British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, May 1, 2008

H0501am-01

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 1, 2008 Morning Sitting Volume 32, Number 1 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR His Honour the Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC FOURTH SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon.

Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations............... Hon. John van Dongen Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Deputy Speaker ...........................................................................................................................................................................

Katherine Whittred Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole................................................................................................................................................. Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E.

George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D. Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................ Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon.

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L)........................................................................ Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas............................................................................... John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Thursday, May 1, 2008 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Reports from Committees........................................................................................................ ............................................. 11837 Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills A. Horning Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 11837 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............................................................................................................ ................................................. 11853 Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts Hon. S. Hagen N. Macdonald R. Fleming

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 Re- form, 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 Ca nada 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 sustain- ability 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 Legis- l a t u r e h a v e s p o k e n a bout 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 — c e r t a i n l y o n t h i s s i d e o f t h e 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 c a r e a s p a r t o f G D P , w h a t i n f a c t h a p p e n s i s t h a t h e a l t h care across the world in western industrialized countries d o e s n ' t l o o k a n y t h i n g l i k e 7 1 p e r c e n t . W h a t w e k n o w i s 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 coun tries 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

11838 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 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 Econom ic and Financial Review , which are numbers provided by the government's own sources. So what we know is that he alth 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 a l l o w u s t o f r e e u p a c u t e c a r e b e d s . W e n e e d t o f i n d strategies. The government should be here not talking about ways to find structur es 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 ha ve 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 ar e clinics like the REACH clinic, which is a longstandi ng 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 ca uses 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

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11839 talking about that. That wo uld 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 put- ting 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 admini- stration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility — and also add a new clause, an unde- fined 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 t h i s g o v e r n m e n t o r t h i s m i n i s t e r f a i l s t o d e f i n e a f e w 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 Medi- care Protection Act to incl ude 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 double speak 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 th e provincial system will be consistent with the Canada Health Act. He has argued that the act needs updating.

After the throne speech, he basically said: "Accessibility, universality, portability, public administration and comprehensiveness are all things we've embraced." Yes, as Canadians, we've embraced that. But the Pr emier 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.

11840 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 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 si de 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 sustai nability, there's much to be concerned about.

My constituents are concer ned 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 com- mitted 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." W e s h o u l d b e h e r e d i s cussing 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 co mpromises 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 g o back to som e of the p rom ises m ade 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 fo r delisted medical services, including eye exams, phys io, 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 prov- ince 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.

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 repre- sents 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 th e 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 ba cked away from this inac- curate, 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 Saan ich. 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 th at 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 min- ister 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 respect- fully ask that he withdraw his remarks unequivocally.

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Energy and Mines, please unequivocally withdraw your remark.

11842 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 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 gov- ernment 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 he alth 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."

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 risi ng 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 sustain- ability 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 manufac- tured, 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 obvi ously, 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 dismantl e 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 t h i s b i l l a n d t h e l a c k o f d e f i n i t i o n . W e n e e d t o s e e w h e r e w e n e e d t o g o w i t h t h i s b i l l . T h i s m i n i s t e r w i l l 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 di scussing as far as our health care system, and we look at the special interest groups a n d a t w h a t ' s h a p p e n i n g i n t h i s p r o v i n c e a s f a r a s addictions, poverty, homelessness…. These are issues that are not sustainable, and this bill does nothing to push forward the agenda that w e n e e d t o b e p u s h i n g 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 pu shed 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 ra ther 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 — a n d w h a t i s n o t 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 th ey live, due to prolonged

11844 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 sessions in the sun or wh atever, 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 sust ainability and reasonable access without well-defined parameters are just buzz- words from the Premier and basically mean nothing.

Now, there are serious he alth care issues in the province that we need to attend to, and we would wel- come 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 th is shallow attempt by the g o v e r n m e n t t o l o o k b u s y o n h e a l t h c a r e , a n d I t h i n k 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 princi ples 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 Colum- bians 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 drug s 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 becaus e 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 sustain- ability 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 wa nt 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

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 fo r seniors in this province, long-term care beds that are really needed by these seniors? How can we be proud of that? Is this sustain- ability 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 diction- ary, 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 com- munity 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 con- tributed 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 atten- tion — 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 wi th 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 environmen t where they still have a parent who is in the system, who is still in a facility, who still requires care. Ther e'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.

11846 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 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 toge ther. 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 grow n 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 situ ation. Again, I ask: is Bill 21 going to ensure that we have some sustainability of long-term care beds in our province? W e ' r e g e t t i n g s o m e n e w b e d s b u i l t i n T r a i l . I t h a d 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 facil- ity, 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 Minis- ter 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 indi vidually 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 sustain- ability 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 t h i n k i t n e e d s t o b e d e f i n e d s o t h a t w e k n o w i t i s 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 no ticed 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 op- erators who are getting fund s put into their own pock- ets, as opposed to into the services to seniors. I don't see anywhere in this bill where that issue could be ad- dressed. I think it's interesting that it's not defined. It's really not defined.

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 w h a t h e t h i n k s s u s t a i n a b i l i t y s h o u l d b e a b o u t . Y o u 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, b u t s u d d e n l y w e h a d t h i s n e e d t o h a v e m o r e v o i c e s i n 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 Amend- ment 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 privat- izing 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 gen- eration, 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 in- accurate 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 cor- porate 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 govern- ment'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 sustain- ability 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 h e a l t h c a r e s y s t e m b a s e d o n t h e f i v e p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e 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 prin- ciples 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, es pecially, 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 Heal th, and I talked to other people across this province who went to the Conversation on Health. We know that the minister, when developing

11848 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 this bill, has referred to the input he got on the Conver- sation 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 s u r e t h a t w e d i d n ' t h a v e t o p a y f o r s e r v i c e s t h a t a r e 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 sustai nability, 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 de finition, no real concrete information.

We are concerned because we look at what's happening in the Inte rior 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 ma king 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 sustaina bility 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 b ill 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 indi- vidual choice in this province when many people don't have a choice, when they have to pay to get the ser- vices. 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 innova tion 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 d o i n g ? J u s t f u n d i t o n a o ne-shot basis, and once the project's over, the service di sappears. 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 anothe r 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 ca re, 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 foot- steps of my colleague from West Kootenay–Boundary

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11849 and the remarkable informat ion that she has provided to highlight not only the concer ns 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 "medi- care 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 a t b r i n g i n g t h i s i n a s a n a m e n d m e n t t o t h e M e d i c a r e 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 thin k 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 ram- page, 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 th e 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 submission s 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, sustainab ility. When people hear this nice word, sustainability, the picture that comes to their mind is that they want a wo rld-class health care system i n t h i s p r o v i n c e a n d t h a t t h e y w a n t i t t o b e s u s t a i n e d . 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 sustain- ability. 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

11850 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 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 oppo sition 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 peo- ple, 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 "reasonabl e access"? What does he mean?

Does reasonable access mean that folks who live in Lillooet, for instan ce, 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 Premie r'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 ques- tion, 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.

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 se e. So when we come up to third reading and we go to committee stage, when we go to line-by-line deba te, 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 per- cent. 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 de- partment.

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, nation al 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, includin g 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 privat e 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 com- munications folks can actually bring him to light on t h i s s o t h a t w h e n h e s p e a k s o n B i l l 2 1 l a t e r o n , a s h e 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: F i f t e e n p e r c e n t o f a c u t e c a r e b e d s i n 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

11852 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 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 Li beral 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 ab out 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 short- age 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 Kam- loops, 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, co uld 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 actu ally 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 th at. 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

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11853 of the minister and the cabinet and the Premier. They're abrogating their responsibility. In the abrogation of thei r 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 bu t that I don't think we'll have time for — forests, rec sites and trails; the whole arts community and the qu estions around that and museums and around Legacies Now related to the various things that this mi nistry 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 mini ster 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 s h o u l d b e g i v i n g t h a t t o 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

11854 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 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 qu estion 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

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0501am-01
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0501am 01
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a9297b5bcee1d771e5a04c753c0d36ce30f8340a

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