2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Community Services Labour Relations Act (Bill 61)

Hon. G. Collins

Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 64)

Hon. J. Reid

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 66)

Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Nurses in B.C.

R. Hawes

Korean Heritage Day

H. Bloy

Chinese Heritage Day

P. Wong

Oral Questions

Funding for child protection services

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Campbell

Funding for child protection and community living services

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Campbell

Assistance for leaky-condo owners

T. Bhullar

Hon. G. Abbott

Police force integration in lower mainland

J. Nuraney

Hon. R. Coleman

Tabling Documents

Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, year ended December 31, 2002

Third Reading of Bills

Industry Training Authority Act (Bill 34)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Kwan

K. Manhas

[ Page 6773 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Mr.

Speaker: I would like to welcome a group of 25 public servants from various

ministries who are joining us in the gallery this afternoon. These guests are

attending the parliamentary procedure workshop for public service sessions

today. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

[1405]

Hon. J.

Murray: I would like to recognize today in the public gallery

representatives from the Greater Victoria Bike to Work Society. The member for

Victoria-Hillside has been a strong supporter of the society's work over the

years, and today she and I had a chance to join society members and some of the

bike-to-work team leaders to promote commuter cycling.

Victoria, I

understand, is now the number one city in Canada for commuter cyclists. This is

a positive thing in terms of environment but also in terms of people's health,

so I'm a very strong supporter of Bike to Work Week. It's May 26 to June 1. Last

year Victoria's Bike to Work Week campaign drew 304 teams. As of today they have

200 teams registered, and they are aiming to beat last year and have more than

304. I encourage everyone to consider the benefits of bicycling and cycle

commuting.

I would

like the House to please recognize president, David Cubberly; vice-president,

Rob Wickson; coordinator, Linda Saunders; Tom Sutton and Joan McIntosh who have

joined us in the House today. Please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Today I'd like to recognize special visitors from the United

Kingdom who are in the gallery with us. His Excellency Sir Andrew Burns, the

high commissioner for the United Kingdom, is with us. Sir Andrew is accompanied

by James Rawlinson, the British consul general in Vancouver.

Although

the high commissioner is nearing the completion of his posting in Canada, we

hope he'll make many return visits to this great Pacific province. He will

always be welcome. I want to thank the high commissioner for the work that he's

done on behalf of the United Kingdom in building stronger relationships with

British Columbia, and I know that this Legislature would like to wish him well

in the future.

MacPhail: I join with the Premier in wishing the high commissioner the best.

I'm very

much looking forward to celebrating with all of my colleagues a great meal,

because it's Asian Heritage Month. I see the gallery is full of citizens of

Asian heritage coming and joining us. I can hardly wait to sit and chow down and

celebrate, which is only one part of celebrating Asian heritage as well. I am

delighted to join with my colleagues throughout the House to welcome all guests

here to celebrate with us Asian Heritage Month.

Hon. G.

Campbell: My second introduction today marks a very important milestone in

scientific research for British Columbia. Visiting the precinct today is Dr.

Marco Marra of the B.C. Cancer Agency research centre and the director of B.C.'s

Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre.

As I'm sure

members of the House will know — and British Columbians, I know, take great

pride in this — Dr. Marra is the head of the B.C. cancer team which was the

first in the world to sequence the coronavirus genome which was widely believed

to be, indeed, the cause of SARS.

Dr. Marra

was born in Fort St. John, British Columbia, and returned to British Columbia

from the U.S. to work with the late Dr. Michael Smith at UBC. Dr. Marra is

joined by the president and vice-president of Genome B.C., Dr. Alan Winter and

Mr. Bruce Schmidt. Genome B.C. is in Victoria to co-host a caucus briefing.

I know that

all British Columbians take pride in the work they've done, and we look forward

to the discoveries of the future. Please make them welcome.

Hon. L.

Stephens: In the precincts today we have 60 visitors — grade 6 students

and five adults from Langley Fundamental School in my constituency. They're

accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Merkel. Would the House please make them

welcome.

J. Les: In

the gallery today we are joined by two members of the communications team with

the Fraser health authority. They are Sydney Tomchenko and David Plug. Would the

House please make them welcome.

Hon. C.

Hansen: There's a gentleman in the gallery today who's very important to my

office, and that's because he's the father of my ministerial assistant, Kim

Chan. I hope everyone will welcome Mr. Douglas Chan.

[1410]

J. Kwan:

I join with my colleagues to welcome the many community leaders who are here to

celebrate Asian Heritage Month. In addition, I would also like to introduce

Aaron Jasper, who is a community activist who believes in equality and social

justice, and he's in the gallery today. Would the House please welcome all these

guests.

Chong: In keeping with the welcomes of the people who are here to celebrate

Asian Heritage Month, there are a number of representatives from a number of the

associations in Vancouver here in Victoria. While I can't name them all, I would

like to list off the various organizations that they represent. We have the

Vancouver Chinatown Business Improvement Association

[ Page 6774 ]

Society, Lees Association of Vancouver, Canadian Chinese Business Development

Association, Vancouver Chinatown Merchants Association, Chinese Benevolent

Association of Vancouver, Chinese Benevolent Association of Canada, Chinese

Consolidated Benevolent Association of Victoria, Chin Wing Chun Tong Society,

Richmond Asia Pacific Business Association, Sunbrite Business Association, Tsung

Tsin Association of Vancouver, Association of Chinese Canadian Professionals,

Teo Chew Society of Vancouver, Chius Benevolent Association, Soo Yuen Society,

Lower Mainland Grocers Association and Toi Shan Benevolent Association. I know

they're either in the precincts or they could be having a tour of the buildings.

I would hope all members here make them welcome.

Manhas: I'd like to introduce to the House today two people who are very

important in my life. With us in the gallery are my parents, Karm and Devi

Manhas. This is the first time since I've been elected that I've had the honour

of introducing them to the House. I would like to just say how much I appreciate

all the support that they've been to me. I'd like the House to please join me in

giving them a very warm welcome.

R. Lee:

Today we have many visitors to the House from the Chinese Canadian communities

to celebrate the Chinese heritage day. Some are from the Chinese news media. We

have Woody Lo, Bill Kong, Samson Wong from Fairchild TV, Michael Liu, Kenneth

Fung from Ming Pao Daily News , Jane Zhang, Frank Huang from Global

Chinese Press , Richard Qun Li from Dawa Business Press and also Rina

Ho from China Journal Canada .

We also

have a few performers today for the celebration: Mr. Chai Man Cheng and Mrs.

Chuen Ying Cheng, plus two more performers, and also Mr. Yukman Lai. He's a

great Chinese calligrapher. Later the members can ask him to write their name in

Chinese. You are very welcome to Also, Mrs. Li Ying Wang is going to sing a few

Italian songs too. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Orr:

I want to also join the minister in welcoming some Bike To Work Week members in

the House, particularly one who is actually a good friend, Rob Wickson, who used

to be a past president of the chamber of commerce. We have a habit in the Bike

To Work Week where the minister, who took off on her fabulous bike…. But we

also do it by car. We like to see who gets there first. And guess who got there

first. The car.

R. Stewart:

It's my pleasure to introduce Derek Morton and Susan House from the Catholic

Health Association of B.C. These folks came and spoke with a number of members

today about the vital role of denominational health in British Columbia's health

care system. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1415]

Eight or

nine years ago I was president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C.

Things have improved a lot since then for the association — well, for the home

building industry, if not for me. I'm pleased to introduce M.J. Whitemarsh, Pat

Caporale and Peter Schultz of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C.,

who are here to discuss with us continuing to work with our government on trades

training.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 100 grade 4 students visiting

the parliament buildings from Coyote Creek School in my constituency of

Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers Mr. Kai Chan, Mrs. Jill

Marsden, Miss Marianne Smith and Mr. Marcus Berndt, as well as 31 parent

volunteers who have taken time out of their busy

schedule to accompany these

students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

MacPhail: I am delighted, and I know many of my colleagues who were elected

at the same time as I was in 1999 will welcome Frank Garden, who is a former MLA

with those of us who were here from 1991 to 1996. He is here today. He is

accompanied by his son who I know as Kenny but wants to be introduced as Ken. So

would the House please make them welcome.

Weisbeck: On behalf of my colleague from Kelowna-Mission. There are a number

of students from the Kelowna Christian School in the precinct somewhere — 35

students along with Mr. B. MacArthur, their teacher. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

COMMUNITY SERVICES

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Community Services Labour Relations Act.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 61, the Community Services

Labour Relations Act. Last October government appointed a public administrator

for the Community Social Services Employers Association. Part of his mandate was

to recommend ways in which the bargaining structure in the community services

sector could be modernized. Over the last six months the administrator has

engaged in extensive consultations with employers and unions to ensure that

community services labour relations structures are streamlined and reflect

service delivery structures. This legislation puts in place the necessary legal

structure to fulfil that task.

This act

deems the Community Social Services Employers Association to be the sole

accredited bargain-

[ Page 6775 ]

ing agent with the exclusive authority to bargain on behalf of unionized

agencies in the sector and to bind them to a collective agreement. The act

establishes a total of three bargaining units, one for each of the three broad

service areas in the sector. These service areas are community living,

aboriginal services and the general category, general services, covering such

areas as child and family services, women's services and other services. Cabinet

will have the ability to consolidate these bargaining units into a single unit

if it is deemed to be a more effective structure.

The

legislation creates an association of unions and the requirement that all unions

representing employees in the sector belong to that association. The new

association of unions will have 30 days from when this act comes into force to

agree to the articles of association. If they're unable to agree to the articles

within this time frame, this legislation provides that the Labour Relations

Board may determine the articles of association within the subsequent 30 days.

The act

ensures that collective agreements cannot prevent agencies from using volunteers

so long as the use of volunteers does not result in the layoff of an employee.

The act also clarifies the status of employees, family home providers,

contractors and government for the purposes of collective bargaining and labour

relations. This legislation will modernize and streamline social service labour

relations, freeing up resources for agencies to concentrate on the work they do

best — caring for society's most vulnerable.

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 61

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

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

[1420]

TRANSPORTATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. J.

Reid presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. J.

Reid: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

Reid: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 64, the Transportation Statutes

Amendment Act, 2003. This bill addresses a number of transportation-related

priorities. Consistent with our new-era commitment to cut the regulatory burden

and red tape by one-third within three years and revitalize our economy, this

bill amends the Railway Act to remove 162 unnecessary or outdated regulatory

requirements and to eliminate red tape.

The Railway

Act was largely written and enacted in the early 1900s. Over time many

provisions of the act have fallen into disuse, and railways are no longer

subject to provisions that either are out of date or constitute an unwarranted

degree of regulation in today's highly competitive commercial transportation

environment.

The act

also repeals the Riverbank Protection Act, which will eliminate an additional 66

obsolete requirements. The repeal of this act will not remove dike protection

rights. Those rights are protected under the Dike Maintenance Act and the

Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is

now responsible for the management of dike repair.

A third

change is to the Highway Act. It's to exempt snowmobile trails from being

considered as public highways. This amendment assists the Ministry of

Sustainable Resource Management's work with the B.C. Snowmobile Federation to

develop a back-country snowmobile tourism industry. This exemption is similar to

the one previously provided to the Trans Canada Trail and will allow all

previously created snowmobile trails protection against being defined as a

public highway in the future.

We are also

proposing amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act to

facilitate the addition of the proposed Richmond airport–Vancouver rapid

transit project into the GVTA's existing strategic transportation plan.

Finally,

the bill proposes changes to the Transportation Investment Act, the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways Act and the Weed Control Act to facilitate a

Coquihalla Highway long-term services and operations agreement. These amendments

will ensure that a new operator has the authority to collect and retain toll

revenues and will facilitate the implementation of a frequent traveller pass.

They will also ensure that the operator has the necessary authority and

responsibility for weed control on the right-of-way.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 64

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

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

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I am pleased to introduce Bill 66, which amends the following

statutes: Barbers Act, Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, Commercial Trans-

[ Page 6776 ]

port Act, Correction Act, Cosmetologists Act, Election Act, Estate

Administration Act, Expropriation Act, Family Relations Act, Forest Act, Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act,

Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, Liquor Control and Licensing Act,

Lobbyists Registration Act, Motor Vehicle Act, Museum Act, Offence Act, Patients

Property Act, Public Guardian and Trustee Act, Supreme Court Act and Trustee

Act. Members will have to hold their suspense until second reading, when I will

elaborate on the nature of these amendments.

Mr.

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 66

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

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

[1425]

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

NURSES IN B.C.

Hawes: Mr. Speaker, May 12 to 18 is National Nursing Week. This is the week

that we all pause to reflect on the critical role that nurses play in delivering

a health care system that works for all of us.

Every

second of every day throughout our province, British Columbians depend on the

care, compassion and advocacy provided by our nurses. Whether it be in hospital

emergency rooms, care homes, schools or private residences, these dedicated men

and women ease the pain and suffering that patients and their families often

face. They play a critical role in preventative care. In an emergency, nurses

have always answered the call with extreme bravery, such as with the recent

challenge of SARS.

We know

there's a growing nursing shortage, and that's why our government has taken

action and continues to address this. I'm proud to say that our government has

both recognized the value of nurses and responded positively to nursing

shortages. We have given a 22 percent pay increase to nurses, making them among

the most highly compensated in Canada. Over the past two years we have spent $42

million towards a nursing strategy, $15 million of that on equipment such as

patient lifts and hospital beds to reduce the number of nurses' injuries.

This year

we've added 547 new seats, totalling 813 nursing seats added in educational

institutes in B.C. over the last three years. We've offered student loan

forgiveness to nurses locating in areas of critical shortage. We're helping

non-practising RNs to recertify, finding roles for injured RNs, providing a

nurse grant program and promoting skill upgrades, and — probably the most

exciting — we've added 30 seats for nurse practitioners.

With the

legislation introduced in the House yesterday, this would allow for the

development of regulations for this new program in nursing through the

Registered Nurses Association of B.C. In short, this government understands the

value of nurses, strongly supports May 12-15 as Nurses' Week and completely

endorses its theme "Nursing: at the heart of health care."

KOREAN HERITAGE DAY

H. Bloy:

I rise today in the House to invite my colleagues to take

part in the rich

cultural diversity of British Columbia. On May 31 people throughout the lower

mainland of British Columbia will come together to celebrate Korean Heritage Day

at the Plaza of Nations. The Korean community is a huge part of my riding. There

are hundreds of small businesses that virtually drive the economy of Burquitlam.

Koreans, new and old, have built their lives in the thriving community and are

proud of their achievements.

On May 31

all Koreans from around B.C. will come together to celebrate their cultural

heritage and to share stories of how B.C. has helped shape their lives. The day

itself will be exciting and full of events — traditional Korean drum and mask

dance, performers — and traditional Korean instrumental music performances

will play as the crowds view traditional Korean activities. Of course, there

will be great Korean food that I enjoy when I am in the Burquitlam riding. I

know there will be great food at this event. There'll be arts and crafts and

games to entertain young and old alike.

All along

North Road in my riding of Burquitlam, you can see the contributions of the

Korean community everywhere you look. They have a cultural heritage that is tied

to their origins, but they also have a lasting legacy in their new home of

British Columbia.

This year

marks the fortieth anniversary of diplomatic relations between Korea and Canada.

I am happy to rise today and voice my support for Korean Heritage Day and

encourage my colleagues to do the same.

CHINESE HERITAGE DAY

P. Wong:

Today is a very special day. My hon. colleagues the members for Burnaby North

and for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and I have been in contact with the leaders of the

B.C. Chinese community to organize a celebration of Asian heritage. B.C. is home

to a significant population of Asian immigrants. There are over 350,000 Chinese

Canadians living in B.C. and more than one million throughout Canada.

Those of us

that live in the lower mainland and Victoria benefit from Asian cultural

influence on a daily basis, where there is shopping, recreation, art, literature

and all the other aspects of our lives. In the workplace Chinese immigrants

contribute immensely to the B.C. economy. They are hard-working and dedicated

and lend their considerable talents and expertise to every field of human

endeavour. The unique thing about this influence is that it has spanned nearly

5,000 years.

[1430]

The Chinese

are renowned throughout the world and throughout history as innovators, thinkers

and

[ Page 6777 ]

artists. Chinese language, arts, poetry and traditions have survived and

flourished for millennia. It's for this reason that we organized a Chinese

heritage day. Through you, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues and I would like to

invite all MLAs and Legislature staff to join us in today's celebration and to

enjoy the displays of music, calligraphy, dancing and arts as well as the

sampling of traditional Chinese food and delicacies.

We are

honoured to be joined today by many special guests from the Chinese community,

including the consul general of the People's Republic of China and several

entertainers and artisans. It's well known that the government of British

Columbia is committed to expanding our economic and cultural ties to Asia. This

is wise for many reasons, not the least of which is B.C.'s close geographic

proximity to Asia, the untapped Chinese market for B.C. exporters and the strong

cultural ties between our two nations.

I would

encourage all of our colleagues and staff to attend today's celebration and to

learn more about the Chinese culture.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR

CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

MacPhail: In 1997 the Premier used a report of the child advocate to attack

the government for not spending enough on child protection. Today, of course,

the Premier doesn't have to care what the child advocate thinks, because he has

eliminated her job.

Just how

many children will suffer as a result of that cut alone will never be known. We

do know that as a result of this government's budget cuts, supported by every

Liberal MLA in this House — the member for Saanich South, the member for

Hillside, the member for Prince George — by next year there will be $200

million less for children and families than in 1997, the year the Premier made

those remarks.

Will the

Premier admit that as a result of his cuts, he is putting child protection at

serious risk? Will he live up to his promise and restore the funding he has cut,

with the support of every single Liberal MLA, that used to protect children at

risk?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I appreciate the question. First, I want the member opposite to

know that this government's first and foremost responsibility and our

obligation, which we intend to meet, is to protect children in British Columbia.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. G.

Campbell: The previous government, as you'll know, actually had six separate

Ministers of Children and Family Development over a five-year period. We wanted

to bring in both stability and programs that would meets the needs of children

and that would keep children in their families as long as possible.

Professionally, as you know, that is the best thing for children. We want to

make sure that what we are doing works in the best interests of children, that

children are protected, that we work with professionals and that we deliver

those services in the most cost-effective way possible. We will continue to do

that.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Isn't it funny the difference six years makes in terms of what

this Premier now thinks is important? When the Premier was the Leader of the

Opposition, he agreed with the child advocate and said that the government

should spend more money. He has cut $200 million from the funding that was in

place in 1997.

Let me

quote the Premier then. He said: "Big changes cost money if we're going to

protect kids." Yesterday Craig Meredith, the executive director of the

Federation of Child and Family Services, echoed that sentiment, saying there was

no way the government could make the cuts they're contemplating while going

through a massive reorganization. In 1997 big changes cost money. Now there is

$200 million less than existed in that very year.

Will the

Premier acknowledge today that big changes do cost money — as he once told

this House over and over — and restore the cuts he's made to the Ministry of

Children and Family Development's budget for child protection?

[1435]

Hon. G.

Campbell: There is no question that we had to make changes in the way the

last government dealt with children. We wanted to keep children in their

families. We wanted to give social workers the power they needed to provide the

professional advice and assistance to families that was required. We want to be

sure that children are protected. We want to work with regional agencies in

delivering those services in the most cost-effective way possible. We wanted to,

in fact, remove the bureaucratic and administrative burden that got in the way

of protecting children.

That's what

we intend to do. I want the member opposite to know this — that this

government's first and most critical concerns are the protection and safety of

children in the province and the strengthening of families in British Columbia.

That's our goal, that's our objective, and we're going to do everything we need

to meet it.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: I would actually say that it's probably a priority far behind the

tax cuts this Premier gave on

[ Page 6778 ]

day one to his rich friends. That was the first priority of this Premier, and

look how that's failed.

Here's a

whole litany of quotes from this Premier when he was in opposition. Let me

remind the Premier, again, what he told this House as Leader of the Opposition.

He said this. He said that he would reach out to all members of the House, to

all members of the child care community, to all citizens of British Columbia who

want to help in solving this problem. Now that he's Premier…. [Applause.]

As always,

the Liberals are completely wrong in praising this Premier. Now that he's

Premier, the government is conducting a review of the child protection budget

behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny and without the input of any

front-line workers and the families they support.

British

Columbians want to know that it wasn't just politically convenient for him to

make the promises that he did. Will he commit today to a review process that

will involve the public and the front-line child protection workers in a public

and transparent way, like he promised when he was in opposition? Will he also

commit that his government will provide the funding those experts say is

necessary, just like he promised when he was in opposition?

Hon. G.

Campbell: First, I think anyone who really cared about children would

understand that a revolving-door ministry policy, which the previous government

had, of six ministers in five years certainly didn't put children at the top of

anybody's list.

Secondly,

let me say this. We said that we thought that all British Columbians deserve to

be included in the discussion about how we could take care of our children. This

government has talked, discussed and consulted with 14,000 British Columbians

across this province — 14,000 people who put children at the top of their

agenda, who want to deliver services in the most cost-effective way possible,

who want to remove the bureaucratic and administrative burden so that children

can be cared for first. That is what this government is committed to, and if the

member opposite has suggestions for improvements, we would be glad to hear them.

FUNDING FOR CHILD PROTECTION

AND COMMUNITY LIVING SERVICES

J. Kwan:

Well, we do have suggestions.

Not only is

the child protection in danger of collapsing, according to those on the front

lines, but so far those services in the community-living sector for people with

developmental disabilities are having problems as well.

A few weeks

ago the Minister of Children and Family Development told this House that all was

well, that he had worked successfully with the Interim Authority on Community

Living to reduce budgets while protecting these services. But an e-mail obtained

by the opposition and sent late last week from the Interim Authority for

Community Living tells a different story. These are the government's own

hand-picked appointees, and they reported that they have no confidence that next

year's budget targets can be met without risk to the safety and security of

individuals.

[1440]

Again, to

the Premier: if he won't listen to the opposition, if he won't listen to the

front-line workers, will he listen to the warnings of his own hand-picked

appointees that the safety and security of people with developmental

disabilities are at risk if the government proceeds with the cuts?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I know this is difficult for the members opposite. The reason you

put a plan in place, the reason you put people together to try and implement the

plan…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. G.

Campbell: …is to learn from the people. The reason that this government is

undergoing a review is to be sure that what we are doing is putting the

interests of children and people in need first.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

This assessment of the budget crisis comes directly from the people responsible

for implementing the new regime. They say that the safety and security of

individuals and families are at risk. This e-mail goes on to say: "The

interim authority is not being consulted on the budget review that culminates

Friday, when Treasury Board meets to make decisions about the ministry's

budget."

Over and

over again, the Premier said he would consult. He just said in this House today

that he would spend what it took to take care of and protect kids and people

with developmental disabilities. This Friday the fate of child protection and

community living hangs in the balance. Again to the Premier: will the Premier

keep his promise and ensure that his own hand-picked appointees, the interim

authority, will be consulted and be at the table on May 16 for the Treasury

Board meeting and that he will ensure that the cuts to child protection and

community living are restored so that vulnerable kids and their families get the

protection they need?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As we have said on a number of occasions…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Let us hear the answer.

Hon. G.

Campbell: …a plan was laid out — a three-year plan — which includes

community living, which includes protection of children across this prov-

[ Page 6779 ]

ince. The government will be pursuing that plan. The government is aware of a

number of issues that people have brought forward.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Premier has the floor.

Hon. G.

Campbell: The government will continue to make sure that as we move forward

and make decisions, the best interests of the community living sector as well as

children in need that need to be in care are taken into consideration.

ASSISTANCE FOR

LEAKY-CONDO OWNERS

Bhullar: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services. It's regarding those awful leaky condos. Can the minister please tell

the House the status of the leaky condos that the government has undertaken and

if the minister has reached any conclusions?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The issue of leaky condos certainly remains a major and difficult

issue. We estimate at this point that some 65,000 homes and families are

affected in some measure by leaky-condo syndrome. The cost of that is certainly

at least $1.5 billion and possibly up to $1.6 billion, so it's a huge issue for

a lot of families.

To date,

through the homeowner protection office, the province has invested $293 million

in no-interest loans. We have also put out $7.7 million in interest rebates, PST

rebates, to families that have been affected by that. As well, HPO has invested

a lot of resources in research and education to ensure that we can remediate

those homes properly and ensure that the problem doesn't continue in the future.

We are

continuing to work, as well, with the federal government to try to strengthen

their partnership. I'm working in particular with the new secretary of state for

housing, Steve Mahoney, to see if we can get a GST equivalent to the PST rebate,

to get more action on leaky co-ops and to move ahead and try to resolve this

situation, which unfortunately affects many British Columbians.

[1445]

POLICE FORCE INTEGRATION

IN LOWER MAINLAND

Nuraney: My question is to the Solicitor General. The proposed integration

plan for RCMP in the lower mainland is anticipated to create more efficient and

effective law enforcement in Burnaby. However, there are some concerns about the

potential cost to the taxpayers and the possibility that some members of the

force may be required to work outside the municipality.

Will the

Solicitor General tell this House the steps he is taking to consult with the

municipalities to alleviate these fears?

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, there are a couple of issues with regard to this,

which are out in the public today. One of them is a management structure which

is being worked on with the Mayors' Consultative Forum on the lower mainland of

British Columbia. That management structure actually got in the way of the real

discussion that is important to communities, and that is the integration of

specialized services in policing across borders.

The reality

is that if we integrated policing on the lower mainland in the RCMP areas and in

our municipal forces, the public would see no difference in policing. They would

still see their officer on their street. They'd still see their community

policing officer, still see their school liaison. What they wouldn't see is that

finally we broke down the borders so sex offenders can't move from one community

to another and not be followed by police because somebody sets up an artificial

border in crime. We would actually track homicides in a manner that we would not

have homicides fall through the cracks for investigation, because we'd actually

be integrated in policing.

Those are

the goals that are the priorities for public safety which will be put together.

Anyone that doesn't understand where integration should go should take the

opportunity to review the Oppal report so we can move forward in integration in

policing.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S.

Hagen: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Property

Assessment Appeal Board for the year ended December 31, 2002.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: Pursuant to standing order 81.1, I rise today to inform the House

of the government's intentions for the conclusion of the spring sitting of the

Legislature.

Mr.

Speaker, it's no surprise that the government intends to complete the supply

debate as well as the final Supply Act. There are currently ten bills before the

House now, which the government intends to pass by the end of May. Those are

Bills 29, 39, 40, 45, 50, 51, 58, 61, 64 and 66. There are or will be introduced

this spring a total of approximately 20 to 25 pieces of legislation which the

government intends to leave on the order paper and pass in the fall sitting of

the Legislature.

[ Page 6780 ]

I look

forward to working with the opposition to determine an orderly conclusion of

those ten pieces of legislation by the end of May 29, Thursday.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you for that information.

MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can't let it pass without commenting on what

the Government House Leader just did.

Interjection.

MacPhail: I'm not debating it; I'm commenting, just the same way the

Government House Leader did.

After today

there are 21 hours of debate left. Fully 40 percent of the budget still has to

be debated. The Health estimates — that's what. There were 20 to 25 pieces of

legislation introduced. Through incompetence by the Government House Leader….

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. member, it's not debatable. This is not

debatable — sorry.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call third reading vote on Bill 34.

[1450]

Third Reading of Bills

INDUSTRY TRAINING AUTHORITY ACT

Third

reading of Bill 34 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 67

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Whittred

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Roddick

Wilson

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Nuraney

Belsey

Bell

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Bill

34, Industry Training Authority Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: In this chamber I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services. I'd

also like to advise the House that at 6:30 p.m. we'll be calling Committee of

Supply in Committee A as well.

[1455]

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 29:

ministry operations, $10,038,097,000 (continued) .

Introductions by Members

The

Chair: Before we begin, earlier on during introductions I introduced some

visitors from the Kelowna Christian School on behalf of my colleague the member

for Kelowna-Mission, and they hadn't arrived in the chamber yet. They have

arrived now, so I'd like to welcome the 75 guests from the Kelowna Christian

School, along with their teacher, Mr. B. MacArthur. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: I must say, just to begin, I have had the wind taken out of my

sails completely because of the absolutely horrendous task my opposition

colleague and I have ahead of us, how much work has to be done in this chamber

and how this government has completely shut down any ability to have a

legitimate debate. I put this not because of the Minister of Health Services. He

happens to be the person….

The

Chair: Member, excuse me, but I think the Speaker had ruled earlier that

this was a non-debatable item. I'd like you to proceed along with vote 29.

MacPhail: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will. I'm trying to explain how

the debate will go with the Minister of Health Services. I have all of this work

to do. It is quite overwhelming, is what I want to say, because of the way this

House is being run.

Did the

minister have a chance to get the information on the affidavits for Pharmacare

for me?

[ Page 6781 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: Yes, we do have that. As of May 11, there have been 1,011,813

families registered. As the member will know, one consent form is required per

family of those one million families. Of the ones we sent out for

pre-registration, these were individuals who had been on premium assistance

previously, so we automatically enrolled them in the program because we already

had that information.

We then had

to send out the consent forms for their verification. Of those 442,000 families,

we have received consent forms back for 294,000. There was undeliverable mail

for 49,000, so we are still waiting for the return of 99,000 for those

individuals.

Those are

not necessarily all that would be in a position to benefit from the Fair

Pharmacare financial assistance. It may be that those overwhelmingly who need

that assistance are, in fact, in there with their consent forms already

returned.

Of the

other non–premium assistance registrations, we have 569,721 families

registered. There were mail-in registrations which come in with the consent

forms attached to them numbering 106,000. In addition to that, we've already

received back consent forms from 182,000, so we're awaiting return of about

277,000 consent forms from those families.

What I want

to underscore is that when a family registers, whether they register through the

website, whether they register by the phone systems or whether they're the ones

who were previously on premium assistance who we automatically registered, those

families automatically get benefits. We don't wait for the consent forms to come

back in before they get their eligibility.

We are

certainly pleased with the response we have to date, particularly when you take

into consideration that many of the families for whom we are waiting for consent

forms in fact signed up in the last stages of April.

Actually,

I've just had this highlighted for me…. I'm going to have to figure out

exactly what that meant, but I think the information that I gave to date

summarizes what the member's question was from the other day.

[1505]

Introductions by Members

P. Wong:

I'm pleased to introduce guests in the gallery. Joining us today is Mr. Johnny

Fong, philanthropist and also organizer of the Better Community Partnership

Outreach Network. Together there's Dr. Joseph Hui, Mr. Albert Fok, Ian Cheung,

Chris Chung, Albert Tsang and Zi Fu Zhang. Would the House please give them a

most warm welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

The numbers that the minister gave indicate that there is chaos and confusion

with the Pharmacare system. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are

not yet registered. They have actually not been registered onto the Pharmacare

program. Yet the minister says: "Don't worry; everything will be

fine."

Just to

note the issues that people take, let me read onto the record a letter — not

from a constituent of my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings or myself — in

terms of how they feel about the Pharmacare program. I would like the minister

to respond to this document. It reads:

"I'm

tired of being lied to about how much all these damn changes are benefiting me

and my family. My wife and I are self-employed after being downsized by

corporate Canada. We've been hit by substantial drug costs this year, mostly

because of my wife's heart problems. We are not seniors, and we do not have

any employment benefits, being self-employed.

"We

estimate our drug costs will be $1,700 this year on a net

family income of $43,000. I went and checked the StatsCan figures for median

family income in British Columbia, and it is about $56,000 per year. We're

well below that, so we're well into the bottom half of family income in B.C.

"Our

drug costs will go up by $300 — period, end of story. Our

deductible will rise from $1,000 to $1,300. For them to say that this will

decrease drug costs for lower- and middle-income British Columbians is a lie,

pure and simple. Are they counting on the fact that so many people have

extended benefits and really don't care less about this? We feel we are being

nickel-and-dimed into the poorhouse by these endless fees and tax increases.

We have our spending under control except for what the provincial government

is doing to us."

For

the protection of the individual, I'm not going to say who the individual is.

I would like the minister to respond, because the minister continuously says

how the Pharmacare program benefits people, when in reality it doesn't. Here's

an example of one individual and his family, where he's saying that he's

actually getting hurt by this government's new policies.

Hon. C.

Hansen: To speak to the specific example that the member has raised — a

family that has an annual income of $43,000 a year — under the old Pharmacare

plan they would have faced an annual maximum ceiling for their drug expenditures

of $2,000. Under the new Fair Pharmacare program that maximum ceiling actually

comes down by $250 to $1,750.

J. Kwan:

I'm going to yield the floor to the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

He wishes to have the floor for about ten minutes. I'll follow up with my

questions with the minister in a few moments.

Manhas: I appreciate the member yielding the floor. I just have a series of

questions to ask. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time, but….

Interjection.

Manhas: No? I yield the floor back, and I will ask the questions at the

appropriate time. Thanks.

The

Chair: Member, proceed, if you have some questions. Member for Port

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, proceed, please.

Manhas: Thanks, Mr. Chair. I've been speaking with the Fraser health

authority regarding their plans

[ Page 6782 ]

to more fully utilize the Eagle Ridge Hospital. Eagle Ridge is a

state-of-the-art facility that provides service to the 200,000 people in our

burgeoning Tri-Cities area and beyond. For years since it opened, it's remained

underused, and large areas of the hospital have never been opened. I understand

the FHA will be looking to provide more services at Eagle Ridge and more fully

utilize the potential of the hospital in the years ahead. As the area grows, the

need for these services continues to grow.

Utilizing

the Eagle Ridge Hospital fully just makes sense. Residents in the Tri-Cities

who've worked so hard to build and support the hospital will receive the care

they need close to home. Patients will be the winners, and B.C. taxpayers win

from their investment in this wonderful modern facility. I'd like to ask the

minister if he will urge the health authority to follow through on that plan to

fully utilize the Eagle Ridge Hospital facility.

[1510]

Hon. C.

Hansen: For those who are trying to follow the debate, we're going to try to

work through with the Pharmacare discussion, and then we may get on to some of

these other issues. Just to give the member a quick response to that particular

issue, we are looking throughout the whole province at how we best utilize the

hospitals we have.

In the past

we had a system where every hospital was trying to be an island unto itself, and

we were lacking the interconnectivity among our hospitals so that we could best

make sure that patient needs were met. Certainly, Eagle Ridge is a hospital that

has tremendous capacity, and when we look at the communities that are serviced

in the immediate area of Eagle Ridge Hospital, we see some tremendous population

growth.

Certainly,

the Fraser health authority is looking at how it can best organize the delivery

of services so that residents in those communities get access to timely care and

effective care and that we also make the best use of those available facilities.

That is part of the plan that is being rolled out.

Manhas: I will ask the rest of my questions when the minister has finished

with debate on Pharmacare.

J. Kwan:

I'm sorry. Maybe the minister can give his response again to the letter I read

onto the record, and then we can start from there. There was just a bit of

confusion prior to that.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I guess the member, before she read that letter, was making the

point about the thousands of B.C. families that are not yet registered under the

Fair Pharmacare program. I know we did have a chance to review that with her

colleague the other day. Basically, there are about 1.6 million families in

British Columbia, and we know that the majority of families will not have either

income levels low enough or prescription costs high enough to put them in a

category that would make them eligible for financial assistance under Fair

Pharmacare.

We expect

there are going to be many families who will make a decision not to register for

Fair Pharmacare until such time as they need those benefits. We have set up a

system where they can register very quickly if they should wind up with

unforeseen or unexpected costs that would put them into that range.

But to

answer the member's specific question — the example she raised with the family

that had an income of $43,000 — under the old Pharmacare system they would be

facing an annual ceiling of $2,000 before Pharmacare would have clicked in with

100 percent benefits. Under the new Fair Pharmacare program they would in fact

hit a ceiling at $1,750 a year. Then after that point, they would not have to

pay anything under Fair Pharmacare. So in fact, the annual maximum they would

have to pay for their benefits decreases under Fair Pharmacare by about $250 a

year.

MacPhail: Is the minister having a chance to clarify…? Perhaps the

minister could tell me how the correspondence is going with individual citizens

writing in about Pharmacare. I know the opposition has received…. Well, it was

hundreds of letters a few weeks ago. It's probably well over the thousand mark

now. I'm wondering whether the minister could update us on how his

correspondence branch is going to clarify all of this so that if indeed, as he

claims, this fellow has this information wrong, he's getting it straightened

out. How quickly are those letters being answered?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member may have had the same experience when she was Minister of

Health, but the correspondence that comes into my office always staggers me when

I see the numbers. I'm told it's in the range of about 16,000 letters a year

that come in specifically addressed to me, and I know that the four Health

ministers combined actually get more correspondence than the Premier does. I'm

not sure what that means, but keeping up with that is indeed a challenge.

What we

found with the Fair Pharmacare program is that we were getting some letters from

people that were concerned, and we're trying to get answers and information back

to them as quickly as we can. What we have found is that most people are

actually phoning in for information. I fully appreciate that there was a period

of time in late April when it was extremely challenging to get through on the

phone lines. We are now over that hump, and people, generally speaking, can get

a timely response to their telephone inquiries.

[1515]

In addition

to that, one of the things we're doing in the ministry — because it is much

more time-sensitive — is when we receive a letter on a particular subject like

Fair Pharmacare, for example, someone in the ministry will actually phone that

person back and provide them verbally with the information they need and give

them an opportunity to ask subsequent questions. We are trying to get back to

them on a timely basis.

[ Page 6783 ]

I know

there are some letters that come in that are very complex and do require a fair

amount of work in order to get a substantial response back to them. I know there

are times when I'm signing replies to letters that are sometimes over two months

old, but we're trying to make them the exceptions.

J. Kwan:

For the person who sent the opposition the letter with his concern around the

Pharmacare costs, if he and his family in fact got it wrong, I'd like the

minister to please provide a name and contact so that we could provide the

individual with the contact information so that he can get his information

straightened out and make sure he's not paying more than he should be.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Certainly, if the member would want to forward that letter to me, I

would be pleased to have a very specific response to that individual's

particular family circumstance. Just to repeat what I said before: with a family

income of $43,000 a year for a non-senior family, under the old plan they would

have been paying a maximum of $2,000 a year for their drug costs. Under Fair

Pharmacare that comes down by $250. If they wanted to check that out, they could

go into the calculator that is on our website, and they could actually punch in

their own family numbers to get that information.

J. Kwan:

I appreciate that information, but I would also like to have a contact name and

number for the individual. Should I advise the individual that he should be

contacting the deputy so that he can get his situation straightened out?

Hon. C.

Hansen: If he dials the 1-800 number, that'll save him the long distance

costs — 1-800-387-4977 — and he can certainly get that information verified.

J. Kwan:

I was actually hoping for more of a direct and personal approach to the

individual. These are people who are actually having difficulties with the

system, as the minister knows. The 1-800 number is just a general number for

people to sign on. I would much prefer — and I would assume that the

individual who's written to us with his concerns and problems and challenges

would want — someone who can respond to him directly and not sort of be routed

through a 1-800 number.

Hon. C.

Hansen: If the member would like to provide me with his telephone number, I

would actually undertake to call him personally myself.

J. Kwan:

I will certainly check with the individual to make sure he's okay on the

confidentiality issue, which is why I'm asking for the number so that the

individual can touch base with the minister as opposed to providing the

information. But I am assuming, given that the minister is prepared to phone the

individual, that the person can actually phone the minister, then, in that case

so that the logic flows either way. I will follow up on that accordingly.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member was a former member of executive council, and I'm sure

she appreciates how complex life is when people try to phone in to reach the

minister. I don't know how to facilitate this, but if she wants to get the

individual's permission to pass that information to me, I would make a

commitment to the member that I will call that person.

MacPhail: Here's a further twist on the minister suggesting that once you've

got premium assistance, everything is okay. People are finding it hard to get

their premium assistance applications approved. Let me read this letter into the

record. It was from a few weeks ago. We received it at the end of last month.

It's to the ministry. This is about Pharmacare.

"Enclosed

is my consent form. I have completed my application on-line. However, I have

two problems with the information I was able to submit on the application.

(1) It stated that anyone on MSP premium assistance would automatically be

eligible for full Pharmacare coverage."

Just as an aside, that's what the minister's saying, and everything

just flows smoothly from that. Well, I carry on with this letter:

have had my application in for assistance since the end of 2002. When I

contacted MSP about the application in February, I was told that they were

still working on applications from July of 2002 and that mine would not be

approved for many months. Therefore, I was unable to claim on the Fair

Pharmacare on-line form that I was on premium assistance, but I'm sure I will

be eventually.

[1520]

"

(2) The amount of Pharmacare assistance is based on the previous year's income,

but there is an inherent inequality about that. Ditto for MSP premium

assistance — that is, for some

of us the income includes taxable child support if our agreements were made

before 1997. This makes our income appear to be much more than that of our

counterparts, who have basically the same income, but the child support is

non-taxable.

"As

we are giving our consent for you to check the Canada Customs

and Revenue Agency filings, surely the report you get from them could be total

income less child support, regardless of whether or not it is taxable. This

would create equality for all applicants.

"If

your response were that I just need to apply to the courts to

have the child support non-taxable, you would be right

— sort of — but I have had such an

application before the courts since 2001 and as yet have had no ruling due to

a tragedy of errors within the family court system. So please do not dismiss

this issue with that remedy. Just make the income you calculate for MSP and

'Fair' Pharmacare not include any form of child support. It is just one line

on the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency tax forms and will require a few

lines of code in a computer program to do that calculation."

Hon. C.

Hansen: Thank you, and I know we had visited this briefly the other day when

we started the estimates process, but the use of line 236 is actually something

that was started around the premium assis-

[ Page 6784 ]

tance application system. That calculation of net income is not something we

as a province do, but it is, in fact, something that's determined by the federal

government on their tax forms. So it does include some other outside revenue

sources, but it also includes some expenses. I know one of the expenses that is

included, before you get to line 236, is authorized child care expenses that

could be deducted.

I want to

come back to the point the member made at the start of that question, and that

was around whether or not an individual who had applied for premium assistance

but that had not yet been processed…. They would not have wound up as an

automatic registrant in the Fair Pharmacare program, but the fact that

individual phoned into Fair Pharmacare means they could actually register right

then. So the fact that somebody was eligible for premium assistance doesn't

preclude them from the ability to do an on-line registration or a phone

registration. In fact, many premium assistance recipients have done that —

just phone and confirm that they are registered. There's certainly no

disadvantage to the individual — the fact that he duplicated what would not

have been necessary if his premium assistance application had already been

processed.

MacPhail: What is the backlog with MSP applications for premium assistance?

[1525]

Hon. C.

Hansen: Certainly, the processing of documents and correspondence generally,

and things like registration of births, have been a big challenge for us in the

MSP.

Just a

snapshot in time: as of March 3 there were 13,000 premium assistance

applications that would have been pending. I should note that in that branch, we

give top priority to processing premium assistance applications, and we also

give top priority to things like birth registrations and that. There are other

things that do take a much longer period of time. I know the example that the

member cited where it was taking months — that does happen. Sometimes there is

additional information that is required before an application can be processed.

One of the

things we are doing is to try to deal with this backlog in a more effective way.

One of the things that we did, for example, was implement a call centre. We went

out for a request for proposal and got a firm that was going to field calls,

provide information on the MSP side of it and also help speed up the processing

of documentation. I'm the first one to admit that that is a part of the ministry

that continues to be a big challenge for us, and we are certainly taking the

steps to try to make sure that the processing of that information is done in a

more timely fashion in the future.

MacPhail: It is with a sense of frustration that I rise again to make my

point about why the ministry didn't first of all take on the pharmaceutical

companies or try to reduce drug costs before they took on British Columbians in

this "Fair" Pharmacare program that is in…. I mean, I know the

minister does a yeoperson's job of trying to sell that everything is fine, but

it isn't.

We have

chaos in the Fair Pharmacare system, and the drug companies are sitting out

there not being addressed at all in terms of lowering their drug costs. The

government hasn't done a thing with the Morfitt report. The government doesn't

even know whether it has asked the drug companies to invest in British Columbia

in research. Yet we're proceeding holus-bolus on this Fair Pharmacare program.

From the

numbers I've heard, there are hundreds of thousands — almost 100,000 people

under the premium assistance program and several hundred thousand people on the

non–premium assistance program — who haven't put in their affidavits yet.

Over 300,000 — in fact, well over 300,000 as I calculated the number —

families do not have affidavits in yet, so there's going to be a whole backlog

and retroactivity that's going to have to be absorbed in terms of calculating

payments under Pharmacare. We have a backlog in even the applications for

premium assistance, as the minister has just admitted. That's a backlog. That's

not even someone who is applying for premium assistance as we look forward.

It is not

working, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out and have not received an

adequate answer from this government about why they chose to go after citizens

before they chose to go after the drug companies.

Let me read

this letter that was sent several weeks ago and received last month from a

constituent of the member from Dewdney-Alouette riding. It's a three-page

letter, and I'm not going to read it into the record. However, the minister was

copied on it. I am not going to editorialize, but I will edit to make the point.

"Dear

Sir:

"What

is compelling the government of B.C. to come down so hard on

retirees and pensioners? This family alone has found out today" — it's

dated March 19 — "that we will go from $275 deductible to $1,500, not

because we can afford it on our pension but because of net assets showing on

our tax form.

"My

husband already pays $75 per month for

non-prescription drugs such as vitamin program and lactase-based pills for a

condition in which he can not take dairy products and eggs without being

violently ill, and those aren't covered by a medical plan. After he retired,

he was diagnosed with diabetes, which aided in a heart condition that is being

rectified with vitamins and the use of a heart attack preventative medication.

[1530]

"We

stretched our budget to provide the $275 deductible imposed on us at the

beginning of this year, but how we cover medications to the $1,500 deductible

is beyond our comprehension. Please don't say I should have saved for our old

age, as my husband's wages, though carefully budgeted and well earned with

continual upgrades and exams, didn't aspire to leftover money for savings.

"Do

you think my husband retired without viewing all his options?

For two years we attended pension seminars, heard our options, knew our

benefit programs

[ Page 6785 ]

and made the decision to retire on a tight budget. In two

years, be cause of your hard policies against this group of

people, I have seen our pension plans chiselled away with now no dental

coverage, 50 percent medical services premiums to pay, extended health

deductible increased, the maximum allowance doubled and now an income-based

Pharmacare program taken on previous income earned.

"What

arrogance to say that if you were born in 1939 and before, you

are a pensioner and entitled to the senior Pharmacare program, but born in

1940 and beyond, you are not and never will be classified as a senior for this

program. Whether you are born in 1939, 1940, 1945 or 1960 and beyond, once you

reach the age of 65, according to all government departments, provincial or

federal, you are classified as a senior.

"How

can you call it a Fair Pharmacare program when, for example,

two people who are already retired and earning more than $30,000 but less than

$33,000 a year — one born in 1939 and the other in 1940 — are being

treated differently in that the person born in 1939, when he becomes 65, will

be classified under the seniors Pharmacare program and will have a zero family

deductible and a 1.25 percent family maximum of net income, and the other

person when he/she becomes 65 will have a family deductible of 3 percent of

net income and a family maximum of 4 percent of net income because they are

denied access to the senior Fair Pharmacare program? What is the fairness in

that?"

goes on for several more pages. I just want to reassure the minister. I want

to ask the question about the 1939 versus 1940 as a result of this letter, but

the minister can be reassured that this couple got the accurate calculations

of what they now owe under the program.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I appreciate the example to give me an opportunity to respond to

that. When the member started that particular question, she was talking about

why we're doing nothing to reduce drug costs. I should point out to the member,

as she knows, that drug costs for brand-name drugs in Canada are actually not

set by the provincial government. They are set by the Patented Medicine Prices

Review Board, which is a federal body that actually establishes the prices. As a

result of that, we in Canada do have the benefit of prices that are

significantly lower than what our neighbours to the south pay as a result of

that pricing regime.

I wrote

this down. She says: "Why do we go after citizens instead of the drug

companies?" We're not going after citizens. What we're doing is actually

providing a system which will see 282,000 families in British Columbia pay less

than they were paying under their previous plan.

But I want

to come to the specific example she raised, because when she talks about how

that senior couple was paying $275 deductible before, that's $275 each. So about

$550 is what they would have been paying as their ceiling for the two of them

before. Rather than having an individual deductible, we're now going to a family

deductible so that regardless of who has the higher drug consumption, it can go

towards achieving that deductible.

She also

mentioned — she quoted in the letter — that this family was facing a new

deductible of $1,500. Well, that would put them in an income category of between

$72,500 a year and $77,500 a year. That's the income category for seniors that

would result in them being faced with a deductible of $1,500 a year. I should

point out to the member that the average income, the median income, for a senior

in British Columbia is about $23,000 a year.

Some people

have asked us: why did we pick $33,000 as the threshold at which the amount that

a senior household would pay goes to a different category? The reason is that at

$33,000 a year, you're actually capturing 69 percent of British Columbia senior

families that earn $33,000 or less. In fact, the numbers for non-senior families

just came out yesterday with the StatsCan numbers. It shows, I think, that in

British Columbia we're now up to about $54,000 a year for the average income for

a family.

[1535]

Under this

new Fair Pharmacare system, most senior couples, families, earning $33,000 a

year or less will see more financial assistance. The maximum they will pay per

year will, in fact, come down. The same can be said for non-senior families

earning up to about $50,000 a year. They will also see greater financial

assistance under Fair Pharmacare because the maximum they pay will come down.

MacPhail: Well, I guess the member from Dewdney-Alouette can decide whether

that satisfies his constituent's complaint.

Interjections.

MacPhail: I'm sorry? Well, I'm reading from a letter from the constituent.

I'm not allowed to say the member's name. He sits right there. It's his

constituent that I'm reading the letter from, and we'll see whether that

satisfies them or not.

I would

just perhaps advise the minister of this. While he throws figures out about how

fair this is, I haven't had one person — not one person — say to me:

"Isn't this better?" Not one.

I read a

letter into the record from a senior coming in from….

Interjection.

MacPhail: Thank you. I'm sorry; the riding is Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

I read the

letter into the record from the woman from the seniors organization, in the Kelowna

Daily Courier, saying that some of her fellow seniors are prone to

complaining — but other than that, no. So I guess this minister or this

government or these MLAs sitting here, as I read their constituents' letters

into the record, can decide whether the minister's answers satisfy that or not.

I will tell

you these are people who know they're worse off. I suspect, although it doesn't

say here, that

[ Page 6786 ]

these may be public employees. The letter I just read may be public employees

who paid a great deal in terms of the work conditions to get pension benefits,

who gave up a great deal in other areas to get their pension benefits and are

now having them eroded away over and over by this government. That's what it

sounds like to me.

This

minister stands up and says, I guess: "If there are two retirees who have a

pension, they're considered rich." That's what he's doing. The very rich in

this province, because of this government, needed to get richer — according to

the government. Those at the high end needed to get a huge tax break, and they

worked real hard to make that happen the first day they were in office. But the

public service pensioners need to be brought down to the average, I guess,

across Canada. So that shows where this government's priorities are.

This will

be my last one on Pharmacare, because it's not a particularly satisfying

exercise. Those who have had their letters read into the record have

communicated with me that the work that was done a couple of days ago was not

satisfactory at all. Of course, given the limited time we have here, I have to

pace myself. There are so many issues.

Here's one.

It's from Victoria.

"The

seniors Fair Pharmacare program family deductible is based on line 236, net

income, of your 2001 income tax return. That gives our family of two a 1

percent deductible putting us in the mid-range income bracket. In 2002 the

percentage of payments for our drugs, including fees, worked out like this.

Pharmacare paid 37.5 percent; however, Pharmacare did not cover 62.5 percent

of our drugs. They were paid by Pacific Blue Cross, our extended health

benefit program, at 50 percent, leaving us to pay 12.5 percent.

"Under

the new proposal with the seniors Fair Pharmacare and using the

same drug costs for 2002, the scenario changes. Pharmacare, which now has a

deductible and still won't cover 62.5 percent of the drugs, now would pay 15.5

percent. Pacific Blue Cross now also has a deductible, and it would pay 40

percent, leaving us to pay out two deductibles plus the remainder of the cost,

which is equal to 44.5 percent.

[1540]

"What

kind of a Pharmacare program do we have if 62.5 percent of our drugs are not

covered, and we end up paying more on our deductibles between the two

plans?"

Hon. C.

Hansen: I was busily trying to scribble down those numbers as she was

reading them off, and I suddenly realized I was coming to well over 100 percent.

I did get a bit lost in terms of the calculations there.

Just to

respond in a general sense, for individuals that have third-party insurance

programs that doesn't change, they still get the benefit of those third-party

insurance programs. Clearly, we know that's going to be a challenge for some of

those third-party insurers, because for some of their members they will, in

fact, see Fair Pharmacare picking up a greater share.

For

example, any family that's earning under $50,000 a year, as I mentioned earlier.

For an employee that has a third-party insurance plan and that's earning over

$50,000 a year, there may be more that the third-party insurer is going to have

to pay. I guess those families that do have extended health have that benefit of

having their third-party insurer pick up at least a major portion of their drug

costs until Fair Pharmacare clicks in.

I think

we've got to back up a little bit and just look at what Pharmacare is all about,

whether it's the old Pharmacare program or the new Fair Pharmacare program. What

it's about is not saying that the provincial government is going to pay for all

their prescription costs. No province could afford to do that in this country.

What we want to be able to do is recognize, first of all, that prescriptions are

a necessary part of a good health care system and make it so that families can

get access to the medications they need based on their ability to pay.

For

lower-income families we want to provide more financial assistance. For

higher-income families that have more ability to pay, we expect that they will

pick up a greater percentage of their costs. If those higher-income families

have the additional benefit of having a third-party insurer, then that's all the

more benefit for them. The Fair Pharmacare program, as far as I'm concerned, is

exactly that, and it's fair.

I also

wanted to comment on the member's point about the letters she gets and the

conversations she's had — that she's had nobody talk about Fair Pharmacare

being fair. That actually reminds me of my days in opposition. You tend to get

letters from people who look at the world as where the glass is half empty. I

think in this case, if they really want to look at Fair Pharmacare, they're

going to find that that glass is 98 percent full and maybe 2 percent empty.

Hopefully, we can still keep trying to address the 2 percent to make sure that

it is indeed fair for everybody.

MacPhail: Well, isn't it interesting that the minister says that some things

may not change because people have third-party insurance? He's wrong on that

again as well.

Let's be

clear. It's not like people are going to be paying less for their drugs. The

Fair Pharmacare isn't reducing the cost of drugs. They're just shifting who pays

for it. This government hasn't done anything to tackle the cost of drugs, but

they've gotten out of the business of covering it, out of their share of it, so

private insurers have to pick up a cost.

Believe you

me, private insurers are going to be back at the table negotiating whatever

contracts they have with employers to say: "Sorry. Either your premiums are

going to go up for that coverage, or else you're going to have less

coverage." That's exactly what they're doing. Every third-party insurer,

private insurer, is doing that right now.

I'm well

aware of British Columbians having access to their MLAs to raise their concerns

of the government, perhaps my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I

get more than we would normally get as individual MLAs. But it isn't

[ Page 6787 ]

just that the good people are remaining silent. It simply isn't that at all.

[1545]

We will get

to the stage of talking about the overall well-being of seniors in this province

as it relates to their Pharmacare costs, their access to nursing homes, home

care, etc., — all sorts of things. In the opposition we don't have time to

indulge in terms of raising issues that are negative just for the sake of being

negative.

I have to

move on now to the issue of privatization in our health system. It is my view

that it looks like health privatization is going to result in the layoffs of

thousands of skilled and experienced health care workers over the next few

months. This is even in the context of the recent renegotiations.

The

government has argued that the health authorities need more flexibility, that

workers are overpaid compared to the national average and that government is

"not in the laundry business." On the basis of that, these Liberals

have torn up collective agreements, and then that allowed for paving the way for

mass layoffs and privatization. But I have yet to see this government make a

case for health care privatization. Any aspects of the health services have yet

to see a case made for privatization, and that's what I want to explore now. I

haven't seen the government produce any evidence that such a policy would be

cost-effective and would improve patient care. In fact, I would say they haven't

proved that it would be cost-effective or improve patient care. One or the other

would be a start, but neither has been proven by this government.

Actually, I

would say that the early adventures into privatization have been stunningly

deficient. The provincial health services authority cancelled a housekeeping

contract for the new building at the Children's and Women's Hospital with

A&A Laundry Ltd. just weeks after it was awarded. K-Bro Linen Systems was

awarded a ten-year contract for hospital laundry in the Fraser Valley. They

haven't particularly been compliant with a good-quality product — washing

soiled birthing linens in domestic-grade machines in a seniors care facility,

for instance.

There are

major requests for proposals pending — I think they're still pending; the

minister can correct me — for security, housekeeping and food services in the

lower mainland and in the Fraser Valley. I assume they're still pending because

we haven't heard anything, but we anticipate that those contracts will be

awarded over the next few days and weeks.

Let me

begin exploring this topic by asking whether the ministry has carried out or

contracted for any research, economic impact studies or best practices surveys.

Have they generated any other reports or analyses that support privatization of

health services as leading to either greater cost-effectiveness or improved

patient care?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think the first thing I want to point out is really very

important, and that's that this government is not privatizing the delivery of

health care services in this province. We have certainly had requests from some

of the health authorities that they be allowed to look at some of the clinical

services that could be shifted over to the private sector — surgical services,

for example. We've said we don't have a problem with that, providing it's

publicly funded, it's within the context of the Canada Health Act and it is more

cost-effective than could be provided in our publicly owned facilities.

[1550]

So far

there have really been no initiatives that have been undertaken in that regard,

because I think when you start getting down to it, the economics of it aren't

there for most services. There may be some examples that will come forward in

the future, but certainly to date there has not been any privatization of the

delivery of health care services. If there is some in the future, it's on the

margins. We're not talking about any kind of a significant shift at all from

what British Columbians are used to, and certainly not away from what British

Columbians expect, and that is that they get access to their medically necessary

health care services in a manner that is fully funded by the government.

We have, of

course, gone to look at some of the support services that we require. In the

past we have certainly rented commercial space in order to house services that

are provided, and we contract that from the private sector. We are now looking

at how we can provide services such as landscaping around our health care

facilities, security services — in some cases the health authorities are

looking at laundry services, as the member mentioned — and housekeeping

services.

It's not

driven by any kind of a philosophical desire to shift from the current system as

we have known it to one where these support services are all contracted out. It

is saying, "How can we get the best value for each and every dollar that we

have in the health budget?" — because every dollar that we save, when it

comes to providing these support services, is a dollar that we can make sure

gets redirected into direct patient care.

This is a

process that is certainly open on the part of the health authorities. They've

gone out with a tendering process around this, and that is an open and

transparent process. The bottom line is that if it doesn't wind up with cost

savings, the health authorities are not under any obligation to go down that

road — certainly not by any directive from this government.

The member

will know that the Hospital Employees Union has approached government with a

proposal around how some of those cost savings can be realized in ways that may

at least reduce the number of positions that may have been otherwise contracted

out. The member knows that is currently out for ratification. We'll see what

happens when those votes get counted.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. My question was around research about this direction

leading to greater cost-effectiveness — not ideological. I'm not asking

ideological questions; I'm asking practical questions. This trend, just as the

minister describes what he is doing….

What

research does he have to show greater cost-effectiveness going in that direction

or greater patient

[ Page 6788 ]

care? FOI requests to the minister came back filled with not a shred of

evidence that any studies or analysis had been done.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, there has been a lot of analysis done. We have certainly

looked at the experience in other jurisdictions across Canada that do contract

out a range of support services.

We have

also looked at what some of the cost structures are, comparing British Columbia

with other provinces across Canada on what the support services cost on an

hourly wage basis and also the benefit package that support workers realize in

British Columbia compared to all of those other jurisdictions. When you start to

look at that research, what it shows is that our cost structure in British

Columbia is about 30 percent higher than the Canadian average, and it's about 20

percent higher than the next most generous province.

There has

also been work done that I have seen — we didn't commission it — which

compares the cost of support services in our health sector to support services

in other sectors. I think some health care workers come back with a legitimate

argument that you can't compare apples and oranges between the health sector and

the hospitality sector, but certainly we've looked at some of the research

that's been done in that area.

All of

these things have led us to the conclusion that we can get much better value for

the taxpayer when it comes to providing those support services. We don't have to

go out and commission some three-year study. We know that the cost savings are

there. They will be realized by an open and transparent process of inviting

competitive bids. We've even invited the unions to submit bids, and my

understanding is that in some cases there have been bids coming in from union

members in the province in response to some of these RFPs.

MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the minister keeps referring to unions. I'm

making the case here…. He has a relationship with the HEU and the unions BCNU

and HSA. I'm asking these questions on behalf of patients.

[1555]

Is the

minister somehow suggesting that if this government pays reduced wages, that's

more cost effective? There's a difference between actually providing

cost-effective services and paying lower wages. That's what I'm asking the

minister for: what studies does he have to show that the cost of providing

housekeeping services in other jurisdictions, while they may pay lower wages, is

more cost-effective? That's all I'm asking. There are contractors in between.

FOI requests came up with zero studies to show that.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Our review of the circumstances in other provinces is that there is

quality service provided around those support services in other provinces,

whether it's within their in-house staff that provide those support services or

whether they are contracted-out services. That is, what is key are the

performance guarantees that are put in place to make sure we get quality service

for what the taxpayers are paying. Whether an individual is working in a private

company that is contracting a service to government or whether government

directly employs those individuals does not in itself dictate whether you get a

quality service on behalf of the taxpayers.

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

What we are

saying is that we want quality service — and we're not going to compromise

that — and we want to get it in the most cost-effective manner possible to

ensure that taxpayers get the best value for their dollar.

MacPhail: My question was about what studies or analyses he has to prove

that point. If the minister has those analyses and studies, how come FOI

requests turned up nothing — not a shred of evidence — to that effect?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'm not aware of what FOI requests may have come in, in this regard.

But if an FOI request came in, asking for studies we have undertaken with the

specific focus the member talked about, we haven't undertaken studies. We've

done a review of experience in other jurisdictions and learned from that

analysis.

Let's use

an example. If we have a hospital somewhere in British Columbia, and it goes out

and hires staff on its payroll to provide a landscaping service to keep the

lawns mowed and the gardens tended in front of the hospital, I don't need an

expensive government study to tell me that if we go out with an open tendering

process where there are competitive bids — the existing employees may bid on

that, or some new group of employees may bid on that — we will find out from

that process whether or not we can get better value for the taxpayers. If we

can, then the dollar saved can be redirected into direct patient care.

MacPhail: It is so disingenuous for this minister to get up, as he's done

for the last two years, and use the issue of landscaping and contracting out.

That's like 0.01 percent of the health care budget. But he likes to do that,

because it meets the nod test to the public: "Oh yeah. Anybody can cut

grass." Well, duh. But he uses that to justify the hundreds of millions of

other dollars he's planning to contract out and privatize. It's just completely

disingenuous for the minister to keep standing up and doing that. But he does

it, and no one except the opposition challenges him.

By the way,

there were FOI requests, exactly as I asked the minister in this estimates

debate, and they came back with zilch in terms of the ministry having any

studies, any analysis or any best practices surveys that would support the

direction the government's going in.

[1600]

Now, the

ministry service plan lays out successive but not defined percentage cuts at the

health authority

[ Page 6789 ]

level to both administration and support services. Some of the performance

agreements that occurred between the government and the health authorities set

that cut at 7 percent. Could the minister tell me what proportion of those cuts

will be borne by health care executives/administration and what portion will be

paid for by the support service workers?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The 7 percent reduction in administration costs that the member

refers to does not refer to support services at all. That is entirely within the

administration and administration support budgets.

MacPhail: So there will be a cut of 7 percent in administration costs across

the health authorities? And what will that affect? What happens with that cut?

What's the effect of it?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The 7 percent reduction in administration costs will take place over

the three-year period. So we're now about a year into that process since we

first announced it.

It's around

the areas of finance, human resources, payroll costs, and a lot of those savings

are actually driven by the fact that we've reduced the number of health

authorities from 52, which were in place before, to the six health authorities

that we have currently. That has allowed us to streamline the way things get

done. It allows us to use technology in a better way, and as a result, we

anticipate there will be savings in the range of about 7 percent.

MacPhail: Well, we've had the six authorities for over a year now. What have

been the administrative savings?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I am advised that all of the health authorities are on track to

meeting their 7 percent reduction over that three-year period. The fiscal year

for the health authorities ended at March 31, and we are still waiting for their

final wrap-up numbers. Part of their performance review that we will be

undertaking when we get those finalized year-end statements is to be certain

they are, in fact, achieving those goals. I'm advised that all of the health

authorities are well on track and have no concerns that they'll be able to reach

the 7 percent target.

MacPhail: Well, what has happened to executive compensation, for instance? I

know in my own health authority, a couple of VPs were fired, given big severance

packages, and the new people replacing them earned even more. So what's

happening with executive compensation?

Then

another issue…. I would be hard-pressed in the Vancouver coastal health

authority to understand where the administration costs are coming from, given

public reports. Public reports show that VPs are fired — at least two, with

big severance packages — and their replacements are paid even more. There's a

huge communications shop in the Fraser health authority. You know, we have a

situation where the Fraser health authority has paid out severance, but they

also have a ten-person communications shop.

There's a

huge number of executive hires in the provincial health services authority. So

perhaps the minister could reassure all of us, who may be fearmongering by just

noticing on the surface what's happening, by giving me specifics on the cuts in

administrative costs. Are there limits, for instance, on what one can pay for

communications?

[1605]

Hon. C.

Hansen: You know, this actually is driven by the fact that we had 52 health

authorities in the past, and those 52 health authorities were reorganized into

five regional health authorities in the province. Where we had 52 CEOs in the

past, we now needed five CEOs for those regional health authorities. So there

were some good people who were working hard for the health care system in this

province, who became redundant through that process. They were terminated, and

they were paid severance in accordance with their contracts. Even though some of

those severance payments seem high, they still wind up with a saving to the

health care sector, and it is part of achieving that 7 percent goal.

I'm glad

the member mentioned the provincial health services authority, because that's

the sixth health authority, and that's not regionally based. That provides all

of the very complex care and the tertiary and quaternary care for the entire

province. That is a brand-new facility. It wasn't a case of sort of morphing one

of the old health authorities into this new body.

Basically,

all of the executive positions in the provincial health services authority were,

in fact, new hires because that entity didn't exist previously. You wound up

with some of the agencies being moved in, but the executive level, under Lynda

Cranston's immediate supervision, was newly hired to that provincial health

services authority.

The net

result of this whole process is that you are going to see fewer executive staff

in the health care system compared to the number of executive staff that we had

when there were 52 different health authorities.

MacPhail: The minister is making that assertion without any evidence —

zero evidence. I'm just asking for the evidence. That's what I'm here for. Show

me the evidence. You said there's going to be less. Prove it.

The example

the minister gave at my health authority is not accurate. The Vancouver coastal

health authority fired two VPs and replaced them. They weren't suitable. I can't

remember what it was. They didn't fit in with the new way of doing business. So

that's not a valid example.

One wonders

why, with the creation of a provincial health services authority that's an

amalgamation of very competent agencies, one would then put another layer of

major administration over that rather than just reallocating people from the

system — not pay them

[ Page 6790 ]

severance. Were these bad people? They weren't political appointees.

Certainly, the two VPs in the Vancouver coastal health authority had years and

years of health experience over several governments. I don't even know who they

were. What's with that?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We have a policy within the health sector that if somebody moves

from one of the former health authorities, for example, over to a new health

authority, they do not get severance. In fact, I know of at least one example

where an individual who became redundant was paid severance, and when he was

hired with a different health authority, the severance, which was a salary

continuation, terminated.

We have in

British Columbia a pool of very competent health executives and people that are

in health management, and they do move between positions. There are

circumstances that happen in health where somebody will be terminated from their

position because they don't fit in with that particular executive team. We see

that throughout government. Certainly, it was the case while the minister was in

executive council, and we have those occasions that happen now. By and large,

what we have seen in terms of the executive restructuring is a reduction in the

total number of executive positions starting right from the CEO level, where

we've gone from 52 down to six.

MacPhail: Just to remind the minister, it's the law that people can't take

severance, move into a public sector job and then get a salary. The law was

brought in by the previous administration and failed to be enforced by this

government until they were caught out.

Just give

me the example, then. Tell me where I'm wrong at the Vancouver coastal health

authority with the firing of the two VPs late last year. I can't remember

whether it was December or earlier this year. Two VPs were fired, and they were

replaced. Why were they fired? What happened? How much money did they get?

[1610]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I am advised that the two positions she's referring to have not been

replaced by anyone outside. There may be people filling those functions

obviously, but they have not been replaced from individuals outside. These two

terminations happened after the end of the last calendar year and therefore fell

under the new requirements regarding severance payments. The severance that was

paid, I know, was in accordance with that. I don't have the exact dollar amount

with me other than I know it was the amount they were entitled to under those

new guidelines.

MacPhail: I didn't say that they were filled from outside. I said that the

job is still being done. There are people filling those jobs at the VP level

being paid as VPs because the government fired the two previous ones. That ain't

health care. That isn't good health care dollar management — is what I would

say.

If I could

please have from the minister…. I'm not suggesting now…. I want proof that

there are fewer executives with the six health authorities than there were with

the 52. I want a cost for that as well.

Now, the

minister has said on more than one occasion…. He tried to slough it off by

saying that it was just landscaping that they were contracting out, but they're

contracting out laundry. The minister has said on more than one occasion that

this government's not in the laundry business, and therefore the government is

contracting out laundry services.

I'm

wondering whether the minister has any view on the recent SARS outbreak and the

way that kind of spread of a virus so quickly would be affected by

contracted-out laundry service.

Hon. C.

Hansen: It would have absolutely no effect whatsoever.

MacPhail: Well, let me ask this then. If a hospital is under quarantine,

then supplies from outside, like laundry from outside a hospital, can be brought

into a quarantined hospital. Is that correct?

Hon. C.

Hansen: There are lots of supplies that come into hospitals from outside of

the hospital. We bring in bandages. We bring in sterile gauze. We bring in all

kinds of equipment. Certainly, we would not contract for any of those supplies

from any supplier that would in any way compromise the degree of sterilization

that is necessary to ensure a safe and effective health care system.

MacPhail: The minister stands up and says categorically that the contracting

out of housekeeping services and laundry services, where they're provided by

bringing those services from outside to within, is completely unaffected by

SARS.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I should point out to the member that in the past…. In fact, the

majority of laundry that is done for our hospitals in the lower mainland is done

on Tilbury Island. That is a facility that is owned by the health authorities.

Most of the dirty laundry from our hospitals gets trucked to Tilbury Island. It

gets cleaned and sterilized and properly packaged to ensure that it is

transported in a way that does not compromise the sterility of those laundry

items. Then it's brought back to the hospitals.

Certainly,

sterilization and safety and cleanliness are obviously the number one concern,

regardless whether it's done by an outside contractor, whether it's done by a

government-owned facility that's away from the hospital or whether it's done by

a laundry facility that's right in the hospital.

[1615]

The other

thing I should point out to the member is that when you get economies of scale,

where you have larger volumes of laundry that are being put through a laundry

facility, you can in fact invest in the kind of technology that gives better

sterilization results than

[ Page 6791 ]

you would get by having a small laundry located inside every single small

hospital throughout British Columbia.

MacPhail: So there's been no direction whatsoever, either to the contracted

services or to a rethink by the health authorities, about laundry services or

housekeeping services as a result of SARS?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The challenge of SARS in our health care system is actually

something that has really, I think, shown the professionalism and the integrity

of our front-line nurses and doctors as well as our provincial health office and

the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, who have done an absolutely outstanding job

at making sure this challenge was met and SARS was contained. We have in place

an expert clinical advisory team that's looking at all of the clinical issues

around SARS in terms of how to make sure that we get the best information from

around the world that's being gathered and that we do everything we can to make

sure it is contained. We have shown success in that regard.

I should

point out to the member that infection control in our hospitals is not something

new. We have very effective infection control protocols in our health care

facilities. It is as a result of that standard, which we have had in place up

till now, that we have in fact been able to deal with the SARS challenge as

effectively as we have in this province. Certainly, there is nothing we would do

to compromise those standards.

MacPhail: I'm curious. K-Bro Linen Systems — they operate out of Alberta

— has now got a ten-year contract to do hospital laundry in the Fraser Valley.

Did K-Bro take the laundry from the quarantined ward and move it to Alberta, and

was that okay with Alberta?

Hon. C.

Hansen: While SARS presented some new challenges for our health care system

around how to make sure it was properly contained and staff were properly

protected, when it comes to the treatment of linen that may have been exposed to

SARS, the health care system has always treated that linen — or, indeed, any

other materials that are potentially contaminated and sent out of the

hospital…. The health care system has always treated them as if they were

containing contagious materials.

[1620]

Just as an

example, the problems that hospitals have with staph infection is something that

requires the highest level of rigour being applied to make sure that, first of

all, anyone handling those materials is protected. It really doesn't matter

where they're being handled, whether it's in the basement of a hospital or it's

in Calgary, Alberta. The same kind of precautions have to take place to make

sure staff are protected from any contaminants that may be in that linen. They

are then processed and treated in a way that we are 100 percent sure that what

comes back to our hospitals to be used again has been processed to the degree of

sterilization that's necessary.

MacPhail: So there was no issue whatsoever about hospital laundry moving

from British Columbia to Alberta. That was my question.

Hon. C.

Hansen: There were no new and unusual challenges because of SARS because,

basically, SARS required that the material be treated with the highest level of

vigilance and care. That is the way we have always treated laundry, regardless

of where it's been processed.

MacPhail: To carry on about the K-Bro Linen Systems out of Alberta. When

they took over the laundry last year and shipped it to Alberta, they promised

that they would be building a new facility in the lower mainland in the near

future.

The Fraser

health authority said they would save $2.1 million in capital costs by

contracting out the laundry. We have information that they subsequently sold the

laundry equipment at Chilliwack Hospital. I'm wondering whether the minister is

aware of the price they got for this equipment and the name of the buyer, given

that this is an area the minister uses as an example that would save the

taxpayers a great deal of money.

Hon. C.

Hansen: This is certainly an area that is 100 percent within the

responsibility of the Fraser health authority and not something we would try to

manage from the ministry. As a result, I don't know the details around how they

may have disposed of that equipment, but if the member would like more

information, I could certainly try to get her more information from the Fraser

health authority.

MacPhail: Will the CEOs be coming here to debate, so I can ask the CEOs

questions directly? It's about — what? — $6 billion or $7 billion of tax

money that flows to the regional health authorities. Is the minister not

prepared to answer questions about the regional health authorities?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'm sorry. I apologize if the member took my response in a way that

I didn't intend. I don't shirk the responsibility I have for this $10.4 billion

budget we have in the Ministry of Health Services. Certainly, I will endeavour

to provide the member with answers to all of her questions, including issues

that affect individual health authorities. It's just that that particular level

of detail I don't have at my fingertips right now, but I can certainly undertake

to try to get information for her from the health authority.

MacPhail: Well, it is level of detail that is costing millions of dollars of

taxpayer money. So, yes, I do want an answer, Mr. Chair. Here we have a

situation where the government said it was getting out of the laundry business

because that was cost-effective. Through the

[ Page 6792 ]

Fraser health authority, they contracted out its service for laundry for ten

years to K-Bro. They shut down the laundry equipment in Chilliwack Hospital.

They sold some of the equipment, my information is, to K-Bro, so K-Bro could use

this equipment in their new facility in the lower mainland to clean laundry.

That's why

I wanted to know what the price was that the government got for this sale. Was

it a fire sale? Was it a buck? Was there an assessed value? Otherwise, the

government has given away equipment to a laundry service so that that laundry

service can be contracted out. And that's saving tax dollars? That's why I want

the information to prove me wrong in that area.

[1625]

Now, the

Tilbury Regional Laundry, a highly efficient hospital laundry service. That was

transferred by legislation to the Vancouver coastal health authority, and of

course, the Vancouver coastal has awarded its biggest hospital laundry

operations to K-Bro, the firm I was just talking about. What are the plans for

Tilbury laundry service?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, I can advise the member that the Tilbury Island laundry

facility is obviously still operating and providing a service to the health

authorities. I know that in the past Tilbury Island was actually owned jointly

by several of the health authorities, and I know that ownership is now being

shifted.

The

official that can help me with some of the additional details has just slipped

out of the room, but if the member would like to go on to another question, I

would be pleased to come back to this when I am able to give her a more

substantive answer.

MacPhail: Then let's go on to the example of the public-private partnership

in the area of infrastructure for the health care system — the building of the

hospital at Abbotsford, which is to be done under a public-private partnership.

Could I have an update on that, please?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We went out with a request for expression of interest for firms that

would like to be part of providing this new 300-bed hospital in Abbotsford. The

deadline has now passed for the submission of those expressions of interest. We

are now going through a process of reviewing each of those proposals. It is the

intention of Partnerships B.C. to short-list to four organizations. They might

be individual companies or consortiums. Then we would be issuing a specific

request for proposal to each of those four on the shortlist. That will

eventually lead to a successful organization that will build that new and

wonderful facility for the Fraser Valley.

MacPhail: What's the time line?

Hon. C.

Hansen: As I indicated earlier, the expressions of interest are now being

reviewed. We expect to be able to finalize a shortlist from those expressions of

interest by the end of June, at which time the RFP would be issued to those four

proponents. They would have to submit their proposals in the fall of this year,

and then there is a fairly lengthy process of trying to review the overall

details that come back in response to the RFP.

MacPhail: Okay. So this is year two of a four-year mandate, and it looks

like…. Will the request for proposals be…? Is the time line…?

Mr. Chair,

I just want to tell you that I did ask these questions of the minister

responsible for Partnerships B.C. and didn't get any answers.

Will the

time line be that the requests for proposal will be awarded by the end of this

fiscal?

[1630]

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, I'll just read this whole note for the member: "The

project is proceeding according to the major scheduled milestones. Evaluation of

the expressions of interest and selection of the four proponents should be

concluded at the end of May 2003. The release of the request for proposal is

scheduled for June 30, 2003, and the target for financial close and the start of

the implementation phase is October of 2004. The opening of the new facility is

scheduled for December of 2007."

MacPhail: I noted a difference in the budget and fiscal plan document this

year of the overall government fiscal plan as it relates to capital

expenditures. Last year the Abbotsford hospital was in there for $211 million,

and there was nothing in there for the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition

Centre. That's reversed this year. The Abbotsford hospital, booked at $211

million, is gone, and the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre has been

put in the government's capital expenditures for $230 million.

Is the

request for proposals for a $211 million structure now all privately funded?

This question is arising out of the changes to this government's fiscal plan.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The new Abbotsford hospital will be a P3. This is a facility where

the capital component will be provided by the consortium or the company that is

building it. It will not be a capital expenditure of the Ministry of Health

Services either now or in the future. Certainly, we do address it as a major

capital project of the ministry. If the member wanted to refer to page 44 of my

ministry service plan, she will see that it is acknowledged as a capital

expenditure, but as such it is not going to be a charge against the capital

budgets of the ministry in the future because of the fact that it is being

delivered as a public-private partnership.

The

Chair: If it's the will of the committee, we'll have a short five-minute

recess. All those in favour? We'll be reconvening at 20 to.

The

committee recessed from 4:33 p.m. to 4:44 p.m.

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

[ Page 6793 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I did promise the member I'd give her an answer about the current

status of Tilbury. That laundry facility continues to provide laundry services,

as they have done in the past, for the various facilities in the Vancouver

coastal health authority. In terms of the day-to-day operations at Tilbury,

there has been no change.

MacPhail: The reason why I'm asking about the change in the listing of the

Abbotsford hospital — that it's now a capital expenditure, but it's not part

of the government's capital expenditure — is an acknowledgment, of course, and

the minister confirms it, that it's a P3. The Vancouver Trade and Convention

Centre, which couldn't be done as a P3, has been added to the government's

capital expenditure list.

[1645]

What I'm

curious about is more information about how this P3 is going to be paid. Of

course, the process for even expressions of interest…. You've got to pay to

get in. You have to pay 250 bucks, I think, to attend an information meeting

about the Abbotsford hospital. There is no information anywhere that has flowed

out of that meeting, not on a website or anywhere else, so that's why I'm asking

these questions.

Is the

minister confident, after receiving expressions of interest, that his

government's calculation of $211 million is the price tag for the hospital?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We don't know that. That's the whole purpose of going out with a

process of looking for expressions of interest and then subsequently the RFP

process. It is certainly conceivable that we may wind up with private sector

partners that will come to the table and will be able to find efficiencies to

bring it in at less than that. It's also conceivable it could be more than that.

We certainly wouldn't want to prejudge that at this point, because that's what

tendering is all about. It's to get the best price for the quality of product

that we will insist upon.

MacPhail: Well, that's a bit troubling. The government had a figure of $211

million that it booked and then removed. Then they contracted

PricewaterhouseCoopers. They put together a quarter-of-a-million-dollar report

recommending a P3 for the MSA replacement project. They made the recommendation

despite marginal cost advantages over a traditionally procured hospital, which

was booked at $211 million. There are some that would say that even those

marginal advantages could rapidly disappear with only minor variations in the

financial modelling.

What I'm

trying to figure out is: who's actually in charge here on this?

PricewaterhouseCoopers gets a contract; says, "Oh yeah, P3 works," and

now PricewaterhouseCoopers is allowed to bid on that very project as a proponent

or a consultant to a proponent. I'm just trying to nail it down. Who's

determining what the cost of this is going to be, whether it be private or

public? At the end of the day, if it's a privately financed partnership, the

taxpayers still pay for it through operating leases. They still have to pay

something for the profit of the private sector operator. We have a situation

here where PricewaterhouseCoopers gets to say, "Yeah, go ahead with a

P3," and then PricewaterhouseCoopers gets to be a proponent.

Let me just

quote what the government document has said, by permitting the

PricewaterhouseCoopers to be on both side of the issue. It says: "In order

for them to have the opportunity of participating as a respondent team member,

such consultations have undertaken to implement internal policies and procedures

to protect and/or return or destroy all confidential information which they

obtained in the performance of such work and services." I guess

PricewaterhouseCoopers is responsible for that itself.

Now, one of

the reviews of public-private partnerships, and the success or lack of success,

comes out of the United Kingdom. A major criticism of private financing

initiatives, or PFIs — that's what public-private partnerships are called in

the United Kingdom — has been the ability of consultants like

PricewaterhouseCoopers — they don't list PricewaterhouseCoopers, but companies

like them — to work with local health authorities to put P3 business cases

together and then switch sides and work with investors to put together the

consortiums to build and operate the hospitals.

As far as I

can tell, it's happening here in British Columbia with this P3 at MSA hospital.

What are the mechanisms that have been put in place? What reassurances has this

government got about the PwC double role?

[1650]

Hon. C.

Hansen: In terms of the safeguards that are put into the whole process of

evaluating bids and that, there is, first of all, a probity auditor in place to

oversee the process. We have also contracted with process advisers from

Partnerships U.K. and also from Australia, because they have had experience with

this approach to building large hospitals in those particular jurisdictions.

The other

thing is that the work that PricewaterhouseCoopers has done does not give them,

in any way, an unfair advantage over any of the other proponents that may be

wanting to participate in this process. The report that was done by

PricewaterhouseCoopers is certainly available to all the proponents that are

responding to the expression of interest. At the time that

PricewaterhouseCoopers undertook that project, there was an understanding that

they would not be prevented from bidding on it subsequently, but they would also

not have any unfair advantage as a direct result of that.

MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the minister could specify how that

prevention of the unfair advantage is prescribed in the EOI — expression of

interest.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Basically, it is through the sharing of the report that

PricewaterhouseCoopers did, which ensures that the other bidders on the project

would

[ Page 6794 ]

have access to that information as well. It would mean that

PricewaterhouseCoopers would not have any unfair advantage with information that

would not be made available to the other proponents as well.

MacPhail: Did all the other proponents have access to all the internal

documents that PricewaterhouseCoopers had — all of the correspondence, all of

the calculations? The report that was published had working documents behind it.

Are the working documents distributed as well?

[1655]

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member read out the requirements that PricewaterhouseCoopers had

with regard to working documents and papers that they were required to either

return or destroy. PricewaterhouseCoopers is a large, reputable, international

organization that deals in a whole range of different issues, and they have

staff who are obviously dedicated to different types of work that they do. We

certainly have no reason to believe that they would have retained any materials

in contravention of the agreements we had with them.

The other

thing is that when the companies came to apply for information that would allow

them to respond to the EOI, those companies were made aware both of

PricewaterhouseCoopers's involvement previously with the report and of the fact

that PricewaterhouseCoopers was permitted to be part of a consortium that may in

fact respond to the bid. We have not had any complaints expressed to us by any

of those organizations with regard to the involvement of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

MacPhail: Now, the government has completely removed from its books the cost

of the MSA hospital. It was on the books as government infrastructure costs last

year, not this year. There's nothing booked for the MSA hospital in terms of

government debt or government responsibility.

In doing my

research, I found out that in countries — particularly in the United Kingdom

but in some areas of the United States as well — where a private partner goes

bankrupt, then the government has to bail that private partner out. In fact,

there is a point of view amongst auditors general that given that trend,

governments should be booking the value, or at least a portion of the value, of

the project as if it were government money itself being spent.

What