2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Family caregivers

C. James

Parksville park restoration

Cantelon

Mental illness

Chouhan

Tour of Courage cancer fundraiser

Hawkins

Cariboo student participation in

national science fair

C. Wyse

Calona Wines

Horning

Oral Questions

Farmworker vehicle inspections

C. James

Hon. K.

Falcon

Government action on farmworker

safety

Chouhan

Hon. K.

Falcon

Farmworker vehicle inspections

Puchmayr

Hon. K.

Falcon

Farnworth

Fish feed contamination

Robertson

Hon. P.

Bell

Status of Pacific Salmon Forum

scientists

Simons

Hon. P.

Bell

Federal guidelines for pesticide

use

Simpson

Hon. P.

Bell

Wages for child care workers

Trevena

Hon. L.

Reid

Government relationship with

Nanaimo Family Life Association

L. Krog

Hon. T.

Christensen

documents

H. Bains

Hon. C.

Hansen

Hon. G.

Campbell

Tabling Documents

Property Assessment Appeal Board,

annual report, 2006

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

(continued)

Conroy

Hon. G.

Abbott

A. Dix

Sather

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism,

Sport and the Arts

Hon. S.

Hagen

Macdonald

J. Kwan

Gentner

[ Page 7749 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, joining us today in the House are 20 visitors from University Hill Secondary School, a school in Vancouver–Point Grey. I actually spent 12 years of my life at University Hill Elementary and Secondary schools. They've come to find out what we're doing and why we're doing it. I hope we'll all make them feel welcome.

N. Macdonald: Joining us in the House are a number of people very close to me. One is Ann Hawthorne. She is, I think, from Toronto now but is originally from Winnipeg. As well, there's her close friend Margaret Dixon, who is my sister from Winnipeg, and my parents Murdo and Agnes Macdonald from Gimli, Manitoba. Please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I also hope that the House will make Logan Graham welcome. Logan is a very articulate spokesperson for the Children's Arthritis Foundation. He's also a young man with keen observational skills. He pointed out to some of my colleagues today that he saw me a couple of years ago. He said, "I've grown a lot in that time," and then Logan said: "And so has the Premier."

Logan, I'm trying to lose that weight, but thank you for pointing it out.

I hope we'll make him welcome.

S. Hawkins: On behalf of Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce 30 Members of Parliament from ten different countries who are in Victoria attending a conference on parliamentary leadership. The participants are examining parliamentary leadership and participation in broad-based coalitions in the areas of political leadership, anti-corruption, conflict management, poverty reduction and parliamentary administration.

I would like to recognize the work of Dr. Rick Stapenhurst of the World Bank Institute, Mr. Andrew Imlach of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Dr. Gregory Cran of Royal Roads University for their key roles in sponsoring this conference. Would members please help me make them all welcome.

B. Lekstrom: Today in the House we have Mitch Rivest, a navy lieutenant in the Canadian Forces, and his mother Sharon Rivest. On May 17, which is the one-year anniversary of the death of his Royal Military College classmate and friend Capt. Nichola Goddard, Mitch will be releasing from the military to focus on his work with GOAL in Afghanistan.

Mitch established a volunteer organization to raise awareness about the situation in Afghanistan and to raise money to build a school for girls in Afghanistan in honour of the work that his colleague Nichola was doing when she was killed.

Next week Mitch is going to launch kickoff events in western Canada. The goal of this ride is to go around the world. It's a self-financed ride that Mitch is taking on, and it's to raise $200,000 toward this worthy cause. Would the House please welcome both Mitch and his mom Sharon.

[1340]

J. Nuraney: I too would like to acknowledge the presence of Logan Graham in the gallery today. Logan, at the age of four, was struck with severe arthritis. Now, at the age of 12, he has become a great advocate for the Children's Arthritis Foundation. He's accompanied today by Pam Sherwin. I would like the House to please make them both welcome.

B. Bennett: I know there are a lot of glum faces in the House after the defeat of the mighty Canucks last week. But I did want to stand today and give hope to the members in this House and just remind you that the winning goal for Anaheim in the overtime frame was scored by Scott Niedermayer, who happens to have been born and raised in Cranbrook.

The hit that set up that winning goal was by his brother Rob, who was also born and raised in Cranbrook. So I would invite all members to continue cheering for British Columbia. Cheer for the Anaheim Ducks and the Niedermayer brothers.

S. Hammell: In the gallery are two friends of mine. The first is Cathy Allen, a person that I have known for years and with whom I've travelled the globe, or parts of the globe, teaching the gospel of including more women in the political process — something that I think we could do here.

The second person is Stanly Tsao. Stanly was my former MA, and he is now her vice-president. Both Cathy and I are lucky to have worked with him. Would the House please make both of these quite remarkable people welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the gallery I would like to welcome special visitors from New Zealand. The hon. Chris Carter, Minister of Conservation, of Ethnic Affairs and of Housing, will be meeting with his B.C. government counterparts this afternoon. The minister is accompanied by his partner Peter Kaiser, principal of the Tirimoana Primary School, and his ministerial adviser Michael Gibbs. This is Minister Carter's first visit to British Columbia.

British Columbia and New Zealand share a lot of common history and many economic and cultural bonds. I ask the House to please make all our visitors welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: Today in the precincts from the beautiful Comox Valley we have two groups of 33 students. That would be 66 students.

An Hon. Member: Very good.

[ Page 7750 ]

Interjections.

Hon. S. Hagen: Can we have some order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Member, you could join the member for Nelson-Creston in the spelling bee.

Hon. S. Hagen: Is 66 an oligopoly? I don't know.

Anyway, together with the 66 students we have some parents and also three teachers — Ms. Valerie Sherriff, Mr. Brad Fraser and Mrs. Lisa Perry. It was such a joy to meet with these students out on the front. You know, they were so anxious to see me and have their picture taken with me. I just hope some of that rubs off on the opposition.

Hon. L. Reid: I have the pleasure today to welcome Majors Bill and Winn Blackman, new leaders of the Salvation Army in British Columbia. They have 30 years of experience as officers in the Army and have lived in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario.

It's somewhat bittersweet, because today we're also bidding the fondest farewell possible to Capt. Brenda Murray and Capt. John Murray, who are leaving British Columbia to take up residence with the Army in Ontario. They, I believe, have done enormous service for this province. British Columbians have absolutely benefited.

I would ask the House to welcome the new folks to British Columbia but certainly to bid the fondest farewell to those who are leaving us.

[1345]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) FAMILY CAREGIVERS

C. James: At some point in our lives most British Columbians will care for a loved one who is chronically ill, frail, elderly or has a disability. This week in B.C. we recognize the support and love these caregivers provide families through Family Caregiver Week. Family caregivers can face very difficult financial, emotional and physical challenges.

Often women, family caregivers must balance the competing needs of home, work, family and parenthood. They provide a wide range of physical, emotional and personal support often to the detriment of their own health and well-being. The unpaid contribution that family caregivers provide would cost the health care system billions more every single year. Without these caregivers, many patients in B.C. simply would not get the care they need.

That's why it's so important that organizations like the Family Caregivers Network Society in James Bay exist to provide support to people caring for loved ones at home. This not-for-profit society offers a wide range of services, including a lending library, workshops and support groups, to family caregivers throughout the lower Island. They provide a fabulous resource guide, and they offer practical tips on how to maintain health and wellness while providing care.

I ask this House to join me in acknowledging the work of this society and the invaluable contributions made by family caregivers throughout British Columbia.

PARKSVILLE PARK RESTORATION

R. Cantelon: It's been nearly 100 years since the steam engine first started running on the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railroad on Vancouver Island. For many decades — nearly a generation, really — from Victoria through Duncan to Nanaimo and parts north, that famous lonely whistle could be heard as the trains ran down the tracks. Parksville was one of the recoaling and water stations, and the train, amidst the clang of the bell and the cloud of steam, would stop at Parksville.

There was a beautiful park there. The passengers would disembark, enjoy the garden, reflect, I suppose, and perhaps eat some cucumber sandwiches and enjoy the day before getting back on and continuing their voyage. Well, those days, unfortunately, are long gone. For many years the water tower sat as a quiet reminder of those wonderful days of steam.

In the '90s they finally decided it was time to tear the old tower down, but a couple of people — Don Levins and Kevin Peters — decided to restore the old tank and did. They moved it to a new location and renovated it. For another five years nothing much happened until the Parksville Garden and Parkland Society decided to re-create that beautiful famous old garden.

In 2005 they began, and with their volunteers led by Louis Wall, they've been working at it for five years with the hope to have it finished by 2010. That will be, in fact, the 100th anniversary of those famous steam rail days.

I hope that all members will have another opportunity here — and I hope they take advantage of it — to visit Parksville when that park is completed, to go out and sit in the park on the benches and enjoy the beautiful scenery and the quiet reflection. Close your eyes, and maybe you'll hear that lonely whistle blow.

To all of those people who have worked so hard in making this happen and re-creating and helping us relive a bit of history, let's give them a warm thanks and congratulations.

MENTAL ILLNESS

R. Chouhan: This week is Mental Health Week. In his report called Out of the Shadows at Last , Senator Kirby said that one-fifth of the Canadian population is affected by mental illness. That means in British Columbia approximately 800,000 people are affected by this illness. The most common illnesses are schizophrenia, clinical depression, bipolar anxiety disorders and personality disorders.

Unfortunately, 75 percent of people suffering from mental illness never seek help because of lack of

[ Page 7751 ]

knowledge or shame, and 63 percent of youth feel embarrassed and fearful about seeking help. Children with mental health concerns feel more comfortable talking to their friends about problems, but only one in six has sought service from a health professional.

Many people still believe that people suffering from mental illness are weak or bad. They're wrong. Mental illness is not a developmental disability, and it does not limit intelligence.

[1350]

Like many other diseases, it is a medical disease. It's a real disease like cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Mental illness can be treated. Let's educate ourselves, our families, friends and co-workers to raise awareness. We must do everything to change attitudes and active stereotyping of mental illness. Let's reach out to those who need help.

TOUR OF COURAGE CANCER FUNDRAISER

S. Hawkins: Today I'm thrilled to say that cancer survivor and world cycling champion Lance Armstrong is launching a new community event to raise funds for cancer research at the B.C. Cancer Agency. The highlight of the B.C. Cancer Foundation Tour of Courage event is a community ride in Vancouver opened by Lance Armstrong on Sunday, September 23. This ride is for all recreational cyclists age 12 years and up.

A survivor of testicular and brain cancer, Lance Armstrong is known not only as one of the world's most admired athletes but also for his advocacy and leadership in championing the fight against cancer worldwide.

In a message delivered to our Premier, who is honorary chair of the B.C. Cancer Foundation Tour of Courage, Lance said: "I'm very pleased and excited to be coming back to British Columbia in September. To help out and ride again in your amazing part of the world will be very cool. See you on the bike September 23, and live strong."

The proceeds from this ride will support blood cancer research. Dr. Clay Smith — a senior scientist at the B.C. Cancer Agency, head of the bone marrow transplant program of B.C. and one of the doctors who helped save my life — will be leading this research.

In British Columbia every day, on average, three people are diagnosed with some form of blood cancer, which includes forms of leukemia and lymphoma. Treatments for these cancers can be very difficult, often with devastating side effects.

The B.C. Cancer Agency, as all members know, is renowned for its cancer outcomes. It's renowned also for treatments for blood cancers. Increased funding through the Tour of Courage will help a variety of programs to now work effectively together to conduct an all-out and coordinated attack on blood cancers.

I'm asking all of my colleagues to join me. Dust off your bikes. Get training for the community ride, and please encourage others to join us.

You can register at www.tourofcourage.ca. Let's all work together towards a world free of cancer.

CARIBOO STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN

NATIONAL SCIENCE FAIR

C. Wyse: I rise today in the House to recognize three students from school district 27. These young people are our future, and I can tell you that our future is in very good hands.

This spring students from around B.C. are entering science fairs. While some of them have won awards, all of them have learned about their subjects and themselves as they carried out their scientific exploration.

A total of 220 students were selected for the regional fair in Kamloops. Twenty students represented school district 27, and 18 students returned home with gold medals. Only five students were selected to attend the national competition in Nova Scotia, and three of those five students are from school district 27.

Carley Redford is a grade 8 student at 100 Mile Junior Secondary. She did her project on a drug that is a serious problem — crystal meth. She hoped that through her project she could prevent even one or two students from trying this drug. As part of her project, Carley surveyed her entire school to determine her peers' knowledge of crystal meth. At the regional competition, Carley received the overall junior award and the biotechnology award.

Jennifer Rich is a grade 12 student at Williams Lake Secondary In her project titled "Sugar in the Shadows," Jennifer investigated the efficiency of various glucometers and analyzed the blood sugar levels of 15 subjects. Jennifer won a gold medal, the award for best project of all 220 entries, and four other awards as well as tuition for her first semester at Thompson Rivers University. Jennifer is going to the nationals for the fifth time.

Isabella Ruby is a grade 7 student at Kwaleen traditional elementary in Williams Lake. Her project was a study of wind energy and the efficiency of wind turbine design. She wanted to create an energy device that would not give off greenhouse gases, radioactive waste or toxic emissions.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating these young students who've demonstrated a bright future in science.

[1355]

CALONA WINES

A. Horning: For those of us who have watched the movie Sideways , we must admit that we will never look at wine the same way we used to. One of the characters in the film told us how it is by saying: "We're going to drink a lot of good wine. We're going to play some good golf. We're going to eat some great food and enjoy the scenery, and we're going to send you off in style."

Sure sounds like the Okanagan, one of the greatest escapes in B.C. Kelowna-based Calona Vineyards is toasting 75 years in business — the oldest winery in B.C. Its longevity in the industry is an indication of how B.C. wines have made quite an impression here at home and on the international market.

[ Page 7752 ]

Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, at one point B.C. wines weren't very highly thought of. But after years of being the underdog, B.C. wines are now touted as world-class and very high-end wines. Calona Wines was launched in 1932 by local businessman Cap Capozzi and the former B.C. Premier, W.A.C. Bennett.

Calona Vineyards has also been a longtime supporter of local artists in communities across B.C. A Call to Artists is an opportunity that provides a coveted showcase for any individual artist to get public recognition for themselves and their work on newly released wine labels created especially for the Artist Series wines by Calona Vineyards.

We couldn't go on about the wineries without mentioning the fact that the Okanagan Valley offers prime growing conditions, especially for Calona Vineyards in the southern valley of B.C. where the hot, sunny climate produces the finest grapes.

I would like to congratulate Calona Vineyards for their dedication to the fine art of winemaking. We toast them for keeping the tradition strong.

Oral Questions

FARMWORKER VEHICLE INSPECTIONS

C. James: Earlier today a van transporting farmworkers was pulled off the road. The van's floor was littered with holes because it was so rotten. There were no seatbelts, and the seats were welded to sheet metal. The officer at the scene said that the seats and anyone in them could easily become projectiles in the event of an accident. He said that an accident involving this van would be more catastrophic than the tragedy that we saw two months ago. This van was operated by the very same contractor involved in the March tragedy.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Can she explain why this contractor was allowed to get this unsafe van on the road and continue to put lives at risk?

Hon. K. Falcon: I want to thank the member for the question because I think it's an important one for all of us. The fact of the matter is that because we're continuing these inspections, we again today found a very serious violation by an individual who the member correctly points out is the same carrier. It is totally unacceptable, and we will be dealing with this situation and with this individual.

There's a legal process to deal with that, which I won't bore the member with. But I want the member to know that this will be dealt with in the swiftest, fastest possible way that we can do so, with our message to that individual carrier being this: they are not going to operate passenger transportation in the province of British Columbia unless they get it through their heads that they are going to do so in a safe, careful manner for the benefit of those that are being transferred.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: Well, we heard those same answers from government two months ago when the tragic accident occurred. We heard then that things were going to occur so these vehicles would not be on the road.

The government only brought back roadside inspections after three women were tragically killed in an accident. It was this government who ignored the coroner's recommendations in 2003. The minister's announcements and the actions don't go far enough. The van pulled off the road today was run by the same contractor, and somehow this van passed a government-mandated inspection in this last year.

Again, my question to the Minister of Labour: how did this van pass a government-mandated inspection, and will she order an inspection of the entire fleet used by this contractor today?

[1400]

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member raises a very good question. In this House we all agree on the objective. The objective is that we don't want anyone in the business of commercial transportation who does not understand that they are going to be obligated. We expect them to use and utilize safe vehicles.

The fact of the matter is that this was detected as the result of a blitz that we instituted. We're going to continue, as I've said in the past in this House, to undertake these blitzes until such time as people realize there's no percentage in trying to operate with fleets or vehicles that are unsafe or unacceptable. We're going to continue to put the pressure on.

With respect to this particular carrier, he operates two vehicles. Both these vehicles have now been demonstrated to be of very poor quality and, frankly, are unsafe for the transportation of individuals.

I've made it very clear to my staff, understanding the legal framework and ensuring that there's fairness involved, that we are going to operate as quickly as we can to make this person understand that he's not going to be operating in the province of British Columbia in the manner to which he's become accustomed.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I wish this government had taken that same kind of action and had seen the same kind of urgency after the 2003 coroner's report. I wish this government had seen how important it was to actually inspect the vehicles before they go on the road, not after the fact. Vehicle inspections are fine, but this vehicle was on the road. Labour contractors are still using unsafe vehicles, and this contractor has been caught twice.

To the Minister of Labour: we believe that there may be more unsafe vans out there. As I said, roadside inspections are important, but inspections after the fact can be too late, as we've all learned with a tragic accident. What is the minister going to do to inspect the entire fleet, protect farmworkers and get unsafe vehicles off of our roads?

[ Page 7753 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: The member needs to understand that these vehicles get inspected semi-annually. Every six months these vehicles go through an inspection process. Now, when it came to the attention of the government, as it frequently will within the commercial transportation business….

If we identify or become alive to the fact that there's a problem in a particular sector — whether it's taxicabs, whether it's dumptrucks, whether it's container haulers or, in this case, whether it's the transportation of farmworkers — we pay an inordinate amount of attention to that sector. We make it clear to them through very aggressive enforcement that they are going to be required to operate safe vehicles.

Frankly, I don't care what it's going to cost them or how inconvenient it's going to be to them. We're going to continue it until such time as they realize they're going to have to operate safe vehicles in British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FARMWORKER SAFETY

R. Chouhan: We have heard these answers many, many times over. We heard the same answers after the March 7 accident and days after the accident, but nothing was done. The harvesting season has already begun, and thousands of farmworkers are transported by these labour contractors in these unsafe vans.

How many deaths will it take before this government wakes up and stops these labour contractors from operating these unsafe vehicles? Do something, please — now.

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, Member, that's simply not the case. We've actually undertaken an extraordinary amount of activity to make sure that we don't have vehicles like this. That's why we did the inspection today. That's why we identified this vehicle.

I would add this. We've been very transparent. The moment we complete these inspections, we release that information publicly. We want to be very upfront and open about this. If there's not an improvement in compliance, we want the public and the opposition and everyone to know about that.

[1405]

But I can tell you this. One of the good things that came out of that inspection today is that it would appear, at least up to this point — aside from this particular carrier — that there is a much higher level of compliance. That's exactly the kind of outcome we're trying to drive.

If we find individual carriers like this particular individual, who seemed to have a pattern of not caring or not doing what needs to be done, I can tell you that we'll make sure that they'll not be in business in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: On March 15 the Minister of Labour advised the families of three farmworkers killed in that roadside accident on March 7 that all 29 recommendations that they tabled were reasonable. Two months later the minister has only taken partial steps, and she refused to ensure that those found guilty of removing seatbelts or operating without them would face criminal charges.

If this government is really serious about protecting farmworkers, when will the Minister of Labour implement all of the 29 recommendations, including criminal charges for those who choose to violate the law?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, look. The member needs to know that the reason why we've identified this particular carrier is because we were undertaking, again, surprise inspections.

We've made it very clear. In fact, I have made it very clear in this House and outside of this House to the industry that we are going to continue to do this. We will show up unannounced at the farmsites. We will stop them unannounced on the highways. We will do whatever it takes and keep that pressure on until such time as we see a compliance level that British Columbians and farmworkers not only expect but deserve.

FARMWORKER VEHICLE INSPECTIONS

C. Puchmayr: This rhetoric from the same government that had interministerial memos asking ministers not to inspect during the harvest season…. And now we're hearing this from this minister.

It's been two months since that horrific crash that killed three and injured 14 women, and four years since the coroner's inquest made those strong recommendations. What do we get from this government? A watered-down recommendation that doesn't come close to what we've proposed and doesn't come close to what the families proposed.

Will the Minister of Labour stand up and commit to this House that she will look into and answer to this House why this vehicle passed an inspection? How could this vehicle, not a year ago, pass an inspection that led to the findings that we found today?

Hon. K. Falcon: To the member's last point, that's a very legitimate question to ask. We've got auditors right now in the inspection facility making sure that the records are checked, that the inspection was done properly. We will do that. We always do that whenever we find a situation where there's a vehicle on the road that was inspected within the last number of months, which appears to have deficiencies. That's a matter of course in our ministry.

But the member makes the point as if nothing has been done, and that is simply false. The fact of the matter is that whether it's this sector or the dumptruck sector or the taxi industry or container haulers, if we identify that there is a problem in any particular commercial transportation sector, we focus our attention on those sectors until such time as we see compliance levels get to where they are.

[ Page 7754 ]

We will continue to do that. That is actually the action the member is talking about. There will be continued action. There will be continued enforcement, and we won't let up until we see a safe industry again in commercial transportation for farmworkers.

M. Farnworth: Will the Minister of Transportation table in this House the reasons why that vehicle passed its inspection and was able to go on the road?

Hon. K. Falcon: I will be happy to make all of that information public. As I've said before in this House, there is no attempt here to try and hide anything, and there never will be. The fact of the matter is that when that audit is completed, all of that information will be made available.

[1410]

We have no hesitation in saying that if there is an inspection facility that for whatever reason has not done their job or has not met our standards that they are required to keep and maintain, all that information will be made public. They will be held accountable, I can assure that member and this House.

FISH FEED CONTAMINATION

G. Robertson: Yesterday we learned that fish farm feed produced in B.C. has been found to contain melamine, the same toxin that's been linked to the pet food recall. There are reports that this contaminated feed was shipped to salmon farms here in B.C. This conflicts with what the minister apparently stated earlier today, when he gave assurances that this contaminated feed had not been fed to fish in Canada.

Can the minister set the record straight and assure British Columbians that farmed salmon from B.C. is not potentially spiked with melamine?

Hon. P. Bell: To be clear, I have never said that it is not possible that there have been shipments of this contaminated feed to B.C. fish farms, contrary to reports in the media. What I can tell the member is that the CFIA and the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands are doing a thorough investigation of this right now to track down the feed sources. I'm also advised by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that there's no risk to human health as a result of this particular product.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: Well, in terms of no risk, you can tell that to the dead pets of British Columbia. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency confirmed that a B.C. mill used contaminated feed from China — the wheat gluten from China — last July. Health Canada has said that this contaminated fishmeal was used in hatcheries, from the same mill. The minister's story changes by the hour. We have a new one here today.

How many salmon farms have been using these contaminated feeds, and what is the minister doing today to protect the people of B.C. from potentially contaminated farmed salmon?

Hon. P. Bell: The member obviously wasn't listening. What I told the member was that the CFIA has advised us that there is no risk to human health as a result of this particular product. It is very early in the investigation at this point in time.

We've been aware of the issue for something around 24 hours or a little less than 24 hours. We're working with CFIA to track down where all of this potential fish food went to, and certainly we'll be advising the public of any issues that we discover as a result of that.

STATUS OF

PACIFIC SALMON FORUM SCIENTISTS

N. Simons: My question is, again, to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands. The seven-member B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum was charged with examining the challenges facing the salmon resource and making recommendations to provincial government. The forum has received $5 million in funding from the provincial government and is supposed to report back this December.

Can the Minister of Agriculture please confirm or give us any information as to whether or not it's true that the top scientists working for the foundation have recently resigned?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not aware of any resignations from the foundation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Well, if the minister is not aware at this point, I'm sure the minister will soon be aware that in fact the scientists who have been charged with reporting to the forum have decided that their work, for one reason or another, is finished.

I'm wondering if perhaps the minister, when he finds out what's happening with the Pacific Salmon Forum…. Will he inform the House as to the reasons behind that?

Hon. P. Bell: Yes.

FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR

PESTICIDE USE

S. Simpson: At the very time when consumers across our province and the country are getting increasingly concerned about levels of toxins that they're exposed to, the federal government has announced that it's about to increase the allowable levels of pesticides on fruits and vegetables sold in B.C. and across the country — and of our products.

[1415]

This is a serious health issue. For example, in a 2006 study in the Annals of Neurology , which looked at the

[ Page 7755 ]

relationship between pesticides and Parkinson's disease, they determined that those exposed to pesticides have a 70 percent greater risk of contracting Parkinson's.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he oppose this proposal by the federal government to raise limits on pesticides use, or does he support the federal action?

Hon. P. Bell: We're aware of the issue the member raises. I have staff reviewing the proposal at this point. Certainly, we'll take those recommendations into account when we next meet at our federal-provincial-territorial meetings.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: This harmonization is being done to relieve what have been called trade irritants between the U.S. and Canada and is part of NAFTA's implementation. Resolving trade irritants is simply not a good enough reason to compromise British Columbia health and our environment.

Canada already has less than a sterling record on pesticide controls, allowing upwards of 60 active ingredients in the 1,130 pesticides that we use in this country — 60 active ingredients that are banned in other western industrialized countries.

My question again to the minister is: will he take a clear and unequivocal position on these pesticides, saying no to the federal plans and putting the health of British Columbians first?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not aware that the member opposite is a biologist or capable of making the type of determination that he's asserting right here. I think I'll rely on the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands staff prior to making any recommendations to the federal government.

WAGES FOR CHILD CARE WORKERS

C. Trevena: Child care workers in Alberta are getting a wage increase and incentives to get them back into the workforce. That's the policy of that province's Conservative government. They've adopted it to deal with the crisis in child care in the province and ensure that child care workers have a living wage. In Alberta they're going to be earning about $17 to $20 an hour, compared to $10 to $13 an hour on average here in B.C.

I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Childcare whether she will commit to increase the pay of B.C.'s child care staff.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm always excited to talk about child care in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Reid: I have spent the last month….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat. Continue.

Hon. L. Reid: I have spent the last month touring child care centres in British Columbia and opening up in the last month probably 300 additional spaces. It's a $14 million investment. That's capital currently in the field and will generate an additional 1,400 spaces.

In terms of the member's question, the child care budget in Alberta is $126 million. This year in British Columbia we will exceed $260 million.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I'm really pleased that the minister is excited to talk about child care. It would be more exciting if she committed to put money into helping child care workers to stay in the profession.

Our child care workers are earning about $10 an hour, maybe up to $13 an hour. In Fort St. John the Oil and Gas Commission workers committed to raise $20,000. The commission itself raised another $20,000 to start a child care centre so people could go to work and their children would be cared for.

They could not hire child care workers in that city because they couldn't afford to pay them. You could get paid more as a worker in Tim Hortons in Fort St. John than looking after children — a fully qualified child care worker.

[1420]

I ask the minister one more time not to talk about the excitement of child care but to talk about the reality of a $10-an-hour job wage for a highly trained person. I would like to ask the minister of state whether she will commit to making sure that our child care workers get paid a living wage.

Hon. L. Reid: We're on the side of children and families in British Columbia. There are 9,300…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. L. Reid: …registered early childhood educators in British Columbia today. Receiving subsidies to take

part in advanced education, receiving bursaries to go forward in terms of advancing their education…. They believe in early childhood development in British Columbia. Perhaps the member opposite could take a lesson.

GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP WITH

NANAIMO FAMILY LIFE ASSOCIATION

L. Krog: Nanaimo Family Life feels that this government's cutbacks have left them so strapped for cash that they can no longer deliver vital services to the community. They feel they have not been able to speak

[ Page 7756 ]

publicly about this government's cutbacks before, because if they did so, the government might slash their funding. The minister…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: …brushed off these concerns. He called them preposterous.

It is the minister's response that is preposterous. The minister is ultimately responsible for the programs run by his ministry, and he is ultimately responsible for ensuring that service providers are not threatened for speaking their minds.

Can the minister assure this House that this type of bullying is no longer occurring?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated yesterday, the suggestion is preposterous. Staff within the Ministry of Children and Family Development around this province work with local service providers to assist them in serving the children and families in communities right around the province. That's the commitment staff make day in and day out; that's the commitment I make day in and day out.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: My question is not about the actions of just staff. It is about the climate of fear that this government's callous approach has created amongst service providers. I've spoken to the people at Nanaimo Family Life.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just wait for some silence so I can hear. Continue.

L. Krog: It was this government that laid off hundreds of front-line child protection workers. It was this government that has consistently underfunded services for children and families.

The president of Nanaimo Family Life Association and the executive director have said that their organization felt threatened. The minister says no.

The question to the minister is very simple. Who is wrong — Nanaimo Family Life or the minister responsible for children and families?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's the member that's wrong.

The budget for the Ministry of Children and Family Development this year is almost $1.9 billion. Our financial commitment has never been greater. Almost 200 front-line social workers were added to ministry staff last year alone. We're hiring staff, we're adding services, we're enhancing services, and we will continue to do that to better serve the children and families of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

BUSINESS DOCUMENTS

H. Bains: There are discrepancies between the business plan that was presented by VANOC yesterday and the Auditor General's report.

[1425]

We're not getting the truth from this minister or anybody from that government side. In order to find the real truth, the taxpayers need to see the original interim plan that was rejected by this government and the minutes of the board meetings for the last two years.

Now, will the minister show this House that he will instruct VANOC to make those things available to the public today?

Hon. C. Hansen: You know, when you read…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Continue.

Hon. C. Hansen: …the news coverage this morning about the delivery of the business plan yesterday, what it really shows is that there is a tremendous success story in the making in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that's particularly disturbing for the NDP, because we know that they don't like success in British Columbia. In fact, the only business plan that the NDP had when they were in power was their plan to drive business out of the province, which they succeeded in doing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: Every aspect of the provincial government's involvement with the Olympic and Paralympic Games is subject to FOI. All of the expenditures that are made by the province with regards to the Olympics are part of public accounts. They're there for the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee, and that is actually the venue to which the member should be directing those questions.

Interjections.

[ Page 7757 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: If the minister is so confident of the work of VANOC, why doesn't he instruct VANOC to make those minutes and that business plan open to the public so we will see whether they are doing the right thing or the wrong thing?

Mr. Furlong was quoted in the media that it's not his mandate to deal with all of the other Olympic labour costs that were identified in the Auditor General's report. If it's not VANOC's responsibility, the minister should tell this House whose responsibility it is to tell the truth to the taxpayers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: The opposition has spent their time attacking VANOC and attacking a business plan that everyone that knows anything about business plans says works. The opposition has spent their time pretending they support the Olympics and being against it. The leader has been against it. She's been consistently against it, and she never notices all of the benefits that are coming to British Columbia. So let's be clear….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: On July 2, 2003, British Columbia, Vancouver and Whistler in Canada were awarded the right to host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The budget that we are obligated to pay to the IOC…. We will meet all of our obligations to the IOC for $600 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1430]

Hon. G. Campbell: I can tell you this, Mr Speaker. The Olympics create opportunities for British Columbia, they create opportunities for young British Columbians, they create opportunities for B.C. artists, they create opportunities for B.C. business, they create opportunities for B.C. athletes, and they create opportunities for a great future in British Columbia. And that's what we're for, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to present the annual report of the Property Assessment Appeal Board for the year 2006.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in this chamber we'll be continuing with the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and in Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $12,819,670,000 (continued).

K. Conroy: This afternoon we're going to do the seniors issues around health care. As Seniors critic, I've had the opportunity to bring these seniors issues to a number of the ministries. Today in estimates I want to start by asking the minister specific questions in relation to the health-related recommendations from Aging Well in B.C. , the report of the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues.

I was very impressed with the report and its recommendations. I think the council is to be commended on the excellent job they did in compiling this report. Also, I want to thank people who took time to make presentations, many of whom had to travel quite far and wide to be able to get to where the council was taking submissions, and many people who also wrote. I want to thank them for the efforts they took to make sure their concerns were heard. I think the final results are a good overview of what is and isn't working in B.C. for seniors — or older persons, as the report suggests we should use that term.

Of the many recommendations that were made, the government has chosen to begin the implementation of one of the recommendations, which is to eliminate mandatory retirement at age 65 with the tabling of Bill 31. It's a good start and one I'm sure we'll debate with the tabling of that bill.

[ Page 7758 ]

But there are a number of other recommendations that have been made. I believe that they are the responsibility of this minister and that this ministry will have the responsibility for actually implementing these recommendations.

I also understand that a number of recommendations have been made that other ministries will have responsibility for and that the Ministry of Community Services has taken the lead role in ensuring all of the recommendations are seen to in the various ministries.

The one recommendation that I want to bring to attention today would be recommendation 3, which is to help people stay independent. They recommend that the government introduce a new, broader and more widely available home support system.

I want to talk a little bit about the home support system in B.C. I know the minister has made claims that they have increased services to home support, but studies actually show that B.C. has gone from 17 percent above the national average in access to home health services to one of the lowest in Canada. Services have shifted dramatically to clients with higher needs and have become more narrowly focused on medical tasks.

I think we can all agree that when we have a good home support system, it can end up saving money in the health care system. Home support workers with the proper support and time can identify problems. They can be proactive in determining needs of seniors and can prevent expensive hospital stays just by their visits to the clients and doing it on a regular basis.

There are a number of options the ministry could implement to meet this recommendation, but I want to start today by asking: will the minister commit today to increase funding for home support to ensure seniors who require only prevention and maintenance supports, such as meal preparation and cleaning to help them remain in their own homes, receive the services that they require?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me begin by introducing the staff members that are joining us today. I do appreciate the excellent work that all of the staff here and in rooms elsewhere in the building and over on Blanshard Street and elsewhere are doing towards the successful completion of these estimates. I thank them all for being a part of it.

Gord Macatee is my deputy minister; on my left, Assistant Deputy Minister Andy Hazlewood; behind me in support, Rebecca Harvey and Manjit Sidhu, who also lead areas of public policy in the ministry.

The member introduces a number of issues in her opening statement, and I think it's important to make the record very clear in respect of what we have done with home care in this province since we took government in 2001.

Home care is a very important part of the delivery of health care in this province. We can certainly debate whether it's perfect. It's not. Is it very good? Yes, I think it is. Can it be improved? Yes, I think it can.

[1440]

But make no mistake about it. Between 2001 and the present we have seen 8 percent more home care clients in British Columbia. That is, over approximately the last five to six years the number of home care clients has increased by 8 percent in this province. Today, in the current year budget, home care support is more than half a billion dollars in this province. It is a big part and a very important part of the health care budget.

In fact, we have seen anything but a cut. Over the period since the NDP left office and we took office in 2001 to today, we have seen an increase of 26 percent in the home care budget over that period of time — now, today, well over half a billion dollars extended to home care clients.

Further, over that period — again comparing 2001, when there was a change of office, to today, after about six years now in office — we have seen the number of hours that are devoted to home support clients increasing by 23 percent as well. Part of that is the acuity of the patients that they serve, and I think that's important to note — but a 23-percent increase in the number of hours per home support client.

So that is the context in which we are working today — more dollars, more clients, more hours. I think the system is working well. It can be improved. We are dedicated to continuous improvement in this area, as we are in every other area of health care delivery. The facts are very clear.

The member said: "Well, what about housekeeping services? Why don't we restore housekeeping services?" Well, the fact of the matter is that housekeeping services, by policy of the NDP provincial government of 1997, were eliminated. In fact, I have a quote here from Hansard from Joy MacPhail, who was the Minister of Health of that day, May 22, 1997. I'm happy to send over a copy of this to the member, just so it's clear to her. I want to quote Ms. MacPhail from 1997 in respect of home support: "We are no longer in the business of providing light housekeeping services. But if it is health-related, the client gets the service."

That continues to the present day. It was the policy of the NDP government of the day. It continues to be the policy today. We are attending to the health-related needs of the clients that we serve.

Now, the member may say: "Oh, we disagree with that. We have a different

interpretation of all of that." Well, I don't know how you can have a different

interpretation of the facts, because those are the facts.

If the member wants the most informed second opinion that one could ever seek or hope for, she should have a look at the recent report by the independent and widely respected Canadian Institute for Health Information. They very recently issued a report in respect of this. The Canadian Institute of Health Information — we'll call them CIHI from this point on. CIHI looked at the record of provincial and territorial governments all across Canada from the period from 1994 through to 2004, a ten-year period.

This tells a remarkably interesting story, Madam Chair, when one looks at it. If you look, for example, at those last years of the NDP government, from 1994 to 2001, when you aggregate all of the provinces and

[ Page 7759 ]

territories across Canada, aggregate the increase in home care support that occurred in all of those jurisdictions, we saw the increase was 91 percent over that period from 1994 to 2001 — a 91-percent average.

[1445]

How did B.C. compare? Well, not that well — a 25-percent increase over that period from 1994 to 2001. We were far below the provincial average in terms of those increases during those years. In fact, in one of those years we actually had — and this is the only time this occurred under any government through that ten-year period…. The only time we saw an actual cut during that period was a 5.9-percent cut in 1999 under the NDP government.

How does the B.C. Liberal government compare? Well, if you look at the average between 2000 and 2004: nationally an increase of 16 percent; British Columbia, by comparison, 36 percent. In fact, more dollars were going into British Columbia home care than was the case on the aggregated total from across the nation. In fact, British Columbia, through that 2004 period, had the second-highest increase for home care support of any jurisdiction in Canada.

Those are the facts. I know the members sometimes like to — at least the members on the other side — take real or other stories and claim that it is somehow indicative of a system that is underfunded. That is not the case. We are always looking for ways to improve, but I'm proud of what we've been able to do with respect to home care in this province.

K. Conroy: We have different figures, obviously. I'm going to put my figures on the record. A 24-percent drop in people receiving services between '01 and '05. That's a drop of services. The total number of hours that people are receiving has actually dropped by 12 percent.

I talk to people who are receiving home support, and they tell me that they don't receive as many hours as they used to. They don't receive the kind of care they used to. I'm talking in the last four or five years; I'm not talking in the last ten years. I'm talking in the terms that this government has been providing home support.

I'm talking to people who are getting it now, who are struggling because they're not getting the type of services that they need to ensure that they can stay in their homes and not be taking up an expensive bed in a facility somewhere in the province that's hard to access. I am talking about services now. I am talking to people who need those services and can't access them.

I'm talking to people who are low income, people who can't afford to pay for more than what they've got. I don't know if the minister knows, but something like 82 percent of home support clients last year had a pre-tax income of less than $15,000. So they get minimal home support, and then they can't afford to buy more. They can't afford to have someone come in and help with meal preparation. They can't afford to have someone help out with the small housekeeping duties that could keep them at home. That's what I'm talking about.

Yes, Joy MacPhail might have said what she said, but this is now. If you don't agree with it, why doesn't this government do something about it? If it was so wrong then, why don't you correct it now? You've had six years. This government's had six years to correct it. If it was so wrong then, why isn't it corrected?

Why do I still have people telling me they need these supports? They could stay in their homes longer. They can't afford the extra support they need.

So I'm asking the minister. Why can he not make a commitment to look at things like meal preparation, helping out, even giving a few more hours of time so that a home support worker isn't rushing in and rushing out, doing minimal nursing care as opposed to home support? People could stay in their homes longer, and we wouldn't have the type of situations that are occurring now in the province.

Hon. G. Abbott: What I always find unfortunate and regrettable is when we have a member saying, "Oh, you should do this," when in fact, when the same people were in government, they actually did exactly the opposite. Now, she may not like to hear the quote from Joy MacPhail in 1997 which articulated the fundamental change the NDP government had made in respect of the provision of home care services, but that was part of the record.

[1450]

Between 1997 and when they left office in 2001, they followed through on that. They did exactly what Ms. MacPhail said they would do. They changed home care such that light housekeeping was eliminated from the equation. So she's saying: "Change it." Well, we're not going to change it. The provision of home care is taking a direction that we believe is appropriate. We have not changed that fundamental direction.

If the member is claiming now that their government, should they be elected in 2009, will fundamentally change it to restore housekeeping service, then she should say it. But she should also, in the same breath, say that her government was wrong between 1997 and 2001 when they made that fundamental change. I think people can always appreciate a change of direction. I think they are less appreciative of the hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another. I think people are always unappreciative of that.

Now, I know it's important to have the facts here, so there are a number of facts, and I referenced CIHI. The member may want to look at the information from the Canadian Institute of Health Information, but the information I have from the ministry itself is also useful.

Home support is an income-tested program, and the member referenced how much income a lot of home care clients have. The fact of the matter is that approximately 73 percent of home care support clients do not pay a daily charge for the services they receive, another 4 percent pay up to $10 a day and approximately 9 percent pay between $10 and $20 per day. So it is a service that is geared to the low income, and that is precisely what it is doing.

To reiterate the point I made earlier, the number of hours over the past five years has now increased to about 380,000 home care hours across the province

[ Page 7760 ]

every year. The number of average hours per client per year has increased by about 30 percent from 198 per client to 258 hours per client.

I should note as well, because I think this is useful information, that health authorities are introducing more innovative specialized care options such as intensive case management, quick response teams in hospitals, ambulatory home care nursing clinics, community health clinics for the frail elderly, respite hotels, home monitoring, implementation of technical assistance devices, and integrated neighbourhood networks that link health and non-health services in existing apartment blocks in the community. I think all of that speaks well to the fact that home care is a very high priority for our government. It is a very high priority for health authorities all across this province.

I think one of the most interesting, exciting and dynamic areas for health care delivery in the months and years ahead will be the closer integration of home care with primary care. I think that is an integration that is going to be fundamental to us meeting what is apt to be a huge demographic challenge as we see the progressive aging — again, on an aggregated basis — of our society. That's going to pose huge challenges to the system, and that closer integration of home care, primary care and residential care, particularly, I think, is going to be integral to meeting the challenge of an aging society.

We also, of course, have the challenges of chronic disease, many of which are associated with aging. Again, the integration of those elements — primary care, home care and residential care — is really going to be key to helping us meet the challenges of about the next 30 to 40 years, particularly as the baby-boomer generation that I'm a part of makes its way through the balance of their lives.

K. Conroy: Yes, 73 percent don't pay a daily charge, but they also are low income and can't afford to pay for anything else extra that they need. That's one of the problems: they don't pay for anything, but then they only get minimum services. People have expressed that concern.

[1455]

I don't think this is just an issue that I am bringing as a member of the opposition. It's the third recommendation from this report, so it's a recommendation that's coming from the Premier's council. It's a recommendation that people made to the Premier's council. This is a recommendation that has come from across the province to the minister, and I'm assuming it is this minister's ministry that's going to be responsible for implementing this recommendation or for looking at it.

What I'm asking is: is the minister taking these recommendations of this report seriously? Are there funds within the ministry's budget to ensure that some kind of implementation of these recommendations can take place? Or is this just another report that's going to sit on a shelf and gather dust, which I think is a real shame considering the amount of energy and effort that's gone into this report?

I'll ask the minister again: are these recommendations going to be taken seriously? Will there be funds to look at implementing them?

Hon. G. Abbott: We will give serious, thorough review to all of the recommendations contained in Ms. Baird's report. I think she presented us with a thoughtful and comprehensive report, and we will provide a thoughtful and comprehensive response to those recommendations.

K. Conroy: The government managed to come up with a response very quickly to the mandatory retirement. I would only hope they can come up with a response as quickly to issues around health care, which seem to be critical to a lot of the people that presented to the council.

The minister did reference health authorities. I'm wondering if this year it's possible to get some expenditures reported out by the health authority, if there is any transparency around the continuing-care amount that's allotted to the health authorities for how much is actually allotted to home support.

Hon. G. Abbott: Courtesy the hard work of my staff, I am prepared to provide whatever level of detail the member might wish in respect of the breakdown among health authorities in this province around home and community care.

I will just start with the '07-08 budget numbers. I can go back and compare the numbers to every year from '01-02 forward to '07-08, but this will give you a sense for community — i.e., home — care, what the number is versus residential for each of the authorities.

Then, if the member wishes to dig a little deeper into this, I'm glad to give her comparative numbers from any year going backward as far as 2001-2002. Given the ingenuity of my staff, we probably could go back to 1954, if the member really sought something like that, but I'm sure she doesn't.

In terms of the Fraser Health Authority, the '07-08 budget: for community care, $197 million; residential care, $415 million — for a total of $612 million.

For Interior Health Authority: community, $139.4 million; residential, $274.2 million — for a total of $413.6 million.

[1500]

For the Northern Health Authority: community, $32.4 million; residential, $58.8 million — for a total of $91.2 million.

For Vancouver Coastal: community sector, $145.9 million; for residential, $349.8 million — for a total in Vancouver Coastal of $495.7 million.

In Vancouver Island Health Authority: community, $118.4 million; residential, $252.7 million. So the total home-community care: $371.2 million on Vancouver Island.

The total for all of that for '07-08 is $1,983,700,000. That compares to $1,559,100,000 back in 2001-2002.

K. Conroy: Thanks. I'll look forward to getting that in Hansard .

[ Page 7761 ]

One of the issues that were also brought up around home support is the high demand, inadequate funding and the shifts to higher-needs clients. It has led to the deterioration in working conditions for home support workers. It also has an impact in the quality of care that clients end up receiving.

I know that there's been a lot of discussion around support to health care professionals, but I'm wondering what the ministry is doing to support community health care workers across the province.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raises a very good point in respect of acuity for home care clients. I know some of this may be based on anecdotal observation, but clinical analysis would probably also support the notion that acuity is growing among home care clients.

In fairness, though, it could also be said that acuity is growing among those who are currently in assisted-living facilities. It is certainly growing among those in residential care facilities, and it is also growing in our acute care stream. All of that growing acuity right across the health care system is reflective of two things.

First, the aging demographic in our society. These are numbers for British Columbia. We have seen, just over the last decade, a move from about 8 percent of the population being 65-plus to now, today, probably about 13 percent of the population being 65-plus. As we move out another 20, 25 years, we will be seeing about a quarter of the population being 65-plus. So that has some very profound implications for the challenges that the health care system will face.

Some will say that we're not only getting older, but aren't we getting healthier as a society? In some respects, we are. Aging is not always symptomatic of additional health problems. But on an aggregated basis, if one looks at the health care consumption graphs for age groups 65-plus versus those in their 30s and 40s, there is often a very substantial increase on an aggregated basis in health care consumptions once you get out to your 70s, 80s, 90s.

By the time we're in our late 80s, typically we're looking at health care consumption about 20 times, on an aggregated basis, what we would have in our teens, 20s, 30s and salad years — those years that we fondly look back on, though I speak only for myself as a rapidly aging baby-boomer here.

The challenges of the health care system are going to grow as that aging demographic shift occurs in our society. The challenges to the health care system are also growing, because we have some chronic disease issues which are being more and more prevalent in our province as well.

[1505]

The provincial health officer, for example, anticipates quite a staggering increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes over the next decade. He reckons that we may see something akin to a doubling of that in the decade or two ahead.

That is a very daunting prospect for the health care system, because so much of the business of health care is driven by chronic diseases like diabetes. For example, a high percentage — I think something like 62 percent — of retinal surgeries are driven by type 2 diabetes. A majority of lower-limb amputations are driven by diabetes. Kidney dialysis and a whole range of illness, congestive heart failure — driven by type 2 diabetes.

All of these things, again, are symptomatic of the challenges we're going to face and go back to the comment that the member made, which is the greater acuity of the client population that we are serving today and that we will be serving in the decade ahead.

One of the things we have done — and the member may wish to canvass it, as well, later on — is try to build a stronger prevention agenda for the province through ActNow B.C., through active schools, through a range of programs that we hope will get more British Columbians being physically active for at least 30 minutes a day, getting more British Columbians having a healthy body weight that will be their greatest force against type 2 diabetes, quitting smoking, undertaking a number of changes. That will see us not only living longer, which British Columbians are already doing very well….

We really live longer than anywhere else in the world, both for men and women. We're doing very well in that regard.

Nevertheless, we are going to see those growing pressures year over year as the aging population makes its way and we get, on an aggregated basis, growing health consumption demand and growing aging and growing acuity in virtually every area of health delivery.

K. Conroy: That wasn't my question. It was a wonderful speech, but it wasn't my question. I asked: what is the ministry doing to assist the community care providers — the very people that are working within home support that are struggling to meet the needs of their clients and struggling within a constricted time frame that they can't…? Yes, the acuity is increasing, and they're not used to dealing with those types of needs.

What is the ministry doing to ensure there's support for these community care workers? There are not enough of them. They're struggling to make ends meet with the number they have. It's a struggle for the people that work in the sector, and that's what I was asking the minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: Neither I nor the staff who are with me here…. Effie Henry, who has some responsibility for the home care division of the ministry, has joined us here. We're not quite sure exactly what the member is looking for.

[1510]

Importantly, I notice that previously, between 2001 and 2006, the average number of hours per client has increased by some 30 percent, from 198 hours per client to 258 hours per client. That, I presume, is part of the answer that the member is seeking.

Additionally, and I noted this previously as well, we are undertaking some very aggressive and substantial work with respect to primary care. The work in primary care is really aimed at supporting the home care clients by trying to provide them with best-practices advice around perhaps how to take care of

[ Page 7762 ]

foot conditions. Perhaps it's to take care of a chronic disease like diabetes. Perhaps it's how to utilize exercise and diet as ways of better managing health challenges. All of those things, I think, are a big part of this.

Also, and I think the member would know this, we have increased the number of home care training programs in community colleges across the province. We know that we're going to need more home care workers in the future, and we're educating more. Most recently we have invested some $10 million on the redesign of curriculum for residential care workers to assist in addressing those with higher acuity. So the curriculum itself is being strengthened to reflect the fact that higher acuity caseloads are going to be a fact of the future.

K. Conroy: I think one of the problems is that the ministry puts the money into the health authorities, and the health authorities determine where the dollars go. There seems to be a disconnect. When we talk to people in different health authorities across the province that are actually getting service, that are providing the service, it seems that cuts to home support happen before cuts to acute care or emergency care — all the other things that take priority. Even though the ministry says it's putting money into continuing care, there seems to be a bit of a different story coming out of the various health authorities.

What I'm wondering is: where is the accountability between the health authorities and the ministry to ensure that the dollars are actually being spent on home care? I know the minister has provided levels of funding. But is it really being provided in home support dollars? Is it really being provided to clients in home support? What's the accountability procedure that the ministry has to ensure that?

[1515]

Hon. G. Abbott: The ministry works in respect of the policy side of what we would like to see delivered in terms of home care. The health authorities actually deliver it.

The health authorities, as they are delivering the programs — the goals that are set out for them by the ministry and the government — have to follow through on what is set out for them in service plans, in redesign plans, in letters of expectation. There is a whole series of ways in which we encourage, support and direct, in some cases, health authorities to do the work that is necessary to have a high-quality health care delivery system in the province.

Perhaps the member has some specifics that she wants to advance around this. I can't say that I'm aware of a lot of instances where health authorities have deviated substantially from service plans in relation to delivery of programs in this area. If she knows of instances, I'm glad to hear about them and to follow up on them with the health authorities. But it surely is not practical to think that we could direct home care services out of Victoria, out of the Ministry of Health building on Blanshard Street. That is just not feasible or practical in any way.

We have to have partners at the regional level and from there down to the local level, who actually deliver these services and deliver them consistently with the goals, and so on, set out in service plans and elsewhere.

K. Conroy: I was asking about the accountability and what the ministry had in place to ensure the accountability.

I want to move on to another recommendation that the report made, and it's a recommendation that we've been asking for since 2005. It's one that the government hasn't been able to deliver on, and that's around providing sufficient residential care beds. We should get this one over with fairly soon in this process. I think that the provision of sufficient long-term care beds is long overdue. We certainly don't have the 5,000 that were promised.

Now the numbers keep changing. I'm not sure what the newest net number is. It was 600 last October, and now I think it's around 1,500. We might as well just get this out on the table right now and get it over with.

How many net residential care beds — not assisted living, not supported housing but new net residential care beds — are actually opened and running, not being built or planned for? I would just like to know how many net beds are up and running in the province today.

Hon. G. Abbott: The B.C. Liberal government set out in the campaign of 2005 a commitment to complete 5,000 incremental residential care and assisted-living units by December of 2008. I use the phrase "units" advisedly. These are not beds; these are homes that people enjoy. These are typically beautiful units. I've had the pleasure of opening a significant number of them, formerly as Minister Responsible for Housing and today as Minister of Health.

We have come a long, long ways from the old nursing home model of multi-bed wards, narrow hallways, insufficient washrooms, doorways too narrow to access by wheelchair and facilities that didn't meet building codes. We have come a long ways. We see today, of the units that we have remediated…. That's now very close to 5,000 remediated units — that is, stock that was not meeting the specifications of today.

[1520]

We see really beautiful one-bedroom and studio apartments that are an enormous improvement in every way over the stock that we would have seen as recently as the 1990s. So we've made a huge commitment there, not only through remediation.

One of the things that we devoted a lot of attention to in the early 2000s was the remediation of thousands of units. As I say, it's about 5,000 or more — perhaps close to 6,000 — remediated units since we took office in 2001.

We also committed, as I noted, in the 2005 election to having 5,000 incremental residential care and assisted-living units by December of 2008. We have been working tirelessly on that. We have been working tirelessly with the health authorities across the province to deliver on those units. It represents a huge

[ Page 7763 ]

budgetary expenditure on the part of the provincial government and the health authorities as we move to put those 5,000 net new units into place.

These are not remediated units; these are net incremental new units. I'm happy to advise the member that her persistent questioning has led me to reveal this number, which I've never revealed to the world before today…

Hon. T. Christensen: Drum roll.

Hon. G. Abbott: …and that is — drum roll — 3,196 net new beds or units as of today.

That is great news. I'm sure the member would agree that 3,196 net new units is tremendous news for the vulnerable population that these units serve. These are aimed at the frail elderly and aimed at providing them with all of the residential, dietary, social, recreational amenities and supports that they will need to be able to live the kind of lives that they deserve.

I'm tremendously proud of the investment that has been made by this government on these now over 3,000 net new units. We will see thousands more as we move through 2007 and 2008, and I am entirely confident we will be successfully completing the commitment that we made to have these units in place by December of 2008.

K. Conroy: What I'd appreciate is if I could get in writing on paper — and not take up time today in estimates — where those new net beds are in the province, related to the health authorities — where they are situated. Across the province 3,000 new beds might seem like a big drum roll number, but when you get to communities that don't have enough beds and have not got new net beds, it's still an issue out in the province as far as beds go.

The other issue is the bed formula that the government is still using. The government and the health authorities are still using the formula of 75 residential care beds for 1,000 seniors aged 75 years and older. The question I get asked all the time — and I am putting it to the minister — is: how was this formula developed? Why is it being implemented? It's one of the lowest ratios in the entire country, and we see the results of it because that's the ratio that health authorities are using.

I know that the Interior Health Authority uses it. It's a number that doesn't work well in rural areas and other areas as well, as we know that there are people waiting for beds. So I'd like to know how this formula was developed, why it's being utilized and what the rationale is for it.

[1525]

Hon. G. Abbott: The number of units per 1,000 population is a guideline. Our expectation is that the health authorities will look at the demographics, the medical histories and any other factors they believe to be relevant in terms of fine-tuning that guideline. But it is that.

It's always easy, I guess, to take some mythical place of the future and compare the contemporary reality to it and say that it's not as it should be. I think the reality that we really should compare it to is the record of what we saw ten years ago.

What we saw was a lot of decaying residential care facilities across the province. There was not yet, astonishingly, what we today call assisted living except for some in the private sector. The NDP government of the day hadn't yet come to appreciate the value of assisted living. The residential care stock was deteriorating. Some of it did not meet the standards even of that day.

We have made a tremendous investment in this area. We have made huge investments, and even larger on a comparative base to what occurred in the 1990s. Again, I'm very proud of what we've been able to do. I know that the member may disagree with it, but we've come a long, long way.

The member asked about the health authorities. In terms of the changes in residential care, assisted living and supported housing, we see the numbers growing in every health authority. They're numbers that have never been seen before in the history of the province.

We know that we're going to have to keep building in this sector. The demographic change that I articulated in a previous answer is not going away. We know that we have to keep building. But we made a commitment, we're meeting that commitment, and I'm proud that we're meeting that commitment.

K. Conroy: I appreciate that it's a guideline. Then I would wonder why guidelines for the rest of Canada are higher. The guideline for the national average is 103 beds. Why is B.C.'s guideline so low?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is not possible to take one particular component of a health care delivery system in one province and say that it is necessarily going to be a figure that is comparative to something that occurs in a health care delivery system in another province. One would have to look at how all of the issues are managed on health care delivery in those provinces to really make an adequate comparison of whether the jurisdiction is doing it well or not.

There are a whole range of health care delivery issues that may come into play with a particular patient, client or frail elderly person. We would have to compare the residential care stream and the assisted-living stream. We'd have to compare supportive housing facilities that are available. We would have to look at home care. We would have to look at the acute care setting. We'd have to look at the primary care setting and what's offered there. We'd have to look at all of the range of programs offered in jurisdictions and then really try to compare how effective that health care delivery system was in the aggregate of all that.

I'm pleased to say — and I know I've said this earlier in estimates, but I'll repeat it for the member here today — there have been a number of comprehensive analyses done comparing health care systems in British Columbia with health care systems in every other provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

The most comprehensive of those was the Conference Board of Canada report, which showed that when

[ Page 7764 ]

you look at all of the indicators…. The Conference Board of Canada report looked at 119 different indicators of how effectively the health care system was being delivered.

[1530]

They looked at all of those 119 and concluded, based on a comprehensive analysis of those, that British Columbia had by some considerable measure the best health care delivery system in Canada. That was the Conference Board of Canada. We didn't pay them to produce the report. The Conference Board of Canada is a prestigious and certainly independent organization, like the Canadian Institute for Health Information. They said that British Columbia had the best health care delivery system.

Whether you're a senior with a chronic disease, or whether you're 19 years old, you've had an accident, and you need to have your leg fracture repaired…. Whatever the experience, whatever the age, British Columbia has a very good health care system, and that includes the services to the frail elderly.

K. Conroy: I'd point out that the Conference Board of Canada report was based on stats from early 2000, when we were under an NDP government. So, yeah, you can brag about those stats all you'd like, all the minister would like, but those stats were actually garnered under an NDP government.

One of the issues that has also come up around residential care is around the type of care in facilities. We've had a number of issues over the past year with seniors who can't be housed together, couples who can't be housed together in the facilities because of the change to the level of acuity — the level of care within facilities.

I recognize that it's a difficult situation. I want to know if the ministry is looking at any type of regulation changes so that couples who have different levels of care can be housed in the same facility, so that we don't have the situation we've had. We've had couples from across the province — couples from the lower mainland, from the Okanagan, from the interior, from up north, from Vancouver Island — who have had to be separated because they had different levels of needs and couldn't be housed within the same facilities.

What I'm asking is if the ministry and the minister have any future of changing the recommendations that determine the level of care and the needs in those facilities.

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me begin by returning briefly to the Conference Board of Canada issue. I know that the opposition Health critic at one point issued a press release, which claimed that the good numbers that were present in the Conference Board of Canada report related to the performance of the NDP government and delivery of services prior to 2001.

We looked at the press release which the opposition Health critic had undertaken. He was incorrect. In fact, what all of the data assembled by the Conference Board of Canada shows is that from 2001 on, those indicators improved and improved considerably, moving forward from 2001 to the time the report was issued. So the member was incorrect. Nice try, but he was incorrect in respect of that claim.

In terms of the issue of separated seniors, this is a very important issue and one which often touches us as human beings as we get older and as our parents get older. In my case, my father had a series of strokes at age 79, was incapacitated by those strokes and had to spend the balance of his life in a residential care facility in Salmon Arm.

My mother, who was five years younger than him, was in perfect health at the time of his strokes. Of course, as a consequence, she was neither prepared — nor would she have appropriately been able — to move into the residential care facility with my father. They were separated by the medical circumstances that occurred at the end of their lives.

[1535]

There are always going to be instances where couples are separated by medical circumstance at the end of their lives. It is part of the reality that we live with in our lives. That having been said, what we have undertaken as a government to do is try to minimize those cases in which that occurs.

There are many, many instances around this province where couples are living together in assisted living. There certainly are a number where they are living together in residential care facilities, and that's good. Health authorities and the ministry go out of their way in every circumstance to try to ensure that couples that can be together remain together, whether it's together in a particular residential care or assisted-living facility, or the construct that I am particularly proud of — the building of the campuses of care.

That's where we'll have a facility that may have, on the low-acuity end, supportive seniors housing; at a slightly higher acuity, assisted living; and then residential care at the highest acuity. The new model for a continuum of care today is having that campus of care so that as we age, we can age in place.

We also have the opportunity that if one of the partners has a turn for the worse medically and requires 24-7 complex care in a residential care facility, they are able to access that. Hopefully, again in the campus-of-care model, we have the other spouse perhaps continuing to live in assisted living and able to visit on a regular basis with their spouse in the same campus of care. It is not like living together at home necessarily, but it is as close as we can reasonably come when couples have dramatically different care needs.

How successful have we been in doing that? Well, I think that the best evidence is this. In August of 2001 some 307 couples who had care needs were located in different facilities. In December 2006 those 307 couples had been reduced to 35 married couples located in different facilities. So there are still some where there is a separation, but it has been hugely reduced over the past few years.

We will continue to work on that, and as more of those campus-of-care units come on, the health authorities will have more options. But compared to

[ Page 7765 ]

half a dozen years ago, we have made tremendous advances in this area.

K. Conroy: Well, for sharing about parents, I'll share a story about my mother, who was a marriage commissioner in the '90s and married a number of people that lived in residential care facilities. They were facilities where they had the ability to have multiple needs within those facilities so that couples could be together. That is something that was in the '90s. It happened, and it worked well. When I go around and look at facilities now, they do not have the ability.

We hear of the stories where couples can't be housed together. I'm sure the Kreklau family of the Okanagan wouldn't agree with you. I mean, their mother and father couldn't be kept together because of different needs. The facilities couldn't accommodate them.

What I'm saying to the minister is that I'm hoping that there can be funding or that it can be looked at for ways to ensure that couples can be kept together, because it's not for a long time. Quite often for these couples it's near the end of their life, and it's for a short time. I think we should be able to accommodate that.

I also want to point out that the campus-of-care concept is a great concept, and I've talked to groups around the province who are struggling to get funding to enable them to have a campus of care. They're looking at having assisted-living facilities, supported housing with the residential care, and health authorities won't talk to them. There's no funding for that. Although it's a great concept, there's no funding to ensure that concept happens.

[1540]

While we can say that this is something that needs to happen, until there's actually funding there for facilities to implement that kind of care, it's really a moot point. So unless the minister is able to share with us numbers somewhere within the ministry where organizations that I've been meeting with will now be able to come and resubmit applications. They will be able to get funding for the residential care portions of their co-ops that they're trying to build. They've got the assisted living. They've got the supportive housing. What they're looking for is funding so they can do this campus of care.

I would love it if the minister could provide numbers as to the availability of funding for these various groups across the province to be able to access.

Hon. G. Abbott: I guess it's always easy to be critical when one isn't comparing to one's own record. I find it remarkably disappointing. When we have made the investment in remediation of thousands of units, when we have added incrementally now 3,000 additional new units in the province, when we have made an unprecedented and historic investment in residential care and assisted living in this province, the member says: "Oh. Well, there's no money there." That's simply not true.

There is probably more money being invested in this area in a single year now than there was during the entire decade that the NDP was in power. We're making a huge investment in this area. For the member to suggest that somehow the health authorities aren't talking to groups, aren't supporting groups, is utter nonsense. It simply isn't true.

If you look at the numbers in terms of the number of millions by category in 2001-2002, which reflected the situation when we took office, half a million dollars was invested in assisted living. In '07-08, it's $60.9 million. In residential care it was $1,158,800,000 when we took office, and today $1,350,500,000 is invested in it. There's a huge investment being made this year and every year under our government in residential care and assisted living. We have come a long, long way.

I know that proponents throughout the province can work with health authorities. They can work with B.C. Housing. There are great innovative partnerships that are occurring right across the province. People can go onto the B.C. Housing website and see what they can do. They can go to the health authority websites and see some of the exciting projects that are completed or under construction, or look at the page that talks about the request for proposals for even more of those units. There's a tremendous amount being done.

We're building that campus of care across the province. Every day, as we open up more units, more opportunities occur to reunite previously separated couples. Again, it's not going to be in every instance. I remember the members complaining about an instance where a couple was in the same campus of care, but the one spouse had to travel partway across the facility to see his spouse because the spouse required 24-7 complex care. I think in fairness, the health authority is doing pretty darned well in having the couple together as much as possible in an instance where the care needs are dramatically different.

I'm not going to accept the unfair criticism that is being levelled at health authorities here, because it just isn't fair. Nor does the fact that approximately 10 percent of the people who are separated today…. It's about 10 percent of the number that was the case when we took office. We've made huge progress in this area. I wish the member would acknowledge it rather than disparaging the efforts of the health authorities as they attempt, I think in a very human and effective way, to deal with this difficult part of people's lives.

[1545]

K. Conroy: Just to clarify, I'm not complaining. The couple I referred to and that was very publicly referred to…. The minister has his facts wrong. I just want to put it on the record.

The couple lived in a community where one member had to live in one facility on the other side of town. The family had to pay for the mother to be transported to visit with her husband every day. They were not in a campus of care. They were not in the same facility. That was who I was referring to. So I'm not complaining about issues. I was just stating a fact of a very sad situation that a family had to suffer through.

I also want to look at the report where it has a recommendation around recognizing informal caregiv-

[ Page 7766 ]

ers in this province. I think the Ministry of Health saves substantial dollars by the efforts that are provided by informal caregivers. I meet with people regularly. The Leader of the Opposition today talked about it being caregiver week and the recognition that we give to those people who provide care in their homes to their loved ones, family members.

I know how difficult it can be to care for a loved one at home and what struggles one goes through in trying to ensure that the family member does stay at home. I think what the report is recommending is that the caregivers need support. Quite often a week of respite, day care once a week and sometimes substitute care in the home can lead to substantial savings in the long run. It can prevent caregiver burnout.

I talk to caregivers who are quite often are on wait-lists for respite care. Usually, when you need respite care, you need it fairly quickly. It's difficult to have to endure a wait-list. I'm wondering if the ministry will take this recommendation seriously and if they've actually budgeted for money to support informal caregivers. Or is there a future plan to budget to ensure that informal caregivers get the support they need?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just for the record, in the example I gave, I was not talking about Mr. and Mrs. Kreklau. I'm very familiar with the case of Mr. and Mrs. Kreklau. The member's comments with respect to that are more or less correct. But I wasn't referring to the Kreklaus; I was referring to a case in the lower mainland in discussing that.

[J. Nuraney in the chair.]

In terms of the member's comments with respect to caregivers, I think they are appropriate and valid comments. Caregivers play a hugely important role in health care. It's an informal role in health care, perhaps, but it is a vital role in health care. We don't want to take those caregivers for granted in the provision of health care.

We are taking steps to try to recognize the important role and the very significant challenges that are faced in the lives of caregivers as they give so much of their lives to another. It may be a spouse; it may be a parent.

The home and community care services currently provides respite services to caregivers in the form of adult day centres, and approximately 75 percent of clients live with the caregivers. So adult day centres are one way that we can provide respite to the caregivers. We're trying to build our capacity around adult day centres as well. But also we're looking at home support services, short-term stays in residential care and respite hotels as examples of how we can take some of that burden off of the caregivers.

Also, I'll note that there is a new home care assessment tool introduced by all health authorities about April 2005 which provides better information to clinicians about caregiver burden and will assist in developing care plans for patients that take into account the need for caregiver support.

We are cognizant of the challenges that face caregivers, and we're wanting to support them additionally in a number of ways.

[1550]

K. Conroy: One of the other recommendations, and I know that this has nothing to do with the Ministry of Health…. But what I'm asking is: how will the ministry work with the Ministry of Finance to ensure that there are sufficient incomes for older persons?

One of the things we've discovered when we've talked to seniors, one of the biggest barriers to a healthy lifestyle, is a low income. So by supporting this recommendation from the report, I think it behooves the minister to acknowledge that it would actually save money to the Ministry of Health in the long run.

I'm wondering what the minister's stance is on ensuring that sufficient incomes for older people are a recommendation that will be dealt with.

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the things I try not to do is to stray into the ministerial responsibilities of my colleagues. I'm often particularly reluctant to do that when it comes to the Minister of Finance, because she invariably presents these issues in a much more articulate and effective way than I could ever hope to.

However, I would note — and I hope, again, that I'm not too far off the mark in respect of those things — that our government, and certainly supported by the Minister of Finance, has undertaken a number of steps to improve the lives of seniors. For example, the seniors supplement is an important piece in building support for low-income seniors.

The increases and the expansion of the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program were very important. One of the things that I as Housing Minister, or former Housing Minister, worked at for a couple of years was the extension of SAFER to mobile home owners, and that has been very important to the many thousands of seniors who live in mobile home parks.

Tax policies generally…. Again, I'm not going to go in detail here, but the aim of our government has been to ensure that we have a tax regime in this province that has low-income British Columbians paying the lowest taxes in the nation of Canada. We're very proud of that. In fact, the income taxes, generally speaking, for low- to mid-income British Columbians are the lowest in the nation. All of these things, I think, are very important in ensuring that our frail elderly enjoy an exceptional quality of life in British Columbia.

K. Conroy: I'd point out that the initiatives the minister talked about were all in place before this report was put out and written. These are additional recommendations that the report is making to the government. It's one that I'm sure that the minister will have a look at.

One of the other recommendations that they made was around the recommendation to appoint a minister of state responsible for seniors or a secretariat responsible for aging and for that minister of state to not be

[ Page 7767 ]

underneath the umbrella of the Ministry of Health. So it was actually a stand-alone minister of state for seniors. I'm wondering what the minister's reflections are on that recommendation.

[1555]

Hon. G. Abbott: My reflections would be that the Premier has taken care of that particular recommendation by having in the person of our Minister of Community Services the Minister Responsible for Seniors.

K. Conroy: I'll point out that that minister was there when that recommendation was made. The people that report to the council and the council itself determined that there was a need for a stand-alone minister of state or secretariat for aging, and that the needs weren't being met by the existing ministry for seniors.

I want to move on and talk a little bit about what's happening in the long-term care facilities across the province. In discussion with various providers…. I've talked to them and I've had the input that over the last three to four years, care providers are facing significant changes to the type of clients that they serve, which we've discussed — the acuity and the needs of clients. Also, around the framework of their funding…. People have expressed concern that facilities are not able to deliver the level of care and staffing that is required, and they're concerned that that is putting clients at risk.

They've also talked about the cost pressures that result in staff having insufficient time to meet residents' needs and staff virtually…. One of the comments made to me was that they've been run off their feet.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

There are a number of historical issues that they're concerned about, and they feel that some of the funding issues are historical. Facilities have talked about the fact that they're not funded for services like rehab services, specialized services like occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech pathologists, social workers.

In fact, I attended a fundraiser where a facility in Vancouver was raising funds to ensure that they had a horticultural therapist. It had been shown by doctors and many other people how successful the program was for the seniors in the facility. They were healthier, and it was just an excellent program, but there were no funds in order to provide that type of service. These aren't frivolous services; these are much-needed services.

There are a number of other issues that the care providers have raised. These represent care providers from all ranges across the province, from non-profit to non-denominational. There are private providers. There are large providers, small providers. They are represented across the entire province.

The major concern that they expressed is when health authorities are requiring proponents to submit proposals for new facilities, they are required to include in their proposals that there are 2.8 hours of direct care provided to clients in facilities. Existing facilities are having trouble providing even 2.8 hours of direct care. They are lucky if they can provide 2.2 hours; 2.4 was the average that was shared with the many providers. Many of those providers have also said that 2.8 hours aren't enough, that it isn't doing the job. But there is not a level of commitment so that all of the facilities can have at least 2.8 hours of care.

What I want to ask the minister is: is the ministry prepared to commit funding to all facilities so that all facilities can have at least a minimum standard of 2.8 hours of direct care?

[1600]

Hon. G. Abbott: Some of the suggestions and the arguments being made are remarkably similar to those that are made by the B.C. Care Providers Association. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the hours cited and so on might be precisely those that have been advanced in numerous consultations with the B.C. Care Providers Association. I'm not going to negotiate contractual changes with the B.C. Care Providers Association in the context of estimates, but I will talk about some of the general issues the member raises.

Among those issues, and we talked a little bit about this previously, is the issue of the growing acuity of the client population. In our previous exchange on this, I observed that yes, we were seeing growing acuity or growing care needs in every area of health care delivery, and without a doubt that was a reflection of the changing demographics and the growing incidence of chronic diseases in our British Columbian society.

To be entirely fair, though, around the issue of acuity, the way the system would manage the issue of growing acuity is through assessment tools. If there is an apprehension that the acuity level of a particular individual is growing, that they may be in need of a higher level of care than they are currently receiving, then that is the purpose of the comprehensive assessment tools which are designed to effectively identify what the care needs of a particular individual may be. Those assessment tools are our best in terms of managing growing acuity in assisted living, in residential care and I guess sometimes in acute care as well.

I think in fairness, I would also say — I suppose you know — that there may be a validity to a whole range of arguments that are advanced by the B.C. Care Providers Association. I've met with them before, and I'm sure I'll meet with them again. I'll hear their arguments and consider their arguments in respect of their needs and wants. But I think, in terms of the facilities they are operating, they are a world different than what was in place in the past.

I think one of the best examples I've seen — and it's just a few blocks from here — is the James Bay Care Centre. Less than a decade ago the James Bay Care Centre was a group of multi-bed rooms — narrow hallways, dark, very few recreational social amenities, in very many ways a substandard facility. It had, I think, about 220 residents before its remediation.

What we did with a very substantial investment was to eliminate most of the multi-bed wards and create private rooms. There are still a few multi-bed or

[ Page 7768 ]

two-bed rooms so that couples can stay together in the facility, but for the most part, they are private rooms.

[1605]

There have been enormous enhancements of the social, recreational, dining and other amenities in the James Bay Care Centre. I think we've come a tremendously long way in terms of providing the kind of physical facilities where people can really thrive in the latter years of their lives.

Yes, I'll always be prepared to look at people's arguments about why they should be funded for this or why they should be funded for that, but we have built a model where I think we are able to maximize the opportunities that people have to really optimize the social, recreational and the spiritual side — I suppose all the aspects — of the latter years of their lives.

K. Conroy: What I'm hearing the minister say, in a long-winded way, is that the answer is no. There is no commitment to ensure that there'd be a minimum standard of care to facilities across the province.

I think there's another issue the B.C. Care Providers raised. They surveyed all their members, and there was a question of why some members would receive $130 a day, while others would receive $190 a day — when they're all caring for complex care patients. The clients that they're taking care of, the residents, are all complex care, so there was some concern about the disparity in costs.

As far as a lot of people could determine, it seemed to be historical. If you were unfortunate enough to be in a couple of years ago, you got that contract; if you got a newer contract, you got more — or vice versa. There were differences in the funding, and they wanted to know: what's the disparity in this funding?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The member's question was why there is a variance in the per diem within and among health authorities. I think she referenced in some cases $130, in some cases $160 and in some cases $190. That's true. When one looks across the system, there are some different per-diem rates that are operating.

Generally, and I underline "generally," health authorities are looking to try to get facilities on to a fully common set of standards and a fully common per-diem rate, but it's challenging. We have different facilities, obviously. Those facilities have different ages, in terms of when they were constructed.

They have different cost structures, different client bases and different real estate costs. There's a whole number of ways in which their experience will vary. Further, these are contract numbers. The care providers in question would have bid contracts at $130, or they may have bid them at $150, $170 or $190, and they were successful at that number.

[1610]

Again, I appreciate that the member is articulating the concerns of some members of the association — and fair enough. I understand the case they are making, but I hope the member understands that we are not necessarily talking oranges and oranges here. There are quite dramatic differences at times in what is being provided — the number of units and all of that. There can be great variation, and as a consequence, it is challenging to try to close the gap to one common per-diem number for all health authorities.

K. Conroy: What I understand the minister to say is that for an older building that might need a lot of renovations because it's been around for a long time, as opposed to a brand-new building that's well maintained because it's brand-new and only been built in the last few years, there would be a difference in funding based on that. By my calculation, I would think that the building that needs work and renovations would receive more funding as opposed to the brand-new facility, but in fact the opposite is happening.

If they negotiated a contract without the rates you're saying, they actually are receiving less. So we have non-profit societies that can't afford to put a new roof on, that have a substantial number of beds in their facility but can't do the renovations needed to upgrade their facility because of the contract they negotiated.

If there is a formula, is there not a formula across the province that should be used? Shouldn't there be consistency in the health authorities across the province that can look at these issues so that you are comparing apples to apples because everybody is providing complex care services? I think it's bizarre that a formula can be derived provincially in the early childhood education field, for instance, but can't be derived in the complex care field. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

There is concern because there is no consistency cross the health authorities. In fact, within the health authorities, the survey showed there was no consistency. So is there going to be a formula that will be developed so that there can be some consistency across the province?

Hon. G. Abbott: The aim of what we do at the ministry and the aim of what we do at the health authority level is to attempt to ensure that there is a common and consistent standard of care that will be enjoyed by clients at the residential care level. We try to build consistent standards and consistent principles around that so that the clients do enjoy the level of care which we contract for.

[1615]

Again, it's not that we say: "You have to do this, health care provider." The health care providers bid on the opportunity to provide these services, and they bid at a rate that they set out in a contract bid, generally speaking. Would it be good if we had, right across the board, an entirely common standard and we had an entirely common per-diem rate and so on? I guess, hypothetically, yes. Is that going to be possible? Well, that's a challenge.

If we look at some of the efforts by health authorities to achieve that, what one finds, and the member may be surprised or perhaps astonished by this…. As health authorities attempt to move to a common rate, what we often commonly find is that the providers would prefer to see the common rate concluded at the

[ Page 7769 ]

highest available rate, rather than the lowest available rate. That becomes, then, a financial, fiscal challenge to the health authorities and to the provincial Ministry of Health that funds the health authorities.

Perhaps the member has some wisdom that she could share on this as to how we might go to a common rate that doesn't default to being the highest rate that exists among all of the providers, because that's so often what people are most comfortable with — defaulting to the highest rate, as opposed to defaulting to the lowest rate. But I know she's had some conversations with the providers, so perhaps she can share whatever wisdom she has gleaned around how we might proceed to achieve that objective?

K. Conroy: Well, 2.8 hours is certainly not the highest rate. In talking to the people that provide these services, they actually would like to provide more than that. But many feel that they can only provide the 2.8, and some have had to resort to lower numbers. So in fact, it is not working.

A great example of excellent care is at Mount St. Mary across the street here, a facility that was renovated in the late '90s, if you can imagine that, and they did a fabulous job of the renovations. That's a facility that actually has higher hours than 2.8, because they believe in the care they do and they go above and beyond to ensure that they have the funding to provide those hours. They are struggling with their funding formula.

They provide extra care. They provide extra support with palliative patients. The residents that need that extra support — they're there for them. They have a fabulous facility, and I wish every facility in the province could provide the type of care they have and the funding they want to have to ensure that they provide it.

In fact, 2.8 isn't the highest level that facilities are endeavouring to get. It is a basic level of direct care, and it's unfortunate that the minister seems to think that that's a high rate, because it doesn't reflect the true cost of providing care.

Some of the comments that were made to me…. Personal care has reduced to the extent that toileting is minimal. Interaction is meagre, to say the least, and preservation of dignity due to the hurried care is affecting patient-caregiver relationships. Palliative care is minimal due to the time constraints of staff, and these are facility operators who are struggling to ensure that they provide high-quality care to residents in complex care facilities.

Is there a formula? Yeah, I think there needs to be something worked on so that there can be a formula, some kind of consistency across health authorities, so it's not going up to the lowest bidder. I don't think complex care and the care of seniors in this province should necessarily go to the lowest bidder. If that's a place where we're going to disagree, then so be it. I think we'll disagree on that one.

One of the problems they're also facing in the facilities is the issue around staffing. Staff are choosing other careers because they're overwhelmed by the intensity of the heavy care that they are experiencing in these facilities. The issues around the acuity again….

The levels of medical issues they have to deal with and the pharmacology concerns are some things that the LPNs or the residential care aides did not feel they would be coming into a facility and doing — that kind of care. Facilities can't afford to have RNs on site. They're on call, or they can't have 24-7 RNs. It's an issue for care providers across the province. There is not enough funding to ensure that, and inevitably it ends up providing less of a standard of care to the residents in those facilities.

[1620]

One of the issues they face is around funding for their staff. Most facilities were given a negotiated agreement, and then they weren't given enough funds to ensure that they could fund the negotiated agreement. They were not fully funded for issues such as pay equity, shift differential and vacation severance costs, and there's been no recognition of this. They are struggling to make sure that they can meet those needs.

One of the ways that facilities meet those needs is by having to reduce staff, and we know what reducing the staff level does to the services to residents. It leads to a bottomless pit. What the care providers really want to know is why they aren't being fully funded for the negotiated collective agreement. Is there some kind of commitment to provide the funding so that they don't have to cut staffing levels and they can ensure providing the best level of services to residents?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question and observations. I guess to begin, the member talked a little bit about Mount St. Mary. I know the facility well and had the opportunity to meet with them and discuss their concerns — as I expect the member has, given the comprehensive nature of her comments and discussion around Mount St. Mary. They do a very good job there — no question about it. Great people doing great work.

The issues in respect of Mount St. Mary are complex ones. I have asked the Vancouver Island Health Authority to work with Mount St. Mary, and Mount St. Mary to work with the Vancouver Island Health Authority to see if they can resolve some of the differences they have with respect to the funding support that is provided by VIHA to Mount St. Mary. I know they continue to be engaged in that, and I hope that they are successful in resolving their issues.

The member says, you know: "Why is there not enough money?" That is a fascinating question, and I suppose it is at this point about a $14 billion–question in this province about why there isn't enough money. That's the budget for the Ministry of Health. If one takes ministry operations and combines it with the investments we're making this year in capital, it's very close to $14 billion. That's a huge change, a huge increase, from the operational budget of $8.3 billion when we took office. We've seen an increase of about 50 percent over six years in the budget of the Ministry of Health.

There have been huge investments made in this ministry and in this service delivery system, and appropriately so, I think. I may have a narrow view on

[ Page 7770 ]

this as Minister of Health, but the societal demand for health care services grows and grows, and we need to respond to that. Government has responded to that by having year-over-year increases every year, which are well beyond those that any of my colleagues in the executive council have enjoyed in the area of service delivery that they have the good fortune to lead.

[1625]

You know, given the huge investment we have made in all areas of health care and the particularly huge investment which we have made in respect of residential care and home care and so on, I guess I'd have to ask the member: if $14 billion is not enough money, how much is enough money?

Where would the incremental dollars come from? Which of my colleagues' ministries would she suggest we fold up? What other areas of health care would she suggest that we take money from in order to put more money into this area? Those are all questions we live with each and every day as we take this huge 43 percent to 44 percent of the provincial budget and try to maximize the value we can achieve from that.

On the issue of wages the member raises, in every health authority every dollar of wage increase has been covered off in their year-over-year increase in their budgets. There is not a single case where a wage increase has not been funded in the '07-08 budget, and that will be true for every year out. We will be fully funding all of the wage increases to the