the Clerk of the House always recites those wonderful terms when the budget has been passed. "In the name of Her Majesty, Her Majesty thanks her loyal representatives for their benevolence," I think is the phrase, to be precise. Well, their benevolence means the money. That's what we're talking about.

I'm very troubled by a statute that I think is going to potentially limit and allow the government to limit the spending of health care dollars in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. That's what I'm truly concerned about. When you balance it all off…. Looking at the language of

section 5.7, it talks about ensuring that "annual health expenditures are within taxpayers' ability to pay."

[1515]

The taxpayers' ability to pay isn't determined by government. You raise the tax rates; they pay more. You lower the tax rates; they pay less. That's the way you measure the ability of the taxpayer to pay. It's a determination the government makes.

It is the one great value that some may question but that at any given time no one would ever see destroyed. Indeed, we have a population to the south of us, as The Economist reports in last week's issue, that has now finally accepted that they should have a national health care system. They may argue about whether it's going to be single-payer or co-insured or all that stuff, but they've finally figured out that as the last major democracy on the face of the planet that doesn't really have a public health care system, they should have one.

The opposition takes anything that might have the effect of destroying or impairing public health care very, very seriously. When you look at these words — and I come back to my point about the

interpretation of language and what it means — this is exactly why the opposition is concerned. When it talks about the ability to pay, what exactly is a court going to do with that one? Is the court going to say that in any given budgetary year the government can't spend beyond that limit — that we've decided health care expenditures are capped, that this is as far as we go? It's quite possible, because courts are to interpret the language of the statute in a way that is seen to be remedial and that best ensures the attainments of its object.

So maybe in a given year a whole bunch of people are going to have to suffer because a court has interpreted the statute to mean that we've got to make sacrifices in this year because this very

section talks about "the ability of the government to meet the health needs and other needs of current and future generations."

On the environmental side, I think we all love that concept — you know, thinking out several generations and how it is going to impact them. If we open up a copper mine next to a major salmon-bearing river, do we consider the future generations of the salmon stock or the first nations, whose lifestyle depends on it, whose very existence depends on it? Do we look at the fishing industry? All of those are great questions, but I don't think that as legislators we'd wish to place ourselves in a position where we would compromise the immediate concerns of individuals who require health care today for the sake of a seventh or eighth generation.

But when the government uses the language the "needs of current and future generations," I would submit — based on legal principle, based on the way courts have interpreted the law — that that's exactly what the courts may do. And governments will be able to get away with it. In my view, governments will be able, essentially, to potentially ration health care.

The government says — and we've heard it from the Minister of Finance and others — that the rationale for all of this is because health care costs are eating up more and more of the budget every year. Gosh, it's about 44 percent, and by 2013 it might consume 71 percent, and all of that guff. And it is guff.

[1520]

The fact is that as a proportion of GDP, health care spending in B.C. was 7.4 percent in 2001-2002, and it decreased to 6.9 percent in 2006-2007. The fact is that as a percentage of GDP, we're spending less. So I have to ask myself why the government is bringing in Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, when in fact they're already, arguably — from the perspective which is the only true measure of the percentage of GDP — controlling health care expenditures overeffectively, I would say, from a fiscal perspective. In fact, we're spending less per GDP than we were five years ago.

[ Page 11878 ]

When you consider what this bill is supposed to do, and in the absence, as I said, of explanation, what exactly is the point then? Why are we adding sustainability? What does that mean?

We are not talking about a system that, with great respect to the government, is bankrupting the province of British Columbia. Last time I checked — thank heavens for great resource prices and a commodity boom and all of those good things and lots of construction — the budget's been in surplus for several years. So we know that it's not about that.

So what is it about?

Section 3 will provide that, when it comes to health authorities, in exercising his authority "the minister must have regard to the principles set out in sections 5.2 to 5.7 of the Medicare Protection Act ." What that section, that amendment, does is establish provincial standards for health services and specifying health services and level of health services to be provided in a region of the province.

I'm afraid that what this bill does is do anything but protect medicare. What this bill does is open a legal opportunity for the government — and a government to be supported by the courts — in fact, in attacking public health care in the province of British Columbia. I think, unfortunately, that my little Trojan horse and my wolf in sheep's clothing may, in fact, be far closer to the truth than anyone in this chamber would want to believe.

My concern is that this is exactly what the opposition smells it to be, something that is going to be harmful to the health care system in British Columbia, harmful to British Columbians. It is for that reason that the opposition will fight this bill, will continue to fight this bill and, if this bill passes, will continue to remind British Columbians, when the damaging impact of it is felt in their communities, that the government of British Columbia, the B.C. Liberals, brought this in over the opposition's objections, over an opposition that's doing the right thing for British Columbians and opposing this bill.

I am delighted to cede my place in this debate to other members who, I know, are anxious as well to speak out on behalf of the many British Columbians who respect and value public health care.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers.

Hon. G. Abbott: I rise to close the debate.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the minister's patience, because I know there are other members of the Legislature that also want to speak to this legislation this afternoon. It's second reading debate here.

I would suspect that next week we will have third reading debate that will be just as strenuous. Members will be able to look clause by clause and ask questions of the minister about his intentions of this bill, because he hasn't been absolutely clear on the reasons for why he's submitting this legislation. Nor is it even clear whether it's his idea to be presenting this legislation.

The timing is also very odd. There is absolutely no political support for this in this confederation of provinces. The national Minister of Health also has absolutely panned the idea to add a so-called sixth principle to medicare.

You know, of all the things that our nation, as divided as it is regionally and by founding nations and all of the context into making up Canada…. We search for national consensus on many things, and often we fail.

[1525]

The one area where this country of ours has managed to find a solid, enduring consensus in the modern context of our nation coming out of World War II is around the idea that we will build a system of health care that looks after every Canadian, no matter where they live. We put to that five core principles that have endured over four decades, that define and outline our commitment to that.

So important has that consensus been, so precious, because it is rare among other political constructs in the confederation of our country. So important is that consensus that indeed it's been commented on by those who observe Canada's political culture and those who study Canadians and their political behaviour. Indeed, the very identity of Canadians and of our country as a modern nation, has, in large part, a central relationship to medicare and to health care.

It's interesting, as we watch the American political process currently and listen to some of the things that are being debated by the two parties and by various candidates in this U.S. election season, that again Canada comes up an awful lot in that discussion. People look north to what we have built. People comment on what opportunities weren't taken when America had perhaps its best opportunity to produce a universal health care system, in the New Deal era in the 1930s, and the price of the failure to do that.

The price was that America did not take its place among civilized western nations that have a health care system that is universal and that is guaranteed to take care of its own citizens. What they have now is a private system that is among the most expensive, that drains the largest percentage of GDP of any nation among the OECD countries. They have a system that is not universal. In fact, it doesn't even cover 50 million Americans. It underinsures tens of millions more.

Some of the stories that are coming out of the United States about people who can't get treatment for serious chronic illnesses — cancer, among others — are heartbreaking. When you look at statistics around infant mortality…. It is because the Americans, our cousins to the south, did not take the opportunity to produce a system like Canada's. That is why this system we have is so worth defending, and that's why it has been defended for over four decades by governments of all political stripes in every province across Canada.

It's interesting. In seeking to make an amendment here to the Medicare Protection Act, the implication is that it would be done nationally. That's why the Minister of Health travelled to Ottawa to have that discussion with his counterpart. Nobody is talking about this. In fact, most political leaders have the same

[ Page 11879 ]

concerns that the opposition is voicing here today, that British Columbians are voicing.

They see the attempt to use what my colleague from Nanaimo who just spoke described as a very imprecise and much bandied-about term. The word "sustainability" can be taken to mean almost anything. They see that as a loaded term. Because it is a loaded term, it is a dangerous thing to enshrine as a so-called new principle.

The principle of comprehensiveness. Well, that could very easily, by a government that was seeking to delist services, cut back the comprehensiveness of health care, as this government has done in recent years…. We know a number of examples where that has occurred.

[1530]

This so-called principle of sustainability could collide and take precedence over the principle of comprehensiveness, which has basically been a living principle within medicare that has allowed us — as new technology, new therapies, new ways to treat, manage and prevent disease have become discovered by the research community, by the medical community — to change over time.

Don't forget that in the 1940s, when medicare was introduced in Saskatchewan, it was a very limited form of coverage at that time. It has become more comprehensive over time. It is helped, in part, because that is one of the five core principles within the legislation that governs our health care system. Introduce something called sustainability, which can easily have all kinds of abusive statistics attached to it, all kinds of fears, all kinds of fiscal objectives that run counter to providing good health care for Canadians, like cutting taxes….

Does that sound familiar to anyone — when those become greater political priorities than ensuring that people have health care services? I think even the government described it quite well, "When they need it and where they need it," at one point in time. That was a very good slogan, one that has not been delivered upon. That is why people are suspicious of both the timing and the intentions of Bill 21.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I think that in this bill the only thing that is being offered as to what motivates the government to be providing it is the doomsday scenario that they put out there in advance of the Conversation on Health. I think people will recall readily that the Minister of Health put out some numbers in a discussion paper that was supposed to focus, I suppose, in her words — maybe "skew" is others' definition — on what that conversation should focus on…. And that was the claim that health care costs in B.C. are hopelessly skyrocketing.

What the numbers that were put out and what the discussion was intended to be focused on was to look at very fearful scenarios where health care spending would grow over time as a portion of the provincial budget. Now, that has happened in both directions in recent decades. What is unique about that…. Because this is really the only manifestation we have of the rationale this government has to introduce sustainability here as a principle in this bill. It's to buttress this argument that it made several months ago in advance of the Conversation on Health. What it does is it abandons what have been more traditional indicators about health care.

I mentioned a few moments ago that in the United States one way to judge whether that system is effective is to look at who it covers. It doesn't cover every citizen. In fact, it excludes tens of millions.

The other way to measure whether the United States health care system is effective is to look at the percentage of gross domestic product that is consumed of that country's wealth every year. It is significantly — sometimes 50 percent — higher than Canada, than France, than the United Kingdom, than most western democracies that have a system closely designed and in accordance with our model, not theirs.

[1535]

The Economist , the World Health Organization, most health economists typically look at how a system performs and whether it is sustainable for its public by looking at what percentage of total wealth generated in the economy of that jurisdiction is consumed by health care. In the case of British Columbia, that has not changed significantly. In fact, it has decreased under this government, interestingly.

But here we have a government saying that health care is spiralling out of control and is unsustainable. Let's not forget, Madam Speaker. This is a government that during its tenure in office — and now, you know, we're at close to the end of a second term, a second mandate for this government — it has slid. British Columbians' spending in health care per capita has slid from second to seventh among Canadian provinces. The percentage of health care spending relative to GDP, as I mentioned, has decreased.

Here we have alarm bells and suspect legislation being put over to British Columbians to suggest that their system is unsustainable, that they can't potentially rely in future on their rights to have good care and coverage, to have health care in their communities, to have appropriate treatment for ailments they may have.

[ Page 11880 ]

I mean, the feature of our system is that we ensure against things that we can't control, that are beyond our destiny and that happen as life happens. That's what makes Canada a civilized nation — that we do take care of each other, of people who have ailments or serious accidents. Things happen to them, beyond their control, which need medical attention and care, sometimes very intensive levels of care. Sometimes it's related to aging itself, and very often it is, in our system, with the demographic trends being what they are in British Columbia and Canada.

The implication of this bill is the suggestion that British Columbians should somehow prepare themselves to accept that that notion — that central core understanding, that point of common identity in Canada and B.C. — may be coming to an end. Well, we don't agree with that.

That's why members on this side of the House have been expressing their concerns here during second reading. That's why we will make suggestions during committee stage of the bill, because the concern is real. The concern is real that over time this so-called principle being inserted into medicare, the Medicare Protection Act in British Columbia, will be taken as a justification and a rationale to curtail British Columbians' rights to have good health care, to again look at delisting more and more services.

It may be taken as the excuse, the entry point for further privatization of core elements of our health care system. We have seen unprecedented outsourcing and private intrusion and the introduction of for-profit services within health care under this government, more than any other government in Canadian history. Think of the services, the health care teams in our hospitals, whose employees now report to private employers. Think of the construction, operation and management of facilities themselves that in B.C. are now being planned, designed and financed by private interests. Some of them are pharmaceutical companies, who are putting together consortiums to make these bids.

It's odd that B.C. is doing this now, and in 2006 they made virtually every hospital project in B.C. absolutely required to be a public-private partnership. This is happening now in British Columbia, after the experience in other countries that suggests that that experiment has not made their health care systems more sustainable but, quite the opposite, has taken resources away from patients, from quality health care, and put it towards cost overruns, put it towards the costly expense of private borrowers, interest rate fluctuations, construction overruns and delays of coming on stream.

[1540]

The U.K. probably went further than any other country in Western Europe and in this hemisphere that has a system like ours in making that kind of procurement a central part of its health planning. They have warned the world not to do it.

I acknowledge that that was a Labour government in part — Conservative and Labour governments, successively — that did that. Those governments have said, "Look, we had tried to do things more sustainably by using this method of procurement," but they — their own corporation, Partnerships U.K.; their Auditor General; and their health care community — have also issued a warning to Canadians and to others: "Be careful what you're copying here."

They have also reformed within their own country. They have pulled back and said: "You know, when we build new regional facilities, in the north or the south of England or in any region of the country, the public sector comparator, the way that those projects and those health care facilities are going to be built is going to be public again." They have learned a very costly lesson that while they have an increased spending in the National Health Service, resources went to companies owning, managing and building facilities instead of to patient care. They have been unsatisfied with the results around the health of ordinary British people.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: The minister is trying to say something over there.

There's another attached question, I suppose, for discussion to this bill, which is around what changes under the cover, again, of using — abusing — the word "sustainability," what kind of system we might be moving towards should this government be permitted to make changes to billing or funding, for example.

We have had a system in B.C. that probably could use change. There have been a lot of criticisms over the years about how we pay physicians and how service is delivered, how costs are controlled within medicare and how reimbursements are supplied.

That is probably where this legislation will first be taken, as a new statute that will enable a government to claim it has a mandate to pursue something that British Columbians have said time and time again — and they said during this government's conversation on health care — that they don't want.

They don't want less health care. They want efficient, good health care that is available, that doesn't have onerous wait-lists and that is responsive. They want the government to exercise its role in stewarding, protecting and ensuring that the system that they have come to know and rely on and that we have built our country on in the modern post-war era…. They want that to continue. I think the suggestion in this legislation….

Interjection.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: Visiting us today from the city of Surrey in the riding of Surrey–Panorama Ridge are 27 grade 4 students from W.E. Kinvig School. They're accompanied by their teacher. I will ask the members to make them feel welcome.

[ Page 11881 ]

Debate Continued

R. Fleming: I want to go back to the government's credibility and why people are suspicious of the intent of this legislation, or the content of the bill.

[1545]

There have been a number of people who worked in health care and who have lived with the consequences of Bill 29 — legislation this government brought in, in its last term of office — which abrogated written agreements and broke contracts with tens of thousands of health care workers. That was after the government had said in the election that under no circumstances would it dishonour written agreements of the government.

This has been internationally condemned on several occasions by the International Labour Organization. It has been a saga that has taken many twists and turns along the way, and recently the court rulings obligated the minister to withdraw core sections of that legislation.

You know, if this government is asking ordinary people in my constituency to trust them that they have good intentions in this legislation, that this sixth principle is really in their interests and in the interests of their families…. I think of a lot of people who are experiencing the health care system right now feel that it has been non-responsive to their issues. I think back to Bill 29, because that really was a tragic and shocking episode in B.C.'s history and in this government's legacy.

In my constituency I talked to people who lost homes. They experienced family breakups. They had incredible mental health stresses. Some of them who were dismissed summarily from their jobs became users of the mental health care system.

You know, there were some watchdogs within the health care system — including our own region's chief medical officer, Dr. Richard Stanwick — who said: "Don't do this. By disrespecting and summarily dismissing tens of thousands of health care workers, you will actually create negative demand on your own health care system."

That's exactly what happened. People's health actually declined — people who lived in this community and worked in the health care system. That's a fairly significant

section of any constituency in terms of the percentage of their workforce. And that happened.

I think of what this government can mean in terms of sustainability, in terms of an experience the capital region is having with the Royal Jubilee Hospital. In 2001 one of the first things this government did was bring in a capital freeze for health care. Then they said: "Oh, health authorities can fund capital by finding savings within the health care system." In other words, by squeezing operations, you could keep some of that money and use….

I mean, what a way to do capital planning. Not only is it unsound from an accounting perspective; it has seriously challenged the sustainability of people's reliance and interest in having good health care. There was a capital freeze in 2001, and that put that Royal Jubilee intake tower on hold, where it remained for six long years.

When we were going to build a new intake tower in 2001-2002, approximately, on the capital schedule, it was going to be a facility in excess of 600 beds. After five years of waiting and after the government announced in 2006 that any capital construction project in B.C. worth over $20 million must be a public-private partnership, today the Royal Jubilee intake tower will have less than 500 beds.

Think of the population growth. Think of the aging society we've had. We've had serious increases in demand on health care services, and this is a regional facility for the entire Island, which begs another question. It's unrelated, and I won't get too far into it, but it begs the question as to why local taxpayers pay 40 percent of that capital project when in Metro Vancouver they don't pay anything.

When residents from Campbell River, or others, come down and use the cancer…. We welcome those patients to come. We welcome….

Interjections.

R. Fleming: The government pays 100 percent for some capital projects in the Lower Mainland. I know that the minister for the convention centre just spoke up in favour of that, because he seems to have no problem funding all kinds of billion-dollar projects in the Lower Mainland, even though he represents an Island constituency. He doesn't seem to find much for capital projects closer to his own constituents.

[1550]

But that's a question. Less than 500 beds now at Royal Jubilee for that intake tower. Rising costs — now the project is over $325 million. Just think of the costs of the delay so far, for six years, by having the capital policies for health care that the government did. Think of the costs that accumulated during that time. That is exactly why the unsustainable management practices of this government have created the situation and the substandard project that we're going to have — the underbuilt project, the overcosted project that we are going to pay for at the Royal Jubilee Hospital.

It's interesting the way that the federal Health Minister received this idea. They were asked to come on board by this government. The Premier said, "This is a great idea. I've had it for many years" — or maybe the minister said it on his behalf — and asked the federal Health Minister to open that debate nationally. You know what he said? He said: "No way. We have a national consensus on medicare. Canada has agreement on this. All of the provinces do. Not interested." He was interested in seeing innovations, in seeing funds, which this government has benefited from following the Romanow report, to bring in health care transfers that were unheard of in the 1990s.

Remember the 1990s? I know this is the favourite topic of members opposite. Remember the federal transfer cuts to health care? Remember the federal cuts to transfer payments? They were the official opposition then, and they cheered it. They said: "Great. We'll make do with less." They ran in 1996 and said: "We'll have a

[ Page 11882 ]

health care system that is capped." They lost that election.

Now they're saying to British Columbians in Bill 21 that we're going to put a cap, in the name of sustainability, on health care for British Columbians. They will reject that again. They did before. They've loved the largesse from the federal government, thanks to Roy Romanow and even thanks to Paul Martin.

I'll give credit to a Liberal here, who rebalanced and implemented some of the recommendations of that report. That was talking about sustainability. That was talking about the suitability of federal and provincial joint contributions to having a world-class health care system. We've had billions of extra dollars coming to B.C. every year for the past several years. That opposition, now government, urged Ottawa to cut health care spending and said: "We have to put a cap on it."

Now they're bringing that concept back, which British Columbians rejected time and time again, under a new guise, under an obscure, almost trendy green cover. Sustainability apparently covers every concept of public policy in the gamut now. They're trying to sneak it in as a sixth principle for the Medicare Protection Act, which will, as I said earlier, absolutely contradict and put at risk some of the five core principles of medicare.

It will put into question…. Maybe it will be the subject of costly court

interpretations of what "comprehensiveness" means. Maybe it will limit — and this government probably hopes it will — the ability to expand and provide new services that save lives or improve quality of life for British Columbians.

Maybe it will allow them to say, "Universality is too expensive now, and we should modify that concept," or that portability is different. We're moving out of step with other provinces. Portability between provinces has been a core concept of medicare. Maybe this is the first step in that direction — that we are declaring ourselves out of step with the rest of Confederation. Thank you for the time to speak against this.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to add my concerns to the debate on Bill 21, which should be something that the public of British Columbia has high on their mind, because I think it is an attempt — in one way or another, in one stealthy form or another — to change what we have come to know, understand, respect and admire about our own health care system here in Canada.

[1555]

It's a debate about Canadian values, values that have been nurtured and developed over generations. Our forefathers, and the people who were here first, understood the need for looking after each other and for making sure that we were all healthy and that we benefited from other peoples' health.

Here we have a bill, Bill 21, which on the face of it might sound like nice flowery words. When you look any further into it, you realize that it appears to be an attempt to reduce and undermine the principles that have been at the basis, the foundation, of our health care system here in Canada.

I speak about Canadian values, because that's one thing that is so wonderful about the Canadian health care system. Our health care system is something that is universal — if I live in Nova Scotia, if I live here or if I live in the Northwest Territories.

I believe that what we have here in Bill 21…. By the addition of a word, we have a reduction of the effectiveness of a system. By the addition of a word that most people would say is a positive-sounding word, we have a stealthy attempt to actually reduce the impact of the rest of the legislation that allows us to enjoy some of the best health care, in the OECD anyway.

I'm worried about this act. I'm worried about what it's doing and the stealth with which it has been presented to the people of British Columbia, the paucity of answers, the lack of information, the twisting of words or the hiding from questions about this act, which cause me to be even more suspicious of the true intent of government by introducing legislation to amend medicare protection.

I'm concerned, and I believe and I think the general public also believes that it has been introduced because government has created this fear that what we have — and what we've provided to our children and what our grandparents have worked hard to ensure we had — was in some way at risk. In other words, when they sell fear that we can't continue with what we're doing and they use numbers that are false or made up or imagined, people will be fearful. If they are fearmongers, people will purchase fear.

I want to say that it is only one side of this House that's selling the fear. The other side of the House is saying: "We know what you're concerned about."

We're hoping that in this House we'll have an opportunity to perhaps change what are otherwise minds that are closed like steel traps. What we want to do is introduce, perhaps, some doubt into the minds of some of the members opposite that this might be a good idea.

[1600]

[ Page 11883 ]

My concern, of course, after today, with respect to the introduction of legislation, is that maybe cabinet doesn't really know what's in this bill. Maybe they signed off on it. The Premier signed off on it. Everybody they "consulted with" — in quotation marks, of course — maybe agreed with it, so they just signed off on it and went ahead with it.

Well, my opportunity to perhaps illustrate to those members of government who may not have been paying attention to this bill — the way they weren't paying attention to the aboriginal authorities act or other bills that have slipped through here or have fallen off the desk at the end of a session….

Maybe my opportunity to talk to the government here in this chamber will give them an opportunity to reflect and question whether maybe they should have abandoned this at the last minute, like they did the legislation yesterday. Wouldn't that have been a good opportunity to raise our hands in thanks to government? But no, they've decided to continue it. They've decided to push forward with what is being interpreted by many, and rightfully so, as the beginning of an attack on medicare.

It's the beginning of what they would like to see — the infringement or the gradual dissolution of what we have had in this province, in this country. I'm speaking about Canadian values — values that people in other provinces will understand during this debate, should they be interested in what's happening here on the west coast.

I believe that people in this province will look at this legislation and say: "Who thought this up? Who put the mushiest words into legislation? Shouldn't legislation be about defining and being precise and allowing people to interpret and understand this?" This is what we call a mushy word. It's a word that has a meaning for one person that is entirely different for another person.

We don't know, as legislators…. We aren't being told by the minister, who may have had some input in the writing of this, may — I might add — have had some input in the writing of this act…. He signed off on it, though, just like he signed off on the other legislation, which was thrown out the window at the last minute, luckily. That would have been a good idea for this too. Here we have an opportunity to maybe enlighten some of the members of government that they might have made a mistake.

Are they representing the values of the people in their communities when they say that they want to do something that will interfere with the universality of health care? Are they signing off on a new term to be added to the act that will potentially reduce the universality of medicare? Do they know that? Do the people in their communities realize that? And even if they have a question, what is the government intending with this legislation? What is their intention?

Maybe they're curious. Maybe they think these guys are sort of nice. You know, they don't growl at you in the supermarket or anything, but even if they're asked…. Oh, I'm saying that they don't growl at you in the supermarket, but I shouldn't presume, actually.

However, should there be a nice relationship with a particular member of the Legislative Assembly in some other part of this province and you approached them and said: "What's this Bill 21? What's this sustainability thing? It sounds good. Is it really that good?" "Trust us; we know it's good. Trust us. It just doesn't mean really anything. We didn't really have to do it in the first place, you know. That's how important it is. So don't worry. Go back to the canned foods section, and I'm just going to continue on here with the pork."

Hon. G. Abbott: My stomach is growling, listening to this description.

N. Simons: I'm glad I'm making the minister hungry. However, that is not my intention. My intention in this House is to explain as best I can to members in this House, as well as to people at home, that what we are debating in this House is legislation that is going to impact on our understanding of the health care system as it exists.

The introduction of sustainability came out of thin air, much like a lot of their legislation, quite frankly. But in this particular case, it's a little bit more…. Is the word insidious? Because it's potentially problematic, and we're not even able to find out how problematic it is. Is this one of those "Trust us, we know best"?

[1605]

Well, they knew best when they introduced other legislation which, thankfully, has disappeared. They knew best with Bill 29 as well. The courts gave them a little slap on the hand on that, but that slap on the hand was nothing compared to the lost jobs in this province and the kids whose parents weren't earning the income that they previously had and were not able to do what they used to be able to do because their parent might have had a good job in the health care system. That was thrown out. That was Bill 29, another bad idea.

So we know from the history of this government's actions that so much of their legislation is destructive. It's not constructive; it's destructive. So in this particular case when we have a bill…. It makes it worse that it's gilded in this fancy kind of terminology of sustainability. But what it really is, is perhaps a thin edge of the wedge. Perhaps it gives the minister or the cabinet some more input into how we can reduce the services to British Columbians when it comes to medicare.

I'd like to know, because people in my community want to know if this is going to make it more likely that we're going to be able to maintain a healthy system. I'd say that no, it isn't. We shouldn't be buying the fearmongering. We shouldn't be purchasing the fearmonger's wares, which is fear, because we know better.

We know they use numbers like 71 percent of the budget in 2007, or '17 I think, and we know that's not true. Who is saying that kind of number? Why were they saying that number? Why were they spreading that around to people in this province, saying that unless we do something about medicare, we're all in trouble?

Then they conjure up this idea to go travelling across the province to talk to people. Well, in this beautiful province they talked to a few thousand people,

[ Page 11884 ]

none of whom were saying: "Introduce another pillar into the Medicare Protection Act." Nobody was saying that, but somehow those conversations justified this action. Somehow they connected two dots that were unrelated, put them together, and they had a line. Their line was, "We need to put sustainability into the act," and they don't. They don't need to, and the fact that they want to do it anyway only heightens my concern.

The cost of health care is something that we as British Columbians understand is what contributes to the quality of life that we have here in British Columbia. Businesses are by far, or in many cases, attracted to British Columbia because of the strong social supports that we have enjoyed.

We've seen the dissolution of so many social programs, and we see such evidence of it on the streets of our cities and even in our rural communities. You know, the destructive potential…. We need to look at this act and say: "Well, if you can imagine a less benevolent government being in power, how would they interpret sustainability?" That's the perspective that we as legislators are required to take in this Legislature. We're supposed to look at the long-term impacts of the legislative changes, not just how we're going to use it.

It causes me concern, as well, that this kind of issue is sometimes difficult for the general public to pay a lot of attention to. It may not be on the page of the newspaper that they usually read, but every single person in the province should be concerned because of the impact of this legislation. We should be trying to make sure that the legislation we pass is good legislation.

[1610]

I just have to say that this is bad legislation because it's not clear. It's bad legislation because it doesn't tell us what it's going to do. It's bad legislation because not only does it not tell us what it's going to do, but the minister who may have had some

part in writing it doesn't know what it's going to do. He hasn't been telling us what it's going to do.

It's our job to ask the questions. Apparently, it's not his job to answer. My colleagues on this side of the House have been asking questions about this. We haven't been getting any answers.

So yes, we're suspicious, and we should be because we've seen their history. We've seen what they've done in other areas. We've seen what they've done to other social programs, and we know the impact they've had in other areas. But we also know that their way of writing legislation, the internal mechanism which they use to write legislation, is faulty.

We saw evidence of that yesterday. We saw evidence of legislation, five minutes before it got to the floor, being thrown out. Everybody signed off on it. Everybody thought it was great. Everybody nodded, or whatever they did, to say: "Yeah, go ahead." Put a checkmark at the top right corner of the front page.

Take a look deeper. Find out if maybe this is something that you don't even know how to define yourselves. If you're going to write a piece of legislation, it should have some sort of goal clearly stated. But this doesn't, so we have to make sure.

We realize that they can use this legislation. They can use it as a tool that will impact the community in a negative way. As a colleague of mine likes to say: "You can use a hammer to build a house or to tear one down." Well, in legislation like this,