2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 32, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary

Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

A. Horning

Second Reading of Bills

Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill

21) (continued)

S. Simpson

G. Coons

K. Conroy

H. Lali

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the

Arts

Hon. S. Hagen

N. Macdonald

R. Fleming

[ Page 11837 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Reports from Committees

A. Horning: I have the honour to present the report of the

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills.

I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

Law Clerk:

May 1, 2008

Mr. Speaker:

Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary

Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to

report as follows: (1) that the

preamble to Bill Pr401 intituled Bridge River

Valley Flying Association (Corporate Restoration) Act , 2008, has been

proved, and the committee recommends to the House that the bill proceed to

second reading; (2) that the

preamble to Bill Pr402 intituled Lutheran Camp

Concordia

(1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, has been proved,

and the committee recommends to the House that the bill proceed to second

reading.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

A. Horning, Chairman.

A. Horning: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving

of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

A. Horning: I move the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Bills Pr401 and Pr402 ordered to be placed on orders of the day

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

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Thorpe: In the House today I call the continuing

debate on Bill 21, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008, and in Committee A,

I call the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

[1005]

Second Reading of Bills

MEDICARE PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join

again in the debate. Just to touch on this matter for this bill we're debating

here, Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008. Essentially, what

this piece of legislation does is add the term "sustainability" to the

principles of the Canada Health Act, which are included in the Medicare

Protection Act.

As I noted the other day, generally when we talk about

sustainability…. Sustainability has become a bit of a buzzword and maybe a code

word in some cases for a number of things. But what we see here with

sustainability is greater pressures coming, I believe, through the use of this

terminology and through the use of the incorporation of this into the

legislation, into the bill.

What we see is the opportunity here for a greater level of

privatization of our health care services. It certainly is my view that that is

not something that's in the public interest, and it's certainly not something

that I believe is desired by British Columbians in this province.

British Columbians have told us time and time again — whether it

be individually or through the government's own initiative around the

Conversation on Health, where some 12,000 people participated in that process —

that they want to ensure the protection and the integrity of our public health

care system.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Certainly, British Columbians — as members in this House and

certainly members on this side of the Legislature have spoken about in many

instances — are looking for innovation. We are looking for ways to improve the

system. We are looking for ways to make our health care system better.

But what we know — certainly on this side of the Legislature,

what's absolutely clear to us — is that making our health care system better,

providing incremental improvements to health care and the privatization of our

health care system don't have anything in common at all. There's a total

disconnect there, and what we need to do is advance the public system.

The government and the Minister of Health will tell us — and the

Minister of Finance certainly has attempted to tell us previously — that there

is the great potential where our health care system becomes unsustainable in

economic terms. We certainly know that the Minister of Finance attempted at one

point to make the case that by 2017, we'd be spending upward of 71 percent of

our budget on health care.

The problem with this, of course, is that the facts don't bear

that out. What we know is that if you look at health care as part of GDP, what

in fact happens is that health care across the world in western industrialized

countries doesn't look anything like 71 percent. What we know is that when you

look at the costs of medicare, it generally consumes in the 8-to-10 percent

range of GDP in Canada.

In 2005, 20 of the 30 OECD countries considered to be similar to

Canada in many ways spent between 7½ and 11½ percent. In Canada it was just

under 10 percent, about sixth on the list of countries in terms of spending on

health care.

In British Columbia we've seen a situation where our costs as a

percentage of GDP have in fact gone

[ Page 11838 ]

down. In 2001-2002 we spent about 7.4 percent of GDP on health care. That has

decreased in '06-07 to about 6.9 percent of GDP. Those are numbers provided by

the British Columbia Economic and Financial Review , which are numbers

provided by the government's own sources.

So what we know is that health care in this province isn't

becoming exorbitant in terms of its costs. In fact, if anything, we're eroding

our health care costs, and I think that becomes clearer when you look at

information provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

[1010]

When you look at what the Canadian Institute for Health

Information said in their national expenditures report in 2007, it shows that

British Columbia has gone from second in health care spending to seventh in

health care spending per capita in the province. So we're on our way to being

last in health care spending in the province.

You know, this is an interesting situation. As the government

here…. They seem to be quite comfortable driving health care spending down to

the bottom, as they seem to be equally comfortable to have child poverty at the

top. So they have child poverty at the top of the list and health care at the

bottom of the list.

Interjections.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister would like to join in debate

when he gets a chance.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

An Hon. Member: I'd just like you to get the facts right.

S. Simpson: Well, this is a government that creates their

own facts.

I'd be happy to have the minister join the debate. I'm sure he can

get up after I'm done and do that if he'd like to speak to this bill.

So what do we have here? We have a question about what

sustainability really means. Sustainability — if we're serious about what it

should really mean — should mean services to seniors, improving our services to

seniors. We need to do that. That has to be a challenge that we meet.

Unfortunately, that's not what we see happening in British

Columbia. We're not seeing improvement of services to seniors. As I pointed out

yesterday, the government broke its 2001 promise around 5,000 residential care

beds for seniors. They determined a way to cobble together some combination of

that and assisted-living beds, which are quite different in terms of the

services they provide. But this is a way to hopefully get around their problem

in terms of breaking their commitment, and I suspect they will continue to break

that commitment in this province.

We're not seeing services provided to seniors. That would be real

sustainability, if we provided those services to seniors that they require. If

we did that, as others have pointed out, people like Ken Fyke, a former member

of the B.C. Royal Commission on Health Care, a commissioner on medicare in

Saskatchewan and a former Deputy Minister of Health in both this province and

Saskatchewan as well as a former CEO of the Greater Victoria Hospital Society….

It was his view that if we wanted to start to deal with these

challenges, one of the things we had to do was deal with the challenge of our

aging population, and that meant finding the opportunities and the services to

meet their needs. Unfortunately, that hasn't been accomplished by this

government.

We need to find strategies, true sustainability, that allow us to

free up acute care beds. We need to find strategies. The government should be

here not talking about ways to find structures to enhance privatization or to

open the door for more privatization. We'd rather have the government in here

talking about initiatives and plans that they would have to free up and reduce

wait-lists and the waiting times in emergency rooms.

But that's not what they're here talking to us about today. What

they're here talking to us about today is how to further privatize health care,

instead of talking about how to deal with problems in emergency rooms. They're

not here today talking about how to ease up pressures on acute care beds in our

hospitals. They're here talking about how to privatize health care. We don't see

the government here today talking about the role that community health clinics

can play in our communities across the province — clinics that are delivered

through the health authorities or clinics that are non-profit clinics.

In my community there are clinics like the REACH clinic, which is

a longstanding non-profit clinic. It provides great services for people. It very

much has a preventative perspective in terms of what it does and provides a

whole range of supports — health care supports of a more traditional nature but

also a lot of support around nutrition, around advocacy. It's a great facility

that is very beneficial to the people in my community. I'm sure that clinics

like REACH would be beneficial to people across the province.

But we're not here talking about how to enhance community-based

health care and community-based clinics. We're here talking about putting in

place changes to legislation that will allow us to advance privatization of

health care.

[1015]

The other thing we're not here talking about when we want to talk

about preventative health care…. We're not here talking about how we deal with

issues that are much of the root causes of our health issues. We're not here

talking about how we deal with poverty in British Columbia. We're not here

talking about how we begin to put an end to poverty in British Columbia. That

would go a huge way to dealing with much of our health care pressures. We know

that the correlation between being poor and not being healthy is very direct.

That is a very direct link, and we need to meet that challenge. That's a huge

piece in terms of preventative health care.

The government is not here talking about strategies to improve

dealing with addictions issues. We're not

[ Page 11839 ]

talking about that. That would be talking about real improved sustainability

in our health care system, if we talked about how to deal with addictions. But

we're not here talking about addictions today.

We're not here talking about how to deal with the mental health

issues of people who suffer from dual diagnosis around addictions and mental

health. Now, if we were talking about those things; if we were putting that

envelope together; if the government was coming forward today and talking to us

about a strategy; if Bill 21 was about how we deal with real prevention to

address poverty issues, to address dual diagnosis issues around addictions and

around mental health issues, about how to begin to ease those pressures and

create more opportunities or services for people who suffer or who are living in

poverty, then we would be going a long, long way.

But we're not doing that. Instead, Bill 21 offers us nothing in

terms of real sustainability. It offers us nothing other than a code word, and

the government has adopted sustainability as a code word. It's a code word for:

how do we increase privatization, and how do we take more tax dollars, health

tax dollars, and put them in the pockets of private corporations? That's what

we're talking about here.

How do we make Brian Day a little wealthier than he is already?

That's what we're talking about today. That does nothing for the public

interest; it does nothing for British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker, it's my view that this bill certainly isn't worthy

of support. It's a piece of legislation that does nothing for the public

interest. It certainly does nothing for my constituents. I don't have anybody

telling me that we need to find new ways to privatize health care services.

They're saying improve health care services; don't privatize them.

I would hope that the government would back away from this

legislation, but of course, that's not going to occur. As a result, this is a

piece of legislation that doesn't deserve support. It certainly doesn't deserve

support and won't receive support from this side of the House. If the other side

of the House, the government side, was particularly concerned about the public

interest here, it's a piece of legislation that also wouldn't get support from

their side.

With that, I'll take my place and allow the debate to continue.

G. Coons: I rise to speak against Bill 21, the Medicare

Protection Amendment Act. It's nice to see some students in the House today.

What we're looking at is this Premier, the decider of that side of

the House, planning through this bill to enshrine in provincial legislation the

Canada Health Act's five basic principles — the principles of public

and also add a new clause, an undefined buzzword, a sixth basic principle

referred to as sustainability.

If we look at the legislation, Bill 21, it's not much of a bill —

two and a half pages — but there are some real concerns in here that this side

of the House has, and many British Columbians. It talks about the

preamble to

the Medicare Protection Act, and it's going to be amended by adding some

paragraphs to it. One of them talks about ensuring reasonable access to

medically necessary services. That's a major concern that I have, and I'll come

to that through the discussion on Bill 21.

Also a major concern is the sustainability. It talks about health

expenditures being within taxpayers' ability to pay without compromising the

ability of the government to meet the health needs and other needs of current

and future generations — major concerns as this government or this minister

fails to define a few key concepts of Bill 21.

[1020]

This government says this bill is responding to the 12,000 British

Columbians who participated in the Conversation on Health. Contrary to that

belief, I believe it's proven that the Premier made his intentions clear about

the changes to be made prior to the Conversation on Health. He stated his

intention to amend the Medicare Protection Act to include sustainability prior

to this conversation. The Finance Minister has been trying to create political

support for this change through repeated telling of the doomsday scenario for

health care spending.

During the Conversation on Health, I do have to note that the

closest it came to the North Coast was Smithers, and my constituents didn't have

a chance to, face-to-face, come to a meeting. Throughout my riding, I've held my

own discussions on health. I went to approximately 12 meetings throughout the

North Coast riding — in the Nass Valley, Stewart, the Queen Charlotte Islands,

Prince Rupert and the central coast.

This bill does not represent what my constituents want from their

government. Many have questioned this Premier's devotion to our medicare system,

given his emphasis on cutting costs and services and trying to persuade British

Columbians that our current system is unsustainable. It's obvious that those who

support our public health care system….

Adding this Liberal doublespeak word, whatever it is — sustainable

— to the Canada Health Act can only mean one thing. This Premier is deciding

what is sustainable and what is to be covered under the public system.

This government, on their wild journey to strip British

Columbians' coverage under medicare and force patients to pay out of their own

pockets…. It's something that we are standing against.

If we look at the Premier, he has indicated that changes that it

makes to the provincial system will be consistent with the Canada Health Act. He

has argued that the act needs updating. After the throne speech, he basically

comprehensiveness are all things we've embraced." Yes, as Canadians, we've

embraced that. But the Premier pointed out in the throne speech that they are,

really, largely undefined, and so our Premier is trying to define this.

For over 40 years we've had one of the best health care systems in

the world, and this Premier, on a whim, wants to tinker with it, with Bill 21.

[ Page 11840 ]

What is the Premier's definition of this significant piece of

legislation before us? Will it again result in horrendous health care and other

cuts that average British Columbians have seen since this Premier took over his

reign of error? A 30 percent cut of home support and care for frail elderly and

the disabled?

He cut the Minister's Advisory Council on Women's Health. He cut

the violence and relationship program. He cut funding for 24-hour

community-based rape crisis centres. He cut Pharmacare coverage, including eye

exams and other health services. He cut the Mental Health Advocate. He cut $1.7

million in funding for 37 women's centres, cut 70 percent from adult mental

health services and reduced medical coverage through Fair PharmaCare programs.

He closed retirement homes and long-term care facilities. He increased medical

service premiums.

The concern from this side of the House is quite different than

the concern from the other side. When the Premier gets an idea, writes it on the

back of a napkin or a coaster and proceeds forward with a scheme that puts in a

principle of sustainability, there's much to be concerned about.

My constituents are concerned with Bill 21, and I've been getting

the phone calls and e-mails about it. Bill 21 is very problematic, and it should

be. I believe, as do many of my constituents, that this Premier is on a slippery

slope towards the introduction of increased user fees, more cuts to service and

a greater level of privatization within our public health system.

Those on this side of the House are strongly committed and

determined to support a public health system that is truly public for everyone

in Canada and in British Columbia. We will fight to ensure that it is there for

everyone when they need it, especially — as we've heard through the debate — for

our seniors. We support them versus those on that side of the House blaming

them.

[1025]

If we look back at a press release last November from the B.C.

Care Providers Association…. The headline: "Seniors in care are at risk due to

ongoing funding shortfalls. Quality suffers, say B.C. care providers, under

current budgeting and service demands."

We should be here discussing how to look after our seniors, not

blaming them. Continuing in the press release: "Our members feel their concerns

are not being…considered. Our health authorities are ignoring the fact that

seniors in care are at risk due to the lack of fair funding in relation to the

demand for complex care services."

The press release also points to a number of "recent concerns

stemming from insufficient funding and high care needs — namely, the continuing

difficulties in recruiting and retaining quality staff; the problems associated

with low morale; increased care needs not being met, resulting in complaints

from family members; and a higher incidence of violence between residents and

caregivers."

The press release from the CEO of the B.C. Care Providers

Association continues with his quote: "We continue to wait for government to

fairly address the needs of our increasingly aging population. It's a crisis

situation which government could avoid by allocating fair funding for seniors in

care."

What do we have before us, hon. Speaker? We have a bill that wants

to privatize and put costs onto seniors even further. This bill compromises our

public access to quality health care, and those on that side of the House smile

and chuckle as they and their friends reap the benefits of privatization of our

health care system.

We go back to some of the promises made by this Premier. Back in

2000 he said: "I want to get the public system back firing on all cylinders so

that private clinics become redundant." What have we got? This government

continuing to contract out public surgeries and services to private clinics.

This is where this Premier's sustainability mantra will get us.

We look at another promise made by this Premier, and this is a

quote: "Work with non-profit societies to build and operate an additional 5,000

new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006." What happened? They closed

thousands of long-term care beds and used affordable housing funds to build

assisted-living units through public-private partnerships.

Bill 21 will mean British Columbians will be paying more, getting

less service and suffering longer — and putting even more of our seniors at

risk. They will see increases in medical plan premiums and reductions in the

coverage of medical services. We've already seen, under this government and this

Premier, medicare premiums increase by over 50 percent, where we now have one of

the highest medicare premiums in Canada. It's only to climb higher and higher

under this bill before us.

People now have to pay for delisted medical services, including

eye exams, physio, chiropractic, massage therapy, non-surgical services. Because

of regionalization of health services and other government services, people are

paying more in transportation to get to regional centres and will pay even more

with this Premier's thought of the day — of including sustainability in this

legislation.

I can relate to transportation. The Minister of Health realizes

the struggles of getting services in Prince Rupert. Having to take the Northern

Health bus 12 hours one way to Prince Rupert for MRI or physio — that's

unacceptable. I don't think anywhere in the province would anybody expect

patients to travel 12 hours one way on a bus for….

Interjections.

G. Coons: But more specifically in reference to Bill 21,

I'd like to refer to the terms "sustainability" and "reasonable access."

Let's start with sustainability. The hon. member for Prince

George–Omineca was kind enough to quote for the House from a dictionary a couple

of days ago. He proposed that sustainability was a characteristic of a process

that could be maintained at a certain level indefinitely.

Interjections.

[ Page 11841 ]

G. Coons: I'd like to talk about that definition, above the

chatter in the House.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

G. Coons: I'd like to talk about that definition of

sustainability, and in turn, I'd like to get at the heart of what sustainability

means in the context of Bill 21.

[1030]

As much as the hon. members on the other side of the House would

like us to believe that Bill 21 represents an insignificant change, a benign

change, and that they are using sustainability as a benign term with the best of

intentions, I'm not convinced and those on this side of the House are not

convinced that this is the case.

Perhaps it could mean: "Oh, we would love to take care of our

elderly and frail seniors, but given the demographics of increased population of

elders, we simply cannot do this in a sustainable fashion." What a powerful

statement that would be, as this Premier and those on that side of the House

smile and grin and cheer at the thought of privatizing services beyond the means

of many seniors in this province.

My first concern would be: what is this certain level that we will

maintain health care at indefinitely, as the member for Prince George–Omineca

quoted in his definition? The members on the other side of the House have been

using distorted mathematics to incite panic and have taken a path of

fearmongering in the public about the cost of continuing health care at its

current level.

Now, if we consider the immense amount of effort that the members

on the other side of the House have made trying to convince British Columbians

that health care costs are spiralling out of control, even to the point of

making the ridiculous declaration that health care would eat 71 percent of

provincial revenues by 2017, I would hazard to guess that members on that side

of the House wouldn't even support current health spending as sustainable.

But they seem to have backed away from this inaccurate, made-up

figure of 71 percent. I believe that the members on that side hoped that their

mistruth would slip out as part of their doublespeak and fearmongering.

It appears that this Premier and this government continue to

kowtow to their favourite author, George Orwell, whose visionary novel 1984

has probably been on their shelves for many years. Their adoption of Orwell's

doublespeak seems to be the official style for their government communications

and their legislation. Orwell once wrote: "Political language…is designed to

make lies sound truthful…and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

Some examples of this doublespeak. I'm just giving a few. They are

numerous. One example is: "We will protect provincial parks and Crown lands."

What have they done? They've systematically removed governance ability to

enforce the law, while allowing industry to regulate itself.

"Protect B.C. Hydro and all of its core assets," and what have

they done? They're selling off our B.C. Hydro.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: Realizing that there is some room for

latitude in reading to debates, nevertheless, the member is nowhere near the

mark in terms of debating the bill that is in question here.

The member's remarks, by and large, relate in no way to second

reading of Bill 21, and I believe he ought to be advised to keep his comments

directed there.

D. Cubberley: Madam Chair, I seek leave to make an

introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed, Member.

Introductions by Members

D. Cubberley: In the gallery this morning we're being

joined by 30 grade 5 students from Northridge Elementary School in Saanich.

They're accompanied today by their teacher Mrs. Terri Smith and by ten other

adults. Would the House please join me in making them welcome in the chamber

today.

Point of Order

(continued)

H. Lali: While my colleague from North Coast was delivering

his speech, I distinctly heard the member for Peace River North state that

that's a lie. He is impugning the reputation of a member of this House. I would

respectfully ask the member to withdraw his remarks.

[1035]

Deputy Speaker: Members, considerable latitude has been

allowed in debating this bill, but I do caution members that the subject at hand

is the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, Bill 21. If members could please

direct their remarks to what is in the bill.

Minister of Energy and Mines, if you could withdraw the remark.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, I will withdraw the remark about a

lie. I would say that the statement was the strangest thing from the truth I've

ever heard. I won't use the word "lie." I withdrew…

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …the "lie," and I rest on that.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, thank you.

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, with all due respect, the minister

needs to withdraw his remarks unequivocally. To state that somebody is lying is

totally against the rules. He can't make a conditional apology, so I would

respectfully ask that he withdraw his remarks unequivocally.

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Energy and Mines, please

unequivocally withdraw your remark.

[ Page 11842 ]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Thank you. I'll withdraw my remark.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. R. Neufeld: On a point of order. The statement that

the member made that B.C. Hydro is being sold off is totally incorrect,

absolutely incorrect, and I would ask the member to actually withdraw that

statement.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Yale-Lillooet, before I

recognize you….

This whole discussion is getting beyond reason. There is no

necessity to withdraw a remark that is made in debate, only those that are

unparliamentary. I'm now going to ask the member for North Coast to continue his

remarks.

Debate Continued

G. Coons: As I continue debate on Bill 21, the Medicare

Protection Amendment Act, again, the concerns that we have on this side of the

House, that I have, are the

definitions that this minister and this government

have put forward about sustainability and reasonable access.

When we start to look at that, my reference to what I've been

talking about is the doublespeak of this government and how they say one thing

and mean another. So I will continue my debate on Bill 21.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, is it parliamentary to use the

term "doublespeak"?

Deputy Speaker: The member will withdraw the word, please.

G. Coons: If the word offends the minister, I will withdraw

that.

Deputy Speaker: Member, it offends the Chair. Please

withdraw.

G. Coons: I'm sorry. I withdraw that remark. I withdraw

that, hon. Chair.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member.

Debate Continued

G. Coons: What I see with Bill 21 is a continuation of this

government's serving its friends or donators, their privatizers, to reap

benefits off the backs of average British Columbians.

Bill 21, this legislation, says little about what sustainability

will actually mean in practice. It doesn't set out minimum levels of care. It

does not specify a maximum percentage of government revenues that health care

can consume. In reality, it seems to do very little to define what the

government means by sustainability.

[1040]

It does not provide any solutions, just in case we do become

unsustainable. I do not believe it's unreasonable to ask the Minister of Health

what the point of this legislation is. It does nothing to improve health care.

It seems like little more than a terrific waste of time and paper. It's two and

half pages — nothing substantial, looking at it from the outside. It isn't as

though just by slapping the term "sustainable" on our medical system, costs will

magically decrease.

We already have one of the most cost-efficient systems in the

world, a system that offers higher value for money than almost any other medical

system in the world. This Premier, with a stroke of a pen, puts our public

health care, our medicare, basically on a cutting board.

I would be the last on this side to suggest that we have no

improvements to make. But no one can argue that Bill 21 will add any measurable

improvement to the system we have. It won't help any of my constituents get

their hips replaced or their dental coverage improved.

At the very best this legislation is useless. At the very worst

it's a foundation for the troubling changes to come and will make it cost more

for British Columbia. It's already been debated that this legislation, Bill 21,

seems to be a cotter pin for the drive towards privatization.

Some of the members on that side of the House have rebutted our

concerns about privatization with jeers, but I for one will stand by our

socially responsible, fiscally prudent public health care system. Like many of

my constituents and British Columbians across the province, I will not stand by

idly and quietly when our public health care is threatened by this government on

behalf of their rich American backers.

The members on that side of the House are basically just

figureheads, I believe, for corporations who would like nothing more than to

sink their fangs deep into our health care system and turn it into something

resembling a shambles that our friends….

Deputy Speaker: Member, may I bring you back, please, to

Bill 21 relevance.

G. Coons: I see Bill 21 as pushing us towards the medical

care system they have in the United States, which our friends, colleagues and

neighbours to the south are forced to contend with.

If we look at the facts, we see that the total health care

spending as a share of GDP in Canada is 9.8 percent, while in the States the

cost is 15.3 percent. This is a significant difference, and it's one of the key

reasons I'm proud to support public health care because public health care makes

sense both socially and fiscally.

If we look at sustainability — let's return to that much-debated

word that this government wants to put into Bill 21 — some comments made on this

draconian bill include health policy expert Bob Evans from the University of

British Columbia. He said that governments can create the appearance of

sustainability concerns, and this is a quote. "It's a Trojan's horse because

there isn't any global sustainability problem. The appearance of a

sustainability problem can be created by fiscal choices they have made."

[ Page 11843 ]

He goes on to say: "This government cut taxes and expenditures

when they formed government in 2001." The health budget was frozen, and Evans

says: "When health costs are put up against tax and expenditure cuts, they

appear to be rising at alarming rates. When measured against increasing

revenues, they are not as imposing."

As a final statement about sustainability, he said: "It leads you

to wonder what the purpose of this sustainability thing is." He said in The

Province : "It's a phony issue. They are providing themselves with a legal

basis for shifting the funding from the public to the private sector."

[1045]

If we look at the sustainability crisis being manufactured, Paul

Willcocks basically said in the Times Colonist in April about this bill:

"There is no sustainability crisis. Perhaps the Minister of Health will clarify

the government's intentions during debate on the bill. In the meantime, the

legislation fuels fears that governments will use scare tactics to justify

cutting care or offering patients a chance to pay extra for private treatment" —

he goes on — "a shift that would actually increase health care costs overall.

User fees mean the total cost for a specific procedure rise."

Dealing with Bill 21 and sustainability, even the federal

Conservatives are on the opposite side of the issue. The Minister of Health

asked his federal counterpart to add sustainability to the Canada Health Act

last year, but what did the federal minister say? He saw no need to make the

change or any purpose in reopening the Canada Health Act.

So that's the question. Why is this bill before us? That's a

reasonable question to ask and try to get some reasonable answers, but

obviously, as we can see from debate, there are no answers from this government.

Perhaps by looking at some things that are not sustainable, it

will give us an understanding of what sustainability actually means. Sometimes

the only way to really understand what a word means is to look at the opposite.

If we analyze sustainability and look at the opposite of sustainability, if we

look at this government's persistent drive to dismantle and tear apart

everything that works in this province and sell it off, that's not sustainable.

The Premier's public relations budget is another thing that's not

sustainable. Handing out millions of dollars in tax breaks to big banks and big

oil is not sustainable.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: I realize the member is working from a

written script and he is having a really tough time whenever he is forced to

depart from that script, but I'm afraid the script, as I said before, is

entirely unrelated to second reading debate on Bill 21. The member is abusing

the rules of this House over and over again.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I have cautioned you, I think, two

or three times about relevance. Please confine your remarks to be relevant to

the bill that is being debated.

Debate Continued

G. Coons: Well, thank you, hon. Chair. I realize that the

members on that side have a problem with people trying to analyze the bill and

look at their definition of sustainability or reasonable access. I will continue

debating Bill 21 on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of British

Columbians who have concerns about this bill and the lack of definition. We need

to see where we need to go with this bill. This minister will have his

opportunity to close.

Now, as I continue on and look at sustainability and what isn't

sustainable in this province, this government has put forth the premise that our

health care is not sustainable. Perhaps, as I said, we need to look at things

that are not sustainable.

When we have a government that is basically chained to corporate

interests rather than to the people they serve, I find that not sustainable.

When we look at issues that we should be discussing as far as our health care

system, and we look at the special interest groups and at what's happening in

this province as far as addictions, poverty, homelessness…. These are issues

that are not sustainable, and this bill does nothing to push forward the agenda

that we need to be pushing forward as far as our medicare system in this

province. Poverty is one more thing that is not sustainable in this province.

Sustainability is a nice buzzword. It's a nice code word that this

government and this minister have pushed forward. They've pushed forward this

word prior to the Conversation on Health.

[1050]

I believe that as far as Bill 21, the people of British Columbia

would be happier to see the members of this House address the deplorable state

of our seniors care homes in this province rather than ramming through the

Premier's new word of the day into our health care legislation, as this Bill 21

does.

Now that I've taken the opportunity to look at what sustainability

means, perhaps — and what is not sustainable — I would like to turn to

reasonable access, something else this government is throwing into this

legislation. Again, it seems that Bill 21 adds another perhaps benign term, but

if we take it in the context of the legislation before us, it gathers a rather

sinister tone, I believe. What does reasonable access mean? This term, I

believe, like sustainability, is left undefined, presumably because we are

supposed to accept its meaning as self-evident.

I am concerned about this term. It could be argued by someone,

perhaps those on that side of the House who feel no reason to continue public

health care, that it's not reasonable for someone — let's just say someone who

smoked for their whole life — to expect the public to pay for their cancer

treatment — or perhaps someone who lives in the Okanagan or the Shuswap and has

skin cancer due to where they live, due to prolonged

[ Page 11844 ]

sessions in the sun or whatever, due to their work. Would it be reasonable to

deny access due to where you live and choices you make? I wouldn't agree with

this. I wouldn't agree with this particular

interpretation of reasonable access

to health care. This definition, this clarification, this government's

definition of reasonable access could be done without the necessary clarity that

we need in this legislation.

Now, the term "reasonable access" is a concern, because a word

like "reasonable," with no definition or left undefined, can mean a number of

things, depending on who you speak to. It's open to

interpretation, and

therefore, hon. Speaker, it's open to abuse.

What would be reasonable and what would be sustainable

would be to treat small problems before they become big ones, regardless of

whether they fall under the health care or dental care that we have in this

province. I believe that sustainability and reasonable access without

well-defined parameters are just buzzwords from the Premier and basically mean

nothing.

Now, there are serious health care issues in the province that we

need to attend to, and we would welcome a bill that addressed the grave concerns

of people in this province, who have concerns about staff hours given to our

seniors and would support a bill that actually defined the role our government

plays in health care. But in the meantime I need to, on behalf of my

constituents, reject this shallow attempt by the government to look busy on

health care, and I think citizens from all around the province will do the same.

Hon. Speaker, this bill is wrong. This bill is going in the wrong

directions from what British Columbians want. It is going to affect the health

care system in British Columbia and in Canada like we've never seen before. I

would say, at this point in time, that this is a bill we need to defeat in this

House. We need to move forward with the concerns that are of real issue to

British Columbians in the province — dealing with, as I said before, poverty,

homelessness, addictions — and get off this government's and this Premier's use

of buzzwords to guide us along so that their friends and….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

K. Conroy: I, too, rise today to speak out against Bill 21

for a number of reasons, but for starters, to call the government on the

hypocrisy of even introducing this bill. Bill 21 amends the

preamble of the

Medicare Protection Act and adds the principle of "sustainability," and I use

sustainability in quotes. It also gives provincial definition to the five

principles of the Canada Health Act.

[1055]

Why would we need a bill like this when the minister himself has

even been rather incoherent when providing a rationale for the changes? I think

the minister is actually rather a coherent fellow at times. It must be

incredibly frustrating for him to have to support a bill that is supporting the

Premier's unequivocal support of a private health care system or the Finance

Minister's continual doomsday scenario over spiralling health care costs,

alleged spiralling health care costs, which creates the need for this minister

to introduce a bill on sustainability.

We know the truth. The truth is that B.C. has gone from second to

seventh in per-capita spending on health care in Canada and that in B.C. health

spending, as a percentage of the GDP, was 7.4 percent in 2001-02 and has

decreased to 6.9 percent in '06-07. So what's with the spiralling health care

costs where we would need sustainability introduced in a bill?

We also know that the reality is that British Columbians are

paying more personally for health care than ever, since 2001. Let's see — a 50

percent increase in MSP premiums and delisted services, including physiotherapy

and vision care. The cost of private supplementary services has increased from a

$256 bill in 1997 to $480 today for the average family. And drugs are costing

more. More and more people are having to buy necessary services due to long,

Liberal-induced wait-lists.

Will Bill 21 deal with this Liberal record? Will they deal with

all these issues that people in this province are now having to deal with? Let's

see. Will they deal with the fact that the patient-to-bed ratio in B.C. has

dropped to 1.8 acute care and rehabilitation beds for every thousand people?

Will they deal with the fact that 15 percent of the acute care beds in B.C. have

been cut? Will they deal with the fact of the closure of hospitals in this

province, the closures of ER departments?

In fact, in Castlegar, where I live, the emergency department was

cut back after this government was elected. It was cut back from a 24-7 service

to a 12-hour-a-day service, eight in the morning until eight at night. We have

seniors who get chest pains in the middle of the night, can't afford to call an

ambulance, don't live where anybody is close to them and wait until they get

somebody up at eight o'clock in the morning to drive them to the hospital

because they don't want to risk waking someone up, and they don't want to call

for an ambulance.

There's a real fear amongst seniors when you come to a community

and you lose your ER. That happened after this government was elected. What's

the sustainability of health care in Castlegar when you don't have a 24-7 ER?

It's a real concern for people in my community.

We also have the broken promises to seniors. I am just continually

reminded of the broken promises to seniors in this province. I want to talk a

bit about that record. I want to ask the minister, when he gets a chance to

respond, how this bill will ensure the sustainability of services to seniors.

I want to talk about the record. Let's first talk about the 5,000

long-term care beds. When that promise was first made, it was 5,000 publicly

funded long-term care beds. Then suddenly it became 5,000 beds — not long-term

care beds, not publicly funded beds. And what is it now? Well, it's a

combination of assisted living and supportive housing. It's not the long-term

care needs that the seniors in this province need.

That's really frustrating for people — people who are waiting to

get into a long-term care bed, people who need those kinds of services, people

who use assisted living. Assisted living has provided excellent services

[ Page 11845 ]

but not at the cost of long-term care beds. The supportive-housing beds are

great but not at the cost of long-term care beds, and that's what we're seeing

happening.

One of the problems — and I'm not sure if Bill 21 will address

this with their sustainability — is the issue of ratio of beds in this province

that this government has put onto the health authorities. The ratio of beds for

seniors is 75 beds per 1,000 seniors over the age of 75. Is that working? No,

it's not working. It's one of the lowest ratios in Canada.

How can we be proud of providing the lowest ratio in Canada of

beds needed for seniors in this province, long-term care beds that are really

needed by these seniors? How can we be proud of that? Is this sustainability

bill going to say, "Yes, this is going to work for us, because we're going to

sustain the beds," when there aren't enough of them to start with, when this

ratio makes it so that the health authorities can't provide those beds to the

seniors?

[1100]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I want to talk about seniors on wait-lists, lists that we know are

out there. For some reason health authorities tell us there are no wait-lists,

but managers who are running these seniors facilities know there are wait-lists.

They have wait-lists. They have families, they have residents' families…. They

have them calling them to say: "When is my parent, my loved one, going to get

into that facility? We need the support that facility offers."

We know there are wait-lists. For some reason the authorities say:

"No, no, no. There's no wait-list. We're managing fine. Everybody is getting

what they need." Well, the reality is that they're not.

Will Bill 21 alleviate the problem in this province of the seniors

requiring these beds? I don't think so. I haven't heard anyone say that it's not

a problem anymore, that sustainability will now ensure long-term care beds for

seniors. I just don't see it. I just don't see how it's going to happen.

The other issue out in the province — especially, I know, in the

Kootenays — is that we are really tired of being told that we are "overbedded."

Now, I don't know who created that word, but it is getting extremely tiring,

when you've been on a wait-list for over a year or two years, or are trying to

get your loved one into a bed, when your community is told: "You're overbedded."

There are too many seniors beds in your community, so too bad. You will have to

wait.

I mean, I can't even find that word in the dictionary, but it sure

gets thrown around a lot, and it's a word that was created after this government

was elected. We'd never even heard of that word in the '90s. People had beds in

the '90s. So I want to know: will this Bill 21, will this sustainability create

it so that we don't have to hear the words "we're overbedded" anymore?

I have to hark back to what happened in our community two years

ago. We all remember what happened with the tragic situation with the Albos.

That family was courageous when they took the opportunity to say that we need to

change the way things have happened in our region.

We need to ensure that seniors have the beds they need, but

especially we need to ensure that couples who have lived together for over 60

years — couples who have been married for over 60 years, who have contributed to

their community, who have given their lives and been there for that community,

have paid their taxes, have raised their children and their grandchildren — have

a bed and have the services they need when they need it.

Now, what happened to the Albos was tragic, and the family said:

"We don't want to see it happen again." The community said: "We don't want to

see it happen again." I look at this bill, and I think: will this bill make sure

that there's sustainability of beds in our region so that never again that has

to happen?

What did happen? Well, reports were done, promises were made,

operational reviews were completed, and committees were formed, but has it

worked? In our region some things have worked, but unfortunately there have been

a number of situations that have shown that, in fact, the government hasn't been

paying attention — hasn't been paying attention to the Albo tragedy two years

ago. We continue to see these issues get raised again.

Just last month a couple who had been together for over 60 years,

who had managed in the final years of their lives to still live on their own in

supportive housing, where they had the support of their families and friends and

the people that lived around them…. Despite medical complications, they had a

pretty good life.

Unfortunately, one spouse, the spouse who was actually the primary

caregiver, became ill and ended up in the hospital and then in a long-term care

facility. The family and their family doctor pleaded with the authority. They

pleaded with them: "Please put our parent into the facility with our other

parent. Please let them be together. They need to be together. The parent that

took ill was the primary caregiver. The other parent cannot be on his own."

The plea fell on deaf ears. Unfortunately, the other parent, who

was home alone, ended up being taken to the hospital and, shortly after that,

died of a stroke. This is a really sad situation, a sad, sad ending. The couple

couldn't be together.

This is happening again, after we were assured this wouldn't

happen. The other parent is devastated. The family is too. One of the daughters

told me they are struggling with trying to deal with this. They are struggling

with trying to come to terms with how this could have happened again. They can't

comprehend it.

[1105]

Can they speak out about this? No. They don't feel comfortable

speaking out about it. They don't feel comfortable in an environment where they

still have a parent who is in the system, who is still in a facility, who still

requires care. There's something desperately wrong in the system in B.C. if

that's what's happening to parents, to grandparents, to great-grandparents in

our community.

[ Page 11846 ]

Will this bill change that? I don't think so. I don't think adding

sustainability to Bill 21 is going to ensure that couples aren't separated after

60 years of life, that couples will be able to stay together and that, in the

end of their lives, they will have the joy of being able to be in the same

facility together. I think the only thing we can do is ensure that this bill is

pulled, because it doesn't meet the needs of seniors in our community.

After the aftermath of the Albo tragedy, there were actually 13

long-term care beds that were converted to publicly funded beds in our area. One

of them was in Trail, and 12 of them were in Castlegar at the Castleview Care

Centre. Those beds filled very quickly. People were excited. People were really

happy to have public beds in our region. The beds filled. Residents and their

families were happy. They were happy with the facility and the care being

provided. They were happy to be within the area where they had grown up and

where they had raised their families.

Imagine our surprise, the surprise of the community, when once

again, just recently, we were being informed that we are overbedded again. It's

interesting. Once again, we end up with a situation. Again, I ask: is Bill 21

going to ensure that we have some sustainability of long-term care beds in our

province?

We're getting some new beds built in Trail. It had been an ongoing

project for a long time. We've been told that once these beds open, the beds at

Castleview will close. I guess if you're looking at it from a bean-counter

perspective, well, that could make sense. But if you're looking at it from the

perspective of families and seniors who are on wait-lists in our region, well,

it really makes no sense — absolutely no sense at all.

A spouse of one of the residents there came to my office to

express his concern. His wife is extremely happy there. She has dementia, but

she loves the facility, and a move could have really tragic results. He just

can't do that to her again. So we asked him: "Do other people feel this way?" He

said that yes, he thought so. Here's a senior in our community who said: "I'm

going to find out." He said he'd get some letters together. We said that yes, we

would take those letters to the Minister of Health on his behalf, as we do for

anyone who brings us issues.

We said that the Minister of Health is bringing forward

legislation that is supposed to make things better for people in this province.

We said that we would bring those letters to make sure he can address those

issues that he brings. Well, in a matter of weeks we got over 1,700 letters

individually signed by people in the community that were concerned about the

beds being closed. They brought those letters to my office all in envelopes

addressed to the minister, with notes on them about issues that they've been

facing. I brought those letters to the minister.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: I've been waiting very patiently for the

member to address the issue of Bill 21 in second reading. What I'm hearing is a

fascinating discourse on residential care issues, but I am not hearing a second

reading debate on Bill 21.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Member, would you refer to the bill and confine your remarks to

Bill 21.

[1110]

Debate Continued

K. Conroy: I'd just like to make a clarification. In

Hansard , when the minister opened up his remarks in second reading of the

bill, there are actually at least five pages of reading that refer to the '90s

and what happened in the '90s and not, in fact, to sustainability or Bill 21. So

I'm just bringing that forward for the Speaker's….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

K. Conroy: I just wanted to talk a bit about where the

sustainability is in Bill 21, the real sustainability. I want to talk about what

is happening in our region and whether or not Bill 21 will actually bring the

sustainability to my region. Will Bill 21 actually show that we will be able to

have seniors beds? Will Bill 21 show that we will in fact not have seniors being

separated?

One of the principles in Bill 21 is that the plan would be

delivered on an accountable basis. Well, I have some concerns about

accountability with this government when we look at what's happening with the

Freedom of Information Act and the fact that we can't get information.

I have Bill 21 right here: "5.2 …operated on an accountable

basis." Will it in fact be an accountable basis that we find this bill operating

on? That's something that perhaps the minister can respond to when he gets an

opportunity to respond.

I think it's interesting that the minister has included

"accountable" in the bill itself, because there are some issues around

accountability. There are issues when we make freedom-of-information requests.

We quite often don't get any of the information because the entire request is

blanked out.

I have real issues with the term accountable in here. I think it

needs to be defined so that we know it is something we can look at and can see

that it is going to have a real impact in this bill, that it is going to be true

accountability. Maybe we should have had "transparency" in this bill, because

that's another word that seems to be thrown around.

One of the things I've noticed with this bill is…. When you talk

about sustainability, you think the only thing that is going to be sustainable

in our region would perhaps be the sustainability of the private operators who

are getting funds put into their own pockets, as opposed to into the services to

seniors. I don't see anywhere in this bill where that issue could be addressed.

I think it's interesting that it's not defined. It's really not defined.

[ Page 11847 ]

In the minister's comments, in the minister's own second reading

to this bill, the definition of sustainability was not there. We didn't hear it.

We heard much discussion about what the minister thought the past history of

this province was about, but we didn't hear what he thinks sustainability should

be about. You know, it's a real concern.

I had a group in Castlegar send me a letter. It's a letter to the

Health Minister, and I know the minister gets thousands of letters. In fact,

this week he got over 1,700. I know that he probably doesn't have an opportunity

to read every one, and he might not have got this one because he's been reading

the other 1,700 that we delivered to him.

This speaks to the issues of Bill 21. This succinctly addresses

the concerns of Bill 21. With the Speaker's permission, I just want to say that

Castlegar and District Health Watch was formed after the 2001 election. It's

interesting that after the 2001 election we've had to form all of these health

watch–type groups around the province, but suddenly we had this need to have

more voices in our community speaking out in defence of health care.

Castlegar and District Health Watch came together when we lost our

hospital, when the acute care beds were closed, when our ER was cut back. It's a

group that's been working hard in our community to ensure that the services for

rural British Columbians are there.

For the record, I want to read this letter into Hansard

because it addresses Bill 21. It addresses the issues and the concerns, and I

just want to make sure that the minister, as busy as he is, has the opportunity

to hear.

Dear Sir:

I have been asked to write on behalf of Castlegar

and District Health Watch executive to express our strong opposition to Bill

21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, the legislation you have recently

introduced that would add sustainability as the sixth principle guiding health

care in B.C.

In articles that have appeared in the media about

this proposed sustainability law, you adroitly deny that this proposal has

anything to do with pushing B.C. towards more privatized health care services.

We believe you are indeed a master of obfuscation.

[1115]

One signal to us that this is a smokescreen for

privatizing the health care system is that the bill does not contain a

rational, scientific definition for "the taxpayers' ability to pay." There is

nothing to stop the government from continuing to reduce individual and

corporate taxes and then crying the sustainability blues…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Members, it's very difficult

when there's conversation going behind and past the speaker.

K. Conroy: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

…as justification for further cuts to public health care

services, an expansion of for-profit services.

On one hand, your government tells us that the

tax burden is too high for us poor citizens, yet on the other, we are told

that the people want the freedom to choose to pay for private insurance and

for-profit health services. Clearly for your government, choice for the

wealthy trumps the public good for the rest of us. We are not believers in

that particular ideology.

So why doesn't your government use the commonly

accepted measure of economic growth and wealth generation, the GDP, as a

measure of sustainability and our ability to pay for health care services?

Could it be because it would then be obvious that year after year the

provincial budget has shrunk in comparison to the B.C. economy's healthy

growth and wealth generation?

This budget shrinkage has been caused by huge

cuts in welfare, housing, day care and other social services. But because the

health care portion of the budget has not been reduced as severely as other

sectors, it is now taking up a much larger proportion of the provincial budget

pie — this magic pie-shrinking trick that justifies your government's

inaccurate claims of out-of-control growth in health care costs.

Not only has the expenditure side of the budget

been cut in relationship to the GDP, but the income side has as well, through

significant tax cuts. Statistics Canada now reports that most of the new

wealth generated in B.C. goes to the wealthiest 5 percent of families and into

corporate profits rather than being taken into government coffers to serve

society as a whole.

In the Conversation on Health many participants

soundly rejected much of the so-called information about costs and other dire

warnings included in the government's preparatory materials. The idea of

sustainability being added as a sixth principle in the Canada Health Act was

not a priority for most participants, because they knew that health care costs

have not risen proportionate to the growth in GDP. Participants recognized

that there are many changes needed to make the public health care system more

effective and cost-efficient, but this sustainability law is not required for

that to happen.

What does B.C. urgently need? Competent,

effective, creative, caring and humane modern-day health care administrators

and a supportive government who are all committed to the development of a

high-quality public health care system based on the five principles of the

Canada Health Act.

We members and directors of Castlegar and

District Health Watch remain committed to the protection and expansion of a

universal, publicly funded, administered and operated health care system based

on the five principles of the Canada health care act.

We ask that you withdraw this unnecessary bill,

speak honestly about the true nature of health care costs as they relate to

the budget, taxation and the GDP and get on with listening to health care

providers and the public so we can together develop B.C.'s health care system

into a model of quality and effectiveness.

I think that speaks to a lot of the concerns about Bill 21.

It speaks to the issues, especially, of support to rural B.C. Are

we, with this bill, in fact going to ensure that there is sustainability of the

system, sustainability without it costing us more, without people in rural B.C.

having to pay for more and more services — services like MRIs that are

desperately needed? In order to get it, if you want to get it quickly, the only

way you can get it is to pay for it. Is that what this is all about?

We had a number of people in our region that went to the

Conversation on Health, and I talked to other people across this province who

went to the Conversation on Health. We know that the minister, when developing

[ Page 11848 ]

this bill, has referred to the input he got on the Conversation on Health. We

know that in virtually every part of this province where the Conversation sat,

people said no to the sustainability issue.

People weren't concerned about that. They were concerned about

ensuring we get services in rural B.C. They were concerned about making sure

that the wait-lists were cut. They were really concerned about making sure that

we didn't have to pay for services that are desperately needed. That's what they

heard.

[1120]

That's why I have real concerns when the minister uses this bill,

Bill 21, to say that sustainability is what we need, the principle of

sustainability, because it hasn't been defined anywhere. Nowhere has anyone

said: "This is what sustainability is going to mean to this province."

All we've heard are these innuendos. We heard a lot of diatribe

about the '90s. It's frustrating to speak to a bill when there's no definition,

no real concrete information. We are concerned because we look at what's

happening in the Interior Health Authority in the rural part of B.C. and at

what's happening with the privatization of health care, and I have to believe

that sustainability is something along the ideological bent of privatization.

We know that it doesn't work. We know that it's more

cost-effective for a government to put money into the publicly funded system. We

know, for instance, that the health authority in Kelowna had contracted out with

a private health clinic in Kelowna to provide orthopedic surgery, and they had

to cancel that contract because of the over 20 percent increase in the costs of

the surgeries.

They know that when you put money into public facilities, the

money goes back into the public system. That's sustainable. That's making sure

that the health care system is sustainable. That's making sure that people can

get the services they need. That's making sure that people can go and get the

services they need without having to pay for it. When you look at the costs of

services in Canada compared to the States, you think: is this what we want to

see happen?

They like the word sustainability in the States, because the

insurance companies run the health care system in the States. We also know that

the American system costs almost twice what our system does in Canada. What have

they got for it? Millions of people don't get health care in the United States.

They don't have sustainability in the United States, because they don't even

have health care. George Bush — I'll quote him. He said: "Everybody who goes to

the ER gets service and…."

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, again, I fear the member is

drifting away, and decidedly so, from second reading on Bill 21.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you refer, in your remarks,

to the bill under debate.

Debate Continued

K. Conroy: I will continue to refer to the Bill 21, which

raises the issues of sustainability.

One of the things in the bill that I looked at with interest is in

the

preamble. The value of individual choice is one of the issues that it talks

about. I just want to talk about whether there is an opportunity for individual

choice in this province when many people don't have a choice, when they have to

pay to get the services. Is individual choice, as it is stated here in Bill 21…?

What does that mean? Does that mean that you have an individual choice to pay

for the service? That's your choice. You can't get it in your community so

you'll have to pay for it. Individual choice is here.

Personal responsibility. I think one of my former colleagues

referred to personal responsibility. I know that in the States you can't get

health care if you've been diagnosed with certain diseases or if you partake in

certain…. I think it's been very difficult for them. It's interesting that they

can't get that health care.

We're wondering if this is the way, the direction that the

minister is going in. It's a real concern for people. People have concern about

what direction this minister is going in, what this sustainability means, what

personal responsibility is. I'm quoting directly from the bill: personal

responsibility, individual choice, innovation.

When you talk about innovation in the bill, what is it going to

mean? Is it innovation for private operators to put more money into their

pockets or innovation to ensure…? Innovation here in this bill: what exactly is

that going to mean?

[1125]

I'll look forward to the minister's wrap-up eventually some time

so that he can tell us what innovation means. Does that mean more money for the

health care system, more money to ensure services for people in rural B.C.? Or

is it these one-off projects that this minister is fond of doing? Just fund it

on a one-shot basis, and once the project's over, the service disappears. Once

again, the people in the area are left without the services they need.

Is that what innovation in Bill 21…? Is that what that means? Is

it just another thing that we look at and say where is it? Where's the

accountability?

I'm looking forward to the minister's response eventually, because

in this bill, you read through it, and there are some real concerns when they

talk about…. In sustainability they include cash. They include the concept of….

They're talking about money, and then as a secondary, it almost seems, is the

discussion around the true health care needs.

I worry in this province. Are we getting caught up in the business

of health care, instead forgetting that health care is a service? Health care is

a service to people. It's a right to people. It's something that we all have to

look forward to.

With that, I end my remarks.

H. Lali: It is indeed an honour to follow in the footsteps

of my colleague from West Kootenay–Boundary

[ Page 11849 ]

and the remarkable information that she has provided to highlight not only

the concerns of health care in this province, but especially in her neck of the

woods in the Kootenays, where there's been a complete abandonment, as in other

rural areas, of health care by this Health Minister and by this Liberal

government.

I stand here to speak against so much of what the minister has put

forward in the bill, Bill 21. I think the minister should appropriately have

called it the "medicare destruction act," because Bill 21 does not actually do

anything for the people in British Columbia who need health care. It does

everything to take health care away from them.

I don't know why the minister's even actually looking at bringing

this in as an amendment to the Medicare Protection Act. He should have brought

in a new bill and just called it the "medicare destruction act," because that's

what he is doing. It's destroying health care.

C. Puchmayr: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

C. Puchmayr: I have a group of students here — my first

group from Richard McBride Elementary. They're here for another four minutes.

Please make them all welcome. They're the grade 5 class, and they're studying

politics. I hope they're very inspired by the debate here today.

Debate Continued

H. Lali: I thought for a minute there…. Here I am just

starting my speech and somebody's getting up on a point of order, my own

colleague, but he wasn't. Obviously, he was making an introduction.

Just getting onto it, I think the minister should have

appropriately called it the "medicare destruction act," because that's what he's

doing. He's destroying health care. These Liberals are destroying health care.

From the day they took office in 2001 they have been on a rampage, a vengeance,

to try to actually take health care away from all of the people in British

Columbia. That's what they've done. They've made the lives of British Columbians

miserable, and now Bill 21 is the final straw.

Earlier in this parliamentary term the Premier put out a committee

to go around the province. He called it his Conversation on Health. That's what

he called it. Now, a conversation on health is a two-way dialogue, but that's

not what it was. It was actually the Premier sending his folks around the

province to basically tell people that he wanted to privatize — float a trial

balloon and see what would happen.

[1130]

The Premier's Conversation on Health was nothing but a sham. It

was a cruel hoax. On the one side, we get the Minister of Health on Tuesday,

April 8, when he introduced the "medicare destruction act," and he says we

received over 12,000 submissions from people across British Columbia on the

Conversation on Health. Well, if it was truly a conversation on health, this

minister would be doing justice for the people of British Columbia. If he had

actually truly sat down to read and listen to what people had said, if he had

clearly listened to the people, the vast majority of the people who put in their

submissions told this Minister of Health and this Liberal Premier to leave

health care alone. Do not go on the slippery path to privatization.

There is a betrayal of the people of British Columbia when a

minister brings forward this Bill 21, this "medicare destruction act."

Obviously, this Premier and this Liberal minister did not listen to the will of

the people of British Columbia, the 12,000 submissions that have come in. It is

a sham; it was a cruel hoax.

I want to read from the minister's own words on April 8 in this

House. He says: "This government is committed to ensuring the world-class health

care system we have is available not only today but for future generations." You

know, I take exception to those remarks, because everything that this Liberal

government, since 2001, and this Minister of Health have done has actually

eroded that world-class health system that we left behind in 2001. They have

gutted it. They're continuing to gut it word by word and area by area in this

province. And here you have now the minister talking about future

sustainability. He says that this is a sustainability bill.

It's a nice word, sustainability. When people hear this nice word,

sustainability, the picture that comes to their mind is that they want a

world-class health care system in this province and that they want it to be

sustained. Well, there is something fundamentally wrong with Bill 21 and the way

this minister has presented it and what his true motives are. First of all, he

doesn't define sustainability. He doesn't define what sustainability means.

Does sustainability mean that we are going to have the restoration

of those massive funding cuts to health care that this Liberal government

started in its first term and that this minister has continued since 2005? Is

that what sustainability is all about? Is that how the minister defines it —

that he's going to restore those cuts? Or is it that the minister's going to say

that he's going to reinstate those beds — all of those acute care beds and those

long-term care beds that this Liberal government has cut over the last seven

years, especially in their first term? Is that the definition of sustainability?

The minister doesn't tell us that. The minister doesn't define it,

and I'm wondering if the minister is going to define it. He has to tell the

people of British Columbia what his true motives are, because nobody on that

side of the House has stood up to define what sustainability is. Nobody on that

side of the House….

J. Rustad: That's a lie.

Point of Order

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member sitting

to my far left here, from the north there, to withdraw

[ Page 11850 ]

his remark. He just called me a liar. I ask him to withdraw his remark

unequivocally.

J. Rustad: Madam Speaker, in my speech yesterday, in my

response to this, I clearly defined the definition of "sustainability" out of

the dictionary. The member opposite here has suggested that I am accusing him of

saying something incorrect. My remarks are very clear, and they're on the

record.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you will withdraw your

unparliamentary remarks unequivocally, as it is a dispute of the facts.

[1135]

J. Rustad: I withdraw the comment. Thank you.

Debate Continued

H. Lali: I want to thank the member for withdrawing his

remarks. I am actually looking forward to seeing the hon. member on future bills

— I know that there are other bills there — take his stand right here and make

remarks as he wishes.

In any case, we want that Minister of Health to define

sustainability — to go out there on the hustings, talk to the people in the

ridings and the towns across this province and tell people what he means by

sustainability. If he doesn't, it is our obligation as Her Majesty's official

opposition to point out what the minister really means, because what he really

means….

Sustainability just happens to be a buzzword, just the catchphrase

of the day, which the Liberals are known for bringing into this House. It means

cuts, further cuts, to health care. "When the money runs out, no more health

care." That's what they're going to say. "No more services to people." They'll

just cut them.

Interjections.

H. Lali: Oh, be quiet. Oh, be quiet. Go back.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Order, Members.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

H. Lali: The fact of the matter is that the Liberals just

can't handle the truth. It gets at them. That's why they sit there mocking us

off in the Legislature time and time again. They can't handle it. They take

their place in the Legislature. They make speeches. We sit here; we listen to

it. We didn't sit there like these people, making objections and standing up and

saying all this kind of nonsense, because they can't handle the truth. They

can't handle the truth.

Deputy Speaker: Member, there is a wide range of discussion

on second reading, but you must keep your remarks relevant to the bill.

H. Lali: As I was previously saying, before I was rudely

interrupted, it means cuts. That's what the Liberal minister across the way is

intending to do — further cuts to health care.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, the member just suggested that

I was not telling the truth. He has not yet, at any point, landed on his feet to

start talking second reading on Bill 21. His tone has been entirely abusive,

and, I think, inappropriate.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you keep your remarks confined to

Bill 21.

Debate Continued

H. Lali: On Bill 21 and what this word sustainability

means. In addition to the cuts that will surely come in the future, it also

means further privatization of our health care in this province. That's what

that means. We've seen it under this Liberal government — the cuts and the

privatization. That's what is going to happen.

I also want to ask this Legislature: what does the minister mean

by "reasonable access"? What does he mean? Does reasonable access mean that

folks who live in Lillooet, for instance, who used to get access to health care

services that were available in that hospital, or those folks who live in Hope

or Merritt or Princeton and all of those other rural communities in my

constituency…?

Does it mean that the minister is going to reinstate the access

that was there? That's what my constituents want to know. I just want to remind

my Liberal friends across the way of the Premier's statement during the 2005

election. What did he say about health care to the people of British Columbia?

He said: "Health care when you need it, where you need it." That's what he said.

Is that what the minister meant by reasonable access when he introduced Bill 21?

I ask on behalf of my constituents, because they're asking me to

ask that very question, that same question, to the minister. So I stand here

before the minister asking him this question. When he says reasonable access,

does he mean — and does he believe in the Premier's words — health care when you

need it, where you need it?

[1140]

What we have seen since this Liberal government, in their first

term…. They continued in the second term on the rampage that they have had

across British Columbia and the relentless attack on our health care system

across British Columbia. It has been anything but health care when you need it

and where you need it. That's what's happening.

[ Page 11851 ]

The words coming out of Liberal ministers and members opposite are

one thing, but their actions speak something else — just typical of the kind of

Liberal hypocrisy that we see. So when we come up to third reading and we go to

committee stage, when we go to line-by-line debate, I'm going to be asking those

tough questions to the minister, because we want him to define sustainability

and reasonable access.

Again, I want to read what the minister said on Tuesday, April 8,

in this House. I'm sorry. It wasn't on April 8. It was later on. I apologize for

that. It was actually in second reading. Honest mistake. The minister likes to

say that the health care costs are rising. That's what the minister says. He

says that health care costs are rising. Not only that. He says that his

government has increased health care funding. It's at 44 percent. It's going to

go to 50 percent, and it's going to go to 71 percent. That's what the minister

likes to tell us. I'm just going to refer to some facts.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member suggested that he was quoting

from my remarks at second reading. At no point in that discussion did I make a

reference to 71 percent.

H. Lali: Liberals across the way like to say that health

care costs are increasing from 44 percent right now as a percentage of the

annual budget in British Columbia to 50 percent, and it's going to go to 71

percent. Various ministers and members opposite have made that statement

publicly.

Hon. G. Abbott: I never have, so don't attribute it to me.

H. Lali: I just told you. I already corrected it.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I wish the minister would chill out and listen for a minute. I

know the minister has a huge research department. Somebody ought to be actually

giving him the facts. If they're not giving him the facts, our research

department will give the hon. minister across the way the facts.

Here they are. I'm going to read them. "In 2001 British Columbia

has gone from second-highest funding for health care of all provinces" — only

Quebec was higher — "to seventh" — now today — "in per-capita spending on health

care." This is from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, national

expenditure report, 2007. If the minister wants to dispute those facts, he can

go talk to those folks who did that.

Secondly, health care spending as a percentage of the GDP was 7.4

percent in 2001-2002, when the Liberals took office, and has decreased to 6.9

percent in 2006-2007. This is from the B.C. Financial and Economic Review ,

July 2007, page 95 — that great institution of socialism, the B.C. Financial

and Economic Review .

Those are the facts. The facts say, contrary to what the minister

and the Liberals across like to say right here in the House or out there on the

hustings, that they're going backwards in terms of funding and health care

funding in this province.

[1145]

Here are some of the other facts. The government has increased MSP

premiums by 50 percent and has delisted services, including physiotherapy and

vision care. Now, this has increased the costs for individuals and also for

private insurance plans. They're increasing privatization of health care in this

province.

Even the median expenditures per household for private health

insurance increased from $360 per year in 1997 to $600 in 2006. That's a Stats

Canada figure, by the way. The cost of private supplementary insurance,

including delisted services such as vision care and physiotherapy, has increased

from $256 in 1997 to $480 today — again, a Stats Canada figure.

I'm going to read some more facts into the record here so that the

minister's research folks and his communications folks can actually bring him to

light on this so that when he speaks on Bill 21 later on, as he surely will

close debate on it, and in third reading as well…. I want to also provide some

more facts.

British Columbia, as I mentioned, has slipped from second to

seventh in health care spending of all provinces. The bed-to-patient ratio in

B.C. has dropped to 1.8 acute care and rehabilitation beds per 1,000 population,

which compares to the Canadian average of 3.0. It is even lower, at 1.43 per

thousand people, in the Fraser Health Authority. In all of the provinces…. It's

almost half of what it is in the Canadian average for acute care beds, and it is

even lower than half in the Fraser Health Authority.

That's what this Liberal government has done since taking office

in 2001. They've made these massive cuts. Bill 21 will just be a continuation of

that.

Hon. Speaker, there's an introduction that needs to be made, so

I'll take my seat for a minute.

C. Puchmayr: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

C. Puchmayr: I have the second group from Richard McBride

Elementary here. They are studying politics as well, and they're in the chamber.

They are grade 5s and some grade 4s. They're a very gifted bunch. I'd like this

House to please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

H. Lali: Fifteen percent of acute care beds in B.C. were

cut between 2001 and 2004, a reduction of 1,279 beds. The Liberals also closed

five hospitals and closed emergency departments as well across this province.

The Fraser Health Authority is currently experiencing a shortage

of at least 550 acute care beds, and the

[ Page 11852 ]

shortage is expected to grow to at least 700 beds by the year 2010. The

Liberals also broke their promise to seniors to build 5,000 long-term care beds

and instead closed 54 residential care facilities between 2001 and 2004. That

was a reduction of almost 2,500 residential beds. Those are the facts.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The reality is that we're still waiting for the Premier's promise

of 5,000 long-term care beds to come on stream. We'll probably still be waiting

well into the next decade under this Liberal government if the people of British

Columbia are unfortunate enough to have them re-elected in 2009.

We've got a massive backlog in our emergency wards across this

province. Under this Liberal government, hospitals are dirty. Staph infections

and others are spreading. People are catching them within the hospitals. And

it's all because they privatized some of the health care services, like the

cleaning of our hospitals, in an effort to reward their friends.

Wait-lists….

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's assertions are not only

patently false; they're also irrelevant to Bill 21 second reading.

Mr. Speaker: Keep your comments to the bill, Member.

Debate Continued

H. Lali: Again, the minister can say whatever he wants when

he gets up in debate, but he doesn't like it when members opposite are putting

facts here on the table. That's typical of Liberal behaviour in this House.

But the fact is that I want to ask the minister a question, and

I'll get a chance to do that on third reading. Does it mean that Bill 21 will

continue dirty hospitals in this province? Will Bill 21 mean that there will be

a further increase in the wait-lists across this province?

[1150]

Under the NDP in office, our wait-lists were decreasing for

surgery. Under this Liberal government, in some areas it has increased to well

over 100 percent in terms of wait-lists in this province. Is that what Bill 21

means?

Accountability. The Premier said he was going to make his

government the most open and most accountable government in the history of this

province, and we've seen nothing but. It's gone the other way. Is that what this

means? We're going to get more accountability under Bill 21?

I've already talked about MSP premiums. What we're witnessing in

this province under this Liberal government is crisis after crisis after crisis

in health care.

I need not remind the hon. minister across the way of the crisis

in his own backyard, in Kelowna, just an hour's drive from where he lives, in

terms of the shortage of beds that we have. We have hallway medicine being

practised in Kelowna just in the last couple of years. I'm sure the minister

must be aware of that. And if he drove another hour or so in the other

direction, towards Kamloops, to Royal Inland Hospital…. There have been many

crises in 2005 and 2006 in terms of the shortage of beds.

They cut acute care beds. They cut almost 2,500 residential beds

in this province. They turned around and cut acute care beds all across the

province and said: "We're going to regionalize health care."

You would think the Liberals would have increased the services and

the beds in those regional hospitals to take care of those situations so that

people, when they can't access health care in Lytton, Lillooet, Merritt or

Princeton and Keremeos, could go to Kelowna or Penticton or Kamloops to get

that. Instead, we got those backlogs that took place. Does Bill 21 mean that the

minister is going to actually reinstate the beds that this Liberal government

has cut?

I've already talked about the Merritt situation, where we had the

hallway medicine that was taking place there as well. It's not just there in

rural B.C., but it's all…. The Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster.

There's a crisis once every month taking place due to the failed health care

policies of this Liberal government.

Need I mention ambulance service and the total abandonment of

health care in rural British Columbia? We are not getting adequate ambulance

services in our rural communities.

Paramedics. What's the minister doing to make sure that we have

enough paramedics in this province, especially in rural B.C., and to fill those

vacancies that are still left unfilled in this province? Will Bill 21 do

something to actually rectify that situation?

All we have seen from this Liberal government are platitudes and

platitudes and platitudes. That's all they do. They make announcement after

re-announcement after re-announcement of the same things. I don't know. I've

lost count after six times, I think, that the 5,000 long-term care beds were

announced and re-announced by the Premier and the minister and the minister

before this minister in terms of health.

The people of British Columbia are fed up, and they want answers.

It's time for this Liberal government to finally start giving answers to the

people of British Columbia. They want reasonable access to health care, but the

minister needs to define that. They want their health care to be sustained so

that it's available when they need it and where they need it. The minister needs

to define that.

This Liberal government has to come clean and tell the people of

British Columbia what the real intention of Bill 21 is, because so far what we

have seen are massive cuts to health care since 2001. We've seen the massive

privatization of our health care services in this province. Is that what is

intended by Bill 21?

The minister needs to answer those hard questions. He can't hide

anymore. This Liberal government cannot hide anymore. It would behoove the

backbenchers on the Liberal side to ask those same tough questions on behalf of

their constituents, to ask those tough questions

[ Page 11853 ]

of the minister and the cabinet and the Premier. They're abrogating their

responsibility.

In the abrogation of their responsibility, it is the official

opposition's responsibility to raise those tough questions, and we will not stop

until we get answers.

Hon. G. Abbott: I rise to close debate, if there are no

further speakers to this.

R. Chouhan: Noting the time, I move to adjourn….

Interjections.

R. Chouhan: I'm speaking on Bill 21.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members, listen. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has the floor.

R. Chouhan: I rise to speak against Bill 21.

Noting the time, I move to adjourn, and I'll resume my debate this

afternoon.

[1155]

R. Chouhan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it's just a short recess while we're

waiting for Committee A to report out.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TOURISM, SPORT AND THE ARTS

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $364,140,000.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to make opening

remarks?

Hon. S. Hagen: No. I'm conceding that time to my critic.

N. Macdonald: I very much appreciate the time that we have.

I would point out that for a ministry that is this wide in range and this

important, it's unfortunate that we're limited to what will essentially be an

hour and a half. I think that is a very unfortunate thing.

What the minister has agreed to is…. In the past he's always been

very generous about briefings, but I also just need to say that there are a

number of groups that will not have questions that need to be asked, asked in

this forum.

Examples would be that we're not really going to have an

opportunity to talk about ActNow, which is a program that I think is very

important but which we really won't have the time to address here. I just would

let people know that it's a program that's important to me. It's no sign of

disrespect that the questions won't be asked here. We've been briefed, and I

would like to publicly say that.

Other things that we will probably rely mainly on letters to the

minister with questions on are things that I feel are very important but that I

don't think we'll have time for — forests, rec sites and trails; the whole arts

community and the questions around that and museums and around Legacies Now

related to the various things that this ministry does with films; BC150; B.C.

Games; Tourism B.C. All of these are really big parts of what the government

does. Unfortunately, we will not have the time to go into that.

What I would say is that it is particularly unfortunate that

estimates have been pushed into the tight time frame that they have been put

into.

With that, we'll get ahead. Most of the focus will be on areas

related to PavCo. I'll begin with something that I've talked to the minister

about quite a bit, and a couple of pieces of information that I would appreciate

having. The first one would be that June 2006 report. I would very much like it.

What we found with the freedom-of-information process is that it's

unnecessarily long. I think the minister should be giving that to the

opposition, and I would ask the minister to give that to me. It's the June 2006

report to the minister from PavCo on the state of B.C. Place.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said yesterday in question period, the

document in question has been released under the Freedom of Information Act. I

understand that someone — I assume it's the opposition — has gone to the

commissioner and that it's being reviewed by the commissioner as far as severing

is concerned. I would suggest we wait for that process to carry out.

I just want to introduce the people that I've got here with me. To

my right is my deputy minister Bruce Okabe. To my left is Warren Buckley, the

CEO of PavCo. I have John Harding from PavCo; Colin Smith from PavCo; Shauna

Brouwer, who is the ADM of management

[ Page 11854 ]

services; and David Galbraith, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of

ActNow.

N. Macdonald: I'll just put on the record that I think the

institution is served better when information is freely shared. There's no

question that this ministry has made it very difficult to get information that

the opposition and the public should have. It's a document that is 15 pages. My

understanding is that 14 pages are vetted, and the experience I've had is that

we are consistently getting information that is vetted in a way that doesn't

meet the standards of the freedom-of-information office.

[1015]

What happens with the appeal, which takes a long, long time, is

that we get back documents at some point which are significantly different than

what was put forward to us. So I just put on the record that it's unreasonable

to me that we would not get this basic information. So that's on the record.

I guess the next piece of information that I would ask for is the

PavCo report on options for B.C. Place roof that is with the minister. That's

something, again, that I think the public would benefit from — all of the

options that are on the table. It seems reasonable to me that the public would

participate in the decision-making around that very important project. Will the

minister provide the PavCo report on options for B.C. Place roof?

Hon. S. Hagen: I do want to comment on the comments that

were made with regard to the June '06 report. I don't do the severing of those

reports, and I expect that whoever does the severing does it in accordance with

the act. I get your frustration, but that's the law. The opposition, as anyone

else does, has a right to question the commissioner on that. I understand that

that process is in place. I for one would suggest that we wait until that work

is complete.

With regard to the report mentioned from PavCo, there is no report

from PavCo with regard to options on the roof. That work is in progress. As the

member probably knows, there's a lot of investigative work and engineering work

going on, and we await the results of that work.

N. Macdonald: Just coming back to the process that I think

would be healthy, what I hope we've learned from the convention centre is that

the public scrutiny is going to lead to better decision-making. With the

convention centre, just as a context for what I'm talking about, we were told

consistently and the people of B.C. were told consistently that it was going to

cost $495 million. But when you read the Auditor General's report, right there

on page 2 they said that the figure that was in front of government was $637

million. Stuff like that means that the public has to dig deeper on these

projects. I think the system works better when there's more information.

The reality that the opposition and the people of B.C. face…. I'll

give you an example from two other FOIs. We had an FOI on minutes from the

Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. I can share with the minister

what was vetted from it. I mean, it is page after page that is blacked out.

When you actually go back and eventually, six or seven months

later, have a look at what was blacked out, it is like a kindergartener was

there with a marker. You cannot follow the logic. They don't cite the reason for

things being blocked out. There are things like people leaving the meeting, I

would suggest, probably to go to the washroom. That's left there. When they come

back ten minutes later, that's blacked out. There's no logic to it.

I can give this to the minister, if he would like an idea of what

we're actually dealing with, and I would invite the minister to judge whether

that is a reasonable way to provide information to an opposition.

With that in mind, if there's not a document in front of cabinet

or in front of the minister with regards to B.C. Place and the options that are

looked at, would the minister arrange a briefing from PavCo on the options that

are being looked at so that the opposition fully understands and, through us,

the public fully understands what is being looked at with B.C. Place, so that we

can really point our questions in a more constructive way and hold the

government to account for the decisions they're making, which is how the process

is supposed to work?

[1020]

The question is: will the minister arrange a briefing, with a full

ability to ask questions on what is being planned at B.C. Place, with the staff

of PavCo and with the staff of B.C. Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: Just going back to the first part of your

discussion with regard to FOI, I think it is important for not only you but for

anybody who might be watching to understand that the staff we have doing the FOI

work, whether it be in a Crown or in the ministry, are competent staff. They are

governed by the law. So they are doing the legal thing to do.

I take your point about being frustrated, and if I was in your

position, I might well be frustrated too. But it's not something that we do. The

people who do it, do it according to the law. I have full confidence in those

people that they are doing it according to the law.

With regard to your requests for a briefing, there is no

obligation, and I will not be briefing anybody on deliberations before cabinet.

Those deliberations are ongoing. When government, cabinet, makes a decision,

then we will go public with that decision.

N. Macdonald: Just coming back to the FOI, there's the

letter of the law, which is…. You can organize things in a way that slows it

down as much as possible, or you can go to the spirit of the law, which is to

provide information as clearly and quickly and effectively as possible.

Perhaps I can understand that if I was in your position, I might

be more willing to try to slow that down. But the reality is that if you — and I

can provide this to

[ Page 11855 ]

the minister…. What is going on there somewhere within government — and I

don't even say it's with this ministry — is that information that should be

shared is not being shared. That is the final conclusion that we get to, but it

takes so long.

So far I've asked for information on the information that the

government received in 2006. You know, I'm not going to get that except over a

very extended period of time. I've asked for information on the options that the

government is considering with the B.C. Place roof. I'm not going to get that.

The next thing I would ask is about a document that did come out

eventually, which is the Joint Health and Safety Committee report. There were

recommendations related to the roof collapse, and the question for the minister:

are those recommendations fully implemented?

[1025]

Hon. S. Hagen: I have the recommendations in front of me

here. With regard to recommendation 1, which is to:

(1) "Create, inform, implement and post a no-snow accumulation

policy for the roof. This policy would become the goal for the stadium in

keeping the roof up. It defines the facility philosophy and makes it clear to

all parties that every effort will be made to prevent snow from accumulating on

the roof." That has been done.

(2) "Without further delay, complete an external audit of stadium

operations to focus on policies, procedures and training, and then immediately

implement the corrective actions. This includes risk identification and

management in stadium maintenance and operations." That's in progress.

(3) "Immediately have a qualified person, assisted by a qualified

testing laboratory, conduct a physical assessment of the roof material and seams

adjacent to the ring beam starting with each of the triangle panels, and make

the necessary corrections." That has been done.

(4) "Have a qualified person knowledgable in these roof systems

assess, modify and update roof support control systems, including a method for

the control room to see the roof and know when it is in crisis." That's been

done.

And "complete a comprehensive independent external audit of the

occupational health and safety program of this facility and implement

recommendations." That is in progress.

On top of that, the corporation has gone well beyond those

recommendations. PavCo has installed newer generation systems to assist in

monitoring and controlling the roof. They have updated staff procedures and

training. They have engaged in numerous extensive studies of the roof, and all

of those reports have been made public on our website.

Also, cameras have been installed to monitor.

N. Macdonald: So the audit of the operations department has

been done externally. I guess that's been taken care of.

Just a question on…. There was an assertion — I forget where I

read it — about the management bonus structure being set up so that it would

reward keeping costs down and that that might have been a factor in trying to

keep costs down around heating.

I guess two things. If that's an assertion that's inaccurate, it

would be good to hear. Then if it is an accurate assertion, has the minister

given thought, or has PavCo given thought, as to how they would make sure that

the bonus structure — if that's what they choose to put in place — would take

into consideration the needs around the roof and the fact that there are heating

costs involved, and would make sure that the bonus structure doesn't have the

unintended result of pushing towards behaviour that would be a problem?

So if you understand the question from that, I'd appreciate an

answer.

[1030]

Hon. S. Hagen: I am told by my staff here that the heat

comes on automatically when a certain temperature is reached, when the

temperature is dropping or if there are any snowflakes sensed. They advise me

that they think the temperature is 3 degrees, so when the temperature drops to 3

degrees, the heat automatically comes on.

N. Macdonald: All right. I don't actually want to spend too

much time on it, but the assertion was that there are procedures in place that

would heat the roof and melt it and that the structure you have in place for

management is such that the costs, if they are controlled, would be pushed by a

bonus system.

Just looking back, unless I've misunderstood it, in 2007 the

general manager received $30,000. Presumably, one of the major costs that would

need to be kept down would be the heating costs, and therefore that was a

factor, perhaps, in the decisions made around the roof.

Like I said, I don't have very much time, and I'm not going to

push the minister on it. I simply put it to him that that's a factor and that's

a question that was raised. If it's something that he's comfortable with — that

it's not a factor in decision-making with management — then that's fine. I'm

going to move on to a different question. If he wants to comment on what I've

said later, then that will be fine too.

The other thing is the budget for the roof improvements.

Obviously, in the existing budget, there is nothing there. How is that going to

unfold? What time frame do we have for the minister and cabinet to make a

decision on the roof? What's the time frame for letting the people of British

Columbia know how it's going to be paid for? Obviously, even if it is going to

be paid for with real estate development, it is going to have to flow as a cost

through the budget.

What sort of time frame before we start to see the information

that we need on the re-roofing of B.C. Place, which PavCo has said needs to be

replaced in four years…? I assume that's still an accurate number, so a maximum

of four years is the quote that I would be working from.

[1035]

[ Page 11856 ]

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not exactly sure how the member came up

with four years, because I'm not aware of any report I've seen that talks about

four years. But having said that, the member also knows and most members of the

public know that PavCo is doing work with regard to the replacement of the roof.

So it's probably not a point worth debating.

Certainly, as government receives that information and makes the

decision, then the decision will include how the roof is going to be paid for

and what is going to happen with the roof.

N. Macdonald: The reference is just a quote out of a

newspaper article, where the chair of PavCo was commenting to reporters on that.

Just to jump around a little bit in terms of making sure that I

get the request for information…. Last year the minister provided a list of

confirmed expansion events for the Vancouver Convention Centre annex. These are

conventions that are of significant enough scale that they need the expanded

facility. There were 29 confirmed events as of May 11, 2007. That's what the

minister provided for me.

I remember the explanation for not providing the names of the

conventions last year. I don't want to say that I accept that explanation. I

don't know why I wouldn't also have the names of the conventions, but I don't

even need that explanation again, because the actual thing that I'm interested

in is to see the dates and to see that there are improvements. So if you could

provide me with the written documentation.

You'll remember from last year that the length of the convention

and the dates basically are what I would need. Then what I would be looking at

from there is just judging whether or not the concerns that were raised about

the fact that there simply weren't enough conventions to justify the expense are

warranted concerns. I'm sure the minister understands the information that I

need. It's very similar to the document I received last year, but an updated

document. So if the minister could just clarify that he's going to provide that,

that would be great.

Hon. S. Hagen: It's always great to get a question that

leads to good news. There's so much good news with regard to the expanded trade

and convention centre, and there will be so much good news with regard to B.C.

Place Stadium that I think you will be very, very happy, as will your

colleagues. You'll have all summer to brag about this.

The good news is that the numbers you received last year have

increased to 108 conventions in total, 43 of which would not be coming here

without the expanded centre. That is about $2 billion worth of economic

activity.

[1040]

We obviously have a list of those conventions, but as the member

knows, I'm sure…. I might add that the list includes several international union

organizations and congresses that are coming to British Columbia.

As the member knows, in some cases the organizations have not

announced to their membership where the convention is going to be. In other

cases, the organization might not want to have their name floating around

somewhere. But we have the list. It's 108, of which 43 would not be coming here

without the expanded centre.

It's great news for British Columbia. It's great news for tourism

because, of course, we want to leverage the convention centre. We want to make

sure we invite the people who come here for conventions to come back again and

vacation in British Columbia, throughout the province — the East Kootenays, the

West Kootenays, the Okanagan, the north and Vancouver Island. You know, we

invite them to come back.

N. Macdonald: So that information will be shared with me.

We've moved from 29 to 43. I think, just so that the public keeps

this in context, the 29 that were over the period that the minister gave me

represented about 6 percent of the available space. There's still lots of room

for improvement. I think the people of B.C. would be happy that it's moved to

43. I think there's also a recognition within PavCo and that decisions have been

made to try to strengthen the marketing.

Those are all positive things, but there's a recognition that

there's still a tremendous amount more that needs to be done. So I would

appreciate that list, and I look forward to that.

Just a question, back to the…. Well, still with the convention

centre, just very quickly. How regularly does the minister meet with the chair

of PavCo to talk about not only this project, the Vancouver convention centre

expansion project? Presumably, from the day he got the job, the minister said

that was focus number one for him — to make sure he paid close attention to

that. How often is he meeting with the chair of PavCo? Are there going to be any

concerns around delays?

The second part of the question is: is he going to confirm

publicly that the number that was put out is still a firm number in his mind? So

those two questions.

Hon. S. Hagen: Another good-news question, which I really

appreciate. In answer to how many times I meet with the chair and the CEO, it's

very, very regularly. The board meets monthly. I receive monthly reports.

In answer to the second part of your question, the $883.2 million

figure is the number. We will complete the project at that number, and we will

complete it on or before March 15 of '09.

N. Macdonald: Have there been any changes in the scope of

the project to keep that number firm?

Hon. S. Hagen: No.

[1045]

N. Macdonald: Just jumping to something that I was curious

about in terms of how the architects are paid. I noticed in one document that

they had the architectural fee for $565 million, and then they had a different

fee structure for $615 million. Is the architect's fee based upon the price or

the cost of the project? What is the structure for paying the architectural

firms?

[ Page 11857 ]

It's just that the two numbers seem to work as a percentage. How

are the architectural firms being paid? Is it a percentage of the cost of the

project?

Hon. S. Hagen: To be clear, it's not based on the

percentage of the value of the contract, and VCCEP has followed industry best

practices in its procurement process and the awarding of the contracts to the

architect.

N. Macdonald: If you can give, in two sentences, just a quick

layman's explanation of best practice for the architects so that I can

understand a bit more the growth in the numbers. Is that possible?

I'm looking at staff. Is it possible to give a two-sentence

layman's explanation for how that fee structure works, please?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by staff that the procurement

process was a competitive process. Then the bids that came in from the

architectural firms were evaluated, and negotiations took place to get the best

value for money that we could get.

N. Macdonald: Okay, thanks.

Coming back to B.C. Place, there are a number of companies that

have been active and are working, trying to come up with options for government

around the roofing. For those companies — just to help me understand, and this

is something I haven't asked research to do anything with — just in a quick

look, I have not seen any proposals or reference for proposals.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, or maybe I don't understand

the process. But has the government started to engage people and put out

proposals? If you haven't, when you move ahead, is it going to be the normal

procurement process? Or is all of that going to be decided after the cabinet

makes a decision about the project? Would there be one sort of procurement

process if, before the Olympics, there's an attempt to…?

A number of questions there, but basically, with the procurement

process, as I follow this, where am I going to be finding the information? Would

you be following the normal procurement process, or is there something that's

going to be different? If the minister could explain that to me, I'd appreciate

it.

[1050]

Hon. S. Hagen: The process will be that PavCo will follow

the normal procurement process, and that information will be posted on their

website.

N. Macdonald: I'm going to jump back to the convention

centre. I apologize for jumping back and forth, but here we go. The Auditor

General's report did not attempt to talk about whether or not the project was a

reasonable project to enter into. So one of the things that I've tried to go

back and look for is essentially the business case to move ahead.

The only thing that I've found, I think, is the KPMG report that

talked about the need for the convention centre and asserted a number of things.

Yet to me, unfamiliar with these sorts of projects, it seems a very slim sort of

rationale for entering into a billion-dollar project.

So the question is: is that the basis for making the decision to

go ahead, or is there a wider body that would make up the business case for

moving ahead?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm having real trouble dealing with these

good-news questions. I think the member opposite will be pleased to know that

the process of the consideration of an expanded trade and convention centre

started back in 1993-1994. You've seen the quotes of Premier Glen Clark at that

time talking about the necessity and the backing for the expanded convention

centre, which was stimulated because the existing one was full. Of course, the

backing came from industry, from Tourism Vancouver, from the hotel association,

from the board of trade.

The only comment I will add is that by not doing it, not actually

getting going then, we've probably lost about a billion dollars in economic

activity. But the good news is that we can make that up now. PavCo is working

very, very hard to make sure that the expanded convention centre will be full

long into the future.

N. Macdonald: One of the interesting things about the job

is that you learn to understand that basically, when the minister says "good

news…." I mean, with the earlier one, I don't think a project that's gone from

$495 million to $892 million is what most people would consider good news. But I

certainly appreciate the political skill of a veteran who knows how to stand and

put a good spin on everything. That's seen as quite laudable here.

[1055]

The other part of it is the question I asked about a particular

study in there. I guess there really is no particular document that I could turn

to. I asked about the KPMG. I've read that. It's a pretty thin document that

makes a number of assertions that have not turned out to be accurate in any way,

perhaps not predictably.

There were assumptions around the dollar. There were many things

that haven't been predictable about the growth in the sector. I think what KPMG

talked about is numbers that we had in '96-97 that simply haven't been repeated.

In fact, we have come down substantially. That has to do with factors that are

mainly external.

But the central question was: is that the document that was the

basis for moving forward? If it was or if you have a different document, you can

let me know. If not, then I can move on to the next question. Basically, is that

the document that was the basis for the decision?

Hon. S. Hagen: This leads me to another good-news comment.

I am told by staff, because I wasn't here in the '90s, that there were many,

many reports commissioned and done by various groups that pointed towards the

need for an enlarged, expanded convention centre.

You know, the member opposite keeps talking about the number, the

883 number, which I had said many times I'm not happy about either. But I would

remind

[ Page 11858 ]

him that a former Premier at that time, Premier Glen Clark, had said that