British Columbia Hansard — Monday, March 31, 2014 (40th Parliament, 2nd Session) (20140331pm-Hansard-v9n5) (20140331pm Hansard v9n5)

20140331pm-Hansard-v9n5

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Monday, March 31, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 9, Number 5

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Second Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Pat Pimm Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..................................................................................................... Hon. Don McRae Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ......................................................................................................................................................Adrian Dix Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ....................................................................................................................................... Marc Dalton Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) .......................... Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP) ............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) .............................................

Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Scott (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal) ........................................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) ..................................................

Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Hon. Pat (BC Liberal) ...............................................Peace River North Plecas, Darryl (BC Liberal) ....................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal) ........................................ Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ............................................................................Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ......................................................................... Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley...........................................................................Hon.

Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................

Bill Routley Delta North ..................................................................................Scott Hamilton Delta South ...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola....................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ............................................................... Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan .........................................................

Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ................................................. Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ...................................................................... Hon. Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 49; New Democratic 34; Independent 2

CONTENTS Monday, March 31, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Tributes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2567 Victoria Cougars hockey championship win M.

Karagianis Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 2567 Tributes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2568 Selkirk Saints hockey championship win K. Conroy Roshan Th omas S. Sullivan Kootenay Ice hockey team win Hon. B.

Bennett Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 2568 Creative B.C. and fi lm industry J. Th ornthwaite Gay activism by Ted Northe S. Chandra Herbert Richmond Lions Manor Bridgeport care facility J. Yap 50th anniversary of tsunami in Port Alberni S. Fraser Lifesaving Society awards for bravery R. Lee Expiration of Canada health accord J.

Darcy Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2570 Investigation into executive compensation at Kwantlen University D. Eby Hon. A. Virk A. Dix Impact of electricity rates on industry and low-income earners J. Horgan Hon. B. Bennett Impact of electricity rates on school districts and hospitals M. Farnworth Hon. B. Bennett Ferry fares C. Trevena Hon. T. Stone Jumbo Glacier resort municipality N. Macdonald Hon. C. Oakes M.

Mungall Tabling Documents ................................................................................................................................................................. 2575 Correspondence with respect to compensation and employment contracts at British Columbia universities

Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 2575 Bill 7 — Laboratory Services Act Hon. T. Lake J. Darcy K. Corrigan H. Bains D. Donaldson G.

Heyman Reporting of Bills ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2597 Bill 7 — Laboratory Services Act Th ird Reading of Bills ......................................................................................................... .................................................... 2597 Bill 7 — Laboratory Services Act Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 2597 Bill 14 — Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014 (continued) L.

Krog Hon. S. Anton K. Corrigan Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2600 Estimates: Ministry of International Trade (continued) J. Shin Hon. T. Wat V . Huntington B. Ralston Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Hon. T. Stone C. Trevena V . Huntington

MONDAY , MARCH 31, 2014 Th e House met at 1:34 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Tributes VICTORIA COUGARS HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP WIN M. Karagianis: I'd like to share some news with the House today about an exciting event that took place over the weekend in my community. Th e Victoria Cougars, who call the Archie Browning Sports Centre in Esquimalt their home, have won their third-straight Vancouver Island junior hockey championship. Th ey shut out the Peninsula Panthers 3-0 on Friday night to win the best- of-seven series in six games.

Th e Victoria Cougars are now off to the Cyclone Taylor Cup, which begins in Nelson on April 10. [1335] Now, it's not unusual to have a bit of good-natured rivalry here in the House, and so I'd like to join the tradition. Today I am challenging my colleague from Nelson-Creston, who is over here, to a friendly bet: whichever of our teams wins, the losing MLA, with the Speaker's approval, will sport the opposing team's jersey here in the House and do a two-minute statement admit- ting defeat and praising the winning team.

I'm fairly confident in this bet, so I'm saying: "Go, Cougars, go!" Introductions by Members Hon. P . Fassbender: I'm delighted today. I think the last time I introduced some of my family, I said: "Th ere are never enough Fassbenders." Members opposite re- acted accordingly, but I have some more to introduce to you today. I have my son Steve and wife, Hollie, who are both RCMP members in Th ompson, Manitoba, who came for a visit, and my son's son, my grandson, Aidan. Th ey're joined by my wife, Charlene. I'd ask members to welcome them to this House.

Michelle Stilwell: Joining us in the House today are my two favourite people in the world. My husband of al- most 17 years, Mark, has been my rock throughout our journey together, both during my career in sport and now my transition into life here at the Legislature. He is a true legend, in my eyes. With him, is our 12-year-old son, Kai, here for his fi rst question period. Kai has travelled the world with Mark and me, to the Olympics and to other destinations, as I competed, and he's always been my very best cheerleader.

I'm thrilled that I can have them both here today to ob- serve a very diff erent kind of sport. I have no doubt that the members will not disappoint in this democratic House. Please join me in making them feel welcome. Madame Speaker: My apologies to the Minister of Education. I curtailed his introduction. Hon. P . Fassbender: Th ank you, Madame Speaker. I'm also very proud today to introduce a member in this House, a gentleman who has served the Ministry of Education and this government for well over 29 years.

Aft er 19 years in the Ministry of Education, he has served in a number of capacities — the director of funding and compliance. He also managed the allocation of the oper- ating block funding for school districts. Today is his absolute last day as a full-time member of the employ of the Ministry of Education. I would ask the House to give a big welcome and a bon voyage to Mr. Doug Stewart and his wife, Carol, as they chart new courses in the future. R. Fleming: I'd like the House to make welcome a constituent of mine, Mr.

Richard Swinden, who is pretty close to being a lifelong British Columbian and has vis- ited this House on many occasions over the decades. He's got a background in management consulting. It's been awhile since he's been here in the House. I don't remem- ber losing a bet to him, but I have to buy him a piece of pie aft er question period, and I look forward to sitting down with him. Would the House make him welcome here this aft ernoon. Hon. T. Lake: Genome B.C. is a research organization that we're very proud of here in British Columbia.

Th ey invest in and manage large-scale genomics and proteom- ics research projects. We had the opportunity to spend some time at lunch with members of this organization. People think of Genome B.C. as focusing on human health, but they also do a lot of work in forestry, bioener- gy and the environment, with a goal of generating social and economic benefi ts for British Columbia and Canada. Th ey do some amazing work, which we were happy to hear about at lunchtime. Th ere are some members of that organization in the House today.

I'd like everyone to welcome James Taylor, Ida Goodreau, Hennie van Vuuren and Julia White. Would the House please make them very welcome. C. James: I have a school group visiting us today in the gallery. St. Patrick's Elementary School is here with 24 grade 5 students, with their teacher Mr. Patrick Card and a group of parents. Would the House please make our visitors very welcome. 2567

British Columbia Debates2568 Monday, March 31, 2014 [1340] M. Bernier: It's my pleasure to host in the precinct to- day a bunch of former colleagues, friends of mine from up in the northeast part of British Columbia. Th ey were down here to remind us that every time we talk about LNG it starts with NG, which is the northeast part of the province. It's my pleasure to introduce today Mayor Lori Ackerman from the city of Fort St. John and also the mayor from the village of Taylor, Mr. Fred Jarvis. Will the House please make them welcome. G.

Hogg: It is my pleasure to introduce to this Legisla- ture a gentleman who is a lifelong resident of British Col- umbia and a fi rst-time visitor to this Legislature. Please welcome Tom Collins. Tributes SELKIRK SAINTS HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP WIN K. Conroy: I'm going to stand up and admit I just dropped the ball on this one — not something politicians do oft en. I should have taken a page out of my colleague's book and challenged some of the members of the hockey teams that the Selkirk Saints played against.

Not only did they defeat Kamloops' Th ompson Rivers University to get into the fi nals — we would have had two Kamloops MLAs wearing Selkirk Saints jerseys — but they defeated, for the fi nals and to win the intercollegiate champion- ships, Trinity Western University. I think there would have been a few Langley MLAs that also would've been wearing jerseys. Please join me in congratulating the Selkirk Saints on their second win. ROSHAN THOMAS S. Sullivan: At this moment in Burnaby in the Ismaili Jamatkhana there is a funeral for Roshan Thomas, who was a woman who was killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

She was a teacher especially focusing on girls. She was a doctor. I know that all of us will be in the spirit with the family as they celebrate this won- derful life. KOOTENAY ICE HOCKEY TEAM WIN Hon. B. Bennett: In the spirit of, or, I guess, consist- ent with the hockey theme today, I'd like to congratulate the Kootenay Ice, who defeated the Calgary Hitmen on Saturday night four games to two in the fi rst round of the WHL playoff s. Th ey're on their way again. Th ey're been to the Memorial Cup twice, and I'm sure they're going a third time this year. Statements (Standing Order 25B) CREATIVE B.C.

AND FILM INDUSTRY J. Th ornthwaite: In November I had the pleasure of joining representatives from the B.C. Motion Picture Production Industry at a client appreciation reception in Los Angeles. Th ere, members of the MPPIA had a chance to tour the biggest studios, thank producers for bringing projects to B.C. and encourage them to continue doing business here. Th e event also had an opportunity to intro- duce studios to the Creative B.C. team. Creative B.C. began in January 2013 by combining the B.C. Film Commission and B.C. Film and Media.

By consolidating resources, we created a one-stop shop that provides enhanced support for a wide range of programs, production services and tax credit opportunities. Creative B.C. makes it easier for producers to bring their projects to B.C. and is one of the many ways we are working with industry to ensure clients have unfettered access to our high-quality production environment and world-class production and visual eff ects facilities. It was clear to all in attendance that producers have im- mense confi dence in B.C.

Peter Leitch, president of North Shore and Mammoth Studios and chair of MPPIA, said feedback from clients was overwhelmingly positive, not just because of our stunning scenery but also because of our proximity to Hollywood, the quality of our work and the skill of our workforce. Th e sector directly employs more than 20,000 British Columbians, including more than 2,000 North Vancouver residents who work on set in television and fi lm produc- tion. Th ese people are the backbone of the industry, and their expertise is what continues to attract foreign pro- duction to our shores. Mr.

Leitch says that because of the continued support of government and a low dollar, he has seen a dramat- ic improvement in B.C.'s fi lm industry. Th ere has been an increase of several thousand jobs since this time last year, and we have now re-established ourselves as the number one choice for L.A.-based production. We have proven that we have the talent to grow the industry and create new opportunities for the next generation of con- tent creators.

I'm very pleased both government and the MPPIA remain committed to working together to con- tinue building the B.C. brand overseas. [1345] GAY ACTIVISM BY TED NORTHE S. Chandra Herbert: I'm saddened to inform British Columbians that a hero for human rights and lesbian, gay, bi and transgender equality has left us. At 6:10 a.m. on Saturday Mr. Ted Northe passed away. He's left a legacy that should inspire us all.

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 31, 2014 2569 Born in 1937 in Alberta and raised in the Fraser Valley, from a young age Ted knew he was diff erent. He was a gay man in a country that still forced gay and lesbian people into jail, shock treatment or worse. As a young man, he grew up, and his anger grew stronger because his friends kept getting locked up, not for any criminal act but for being gay and for being alive. In 1958 Ted joined a protest outside of the art gallery dressed head to toe in drag.

At the time, he faced arrest for impersonating a woman, but Ted, as always, was a step ahead, wearing the required three items of men's clothing to avoid arrest. Under his gown he had one pair of men's socks, two pairs of men's socks and, of course, his underwear — the men's socks in a bra. He wore it very well, I'm sure. Ted always stood up and stood out. In 1964 he founded the Imperial Court System in Canada and soon there- aft er was named the Empress of Canada, a title he holds to this day.

Th rough his work with the Dogwood Monarch Society, the Gay Businessmen's Guild and many other organizations, he created safe spaces for the gay and lesbian community, raised over $10 million for charity and helped change the world. In 1969 community eff orts, including his own, to end the criminalization of gay people were fi nally successful. Ted was crucial in the fi ght. He recalls receiving a phone call. He answered it only to hear the Prime Minister call him "Y our Majesty" before congratulating him for his eff orts and for the good news. Y our Majesty, indeed.

Ted was a fi ghter, a community builder and somebody that will live in our hearts for a long, long time. He dared to be himself. He dared to stand up to convention, and for all of that, we are so grateful and we are so better for it as a community. Rest in peace, Ted. May your entrance to wherever you may go be greeted by a big old gay coronation, where they, of course, will await your entrance, Ted, head to toe in drag. Th ank you, Ted Northe. RICHMOND LIONS MANOR BRIDGEPORT CARE FACILITY J.

Y ap: I'm pleased to rise in the House today and speak about Richmond Lions Manor Bridgeport, a complex care seniors living facility in Richmond. Th e original Richmond Lions Manor has been located in my riding, Richmond-Steveston, since the '70s. For years the caring staff at the facility have provided excellent service for each and every resident who lived there. While we will miss the facility, Vancouver Coastal Health is working on a long-term plan for the outdated building.

Th e residents of Richmond Lions Manor have moved from this aging space into the renovated and signifi cantly upgraded facility of Richmond Lions Manor Bridgeport. With 93 beds, including 49 single room and 22 double rooms that are twice as large as the rooms in the original facility, residents have their private space while receiving the care that they need. Improvements to this facility include bedrooms, lounge and dining areas on each fl oor and activity and exercise area, care and treatment areas. Th e second fl oor has a special care unit for patients living with dementia.

While providing residents with a home-like environ- ment, Richmond Lions Manor Bridgeport is equipped with security measures that include quality technological devices to ensure safety and security, including cameras, closed-circuit TV , secure doors that require swipe card access, and bracelets for those with cognitive decline. An indoor courtyard and an outdoor gated park with a six- foot minimum fence around the perimeter ensure that residents can enjoy the outdoors while remaining safe. Residents can visit amenities close by, including coff ee shops, restaurants and the Cambie Community Centre.

It's fantastic to see an updated space to support resi- dents' needs in a bright, communal environment. Many people in Richmond Health Services were involved in making this project a success, but I want to mention in particular Mike Nader, chief operating offi cer; Kathy Wong, manager; and Natalie McCarthy, director of men- tal health and addictions and residential care — who oversaw the project. Richmond Lions Manor Bridgeport is a welcome addi- tion to the Richmond community. 50th ANNIVERSARY OF TSUNAMI IN PORT ALBERNI S.

Fraser: It was Good Friday in 1964 that the largest earthquake of the century rocked Alaska, heaving up the ocean fl oor 15 metres and sending seismic waves all along the west coast of Vancouver Island. Friday marked the 50th anniversary of the tsunami that travelled up the Alberni Inlet. [1350] In the wee hours of March 28, 1964, three consecutive waves flooded the town, causing massive damage and mayhem. But miraculously, no one was killed or seriously injured. From the pulp mill to Beaver Creek there were cars, houses and boats severely damaged.

Loose logs were acting like battering rams as they hit the buildings in their path. Houses and cabins that weren't washed out to the riv- er were strewn everywhere. A church was moved several hundred feet and was facing a new direction. It was surreal. Th e people of Port Alberni rallied that night to prevent death and injury, as they rallied in the weeks and months to come to rebuild their town. On Friday I attended a fas- cinating commemorative event at the Alberni Maritime Discovery Centre.

Incredible displays of original photo- graphs brought that event back to life, and the awesome power of nature was graphically depicted to a full house of visitors.

British Columbia Debates2570 Monday, March 31, 2014 Jan Jansma was there in 1964. He presented an amazing slide show at the Discovery Centre and told a fi rsthand story that had me captivated and had the rest of the house captivated as well. Following Jan, George Monrufet told the story of how he, as a young lad, was called to action by his father to help save the infamous Lady Rose that was at dock in the harbour.

I want to thank museum director and emcee Jamie Morton and everyone involved at the Port Alberni Maritime Discovery Centre for allowing us to relive and learn from history and for reminding us in this Legislative Assembly to follow the lead of the people of Port Alberni and get prepared for the next big one. LIFESAVING SOCIETY AW ARDS FOR BRAVERY R. Lee: Courage, bravery and quick thinking are oft en required to rescue a drowning person. Risking one's own life characterizes many rescues and acts of selfl ess brav- ery.

Whether on a lake, river or ocean; whether on a boat or near the shore; whether in calm waters or in a fi erce storm, we credit the many heroes who risk their lives to save others. Today I rise in the House to recognize an important organization which helps us all work and play safer: the B.C. and Yukon branch of the Lifesaving Society, a non- profi t organization whose mandate is to reduce water- related death and injury.

I had the honour to attend its 102nd annual Common- wealth Awards ceremony last Saturday where fi ve volunteers — Anita Bernardo, Chris Cordova, Melina Sweezey, Kim Town-Schon and Tia Town-Schon — received a certifi cate of thanks. Service medals were awarded to Lauralee Cheng, Jeff Holland, Michael Miller, Dan Minster and Alison Stevens to acknowledge their meritorious service in saving lives. Silver Medals of Merit were awarded to David Cobb, Andrew and Mackenzie Lacon, Peter MacDougal, Kristine Williams, Paul Murnaghan, Eric Pehota, Callie Hill and Cameron and Sydney Wetter.

Finally, to acknowledge rescues involving signifi- cant acts of bravery, the Silver Medals for Bravery were awarded to the following heroes: Oswald Felsman, Deion Watts, Tracy Goodman, Jennifer Partridge, Julien Peron, Gary Lefebvre, Brennan Lund, Connor Lund, Ethan Milne, Bruce Shaw, Daniel Zayonc, Roger Wetter and Alan Downie, who was also awarded with the Governor's Gold Medal. Th ank you to the Lifesaving Society for improving water safety, and thank you to all of the brave heroes who risk their lives to save others in need. EXPIRATION OF CANADA HEALTH ACCORD J.

Darcy: Today in ten communities across B.C. and dozens more across Canada people are gathering at ral- lies and public meetings to raise the alarm about the end of the Canada health accord. Today the ten-year-old health accord, which provided stable, long-term fund- ing to the provinces aft er a decade of cuts, is set to expire. Th e accord recommitted all provinces to protecting our most cherished social program by upholding the fi ve principles of medicare, and it committed governments to common goals around wait times, home care, prescrip- tion drugs and team-based primary care.

But now all of that is set to change. [1355] Federal transfers to the provinces will be cut by $36 bil- lion over the next ten years, and B.C. will be the biggest loser. Our cut, of $5 billion, is greater than the total cuts to the four Atlantic provinces, the three prairie provinces and the territories combined. Th e fi rst cuts take eff ect today — $255 million worth. What could that $255 million pay for? Improved stan- dards in residential care and home support for thousands more seniors, plus dozens of new community health cen- tres, plus making progress in tackling the major crisis in mental health.

That's why people across B.C. and across Canada are raising the alarm today. Th ey want to improve our health care and ensure it's sustainable. Th ey know that a weakening of medicare leads to two-tier health care where the quality of care you get depends on the size of your pocketbook, where they check your purse be- fore they check your pulse. Th at's something that British Columbians and Canadians will never accept. Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, allow me to thank those members whose two-minute statements were ac- tually two minutes. I appreciate that.

Oral Questions INVESTIGATION INTO EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AT KW ANTLEN UNIVERSITY D. Eby: The Kwantlen Polytechnic University Foundation website says its current and only priority is to support students through scholarships, bursaries and awards made possible by generous donors. Now e-mails from inside Kwantlen reveal that the chair of the board, the Minister of Advanced Education and one other board member wanted to break government salary cap rules by giving $100,000 from this founda- tion to the incoming president.

Can the minister tell the House whether he was successful in using student schol- arship money to make a secret six-fi gure payment to the president of Kwantlen University? Hon. A. Virk: As the member opposite may certainly recall, there is a full examination of compensation oc- curring at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Assistant

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 31, 2014 2571 Deputy Minister Mingay has been tasked with that, and his report will include any fi ndings or recommendations relating to examination of specifi c transactions, as well as any general conclusions he's able to draw from his re- view on that matter. Th at report is due for the Minister of Finance to examine. Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a sup- plemental. D. Eby: Th e minister knows that the outline of the in- vestigation doesn't mention the foundation at all.

In fact, the minister's proposal was scheduled to go to the board of directors on November 7, 2011. In an e-mail the chair of the board said that he, the minister, and one other board member had discussed the plan. Now, this harebrained scheme was only interrupted when staff e-mailed and asked for advice from the president of the B.C. Association of Institutes and Universities two days before the board meeting. Th e ad- vice the staff member received was what you would ex- pect: "Stop.

Th is is wrong." As one of the three board members in on this, can the minister explain why he was pursuing this outlandish plan in the fi rst place and whether he told Mr. Mingay to look into this as part of the investigation? Hon. A. Virk: Well, Madame Speaker, if the member opposite has in his possession any additional materials, I certainly recommend that he be able to table those so that Mr. Mingay can have more additional information to complete his review. D. Eby: It's rapidly becoming clear that the minister is the one with the most interesting information for Mr. Mingay, not this side of the House.

Kwantlen staff are well aware that the irregular na- ture of presidential and executive contracts at the school were inappropriate. An e-mail from the current president, Alan Davis, about his contract notes that since the minis- ter was on the board at the time the president's contract was signed, "we need to be ready to defend him if this becomes an issue." [1400] To the minister, what actions did he take or not take that need defending? What actions, if any, are Kwantlen staff currently taking to defend the minister from his own government's investigation? Hon. A.

Virk: At the risk of sounding repetitive, let me lay out what the appointment letter to Mr. Mingay reads. "What payments were made and pursuant to what contractual arrangements? What was disclosed? Did dis- closure occur consistent with the applicable guidelines, including PSEC requirements? Was the total compensa- tion received by the employees consistent with the com- pensation guidelines?" The ADM has authority under the Financial Administration Act and the Financial Information Act to require the appropriate information.

Th at review will come forth and provide the information to myself and to the Minister of Finance: were the appropriate Financial Information Act requirements fulfi lled? A. Dix: Here's what we know so far. We know that Kwantlen Polytechnic University has schemed to hide at least $100,000 in payments to senior staff by record- ing them as supplier payments. We know they also spent large amounts of money in research payments to senior staff , also not reported as compensation. We also know that the minister, in his role on the board, along with Mr.

Schoberg, who is still chair of the Kwantlen board, hatched a plan to divert money from the university stu- dent foundations to top up the president's salary. Th e minister has talked about the role of boards. He knows that

section 19 of the University Act states that members of the board must act in the best interests of the university and that they have fi duciary duties. Specifi cally to the minister, can he tell the House if he has been interviewed yet by Mr. Mingay? Hon. A. Virk: We take this matter very seriously, and the Public Sector Employers Council secretary is going to indeed examine all the facts surrounding the payments made to those executives. Any payments made outside of their contractual period are going to be examined, and the review is underway. It's looking at the payments themselves.

It's looking at the public disclosure of those payments. It's looking at the compensation and to ensure that it met with the appropriate government guidelines. Madame Speaker: Th e Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental. A. Dix: Th e minister answers these questions as if he was witnessing a car accident. He was driving the car. Th e question was very, very simple. Has the minister been interviewed in Mr. Mingay's investigation of these activ- ities at Kwantlen Polytechnic University? Hon. A. Virk: I think the member of the opposition is suggesting that the review process be circumvented.

Th e review is underway, and the report will be available when the review is done. IMPACT OF ELECTRICITY RATES ON INDUSTRY AND LOW-INCOME EARNERS J. Horgan: Tomorrow heating your home and turning the lights on will cost 9 percent more than it does today. Over the next fi ve years hydro rates are forecast to go up 28 percent. Th ese reckless increases are going to have a

British Columbia Debates2572 Monday, March 31, 2014 signifi cant impact on low-income individuals, middle- class individuals and businesses right across the board. We have been asking British Columbians to give us their views on this matter, and I'd like to share with the minister. Susan from North Vancouver wrote to us. She's on a fi xed income, lives in a townhouse. She's done every- thing she can, availed herself of Power Smart programs, but yet she says: "It will be debatable if we turn the elec- tricity on next winter." My question is to the Minister of Energy.

Aft er com- ing to the conclusion, without any review by the Utilities Commission, of 28 percent rate increases, most of which will be going to the Minister of Finance's treasury, what steps are you going to take to protect low-income British Columbians in British Columbia? Hon. B. Bennett: First of all, the rate increases should be judged in the context of the full ten-year plan that we announced in November. [1405] Th e ten-year plan includes not only the rate increases that the member quoted accurately but also a commit- ment for government to take less over the course of that plan.

It includes a commitment to pay off the so-called deferral accounts. It has already included a reduction of operating costs at B.C. Hydro, to the tune of almost $400 million over three years. It includes the reduction, un- fortunately, of employees at B.C. Hydro, to the tune of 900. Th at has already happened. Executive compensa- tion is under control, compared to other public utilities in North America. In that context, it is true that it is necessary to raise rates in this province to pay for future infrastructure that's necessary to our economy and necessary to those same ratepayers.

I would just close by saying that there is $1.6 billion for Power Smart programs over the life of the plan. J. Horgan: Well, there's certainly a lot to chew on there. We have $1.6 billion over ten years to try and reduce con- sumption while we're trying to pay off $60 billion in un- funded liabilities for private power. We have a whole host of other costs that have been incurred over the 12 years that this government has been in power. In fact, we had an integrated utility in 2001. Th e gov- ernment took B.C.

Transmission Corporation out, and that minister jammed it back in eight years later, saying it was a failure. Th at was only $200 million of waste. We've had billions and billions and billions of dollars in waste, and yet no contrition whatsoever from the government on the consequences to individuals. Th ere are options available in other jurisdictions. A bill, I think, might have been tabled just recently on that matter. Will the minister do everything he can to protect British Columbians rather than bash them with 28 per- cent rate increases? Hon. B.

Bennett: Well, I think probably both myself and the critic are pretty good at getting a lot of informa- tion out in a short period of time. So in response to the question, I'd say fi rst of all that in the fi rst two years of rate increases — the largest rate increases, the 9 percent and the 6 percent — independent power electricity is re- sponsible for 0.5 percent of that increase. So that's the fi rst point. Secondly, I actually share — and know this side of the House shares — that member's concern for low-income British Columbians and the impact that increased rates will have on low-income British Columbians.

We also share the concern as it relates to business, in particular large, industrial ratepayers. Th at's frankly why there is $1.6 billion in Power Smart money in this budget to de- velop programs for the whole range of ratepayers, par- ticularly ratepayers that are going to need our assistance, particularly low-income ratepayers. Now, I know that the Energy critic would prefer to sim- ply give low-income British Columbians a cash subsidy. He has proposed a cash subsidy. While that might sound like a good idea, it does absolutely nothing to get the rate- payer to use less electricity, and that's where we diff er.

IMPACT OF ELECTRICITY RATES ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND HOSPITALS M. Farnworth: Well, the Minister of Energy says he's concerned about low-income British Columbians, and he says he's concerned about big industrial users. What I no- tice he didn't say was whether or not he had any concern for institutions such as schools and hospitals that have had frozen budgets and the impact that these increases are going to have on them. Interjections. M.

Farnworth: Th ey clearly don't seem to acknow- ledge the impact that increase in hydro rates are going to have on schools and institutions. [1410] Perhaps the Minister of Energy can tell this House what advice he has given to hospitals and schools about which services they must eliminate to make up the ap- proximately additional $45 million in extra costs over the next three years. Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the sky is not falling. In fact, electricity and gas costs make up about 1 percent of the overall budget for health authorities. Th at's the story on health authorities.

As far as school districts go, the in- creased electricity rates will amount to less than 1 per- cent of their budget. We think they're going to do their share. Like every other ratepayer in the province, the public sector will do its share. If we tell them they needn't do their share,

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 31, 2014 2573 if they don't have to pay the increase, that means that other ratepayers will have to make up the diff erence. On this side of the House, we don't believe that's the right way to do it. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental. M. Farnworth: Well, hospitals and schools have been doing their share under this government for the last 13 years, and it's resulted in cuts, cuts, cuts. Talk to the school districts. Talk to the health authorities.

Most im- portantly, perhaps the Health Minister might want to talk to people who use the health service. Th ey'll give him ex- amples of cuts every single day. Again, to the Minister of Energy, can he tell us what ad- vice he's given to school districts and health authorities on how they're going to make up the impact of these hydro rate increases? Is it to come out of books, textbooks, teach- ers' wages, services to kids? Does it come out of bandages and supplies in health authorities or delayed wait-lists? Which is it? Because it's going to come from somewhere. Hon. B.

Bennett: As I said a minute ago, the real im- pact, not the sky-is-falling impact, on school boards is actually quite minimal from the electricity rate increase. I think what's important is the larger context. Th e members keep talking about cuts. Th ey've been doing that for 13 years. It hasn't worked out all that well for them electorally. Th ey always like to talk about cuts. I'm actually very, very proud to be on this side of the House, part of a government that has increased the health budget 13 years in a row. Th e B.C. Liberal government has never cut the health budget, ever, in 13 years. Th e B.C.

Liberal government has never cut the K-to-12 edu- cation budget, ever, in 13 years. It's a great opportunity to stand up and say that. FERRY FARES C. Trevena: It's not only hydro rates that are going up. Ferry fares are going up too. Th e independent Ferry Commissioner set a three-year price cap on fares. A cap usually means a ceiling, a level beyond which fares won't go up. Th is year it was supposed to be 4 percent, yet to- morrow on most routes people are going to be paying 5 percent more.

Th at's on top of a 3½ percent fuel sur- charge back in January, so people are paying 8½ percent more in three months for the cost of using their highway. Th ey're hearing today about cuts in services. It's very interesting. Th e Premier does get it, or at least she used to. When she was a host on CKNW , she said: "I'm bet- ting that fares have gotten so high that for every dollar they raise, it'll actually garner less in revenue." Well, that's exactly what's happening. Ridership is plummeting, fares are increasing and now services are being cut.

To the Minister of Transportation, how can he justify the gouging of people for using their highway that even his own Premier thinks is wrong? [1415] Hon. T. Stone: I thank the member for North Island for her question. Once again we hear from the member opposite and from the opposition nothing but hollow rhetoric on this fi le — rhetoric. Government made a commitment to British Columbians that we were going to fi x B.C. Ferries for the long term, and that is exactly what we are going to do. Now, I know the hon. members don't like to be re- minded of what the facts actually are on this fi le.

But this government has invested the highest amount in B.C. Ferries this fi scal year, at $180 million, than any previous government has…. Th at $180 million — a record level of investment from the taxpayers of British Columbia — is all about keeping fares down as low as possible. Th e $54 million effi ciency target at B.C. Ferries, which we are holding Ferries accountable for, is all about keep- ing the fares down at B.C. Ferries. Again, we are all about action. We're going to continue to do what it takes to en- sure that the ferry system is there for the long term.

Madame Speaker: North Island on a supplemental. C. Trevena: I guess the minister is saying that the Premier was wrong. That's the long way around it. I have to say that Liberal math is astounding — that an 8½ percent increase in fares in three months is keeping fares down. Ask anybody who lives in ferry-dependent communities, any business that is operating in a ferry- dependent community. Th ey will know that an 8½ per- cent increase is defi nitely not keeping fares down, and it's damaging their businesses. Tomorrow seniors are going to have to pay for the fi rst time. B.C.

Liberals are going to be taking $7½ million a year from the over-65s, people on a fi xed income. Th at's on top of $162 million the government is planning to take from all ferry users in the form of these fare hikes over the next three years. Seniors are not rich. Just because they work on the islands — grew up on the islands and worked on the islands — doesn't mean that they are wealthy. For thou- sands of seniors on a fi xed income, it'll restrict their lives. Th ey'll not be able to get their groceries. Th ey'll not be able to visit family. It's going to diminish what their lives are.

Why does the minister expect that seniors…? Interjections. C. Trevena: As I was saying to the Minister of Transportation, why does he expect that seniors should be held responsible for fi xing the ferry system his gov- ernment has broken so badly?

British Columbia Debates2574 Monday, March 31, 2014 Hon. T. Stone: What, eff ectively, the member is sug- gesting is that it makes sense for the long term and, in fact, that it's a good strategy to keep fares down, that it makes sense in an eff ort to keep pressure on fares down, to have a sailing like, as many examples, the last, off -peak 11 p.m. Tuesday sailing from Gabriola Island to Nanaimo. Now, listen really carefully. Listen to these numbers. Y ou're talking about a ferry that carries 400 people and 70 cars on this particular sailing.

It has a utilization rate of one or two cars, fi ve people and seven or eight crew. Surely, the member opposite isn't suggesting that continuing to run a ferry with 1.3 percent utilization — more crew than passengers — is going to help keep fares down. [1420] JUMBO GLACIER RESORT MUNICIPALITY N. Macdonald: Jumbo resort municipality is a 6,000-hectare wilderness with no people and not one building. The mayor and council have already spent $250,000 of taxpayers' money, and they have accom- plished nothing. And it's not surprising, since there is no investor, and there has not been an investor for the past decade.

Th e question is…. We now see that the fake municipal- ity is being potentially funded by taxpayers to the tune of a million dollars over the next fi ve years. We're asking for money for dialysis in my area. We're asking for money so that the TransCanada has a highway rescue vehicle. Does the minister not see the absurdity of then giving $1.25 million for a mayor and council of a town with no people, no building and no investors? Hon. C. Oakes: Our government believes that 20 years is long enough and that this project should be going for- ward, because this side of the House believes in growing the economy.

And let me tell you about what this eco- nomic piece…. Th e plan: a $450 million resort will ul- timately include 5,500 bed units and a 104-hectare resort base area. It will provide approximately 3,750 person- years of construction employment and create 750 to 800 permanent, full-time jobs. We believe in jobs. We believe in growing the economy. And this project is good for B.C. Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental. N. Macdonald: I mean, like, wow. It blows you away, right? At some point you need an investor before you get that outcome. I'm sure the minister knows that. All right.

We have real needs. Th e minister intends to spend a million dollars over the next fi ve years, having wasted $250,000. Th ere are real needs for that money. We've asked for dialysis service. No, there's no provincial money for that. We asked for an abattoir. No provin- cial money for that. We asked for a rescue truck so that people on the TransCanada who are injured can actually be saved. No money for that. But the minister still ser- iously says it's a wise investment to spend a million dol- lars over the next fi ve years for a mayor and council that has no people, no buildings and no investor.

How does that make sense at all? Hon. C. Oakes: Well, the citizens of British Columbia spoke up, and they said that we pay for these types of items that are so crucial, so important for people by grow- ing the economy. And let me stand correct. Th e member opposite was in estimates last week, where they know full well that the $200,000 that was provided, which we pro- vide to all start-up municipalities or provide to infrastruc- ture investment…. Every community of both sides can apply from local government to implement infrastructure pieces, start-up money for its infrastructure.

Th e $200,000 that the member opposite was talking about is money…. All local governments can put their application for it forward. But let me ask the member opposite: when Whistler was formed, when Sun Peaks was formed…. Th ese are good investments for the prov- ince of British Columbia. Tourism is important for the province of British Columbia. And we are committed to growing the economy of British Columbia. [1425] M.

Mungall: No one in the Kootenays voted for a government to spend $1 million on a fake municipality without a single resident, without a single pub, without a hospital, without a school, without a house. Th ere isn't even a street there. If she would take the time to drive up there, she would know that.

While this government — and the minister seems to be very proud of this — found $1 million for this fake municipality without a single resident, they said that they could not aff ord $1 million to help victims of the Johnsons Landing mudslide with a buyout program similar to the one off ered to North Vancouver residents in 2005. Th ey also said that they have no money to run the CT scanner at Kootenay Lake Hospital 24/7 or lit- eracy programs in the region or for Trafalgar School and Selkirk College.

Th ey have money for a fake municipal- ity that is run by the Minister of Energy's buddies, that is only invested by the Minister of Energy's buddies… Madame Speaker: Pose your question. M. Mungall: …but they don't have $1 million for real people in the Kootenays. To the minister for local government: how do you fi nd $1 million for a fake municipality, but the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education can't fi nd a cent for the real projects that help real people in the Kootenays?

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 31, 2014 2575 Hon. C. Oakes: Again, I wish the members opposite would listen to the fact during estimates, of which you sat through, that $200,000 was provided for the start-up of the municipality. Small community grants are available to local gov- ernments to assist them in providing services and hir- ing qualifi ed staff . Grants are based on a formula that factors in the base amount and other information. In 2013 Invermere received $280,402 through this, Radium Hot Springs received $182,758, and Canal Flats received $204,679.

But the fi nal thing: in 1975, by an NDP government, Whistler was formed in just the same way. Madame Speaker, we're going to grow this econ- omy. We're going to provide jobs and make sure we can provide the services that are so important to British Columbians across the province of British Columbia. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents D. Eby: I seek leave to table the e-mails that detail wrongdoing at Kwantlen University requested by the Minister of Advanced Education. Leave granted. Orders of the Day Hon. T.

Stone: In the main chamber here I call continu- ing committee stage of Bill 7, intituled Laboratory Services Act, and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, the con- tinuing estimates of the Ministry of International Trade. [1430] Committee of the Whole House BILL 7 — LABORATORY SERVICES ACT Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7; D. Horne in the chair. Th e committee met at 2:32 p.m. Th e Chair: I'll recognize the Minister of Health to introduce his staff . Hon. T. Lake: I'm joined by three very important and very intelligent women, which is very fortunate for me as I go through this committee stage of our bill. We have Elaine McKnight, who is Associate Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Health, Corrie Campbell and Jane Crickmore, who are from our legislative branch and will be helping us through the committee stage. I look for- ward to committee debate. On

section 1. J. Darcy: Well, I'm really looking forward to further discussion on the clause-by-clause of the laboratory re- form, Bill 7, and I guess we start with defi nitions in

part 1. I have a number of questions for the minister. Could we just begin by "administrative body"? I know that there's been a lot of discussion about consolidation of laboratory services. Various options are being con- sidered. Could the minister please talk about what he envisions an administrative body under this act look- ing like? Hon. T. Lake: Essentially, this part of the defi nition gives the minister the ability to establish a body. [1435] In this case, it would be like a board, much like we have boards to manage health authorities or diff erent adminis- trations of the health care system.

Th is gives us the poten- tial opportunity to create a board that would oversee the laboratory system in the province of British Columbia. J. Darcy: I understand that, but I wonder if the min- ister could share more of his thinking. Are we talking about one administrative body that would deal with all laboratory services, both administering the public labs as well as dealing with contracts with private labs? Or does the minister envision more than one administra- tive body under this act? Hon. T. Lake:

Section 31, when we get to that section, certainly can speak more to this part of the act, as ad- ministrative body is referred to under that section. We will have a transition period of three years as we move through this process, so the legislation we are moving through today really is giving us the ability to do a num- ber of things to rationalize the laboratory system in the province of British Columbia.

Th e administrative body could be an overall body to manage the entire system, but as we move through this and do our consultation, our decisions about the form of that administrative body will be informed by those consultations with the various stakeholders in the lab- oratory system. J. Darcy: I assume "approved laboratory facility" means both a public facility or a privately operated facility? Hon. T. Lake: Th e answer is yes. J. Darcy: So "college" appears a little bit further down the list under defi nitions. Could the minister just explain which colleges he considers to be relevant to this act? Hon. T.

Lake: Th e colleges are those that have the ability to order diagnostic tests. That would include

British Columbia Debates2576 Monday, March 31, 2014 the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Midwives, of nurse practitioners, podiatrists and Dental Surgeons. J. Darcy: Can I ask the minister to repeat that a little bit more slowly? Hon. T. Lake: Th e colleges referred to are the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Midwives, of nurse practitioners, podiatrists and Dental Surgeons. J.

Darcy: Under "laboratory facility" it refers to — on the second page — "a facility that provides laboratory services." My question is whether a private clinic could potentially contain a laboratory service, and would it be covered under this act? Hon. T. Lake: Potentially. [1440] J. Darcy: Going further along under defi nitions, "lab- oratory services agreement," can the minister please ex- plain what the nature of current agreements, agreements that exist now, is for providing laboratory services? Hon. T. Lake: We have no agreements. J. Darcy: Th at makes that quite simple.

Referring to "referring practitioner," could the minister please set out what the categories of practitioners are that would be covered under this? Hon. T. Lake: It is the same as referred to earlier — that is, the physicians and surgeons, midwives, nurse practitioners, podiatrists and dental surgeons. Sections 1 and 2 approved. On

section 3. J. Darcy: Can the minister please explain the meaning of the term "the minister must have regard to the prin- ciples expressed in sections 5.1 to 5.7 of the Medicare Protection Act"? Hon. T. Lake: The principles referred to in the Medicare Protection Act are those of public administra- tion, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, access- ibility. Th ose are in common with the Canada Health Act. So that is 5.1 to 5.6, and 5.7 refers to sustainability, which is part of the Medicare Protection Act. J. Darcy: Could the minister explain in particular what "must have regard to" means? Hon. T.

Lake: It means that in administering this par- ticular piece of legislation, you must uphold the princi- ples that are in the Medicare Protection Act, which are the tenets, if you like, of the public health care act that we have in the province of British Columbia. J. Darcy: I'd like to propose an amendment to that sec- tion. Shall I read it fi rst? Th e Chair: Proceed. J. Darcy: [To amend

section 3 of the Act by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined: 3 In exercising powers and performing duties under this Act, the minister must have regard to respect the principles expressed in sections 5.1 to 5.7 of the Medicare Protection Act.] Th e Chair: Does the member wish to speak to the amendment? On the amendment. J. Darcy: Y es, I would. Th e Canada Health Act is some- thing that we certainly all hold sacred.

When we are mak- ing reference to the Canada Health Act and, by defi nition, the Medicare Protection Act in British Columbia, words that say "must have regard to" are not strong enough. I think it's critical that we in fact say that the provisions of the Medicare Protection Act "must be respected," as op- posed to "the minister must have regard to." [1445] Th ese principles are ones that the minister has referred to. Public administration, so that the plan is publicly funded. "Operated on an accountable basis" is what we have in the Medicare Protection Act.

Comprehensiveness, that all medically required services are provided by en- rolled medical practitioners, that they're in approved diagnostic facilities, and so on. On the issue of universality, the plan applies to 100 percent of benefi ciaries. On uniform terms and condi- tions, that there is no discrimination with regard to bene- fi ts or rights under that. Portability, which the minister has also referred to. Accessibility I think is an absolutely critical one.

When we discussed this earlier at second reading you certainly heard concerns expressed from some of my colleagues, especially from rural and remote communities. I know that those concerns were expressed in the consultation process that preceded this bill — that we need to ensure in the process of consolidation, where there is certainly risk of reduced access to services, that we say right up front when we are dealing with this bill that there will continue to be accessibility for all communities across this province.

I know that the minister, in the response to second reading, said that there would be no change to access- ibility in the province, but I think it's critical.

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 31, 2014 2577 And on the issue of sustainability of the health care system, as well, I think it's critical that we say right from the top, when we are dealing with this bill, that the min- ister will exercise his powers not just in regard to but that he must, in fact, respect the principles of the Medicare Protection Act. Hon. T. Lake: I take the member's point in that she is, I think, demonstrating that this piece of legislation must refl ect and uphold the principles of the Medicare Protection Act.

I just don't think the wording suggested is any diff erent than the wording that we have at the mo- ment, so I would speak against the amendment. Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. J. Darcy: Th ere is a reference in 4(1)(b)(ii) that refers to "in accordance with all applicable protocols approved by the minister." Could the minister please explain what is meant by that? What kinds of protocols are envisioned? Hon. T. Lake: Diagnostic testing has to be delivered in a way that upholds protocols that are designed by science and experts in the fi eld.

Th e protocols referred to would be developed by the ministry and approved by the min- ister for diff erent testing procedures. [1450] If there is a certain type of test, then the ministry and the minister can command the diagnostic facility to ad- here to a certain protocol that is established by accredited agencies or organizations. For example, the way we test for Lyme disease is accredited by the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta. We accept their protocols, and that's the type of testing protocol referred to in this section. J. Darcy: In the second

section of 4 it says: "Th e min- ister may make orders as follows: (

a) that a laboratory service or a class of laboratory services are not benefi ts." I wonder if the minister could explain examples of what that might mean. What would guide the minister in mak- ing a decision on a matter such as this? Hon. T. Lake: Of course, as technology changes and knowledge base changes, there may be tests that are no longer deemed viable or suitable. Another test may be adopted which does become the benefi t, and the former test then will no longer be a benefi t. It wouldn't be rec- ognized as a proper test. Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved. On

section 7. J. Darcy: On "Payment for laboratory services out- side British Columbia," I wonder if the minister could speak to what the present practice is in this regard. Does this represent a change in practice or a confi rmation of existing practice? Hon. T. Lake: Th is is essentially…. Well, it is — not just essentially — the same practice that we follow today.

Section 7 approved. On

section 8. J. Darcy: Y es, a question on

section 8. Does the….? Oh, you know what? I think it might have been on sec- tion 7, which I believe we just voted on, so we should just continue, I guess.

Section 8 approved. On

section 9. J. Darcy: Can the minister please explain what the pur- pose is of this section? What is it that is being excluded here? Th ere's a reference to payment for medically neces- sary services. I wonder: can the minister please explain the purpose of that section? Hon. T. Lake: Th is provision mirrors

section 45 of the Medicare Protection Act. If a person is not eligible to be a benefi ciary in B.C. because he or she does not meet the defi nition of resident, then this prohibition does not apply. Th is is essentially to say that you can't go out and buy private insurance to cover diagnostic testing. If you're a benefi ciary, then you are covered. Y ou can't go out of that public system in order to get diagnostic test- ing at the facilities that have agreements or are accredited under the system.

Section 9 approved. On

section 10. J. Darcy:

Section 10 says, "A person may provide bene- fi ts only through a laboratory facility.… Th e minister may grant an approval or enter into a laboratory servi- ces agreement..." and so on. Can the minister please ex- plain how this is determined at present — in subsection (1), to begin with? [1455] Hon. T. Lake: Th e current system is through approval of facilities, so health authorities, for instance, or private providers have to have an approval from the ministry to provide benefi ts.

British Columbia Debates2578 Monday, March 31, 2014 J. Darcy: In

section 10(2)(

c) it says: "the minister, on considering the matters set out in the regulations, is satis- fi ed that it would be in the public interest to grant the ap- proval or to enter into the laboratory services agreement." Can the minister please defi ne what is meant by "pub- lic interest" in that section? Hon. T. Lake: Th e public interest would be served by things like accessibility, appropriateness and value for money. So the things that….

If it was in the interest of the public for the government to enter into an agreement or approve a diagnostic facil- ity, we would look at what the people of British Columbia are going to get out of that. As I mentioned, things like the appropriateness; the accreditation of the facility; the cost, if we were doing an agreement for a service with a private provider, for instance; the value for money that would come into it — essentially making sure that it is providing the high level of health care for the population of British Columbia. J. Darcy: Th ank you to the minister. A question.

Th e minister has mentioned accessibility, and he also mentioned cost savings. It's quite possible, of course, that those two goals can be in confl ict with one another and that reducing access points to lab servi- ces across the province, especially in rural communities, can conceivably save money. So can reduction of servi- ces anywhere in the province. How does the minister en- vision balancing those diff erent parts of public interest?

The minister has assured us, and the introduction to this bill refers to the principles of the Medicare Protection Act, which certainly enshrines the principles of the Canada Health Act regarding accessibility. Y et the minister says…. Overall, we understand that one of the primary object- ives of this bill and of laboratory reform is effi ciencies and cost savings. How does the minister envision balancing — this is a pretty broad term — cost savings with access- ibility in local communities? Hon. T. Lake: Th at's a very good question. Th at's why I get paid so much.

It is an interesting question, and that is the balance that you have to fi nd. For instance, if some- one wanted to provide laboratory services and have only one place where you could go to give your blood sample, and they gave the government a really great deal, that would not, obviously, meet the test of accessibility. Th e Medicare Protection Act does enshrine sustaina- bility as well, so this is very consistent with our approach, with the triple-aim approach, which has been developed by the Institute for Health Care Innovation.

Th at is to im- prove the health of the population, improve the patient experience and outcome and have value for money. All of those have to be considered. If we wanted to have diagnostic sampling sites on every block, that clearly would increase accessibility, but it would come at a very high price. Th e member opposite is making a very good point about the very tough deci- sions that need to be made. [1500] In the public interest, obviously, you need to be able to provide accessibility for people and, if someone is living in a smaller community, fi nd ways through innovation and by….

Well, a good example is the use of telehealth, which we use now and that we didn't have available to us 20 years ago. Th ere are ways and means of providing accessibility, yet still fi nding value for money. I don't think they are mutually exclusive at all, but it's always a challenge to fi nd the right balance of those two.

Section 10 approved. On

section 11. J. Darcy: Approvals to provide benefi ts. I made some of these remarks when we were discussing this bill at second reading. Subsection 11(2) says: "Th e minister may change the limits or conditions attached to an existing ap- proval if the minister fi rst gives, in accordance with the regulations, notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard." It's the reference to changing limits and condi- tions. How broad is that power? Can the minister please explain? Does that give the minister the power to cancel the provision of services by a public body? Hon. T.

Lake: As the current system is at the moment, there are limits and conditions on laboratory facilities based on the types of testing they're doing. Some labora- tory facilities will not be that sophisticated, so they will be limited to certain types of tests. Other laboratories may be very sophisticated and have a wider array of tests that they are able to perform.

Th is gives the power to the minister to change the lim- its and conditions, essentially to move a diagnostic fa- cility from one level to another based on decisions that — perhaps there's a new technology — make sense to consolidate all of that technology into one centre. DNA testing might be something that would not make sense to do in smaller facilities but would make sense to take a critical mass and put it into one facility.

Th is gives the minister the ability to order a facility, then, to change its terms and conditions or its limits and conditions to achieve the objective of a more effi cient service, whether that's to make sure the results are more accurate or to provide better value for money. Th ere are various things that could bring about that decision. J. Darcy: Just a further question to the minister. I understand that in the Lower Mainland, for instance, where we already have had consolidation of labs over

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 31, 2014 2579 the last number of years, people continue to still have access to the same level of lab services. But I'd like the minister to speak in regard to this in particular. What does he think it means, for instance, for the north Island or northern B.C., the rural parts of the Interior Health Authority? What diff erences does he envision this being for those regions? Hon. T. Lake: I think that would be pure speculation on my part because the technology of diagnostic testing changes dramatically. It's kind of like Moore's law with computing power.

We were just talking to Genome B.C. about the ability to test the genomic makeup of a tumour and to tailor the treatment based on the genetic makeup of someone's tumour. Th at kind of technology didn't exist even a couple of years ago. [1505] It's very hard for me to speculate what this would mean, because the technologies, the types of lab test- ing we do, change dramatically from one year to the next. Th is gives us the fl exibility to make sure that we are constantly rationalizing, optimizing the service to drive home effi ciencies and the best service to British Columbians.

I think the member would agree that particularly a patient faced with a diagnosis that might be quite scary would really want us to have the very best testing capabil- ity available, and if that meant that you had to change the terms and conditions on one lab to make sure that they were done where that testing was at the very highest level, that would be in the interests of the patient.

Section 11 approved. On

section 12. J. Darcy: Can the minister please explain the purpose of this section? Hon. T. Lake: Th is would give the ability to enter into contracts with providers of laboratory services. All of these sections you see are related to the ability to enter into those agreements. J. Darcy: Th e minister has said that laboratory ser- vice agreements do not exist at the present time. Does the minister envision there will be a change of the mix between the public and the private delivery of lab servi- ces under this act? Hon. T.

Lake: In the current system, the in-patient laboratory testing is done in the public system. On an out-patient basis, about 70 percent is conducted by pri- vate businesses and 30 percent by health authorities, es- sentially. I guess that we're agnostic on what the future holds. We want to do our consultation with all of the stakehold- ers. I had a very interesting meeting with a pathologist from Interior Health last week, and he made a very strong case about using health authority facilities to do a lot of the laboratory testing.

I think, again, it's back to the principles of the Medicare Protection Act and getting efficiencies and value for money while at the same time delivering a high level of service. As I say, we will be putting our thoughts around how that will best be achieved. We have the ability to do it through the public system, the private system or a com- bination of both, as we have today. J. Darcy: Moving on to subsection 12(2)(b), which deals with providing "for diff erent payments for (

i) diff er- ent benefi ts and laboratory facilities and diff erent classes of benefi ts and laboratory facilities, (ii) benefi ts provided in diff erent geographic locations, and (iii) diff erent vol- umes of benefi ts," can the minister please explain what the present practice is for payment and whether this re- fl ects any change? Hon. T. Lake: Currently the in-patient services are globally funded. A health authority will get their global funding, and the in-patient testing is covered under that.

On the out-patient side, whether it's done by a health authority or a private facility, it is a fee-for-service mod- el. Th ere's a fee paid for each diagnostic test that is car- ried out. [1510] Th is provision allows us to have more fl exibility in how we would fund the testing scheme. It may be that it would all be fee-for-service, or it may be that contractually, with a laboratory services agreement, we would agree, much like you do with an RFP , to a certain price for a certain type of test at a certain volume.

It just gives us more fl ex- ibility to reap the benefi ts for the taxpayers when we're entering into laboratory service agreements. J. Darcy: Th ank you to the minister. Just in reviewing some of the contributions in the consultations phase prior to the bill, I noted that in some other jurisdictions sometimes there are caps on payment — for private pro- viders, I guess, in this case in particular. Can the minister say if that's one of the things that he would be considering when there's a reference to diff erent volumes of benefi ts? Hon. T.

Lake: Th ere's been no determination or really much discussion about any type of capping. Just to drive the point home a little bit, I guess. I mentioned techno- logical advances. Under a fee-for-service model, if I pay $25 for a complete blood count now and the technology changes to make that test a lot cheaper to run, I don't want to continue to pay $25. I wanted to have the fl exibility to reap the benefi ts of technology and effi ciencies for the taxpayer, so this

British Columbia Debates2580 Monday, March 31, 2014 gives us the fl exibility to do that. It doesn't envision, at this point anyway, a cap on the number of tests that can be run. J. Darcy: On the fi nal

section under 12, I wonder if the minister can explain what point (4) means. Hon. T. Lake: Just to give you an example, currently we have approvals of some private providers. Once we were to enter into a laboratory services agreement with that provider, the old approval would be cancelled. It's just to provide clarity that once a laboratory services agreement was reached, that would guide the work of the laboratory and its relationship to government. Th e old approval would no longer be valid. Sections 12 and 13 approved. On

section 14. J. Darcy: I wonder, again, if the minister could please explain the purpose of

section 14. Hon. T. Lake: Th is

section just gives the minister the ability to determine how and how much payment would go to a laboratory service provider.

Section 14 approved. On

section 15. J. Darcy: On

section 15. Th ere are a whole lot of sub- sections and subsections of subsections here. But if we go to (3), I wonder if the minister could please provide an example or explain the circumstances that would make it acceptable to charge for laboratory services. Hon. T. Lake: Essentially, this means that if someone wants to go and have a laboratory test done in a facility that is not approved or doesn't have a laboratory servi- ces agreement and wants to pay for it, they can.

Th ere are all kinds of testing that you can have done that don't fall within the accepted practices, I guess, of health care that the public system recognizes. [1515] So you could go and have your hair tested or your nails tested at a non-approved facility and pay for it yourself, and that's what it refers to. People have that right to do that. It's just not covered under the government plan. J. Darcy: So just to clarify, this section, then, would refer only to testing that is not considered medically ne- cessary by a practitioner? Hon. T. Lake: Well, that, but also, if it's a non-approved facility….

It may be a medically necessary test that actually is covered under an approved facility. So the operator of the non-approved facility…. Just a simple blood test that may be covered by an approved facility — if I as a member of the public wanted to get that blood test done at another facility that's not approved, the non-approved facility has a duty to inform me that they are not approved and that the cost of that test would not be covered by MSP . J. Darcy: A further question to the minister: what would be a non-approved facility that could provide lab- oratory testing? Hon. T. Lake: It's a very good question.

Th is, I guess, allows the idea that laboratory testing facilities may spring up, hoping to attract business, but if they do not enter into an agreement with the government or be ap- proved by the government, then they, essentially, have to charge the patient directly. Th is

section says that if that were to happen, they would have to inform the patient that their testing is not covered because they are a non- approved facility. So it's just, I guess, envisioning the po- tential for that to happen and the protection of the public so that they are fully informed.

Section 15 approved. On

section 16. J. Darcy: Th e issue of records. I raised, and other of my colleagues raised, in the discussion at second reading and certainly in the consultation period beforehand…. Th ere were concerns raised about privacy issues, and I wonder if the minister could please explain in 16(

b) the nature of the records that must be provided. Hon. T. Lake: Th e purpose of this

section is to cre- ate a responsibility for operators and former operators to keep and produce records prescribed by the regula- tions. Th e records must be kept in a manner required by the minister and produced when the minister demands them in a timely fashion. So for the purposes of an audit and investigations under the act, records relevant to the provision of benefi ts to the benefi ciaries must be kept, and they must be produced. Th ose records could include, for example, referral requests, clinical information about patients and diagnoses, administrative information re- garding the benefi ts provided, or billing and payment information. Sections 16 and 17 approved. On

section 18. [1520] J. Darcy: I think it's fair to say that this next

section is an area of serious concern to myself and to my colleagues. We

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 31, 2014 2581 spoke in second reading about the enormous power that this bill confers on the minister. "Th e minister may cancel an approval if the minister is of the opinion that (

a) it is in the public interest for benefi ts to be provided to bene- fi ciaries through a diff erent operator, or (

b) cancelling the approval is necessary to enhance effi ciencies in the deliv- ery of benefi ts in one or more areas of British Columbia." I'll take these concerns one at a time. I've already spoken to the issue of accessibility. Th e minister said at second reading stage: "We've heard from a couple of members. I want to assure members that while the intent of this might be to consolidate some of the processes in our laboratory system, the accessibility will remain un- changed." Th ose are very strong words.

"It's important that we provide access for all of our patients throughout British Columbia." Certainly, some of my colleagues from rural and northern British Columbia have spoken to this elo- quently. We have certainly seen on a number of occa- sions, when we've talked about consolidation of services over the last number of years, when we've talked about effi ciencies in services, that some of the fi rst services and programs to go have been, in fact, those provided to rural and to northern communities.

I'd like to ask a question fi rst about what assurances the minister can give that in fact his commitment in second reading, which was that accessibility will remain unchanged…. Can the minister please explain how he intends to keep that commitment? Hon. T. Lake: Th e intent is to maintain the level of ac- cessibility that we currently have. It is important. I mean, my riding encompasses a large rural area, so I am acutely sensitive to the needs of smaller communities. It is im- portant that people have health care provided in their communities to the greatest degree possible.

So the com- mitment is to have a level of accessibility that meets the needs of British Columbians. We can't speculate at this point how the system will look two years from now, fi ve years from now, ten years from now, 25 years from now, because this is an area that changes greatly with increased knowledge, increased technology. But we do know, as I mentioned, that Telehealth pro- vides us with technology to provide a level of service to rural communities that they never had before.

So there are advantages to technology to increase the level of ser- vice to smaller communities in rural areas of the prov- ince of British Columbia. In this legislation the purpose is to provide a high level of service and to provide value for money. Th is is a com- mitment that I have made in terms of the level of access- ibility. Th at doesn't mean things won't change in terms of the details, but in terms of the level of accessibility, there should be no change. It's important that people have health care provision in their communities. J. Darcy: I would like to move an amendment. I will read it fi rst.

Th e Chair: Proceed. J. Darcy: It's an amendment to

section 18(1)(b), and the amendment would read: [To amend

section 18 of the Act by adding the t ext shown as underlined: Cancellation of approvals for laboratory system reasons 18

(1) Th e minister may cancel an approval if the minister is of the opinion that (

a) it is in the public interest for benefi ts to be provided to benefi ciaries through a diff erent operator, or (

b) cancelling the approval is necessary to enhance ef- fi ciencies in the delivery of benefi ts in one of more areas of British Columbia so long as the Guiding Principles expressed in sections 5.1 to 5.7 of the Medicare Protection Act are respected.

(2) Before cancelling an approval, the minister must give notice in accordance with the regulations.] Th e Chair: Unfortunately, as the amendment appears to provide a cost to government, it would be out of order. Amendment ruled out of order. [1525] J. Darcy: Excuse me. Could you please explain that to me? Certainly, because the minister has spoken to the issue of ensuring accessibility of services, this would serve to underline that, and I would be happy to speak to it.

It's about taking the words that the minister has made both in this House today and in our earlier discussions on second reading where he has committed that access- ibility would be maintained throughout the province. Th e principles of the Medicare Protection Act have already been referenced in the

preamble to the bill. Th e minister has assured this House and assured me that the wording I suggested, which said that the minister must respect the terms of the Medicare Protection Act, and the wording in the act in fact mean the same thing. I'll take the minister at his word on that. What we are attempting to do in this

section is to say that any actions the minister might carry out under this

section of the act would, of course, be prescribed by the terms of the Medicare Protection Act, which appear ear- lier in this bill. Hon. T. Lake: I would speak against the amendment, simply because in the guiding principles that is already enshrined, so I think it is redundant. In anything the minister does…. "In exercising powers and performing duties under this Act, the minister must have regard to the principles expressed in sections 5.1 to 5.7 of the Medicare Protection Act." Th e concern that the member has has already been covered in the guiding principles at the beginning of the act.

British Columbia Debates2582 Monday, March 31, 2014 Th e Chair: Member, for greater clarity, it's out of order for a private member to propose an amendment, resolu- tion or other motion that would provide a cost to govern- ment.

Section 1(

b) of the amendment is where that cost potentially would be. J. Darcy: I wonder if I could ask for further explana- tion of that, because the minister has just said that it's unnecessary because it is contained earlier in the bill. Why is it a cost factor in this section, which is the

section that bestows incredible power on the minister, and not a cost issue earlier on in the bill? Certainly, the argument was not made earlier on when I proposed to strength- en the language about reference to the principles of the Medicare Protection Act. No issue of cost was raised then. Th e minister assures me it's his intention. So why is this a cost issue? I don't understand. I know it's the fi rst time I've done this, but I fail to understand why this is a cost issue. Th e Chair: For greater clarity, it's not concerning the cost issue itself. It's the amendment that's out of order.

While it may appear earlier in the bill, which is what the minister's response has been, the amendment itself is out of order. J. Darcy: For clarity, if it's not a cost issue, what has been stated, then, is that it's already covered. Th e Chair: Th at was the minister's response. However, I am ruling that the amendment is out of order. Th e minister has basically responded by saying that it's covered in other sections of the bill. My ruling is to do with the amendment, not with whether it's covered in other sections of the bill. K.

Corrigan: Just for further clarifi cation, if the min- ister is saying that the whole of the bill is covered by the earlier reference to being required to follow the princi- ples, then would that not apply to this

section as well? If that was the case, then there would be no additional cost that is referenced in this section. [1530] Th e Chair: I was responding to the amendment on the bill. Th e minister's response to the earlier sections is ob- viously to do with the costs. Th e amendment itself is out of order for the reasons that I've stated. K. Corrigan: Hon. Chair, to you again: for the rea- son stated — that this would impose a cost on govern- ment, correct? Th e Chair: Correct. H. Bains: For further clarifi cation, hon.

Chair, if the ruling is — and the minister already admitted it — that this amendment part that is being proposed is already covered earlier, then my argument, I submit to you, is that there is no additional cost that is being attached to this amendment. How do we consider that as a cost item, as an amendment, when there is no additional cost attached to it when you consider it in a totality of the amendment and the earlier

section of the bill that is being talked about? Th e minister already admits that it's already cov- ered somewhere else. I ask you to consider this argument and please pro- vide that ruling. Th e Chair: While I hear what the member is saying, I've actually already ruled on this issue. J. Darcy: Let me turn, then, to another…. Let me continue on

section 18. As I've already stated, this bill certainly allows…. Th is

section confers on the minister pretty sweeping powers to cancel an approval for any of a number of diff erent reasons. We've discussed the issue of the public-private mix in the delivery of services. Th e minister has said that he doesn't have a crystal ball. He can't predict what the fu- ture might hold as far as the delivery of those services.

Certainly, we have heard considerable concern ex- pressed in the consultation period by a number of par- ties, including those people responsible presently for delivering laboratory services, including laboratory technologists, laboratory technicians, the professional organizations that represent them, as well as the union organizations that represent them, about the possibil- ity of shift ing services, which are presently provided through the public sector through a health facility, to the private sector.

I wonder if the minister can share any further thoughts about what he envisions with regard to the public-private mix. Hon. T. Lake: I don't have any further thoughts. We canvassed this earlier. J. Darcy: I would like to propose an amendment to

section 18. [To amend

section 18 of the Act by adding the t ext shown as underlined: Cancellation of approvals for laboratory system reasons 18

(1) Th e minister may cancel an approval if the minister is of the opinion that (

a) it is in the public interest for benefi ts to be provided to benefi ciaries through a diff erent operator, or (

b) cancelling the approval is necessary to enhance ef- fi ciencies in the delivery of benefi ts in one or more areas of British Columbia.

(2) Before cancelling an approval, the minister must give notice in accordance with the regulations.

(3) Th e minister shall not cancel an approval if the eff ect of the approval is to transfer delivery of the service from a publicly- operated approved facility to a privately-held facility, except by bringing the matter before the Legislative Assembly.]

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 31, 2014 2583 Th e Chair: Does the member wish to speak to the amendment? On the amendment. J. Darcy: Y es, I would.

Th is bill says that "administra- tive bodies" will be created and that the administrative bodies will be responsible for administrative issues re- lated to this bill, to operational issues under this bill, but it says that the policy issues — and this was certainly an issue that we discussed in the earlier stages — would re- main under the jurisdiction of the minister. [1535] In my opinion, and in the opinion of my colleagues, a major shift in delivery of services, in how that service is provided….

A major shift in how those services are de- livered from the public sector to the private sector is a major policy shift . Th roughout the history of this government we have seen many, many examples of privatization of various services and various programs. Some of those have been done without the kind of consultation that should be re- quired, both consultation with the recipients of those ser- vices — patients and members of the public — and also without the appropriate consultation with the providers of those services.

Th e providers of those services are expressing deep concern about this bill, which gives the minister essen- tially the unbridled power not only to carry out all of the various provisions of this bill but including decid- ing that a public facility will no longer provide servi- ces. Conceivably, under this bill, all laboratory services, whether it's the minister's intention or not, provided in this province could conceivably be contracted out to pri- vate service delivery, for private service delivery under laboratory services agreements with the private sector. Th at power is there.

I think that we want to ensure that before a major shift like that were to occur…. I hope that is not the intention. Th e minister says he has no plans at present. He has no crystal ball as to what might evolve. I think we want to ensure that if the government decides to go in that dir- ection, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be the place where such a major policy decision is made. I have referred to previous decisions regarding priva- tization that have been made by this government.

Some of them went as far as the Supreme Court of Canada, which said that decisions like this need to be made with thorough consultation beforehand. Decisions like this can have a fundamental impact, both on recipients of services — on patients, on clients of lab services — but also on those people who deliver those services.

I think the minister owes it to the people of British Columbia and, in particular, the recipients of servi- ces and those who deliver those services to commit that if such a major shift in policy were to be made, it would come before the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia with proper opportunity for full consultation by everyone aff ected. K. Corrigan: I rise to speak in support of this amend- ment. I think it's a good amendment to protect a public service that has worked very well to date. It concerns me, as well, that this

section as written, without the amendment, opens us up to the possibil- ity of privatization of laboratory services within a hos- pital. Like my colleague from New Westminster, I have watched closely and seen the privatization of services in this province over many, many years. For the most part, I think many of those privatizations have been very prob- lematic. We have seen it with privatization of cleaning services, of food services, of transport services, of all sorts of diff erent services.

I know in my community of Burnaby that when we had a C. diffi cile major outbreak a couple of years ago, the aging infrastructure was cited by the doctors as probably the main reason for the C. diffi cile outbreak. In addition, there was concern raised about the privatization of clean- ing services and the fact that…. For example, if somebody were to get sick, to vomit in a room, in order to get that cleaned up a nurse couldn't simply talk to a contract worker who was cleaning. Th ey'd have to call a 1-800 number and get an order for that.

We have had dozens — no, hundreds — of examples, I believe, brought to this House by people talking about the impact of privatization of services. Th ese are very important services. [1540] I think you need a workforce that is dedicated and a workforce that can interface seamlessly with all the pro- fessionals and all the support workers in a hospital. If there is the possibility herein, with the act as written, it really concerns me that we're talking about the possi- bility of privatizing another service which could, in my opinion, if that were to happen, decrease the level.

Th ere is always that push and pull between trying to get the cheapest price but keeping service at appropriate lev- els. It's a hard balance to get, and it's very diffi cult to do. I think what we found repeatedly, when we've had privatized contracts in health care in a number of other areas, including in long-term-care facilities, is that we end up with contract fl ipping sometimes. We end up with real problems in service deliveries. Th is is an absolutely essential service to our hospitals, and I think it's important that we support this amend- ment in order that we keep those services in the pub- lic sector.

I think that the medical community, that the people that work in the hospitals would largely be sup- portive. For that reason I stand up and support this amend- ment.

British Columbia Debates2584 Monday, March 31, 2014 Hon. T. Lake: I rise to speak against the amendment. I guess, just to note, that members opposite assume that people employed by government can do things better than people employed in the private sector in every case. I'm surprised they're not calling for anaesthetists, for in- stance, to be employees of the government. Most doctors in our system are private corporations. A lot of our health care system is, in fact, delivered by the private system.

I would, I guess, ask the members if they feel confi dent in the anaesthetists, in the surgeons, in the general practitioners that perform excellent care in this province each and every day — that perhaps they're substandard because they're not directly employees of the government. It's interesting to note that they haven't put another amendment forward to say that if we were going to have the public system take over the private labs that that would have to come to the Legislature for approval. Nowhere have I heard anything about the patient and how the patient is best served.

Th e patient doesn't care how the service is provided, who provides the service if it meets their needs, if it provides them with the best ser- vice available and provides the necessary information to help them meet their health care needs. I think this is ideology speaking, and I rise to speak against the amendment. J. Darcy: Well, this is not about ideology. Th is is about quality of service, but it's also about a major shift in dir- ection. We have had other jurisdictions move in the dir- ection, in fact, of greater public delivery of laboratory services, Alberta being one of them.

Th e overwhelming majority of services, including some that in the past were delivered through private labs, are in fact now delivered through publicly operated not-for-profi t laboratories. We are certainly in favour of increased effi ciencies, im- proved service delivery. Th ere are many arguments that have come out in favour of consolidation and effi ciencies and where those can be found, both within the public sys- tem and in the private delivery that exists at present. Th e minister has spoken about some of those earlier.

For the minister to liken this to us saying that all doc- tors or all private practitioners should now come under the public domain…. In fact, we've suggested nothing of the sort, although, when we've seen practitioners in things like community health centres working on an alternate payment plan, this minister's actions have in fact taken us back to the fee-for-service, so the direction is pretty clear. Th e direction is pretty clear. Th e record of this govern- ment is pretty clear in the area of privatization.

Many of those privatization experiments, as my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake has spoken of earlier, have turned out to be abject failures. We're seeing the consequences of that in some of the issues related to cleanliness in our hospitals today. In residential care we're seeing the con- sequences of some of those decisions as it relates to con- tracting more and more private delivery and contracting out of residential care and, as my colleague mentioned, contract fl ipping.

We're seeing it in food service delivery. [1545] So there is ample reason for patients, for the public and for the people who provide these services to be con- cerned about whether or not a major policy shift is in- tended. If there is none intended, I don't know why the min- ister would be concerned about it. Th e minister has said he doesn't envision going in that direction. He doesn't know where we're going to go.

Essentially, what this says is that if a major policy shift of this sort that involves greater privatization of lab servi- ces is the decision of this minister, it should come before this House, plain and simple. Nothing more, nothing less. K. Corrigan: Th e minister spoke about ideology. I re- member, when I was a researcher in health care, seeing a business case for the privatization of cleaning services. Th is was a business case that took years to access, fi ghting through the freedom-of-information processes.

When I fi nally saw the business case, what we found was that with the contracted-out services, what was happening was that the only way government could make it cost anywhere close to the same — and it was right in the business case — was to cut cleaning by 15 percent. It just said it right in the document: cut cleaning by 15 percent. In addition, I remember looking at some of those con- tracts, looking at how much they actually cost over the years and how much was actually paid to those providers.

Th e numbers just went up, up, up from an initial number, far more than the original business case or original con- tract had contemplated. I think the place where ideology has trumped every- thing else is with this government. Th is government has been absolutely determined, whether it makes sense or not, to privatize services, to privatize hospitals, to priva- tize the health care system wherever possible. I think my colleague from New Westminster and I are both saying: "Look, there are real concerns when you pri- vatize.

Be realistic about those services." Given the record of this government, absolutely ideologically determined to privatize whatever it can, whether it makes sense or not, whether it causes problems or not…. Given that determination and record and history — sometimes unlawfully privatizing — I think it's per- fectly legitimate and sensible for the member for New Westminster to be proposing this amendment in or- der to prevent the wholesale privatization — at least to make sure that there is due consideration of such a ma- jor policy change.

Th e Chair: Th e question is the amendment proposed by the member for New Westminster for the cancellation

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 31, 2014 2585 of approvals for laboratory system reasons. [1550-1555] Amendment negatived on the following division: YEAS — 31 Corrigan Simpson James Ralston Dix Farnworth Horgan Popham Fleming Conroy Austin Hammell Donaldson Chandra Herbert Karagianis Eby Mungall Bains Elmore Heyman Darcy Krog Robinson Trevena B.

Routley Simons Fraser Chouhan Rice Shin Holman NAYS — 42 Sturdy Bing Hogg McRae Stone Fassbender Oakes Wat Th omson Virk Wilkinson Y amamoto Sultan Hamilton Reimer Ashton Morris Hunt Sullivan Cadieux Lake Anton Bennett Letnick Barnett Y ap Th ornthwaite Dalton Plecas Lee Kyllo Tegart Michelle Stilwell Huntington Th roness Larson Foster Weaver Bernier Martin Gibson Moira Stilwell Th e Chair: Th e committee will take a brief recess. Th e committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 3:59 p.m. [D. Horne in the chair.] D. Donaldson: I have a few questions for the minister on

section 18(b). I wanted to say that there's a quote from Shakespeare: "Mind your words, lest they do you harm." I think the minister will be relating to that quote as I undertake to address some of his comments previous in relation to

section 18(b). [1600] Th e minister said that in the

preamble, the issue of reasonable access and accessibility under the Medicare Protection Act is covered. And so I wanted to ask a ques- tion around

section 18(

b) that relates to accessibility, because 18(

b) says: "Th e minister may cancel an approval if the minister is of the opinion that…(

b) cancelling the approval is necessary to enhance effi ciencies in the deliv- ery of benefi ts in one or more areas of British Columbia." I want to talk about laboratory services in remote rural regions, such as in the north. Th e minister talked earlier — I take it that he was perhaps making light — about how effi cient it would be to have laboratory services on every corner. Well, in Stikine and in other areas these kinds of services are three hours away — a three-hour drive on a winter road — so we're not talking about any great service as it stands now. We're talking about some bare minimum services. [R.

Chouhan in the chair.] In 2009 the microbiology lab services were cut at Wrinch Memorial and at Bulkley Valley District Hospital, and this meant three to four days now to get microbiol- ogy tests back. When the minister described in his ear- lier words about wa

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20140331pm-Hansard-v9n5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20140331pm Hansard v9n5
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a210f50a3d4d662b8aa1f232666cc89e3bd8cfbe

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).