2006 Legislative Session: Second 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)

TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu

Chi Foundation

J. Kwan

North Vancouver student

leadership council

Whittred

Jeneece Edroff

Cubberley

Crossroads Hospice Society

I. Black

Saanich multicultural festival

Fleming

Darfur

Nuraney

Oral Questions

Funding for 2010 Olympic Games

H. Bains

Hon. C.

Hansen

Auditor General oversight of

Olympic Games costs

C. James

Hon. C.

Hansen

Hon. G.

Campbell

Farnworth

J. Kwan

Management of interface fire

risks

Macdonald

Hon. R.

Coleman

Simpson

Tabling Documents

Forest Appeals Commission, annual

report

Petitions

C. Puchmayr

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

(continued)

Conroy

Hon. G.

Abbott

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation (continued)

Chudnovsky

Hon. K.

Falcon

Fleming

[ Page 4591 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

C. James: Joining us in the House today are four guests from the Tzu Chi Foundation Canada. They are Gary Ho, the CEO of the foundation; Eric Hsu, the secretary of the foundation; Mack Miao, the public relations director; and Ken Chang, who is their cameraman.

I could be here all afternoon trying to list all of the things that the foundation is involved in, as they serve the community locally, nationally and internationally. Just a few of their activities include delivering meals at the Salvation Army, distributing food at food banks, visiting seniors homes, providing comfort for the homeless — including building housing, disaster relief and the most recent local fires in Burnaby. This foundation was out there providing direct support. Would the House please help make these people very welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's not every day that I get to rise in the House and introduce the heart and soul of the health care system in British Columbia, but I get to do that today. It's a special pleasure to rise in the House and welcome some very special guests who are with us in the gallery. In honour of almost 40,000 nurses in B.C., the nursing directorate of the Ministry of Health invites six nurses, representing each of our six health authorities, to Victoria to celebrate National and International Nursing Week.

[1405]

Representing the Provincial Health Services Authority is Gail Ancill. Gail is a registered psychiatric nurse. She's from New Westminster. She's a nurse educator in neuropsychiatry at Riverview Hospital in Port Coquitlam. From the Vancouver Island Health Authority is Darcy Ross, a registered nurse. She's from Nanaimo. She's the team leader for public health nursing in Nanaimo, Ladysmith and Gabriola.

Representing Vancouver Coastal is Sargent Hayden, who's a registered nurse. He's from Vancouver, and he is the clinical coordinator at a residential care facility and at Insite, the supervised injection site in Vancouver. Representing Fraser Health is Janet Baillies, a registered nurse practitioner of Abbotsford. She's a nurse practitioner with the Clearbrook family practice.

Representing Interior Health is Gayle Filipenko, a licensed practical nurse of Penticton and an LPN at Penticton Regional Hospital. Representing Northern Health is Sarah Hanson, a registered psychiatric nurse. She's a clinical nurse educator at the Prince George eating disorders clinic.

It's remarkable to welcome these remarkable British Columbians to our Legislature. We're enormously proud of the work they do, and we're enormously proud of them. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Evans: Today we have the honour of being visited by a newly married couple from the Sunshine Coast, who I think are very special to us all — wherever we live. Mr. White, in the front row up there — it's his birthday today, and he's 92 — is a third-generation British Columbian who pioneered the introduction of logging trucks on our coast and is a tireless community activist who also has found time in his later years to co-author a prize-winning book on the accounts of early logging.

Mrs. White is a distinguished journalist who has written five fine books under her professional name, Edith Iglauer, including the B.C. coast classic Fishing with John . The Whites were just married on February 25. They have been touring Vancouver Island, visiting relatives, and next week they're going to travel to New York to watch Mr. White's grandson graduate from Columbia University. After that, Mrs. White is going to get busy writing her autobiography. I would ask all the House to welcome these wonderful, newly married people.

Hon. G. Campbell: Joining us in the House today is Jody Lesiuk. Jody is a writer at the public affairs bureau who this Friday will be taking her leave to give birth to her child. I want to say that Jody is one of those exceptional, truly expressive, incredibly creative…. I can't read this, Jody. Sorry.

She is someone who has made an exceptional contribution to us in government at the public affairs bureau. I know all the House will want to assure Jody that she has a safe delivery and an exceptional time as a mother with her new baby.

D. Cubberley: It's my pleasure and privilege today to introduce a very special guest with us in the gallery: Jeneece Edroff, who's here with her parents Dennis and Angie Edroff. Jeneece is a very special person, who recently received an important award — a B.C. Community Achievement Award, which was presented at Government House on April 26 — for her exemplary work in fundraising. I'll have a little bit more to say about that in a few moments.

I do want to say that the Edroffs live in Saanich in the Royal Oak area. They're constituents of mine. Will the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery today Yasmin and Mirza Juma. Yasmin works with the Neil Squire Foundation, an organization that helps people with disabilities in their computer skills and is also very well known for their innovations in that field. Would the House please join me in welcoming Yasmin and Mirza Juma.

[1410]

C. Trevena: In the House today are two people without whom I wouldn't be standing here. They're neither of them strangers to the Legislature. On the floor is former North Island MLA for 17 years and former Attorney General, Colin Gabelmann. In the gallery

[ Page 4592 ]

is former researcher, constituency assistant to Rosemary Brown and Colin's wife, Robin Geary. I have been honoured by the advice, support and commitment they've given me over the last couple of years, and I continue to pick their very astute and very different political brains.

With them are Colin's long-lost sister, Veronica Fisher, and her husband Brian, who are visiting B.C., and Colin and Robin, for the first time. They, too, are in the gallery. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Mr. John Lang, who is the chair of the District of Mission economic development commission and the chair of the Spirit of B.C. committee for Mission. He is here with his wife Karen, who is away right now at meetings with Prospero Credit Union. John is here to watch our proceedings and hopefully learn something that he didn't know before. Welcome, John.

R. Fleming: Joining us in the gallery today — next to Mrs. and Mrs. White, in fact — is a parliamentarian visiting us: Ms. Rita Dionne-Marsolais, who is a member of the National Assembly for the constituency of Rosemount. She chairs the standing committee on public administration in that province, and she is an experienced person who is a former government minister of many portfolios. We're very pleased to have her joining us here in the assembly today. She is attending the 2006 summit on performance indicators. Would the House please make Ms. Dionne-Marsolais feel welcome.

I. Black: I have two introductions to make today. The first is a fellow parliamentarian. MLA Art Johnston, from the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, is with us. I had the pleasure of having dinner last night with Art and his wife Shirley, who are here for the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation meetings. I would ask that the House make a fellow parliamentarian feel most welcome amongst us.

The second introduction is also a lot of fun for me. I would like to welcome George Gillis, who is a constituent of mine, and his twin daughters, Jennifer and Rachelle, who I had the pleasure of seeing just before we came into the House this afternoon. They're visiting from the great community of Port Moody, and I'd ask you to make them feel welcome as well.

A. Dix: Last week I had the opportunity to tell the House about the extraordinary achievements of students at Windermere Community Secondary School. Today I have the honour to welcome teachers and students from Windermere here to Victoria.

S. Hawkins: I think there are not too many more people to introduce up in the gallery, but I would like to introduce a dear friend, Mr. Russ Rogers from Victoria, who is visiting the Legislature today to watch question period. I have had the pleasure of getting to know Russ and his family over the last couple of years as we share a similar journey in our families.

G. Robertson: I've got two more. Joining us in the House today is one of my constituents, Geoff Meggs — no stranger to this House and now the executive director of the B.C. Federation of Labour — and also my good friend Mike Magee, who is a superb advocate for aboriginal and environmental issues. May the House please make them both welcome.

L. Mayencourt: It's very nice to have both current and former parliamentarians joining us today. Today we have Karn Manhas, who was the MLA for…

Interjections.

[1415]

L. Mayencourt: Thank you, sir.

…Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

I think Karn was — is — the youngest person to ever retire from this job. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

We also have a gentleman whose name is Maurizio Bevilacqua. Maurizio is a Member of Parliament for the riding of Vaughan, which is just a little bit north of Toronto. He is running for the Liberal leadership. Would the House please make both of these fine, fine gentlemen feel welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's a great honour for me today to introduce a friend from Toronto visiting British Columbia for the very first time. Would the House please make Carol Wade feel very comfortable.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) BUDDHIST COMPASSION RELIEF

TZU CHI FOUNDATION

J. Kwan: The Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year and is marking the event on May 13 with the first-ever Harmony Festival in Stanley Park. The philosophy behind the foundation is centred around the notion that it is with gratitude, respect and honour that you are afforded the opportunity to serve people who face adversities from a variety of circumstances. They seek to change lives, heal humanity and make the entire planet a better place.

Locally their efforts have resulted in donations totalling over $6 million to organizations in British Columbia such as Vancouver's Children's Hospital, the Red Cross, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Salvation Army and, most recently, the victims of a fire in Burnaby. Worldwide they have provided some $4 billion to different communities, individuals and families to assist in the challenges that they face.

The foundation enjoys a volunteer force of a million people in 40 locals across the globe. This weekend the

[ Page 4593 ]

foundation will celebrate having the honour to serve with local events. The Harmony Festival will focus on the themes of harmony of hearts, harmony of communities and harmony of the earth. People are invited to join in the festival by attending the event at Lumbermen's Arch in Stanley Park on Saturday between 1 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. There will be a band, choirs, booths and exhibitions.

The foundation has decided to promote and celebrate harmony with smiles, joy and laughter. The festival will welcome people of all ages from all corners of the world, all religions and all races. In fact, people will also be invited to submit photographs of themselves — smiling. Those will be posted on a wall at the Stanley Park event and also on the foundation's website. The smiling faces of the opposition caucus along with the government caucus will be there as well. I have no doubt there will be others who will be smiling brightly at this event, and I invite everyone to come and join the festival.

NORTH VANCOUVER

STUDENT LEADERSHIP COUNCIL

K. Whittred: The North Vancouver student leadership council began as a student-driven initiative two years ago and includes every secondary school in the North Vancouver school district. It provides an opportunity for communications between students in different schools, the opportunity for leadership, and it provides a forum for student voices to be heard not only in North Vancouver but across the province.

The council has met with the superintendent, assistants and trustees of North Van. In April, four representatives from this group had the opportunity to spend a day with the Minister of Education. Just last week the council held an all-day youth conference entitled Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll. The conference idea began when council members asked students what they believed were the worst and best things about their schools. The biggest problem identified by the students was drugs, followed by unsafe sex and automobile safety.

This conference was set up by youth for youth. This unique perspective made the conference effective and successful. Rather than being preached to, subjects were presented in a way that captured the attention of the students. Students were proactive participants helping to resolve the issues. About 1,000 senior students from all North Vancouver schools attended the conference.

[1420]

I applaud the efforts and the leadership that is demonstrated by those one this council and their co-sponsor, teacher John Wilson.

JENEECE EDROFF

D. Cubberley: Today it's my privilege to acknowledge the outstanding achievements of a young constituent of mine, 12-year-old Jeneece Edroff. Jeneece has the misfortune to suffer from a rare genetic disease called neurofibromatosis.

Diagnosed at age three, at five she underwent surgery to straighten her spine. Her parents were told she would never walk again, but Jeneece rebounded within months. It takes an amazing person to face real adversity so young and to remain so positive and engaged with life. Her mom, Angie, says of her: "She was a fighter right from the beginning." Jeneece's pluck and a decisive streak led her to push back against the menace of childhood disease.

At seven, grateful for the help she'd received from Variety Club — the children's charity — she launched a penny drive at her school that raised $164. The next year, with the help of CHEK TV, she raised $27,000. She went on to raise more than $300,000 while taking

part in other charity projects, including Cops for Cancer, the Easter Seal 24-hour relay and events for the B.C. Neurofibromatosis Foundation. Recently, Jeneece received well-deserved recognition for her efforts — a Coast Mental Health Foundation Courage to Come Back award.

Jeneece undergoes regular chemotherapy treatments, but she still attends Glanford Middle School in Saanich during the mornings, enjoying the reading and drawing components of the class. While she lives in pain most days, she believes it's really nice to help other kids. "It's not a big deal," Jeneece says, with typical modesty, of her work with Variety Club. "They've helped me, so I really like to help them." Jeneece's mother said about her that she was put on this earth to teach.

Today it's our privilege and pleasure to recognize you, Jeneece, here at the Legislature and to thank you for giving all of us such an inspiring example of courage and leadership.

CROSSROADS HOSPICE SOCIETY

I. Black: It's a pleasure for me to rise today and speak about a truly exceptional organization in the great riding of Port Moody–Westwood. The Crossroads Hospice Society provides dignified end-of-life care for terminally ill patients and remarkable support for the families. With significant funding from this government, the Crossroads Hospice Society was able to develop a ten-bed facility at Inlet Centre in 2003 in Port Moody.

I have a personal connection to the hospice, because my friend Henry Weizel was a patient. Our dear family friend and B.C. sculptor, Vancouver Island's George Cooper, carved from soapstone the signature dragonfly that greets you when you step off the elevator into the hospice. His late wife and renowned artist, Juan, has many of her paintings hanging on the walls there.

The Crossroads Hospice has attracted over 160 caring volunteers for this ten-bed facility and provides care for up to 175 patients and support for over 3,000 friends and family members every year. The society has also rallied the support of service clubs through the Tri-Cities, including the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs, who are raising $50,000 for it. Further, they host one of my favourite events — their annual Treasures of Christmas gala hosted by honorary chairperson Mr. Tony Parsons.

[ Page 4594 ]

This past weekend I was proud to take

part in the society's fourth annual Hike for Hospice, co-hosted by the Rotary Clubs of Port Coquitlam and Port Moody and sponsored by Coast Capital Savings and Phoenix Truck and Crane. I was among hundreds of people who proudly braved the soggy elements and participated in hikes in both Port Moody and Port Coquitlam, raising approximately $37,000.

It has been said that hospice care is about putting life into days, not days into life. The work of the Crossroads Hospice Society, and indeed hospices throughout B.C., is both critically important and greatly appreciated by our communities. Please join me in saluting them.

SAANICH MULTICULTURAL FESTIVAL

R. Fleming: I am pleased today to speak about the upcoming Saanich Multicultural Festival, which takes place the last weekend of May. As part of Saanich's centennial celebration, the district of Saanich — in partnership with the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, the Victoria and Vancouver Island Greek Community Society and the Portuguese community — will host the first annual multicultural festival on Friday, May 26 through to Sunday, May 28 at the Saanich Commonwealth pool.

The three-day festival celebrates culture and food, and it will bring together the Chinese, Greek and Portuguese communities to celebrate cultural diversity. Guests will be able to experience the cultures and cuisines of each country by visiting different pavilions. Each pavilion will have foods, music, entertainment and displays of their culture.

[1425]

One gains admission to the three-day festival by purchasing a passport. These are readily available throughout the district of Saanich. Children and teens 18 and under are free.

This weekend of May, Saanich will celebrate 100 years of incorporation and, at the same time, 100 years of contributions that immigrants from around the world have made to the district of Saanich. I want to applaud these organizations for putting this cultural event together, and I encourage all local residents to attend this festival.

DARFUR

J. Nuraney: The United Nations is calling it the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet. According to recent reports, at least 300,000 people have died in Darfur since the genocide began in February 2003. There are approximately 3.5 million men, women and children in the western Darfur region of Sudan trying to survive the Sudanese government–sponsored campaign of violence and forced starvation. If the situation continues to deteriorate and humanitarian aid support collapses, it is estimated the death rate could rise to as high as 100,000 per month.

While the world argues and hesitates, the systematic genocide and the ethnic cleansing still continue. The world said "never again" after the Holocaust and the genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda and the eastern European countries. By not taking action, the nations of the world are turning a blind eye to this inhuman plight. We should heed the words of Edmund Burke, the 18th-century Anglo-Irish statesman and philosopher, when he said: "All that is needed for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I rise today to appeal to the Canadian government to take leadership in halting this most atrocious act and to protect the innocent, who are calling out to the world for help. Let us not simply talk about human rights. Both Canada and the United Nations need to demonstrate a genuine commitment to end this suffering through humanitarian actions.

[Applause.]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR 2010 OLYMPIC GAMES

H. Bains: For the last two weeks we've been asking this one simple, straightforward question to the Minister of Economic Development: what is the total cost that B.C. taxpayers are expected to pay towards Olympic-related expenditures?

Hon. C. Hansen: I have said several times in this House that the commitment from the province from day one for the staging of the Olympic Games is $600 million, and no one has asked us to increase that budget beyond that amount.

This is coming from an opposition that really has quite a checkered past when it comes to the support for the Olympic Games. We know there were actually cabinet ministers in that government in the 1990s who were enthusiastic about getting the games to come to British Columbia. But then we see quotes coming from the Leader of the Official Opposition, when she said in August 2003: "I didn't support going for the bid from the beginning." Then she said in January '04: "I didn't support the government trying to gain the Olympics." In March '04 she said: "I wasn't a supporter of going for the Olympic bid."

[1430]

We know that British Columbians in every corner of this province are excited and enthusiastic about the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It's time for that opposition to get over their negative, pessimistic, destructive approach to the 2010 Olympic Games and get on board.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: What has made this checkered history is this government's refusal to come out in the open and tell us exactly how much cost taxpayers are expected to

[ Page 4595 ]

pay. The secrecy and lack of transparency are what is making this a checkered history here.

Yesterday the minister admitted that the cost will be way over $600 million — way over $600 million. Again, I ask the minister: if you add them all up…? You had two weeks to do that. You have all the ministers sitting all around you. All you have to do is ask each of those ministers how much money they're committing towards Legacies Now. Add them up and tell the taxpayers exactly how much money it will cost the taxpayers to stage the Olympics. Tell us today: what is the precise figure?

Hon. C. Hansen: I have never once said that the cost of staging the Olympic Games is going to exceed $600 million to the taxpayers of British Columbia, because if I said it, it wouldn't be true. What I said was that we have opportunities because of the fact that we're hosting the Olympic Games, because of the fact that our kids are excited about the fact that British Columbia is going to be in the world spotlight — excited about the fact that we've made commitments to make British Columbia the most physically fit jurisdiction ever to host the Olympic Games.

The taxpayers expect to pay $600 million towards the staging of the Olympic Games, and that's it. Are there other programs that we can capitalize on as kids get excited about the games and it motivates them to get involved in literacy? Are there other projects in this province that we can accelerate construction on so that we can have it ready for 2010? You're darn right there are, and we're proud of the programs we're putting in place to make sure that British Columbians continue to be excited about 2010.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member for Surrey-Newton has a further supplemental.

H. Bains: The minister asked us to do our homework yesterday. If the minister had done his homework, he would have all those numbers today available to the public.

We found out that the Minister of Health admitted here in this House yesterday that there is $5.4 million that his ministry has set aside towards Legacies Now. That is in addition to the $41 million that we discovered two weeks ago. That is in addition to the over $80 million we discovered yesterday.

So, one more time: why the secrecy? Why the secrecy, and why doesn't the minister come clean and tell us what the total bill is?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just a reminder, members. Let's listen to the question so we can listen to the answer.

Hon. C. Hansen: The fact of the matter is that in terms of the $600 million that we're spending for the staging of the games, it has been public information for years. It is up on the website, and I invite the member to go and review it.

[1435]

The programs the member talks about are not about staging the Olympic Games. When the member talks about programs funded through the Ministry of Health that he's somehow discovered…. Guess what. There was a press release put out. There was an event in Vancouver. It was attended by 200 people, and it was a fabulous program aimed at getting kids physically fit.

We've committed, on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia, $600 million for the staging of the Olympic Games. I have every reason to expect that the games will be delivered without any increased obligation to the taxpayers over and above that $600 million.

AUDITOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT

OF OLYMPIC GAMES COSTS

C. James: I would like to inform the minister that the members on this side of the House know that the Olympics are going to be successful, because we want to be accountable for taxpayer dollars. That's what's missing from this government. Every time we look at Olympic spending, millions more come spilling out from this government.

Torino — $6 million. Own the Podium….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: Own the Podium, $10 million; Olympic secretariat, $26 million; and Legacies Now, $80 million.… Mr. Speaker, one big item is missing from that list, and that's public accountability for taxpayer dollars.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: Taxpayers took the Premier at his word when he said he wanted open government. My question is to the Premier. If his minister is unable to answer the questions, why doesn't the Premier ask the Auditor General to do it so the public can really get some answers?

Hon. C. Hansen: I find this rather surprising that this Leader of the Opposition, after in 2003 and 2004 came out…. The most recent one was at the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers convention in March 2004, when she said: "I wasn't a supporter of going for the Olympic bid." Now she is trying to sound like she is the biggest fan of the Olympics. It's a little late, I say to the hon. member.

[ Page 4596 ]

Let's talk about some of the issues that the member has raised. They are not about the staging of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, but they are about building and promoting British Columbia in a way that will make us all proud and future generations all proud. When the member talks about the $6 million we spent on B.C.-Canada Place in Torino, do you know what that did? That actually generated $30.8 million worth of earned media around the world.

When she talks about the Own the Podium program, that's about money that British Columbia put on the table to encourage our elite athletes in Winter Olympics, Summer Olympics, in Torino, in Beijing, in Vancouver, in London….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: That was a program where our Premier was a leader. And guess what. The rest of Canada is excited about that program, the federal government is excited about that program, and more than anything else, our athletes are excited about the program.

[1440]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I find it very interesting that if the government is so excited about these, why won't they come clean and tell the taxpayers that they're proud of their Olympic spending? We've seen time and time again that the Premier has failed in his promise for openness, for integrity and for accountability.

Legacies Now? The minister refused to give an answer. The Finance Minister, when we asked — no answers. The Minister Responsible for the Olympics — not a clue about total Olympic spending.

Again, my question is to the Premier. If his government can't get its act together around total Olympics spending…. We know the public wants answers. We know that the Auditor General is ready. The opposition is ready. Why won't the Premier allow the Auditor to come in and give the public the answers they want?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, I think it's pretty sad to hear from the Leader of the Opposition on this. It's pretty sad for someone who was against the Olympics to try and find every way that she can to say: "No, the Olympics are bad."

I hope the Leader of the Opposition is going to the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: I hope the Leader of the Opposition is going to the Victoria Independent Film and Video Festival, who received $10,500 from Legacies Now to build…. I hope the Leader of the Opposition is going to the First Peoples Cultural Foundation, who received $9,450 for their first annual indigenous arts festival, because we want them to take advantage of the Spirit of 2010. I hope the Leader of the Opposition is going to the Belfry Theatre Society to say, "Give back the $10,000 you received from Legacies Now" — because we want them to feel the Spirit of 2010.

Let there be no question. This side of the House is going to provide $600 million to stage the Olympics. In spite of what every MLA on that side of the House may do, we're going to reach out to every British Columbian and allow them to take full advantage of the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games and the Spirit of 2010, which is alive and well in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: You know, this isn't about boosterism. I'll remind that side of the House that it was this side of the House, when we were over there, who started the Olympic process and who started the journey for the Olympic bid, with which we were successful. Everybody….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: I know sometimes they hate to hear the truth, but it needs to be said.

Everybody in this House and everybody in this province, regardless of where they stood, wants to see a successful Olympics and wants to see British Columbia portrayed to the world. Part of the B.C. spirit is about accountability and the public in this province holding a government to account. We will ask questions, because at the end of the day the public wants to know how much the games are going to cost — not part of it, but all of the cost.

[1445]

That's why we are asking the Premier once again: why the reluctance to have the Auditor General as the auditor of record of the Olympic Games? At the end of the day, when it comes to addition, we don't want to see B.C. at the bottom of the table.

Hon. C. Hansen: I find it reassuring that that member, the Opposition House Leader, has actually managed to convince his own leader to get onside with 95 percent…. We do know how much it costs to stage the Olympic Games to the taxpayers of British Columbia. That's $600 million.

In terms of accountability, the Auditor General does not have to be asked by any of us to do his work. He has the power to do whatever investigations he sees fit. He can audit, and he is auditing, all of the provin-

[ Page 4597 ]

cial government expenditures with regard to the staging of the games. He is free to audit any of the other programs that he wishes, which we are putting in place to actually encourage the citizenship and encourage British Columbians to take advantage of the Spirit of 2010.

The reason that the Auditor General is not the auditor of record for VANOC is that he was invited to apply but chose not to.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: VANOC is exempt from FOI. As far as the Auditor General goes, what would really help in his ability to do his job around the Olympics is to have the budget and the funding to do a proper and thorough job.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let's listen to the question.

M. Farnworth: The Auditor General asked for increased funding, and that side of the House turned them down. So my question is: will the minister ask the Minister of Finance to increase the funding for the budget of the Auditor General so that he can do his job more effectively and ensure that what the House doesn't want, which is that secrecy become an Olympic sport…?

Hon. C. Hansen: The bottom line is that we are working towards the best Olympic Games ever hosted anywhere in the world. We have the funds in place to make that happen. But more important is what the legacy is that the 2010 Winter Games will leave in British Columbia.

You know something? It's not just about the gold medals that our athletes are going to win, and it's not just about the bricks and mortar, although there are going to be some fabulous facilities that will be there to service communities well after 2010.

The most important legacy that the 2010 games are going to leave is the pride in our kids. It's the spirit in our communities. It's the excitement in what the future of British Columbia is all about. That is the Spirit of 2010.

J. Kwan: You know, 2010 also depends on how the government manages its finances and ensures that there is openness and accountability. What this side of the House is asking for is for this minister to come clean and tell British Columbians how much they would be on the hook.

I don't think it is too much to ask for this government and for this minister to open up the books for all British Columbians to see how much they will actually have to pay towards Olympic-related activities for 2010. Will this minister commit today to actually allow VANOC to be subject to freedom of information, and will the minister ensure that the Auditor General gets the budget to do the risk audit associated with the Olympics?

[1450]

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how you say this more clearly so that the members of the opposition understand this. Hosting the Olympic Games is $600 million. There is a $600 million budget. The opposition may not have noticed this, but there is a partnership in hosting the Olympic Games. There is $600 million coming from the federal government. The opposition may not have noticed, but there are opportunities created by the Olympic Games. We intend to take full advantage of all of those opportunities for all the people of British Columbia.

I can say that every member of that opposition would come to us, as a government, and say: "My community wants to be part of the Olympic program. How can you include them?"

There is not one IOC member that has come to us and said: "Please make literacy part of the Olympic Games." Not one. There is not one IOC member that has come to us and said: "Please make sure your kids are active in your schools. Try and reduce obesity across British Columbia. Try and make sure that your kids are active and vibrant and excited." Not one IOC member — incredible.

British Columbia is, to use the member's words, on the hook for $600 million to stage an Olympic Games. But we are excited on this side of the House about what that can do. For example, we are creating, through Legacies Now, their exploration camps. They funded kids, ages five to 12, to attend camps to focus on sports, arts and recreation, and 5,600 kids attended last year — 208 camps in 66 communities. I'll bet there were some members opposite's communities that actually had young kids going and exploring those opportunities for themselves.

There is a snowboarding program for at-risk kids — 150 at-risk kids from Vancouver, from the downtown east side, which this member claims to be concerned about. We gave them an opportunity to learn about snowboarding. Wouldn't it be great to see them on the podium winning a gold medal in 2010?

Just last week the member for Victoria-Hillside bragged about the fact that FIFA is coming to have a world cup — supported by Legacies Now, supported by the Spirit of 2010 — saying: "Let's embrace competition."

The net operating budget for the Auditor General is up 28 percent. The Auditor General can choose to pursue what goals and objectives he chooses to pursue. This Legislature will look for budgets for the Auditor General, as other independent officers, and will provide budgets. British Columbians will have a great Olympic Games in 2010.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. The Auditor General came to the Public Accounts Committee earlier to ask to be the official auditor, and they were turned down. The

[ Page 4598 ]

Auditor General came to the Finance Committee and asked for his budget to be increased and was turned down by the Minister of Finance and by the Finance Committee.

I would like to ask the Premier these questions. Own the Podium, $10 million: would that money be spent had there not been the Olympic Games? The Olympic secretariat, $26 million: is that not money that would not would have been spent had the Olympic Games not existed? Legacies Now, $80 million and counting.

The Premier can justify the spending all he wants, but what we want to know is accountability. How much in total is being spent on Olympic-related spending for the province of British Columbia? Come clean and tell British Columbians now.

Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite has been a member of this Legislature for some time. The Public Accounts are very clear about the commitments of the province. We are very clear about our commitment to hosting the Olympic Games. It's $600 million. We also care enough about doing this properly to recognize that it is a partnership. VANOC is a partnership between the provincial government, between the Canadian Olympic Committee, between the federal government — trying to do something that's great for Canada.

[1455]

The member opposite is correct. I should say this. She's correct on this. It would be possible to host the Olympics and not try and take advantage of it. I mean, maybe there are some countries or some provinces that would do that. Actually, I would imagine the opposition would do that when they were in government, which is why we fell apart at the seams in British Columbia in the ten years they were in government in the 1990s.

Let me be clear. The $600 million is a commitment to host, to stage the Olympic Games. This government is going to do what we can to take full advantage of that for economic development, for trade development, for business development, for social development, for literacy development, for recreational development and for sports development, so that every person in British Columbia has a sense that they were part of their Olympics and they celebrate, with this side of the House, the Spirit of 2010.

MANAGEMENT OF INTERFACE FIRE RISKS

N. Macdonald: On Friday there was an interface fire near Prince George that came within 500 metres of a home. The amount of slash fuel in the area was a contributing factor to the spread of the blaze. Dealing with interface fire risks has been largely downloaded to local government.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: have local governments come to him with problems in preparing for the upcoming fire season?

Hon. R. Coleman: In 2003 B.C. saw its worst fire season ever. Subsequent to that we had Mr. Filmon look at our whole aspect with regard to fire in British Columbia.

We have funded every single thing contained in the Filmon report. We've moved on it incrementally as we've gone through the province. We've worked with local government through UBCM with regard to interface fires. In addition to that, we have actually been the authors of the national wildfire strategy in Canada.

We lead the country with regard to how we deal with fire in British Columbia. We will continue to work with communities to deal with interface fires as we go forward, because it is something that we learned a lot of lessons from in 2003 and that we're going to build on going into 2006.

B. Simpson: It's great that we've led the national strategy. It's great that we've done all this planning. But we're being told by fire managers and fire experts that the Rocky Mountain Trench is a tinderbox and that if we have a catastrophic fire season — which they're saying is a great potential this summer — we have the potential to lose communities, homes and potentially lives yet again.

Under this government since Filmon, in that area, the actual work done on the ground in Cranbrook is 43 hectares. In Kimberley it is a whopping three hectares of actual fuel-management work. Filmon said in 2003 that fuel management had to be a priority. He said, "Work with local governments," not: "Download the responsibility to them."

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. When will the minister address the concerns raised with him by UBCM on March 31, on this very issue, which are substantive issues that Filmon said should have been addressed in 2003?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the member might want to get his facts right and check with the MLA from that area of the province, who tells me we have done a ton of work with regional districts in that area with regard to forest fire strategy.

But let's get something else clear. You did nothing when you were in government with regard to caring about fires in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member, through the Chair, please.

Hon. R. Coleman: We learned from 2003. We built a fire strategy for British Columbia. We stepped up to the plate with Filmon. We're working through all the policies with regard to it. We've delivered on the ground. We've added teams. We've added tankers. We've added fire crews. We've added quick-strike teams. We've added all of it to fire protection in British Columbia — way ahead of what you ever thought of doing when you were government.

[1500]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[ Page 4599 ]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, I'm excited that I have the honour to present the annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission.

Petitions

C. Puchmayr: I rise to bring a petition to the House. The petition is from registered nurses in British Columbia, and it states: "We, the registered nurses of British Columbia, support the implementation of effective, comprehensive regulations to prevent injuries to workers from sharps" — which are needles, sticks — "and poor practices in the province of British Columbia." These are changes to the Occupational Health and Safety regulations.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call estimates, Mr. Speaker — in this chamber the estimates for the Ministry of Health, and in

Section A the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation.

[1505]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 3:08 p.m.

On Vote 35: ministry operations, $11,767,963,000 (continued).

K. Conroy: I want to move on to the issues around first-available-bed policy in the province. This is a policy that's caused quite some issues. I'd be remiss not to say that the issues in my constituency were front and centre this year. I would also like to acknowledge the Deputy Minister, Dr. Ballem, for her work that she did in my constituency and for her compassionate manner in which she addressed the situation, which was a very difficult situation. I got feedback from caregivers in the region and family members who were very thankful for Dr. Ballem's approach. I'd like to acknowledge that and thank her for it.

One of the issues that has come up is around the first-available-bed policy. I'm going to be using the report that's become known as the Ballem recommendations, as well as the Interior Health Authority implementation plans, because it's my understanding that the ministry has said the issues that were brought forth in that plan will potentially be utilized across the province.

I want to talk a little bit about what happened there. I think what needs to be addressed is the ministry recommendation to conduct a comprehensive review of the application of the first-available-bed policy. The Interior Health implementation plan was to establish an appeals process. So there was a little bit of a dichotomy there.

[1510]

I'd like to know from the minister what steps the ministry has taken around the first-available-bed policy in relation to what's happened with the issues that have arisen from that report.

Hon. G. Abbott: First, I want to thank the member for her question and thank her for her generous comments in relation to Dr. Penny Ballem, my deputy minister. I appreciate that, and I know Dr. Ballem does as well.

The member is correct. We are looking at the application of the first-available-bed policy. Again, to be clear on the point, the first-available-bed policy has, in a formal sense, been around since 1991. I understand, in a less formal sense, it has probably been around since at least the early 1980s and perhaps before that.

The essence of the first-available-bed policy is that when a client or a patient is deemed to be in need of a residential care bed, the first attempt is always to try to place that client or patient in the preferred facility for the client. In those instances where that facility is not available — that is, the preferred facility is not available — the first-available-bed policy suggests that we would try to find the first available bed in the nearest residential care facility appropriate to the client's need. So what the policy is, in essence, is that where compelling patient need exists, it supersedes immediate geographic placement.

Sometimes families have to make difficult decisions with respect to that — whether they want to see that care need supersede geography — and often there are difficult decisions to be made in respect of that. But the other part of the first-available-bed policy that, I think, is also very important is that as soon as a bed becomes open in the preferred facility, then every effort is made by the health authorities to move the patient back to the preferred facility.

K. Conroy: I understand that this policy has been around since 1991 and was, in fact, around in the '90s. The fact in the '90s was that there were beds in local facilities where people could be transferred into, so the first available bed wasn't an issue. It didn't become an issue until 2002 with the changes that this government made where it was deemed…. Beds were given by priority and need. What would happen in the past is people's names would go on the list because they knew they were going to need a bed, and they could turn down that bed if, in fact, it came up that they needed it and they weren't quite ready for it. That worked for people.

[1515]

What I understand now is if people turn down a first available bed, they are taken off the list. What is

[ Page 4600 ]

happening throughout the province, I understand, is that people are taken off the list. If they don't take the first available bed — if it's out of the area where they want to stay, or it's not in the facility they want to go in — they are told they need to go home. Or they're told if they stay in the hospital bed, it will cost them the rate that a hospital person would pay for a bed as opposed to residential care — they'd pay for an acute care bed.

I've talked to people all over the province who have said they cannot afford thousands of dollars a month to stay in an acute care bed. They want to be in their home community. They do not want to be moved hundreds of miles away, away from their friends and over very difficult geographical terrain, which is something I think the minister needs to look at.

I'll ask again: is the ministry looking at re-evaluating how this policy is implemented — such things as people being taken off a list when they can't, for a number of reasons, take the first available bed and not being charged an acute care fee if, in fact, they do need to stay in a hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: I apologize to the member. She had asked in her last question about next-steps. Basically, the next-steps around the review of the application of first-available-bed policy involves putting in place, first of all, increased capacity. I am happy to note that 12 additional residential care beds have opened in Castlegar and Trail to address immediate capacity issues. They've also established eight short-stay beds at Columbia View Lodge in Trail for transition, respite and palliative care. So that's useful.

We are working at Interior Health on the redrafting of how that policy will be operationalized. The aim of that is to be very sensitive, as wasn't always the case, particularly in the most unfortunate Fanny Albo situation, where the sensitivities of the family were not respected. So there's plenty of work being done to address that.

In her subsequent question the member raised a few questions about first-available-bed policy and how it would be undertaken. I think the first thing to note is that the system of supportive seniors housing with home care appended, which we talked about this morning, the issue of assisted living, which we talked about this morning, and the issue of residential care — that continuum of care, or campus of care in some cases, where people are assessed by a set of standardized tools so that they are provided with the level of care that is commensurate with their condition….

I hope the member is not arguing with that, and I'm presuming that she is not. That is the way I would think logically these things should be done — to have a careful assessment of need and then attempt to meet that need.

We know that in 2001 the wait time for residential care was about one year across the province. We know today that the wait time is a range between 18 days, most recently in Vancouver Coastal, and as high as 88 days in Interior Health. What we have also in our data, and I guess this also goes to the heart of the member's question…. Our data shows that in 2001 thousands of patients in residential care were waiting for their preferred facilities. In many cases husbands and wives were in separate facilities. I know we talked about that earlier in this session.

The number of husbands and wives who are separated has actually been reduced since 2001, along with a reduction in the wait time since 2001.

[1520]

I think we're actually moving in the right direction, and as we add further to that continuum of care in all of its aspects, whether supported housing or assisted living or residential care, we will see further improvements, particularly in Interior Health in respect of the wait time for these facilities. The frail elderly will be the beneficiaries of that additional investment.

The member also raised the issue of acute care beds and the occupation of acute care beds by individuals who really should be in either assisted living or in residential care. She questioned the issue of fees that are imposed at some point when a patient in an acute care bed refuses to move on to the first available bed in a residential care facility.

Well, what the health authorities do is work with the patient and with their family to try to find alternatives. It may be home care support. It may be alternative facilities, but we do attempt to find an appropriate accommodation for the patient.

Should that fail, and it is part of the first-available-bed policy…. But again, as I noted, I think, in question period one day in recent months, the client rates for long-stay patients awaiting placement was an amendment to the first-available-bed policy on October 1, 1999. So that is something that was added in that era, and it remains in place today.

It remains a part of the way in which we manage the pressures. But obviously, the government in 1999 was not immune from those pressures, because they were the ones that actually put this particular permutation of the policy into place.

A. Dix: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: Joining us in the gallery today are teachers and students from Windermere Community Secondary School in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. Windermere is an extraordinary school, and they're extraordinary students. Just to say to the students: they're listening to the debate of the budget of the Ministry of Health with respect to seniors care. I want everyone in the House to wish these students welcome.

Debate Continued

K. Conroy: I just want to clarify a few things for public record. There were 12 beds added in Castlegar. Those were privately funded beds. They didn't bring

[ Page 4601 ]

new beds into the community, but what they did do is they gave the opportunity for people to actually live in publicly funded beds.

There was one bed added to Trail, and that was also a privately paid bed, and that family was able to now access a publicly funded bed. There are no new beds, technically, in that region. In fact, there is a shortage of beds, because the Columbia View Lodge took permanent residential care beds and converted them to transitional, short-stay palliative care beds. So it took beds out of the total number of beds in that region.

I just want to make it clear to the minister that those were good things. We were able to ensure that seniors came home from far away and back to places like Castlegar or closer to Trail and Castlegar. That's a good thing. Families were no longer paying exorbitant rates for private care, but it wasn't new beds per se. I just want to clarify that.

It's my understanding that in 1999, when a senior was moved out of a…. When they had to go from acute care to residential care and they chose not to take the first available bed, they were charged the fee that they would pay in a residential care facility, not the fee that they would pay in an acute care facility. Today seniors are paying acute care fees in beds that are in acute care hospitals, and I'm talking to families who can ill afford it. There is no option for them. They have to take the first available bed, often far away from their families, which is an issue.

I want to know if the minister actually knows how many seniors in the province right now are paying for acute care beds or are in an alternative level of care in the hospital.

[1525]

Hon. G. Abbott: The policy that the member has just outlined, which is of apparent concern to her, would be, should she find it objectionable, a reversal of the policy that was put in place by the NDP government in 1999. If the member finds that policy addition of October 1, 1999, objectionable, I certainly would appreciate her advising me of that, and I'll take note of that, but I'm not sure if that's what the member is attempting to say or not. I welcome her further advice.

While I'm welcoming her further advice, I would like her advice with respect to whether she sees beds or units which are privately owned but publicly funded as inherently inferior to publicly owned and publicly funded beds, or whether non-profits and the operation of publicly funded beds under non-profit societies are somehow inferior.

I'm troubled that she finds Interior Health's response of accessing an additional 12 beds for those who need it in Castlegar and Trail somehow flawed or inferior to the actual construction by the government of such beds. If she does, she's going to have a big problem with the direction that we're going, which is to provide the best value to the taxpayer, whether it's a non-profit supplier, a public supplier or a private supplier. That's important.

In terms of the review of the application of the first-bed policy, I think there are some points that I want to make very clear, and these are Interior Health actions:

(1) Developed clear guidelines to ensure IH's intent to maintain and respect the needs of couples in our care. Again, I think we've made some good progress on the issue of couples being separated in facilities, to the extent we can, where their respective medical conditions would permit it. We do want to see even fewer couples separated.

(2) Established an expedited appeals process for families and residents that allows both the families and our staff to slow the process down and consider extenuating circumstances if needed. Policy augments existing appeal process and will be referenced in information package for patients and family.

(3) Identified second-look process on moving a client to a first-available bed out of their home community. Any such decision now requires the consultation and approval of the home and community care director and the chief operating officer.

(4) Reviewed and revised our hardship support policy that provides a means of support to families having to travel outside their immediate community for residential care.

(5) Finally, developing an information package for patients and families outlining options, process and policies, which will be given to all seniors who may be in need of home support and residential care services. That will be available in August 2006.

I think all of those things are important in terms of assisting patients and families at what is often the most difficult time in our lives. Many of us are of an age where our parents are into the end-of-life experience. There are often difficult decisions to be made around that end-of-life experience, and I believe — and powerfully believe — the work that's being undertaken in Interior Health, which I think will help to inform policies elsewhere in the province, is a very constructive step towards assisting families and patients with those often very difficult end-of-life issues.

K. Conroy: I'd love to give the minister advice. I would defer to the deputy minister, as she has far more experience and education than I have, so we'll continue to work together.

[1530]

I'm glad you brought up the issue around the appeal process and the IHA. There are some concerns about what has been put into place. Because both the ministry and the Interior Health Authority have said that these are policies that could be implemented across the province, there are some concerns.

One of them is the whole issue of when someone is going to be moved and the family is not comfortable with that and wants to put in an appeal process. What has been implemented by the IHA is a review process. It's a review process by the head, like you've said, of community care and the COO of the whole district. That's a very, very busy position.

[ Page 4602 ]

People have expressed concern that that person would be the one who would be doing a review process. It's not an appeal, as we understand. Also, in a public meeting the person for our region did state that she felt that even though a review process was in place, there probably would be very few changes made, because she would be working with her staff. It left a real concern for people that….

Is this a true appeals process? The answer to many people was that they thought not, that it is inappropriate for the COO to be undertaking this, and that you do need somebody independent who is not so involved in what happens in that hospital.

Is the ministry looking at another way of undertaking an appeals process? Is this something that is going to be implemented across the province? These situations come up. We know that it doesn't just happen in West Kootenay–Boundary. It's happened in other parts of the province, in other health authorities. It is a policy that is very important to people — to seniors and their families.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. I think it would be fair to say that in terms of how the first-available-bed reviews will be conducted, we are still looking at how that process should be structured and what players should most appropriately be involved in it — that sort of thing.

I think we are always receptive, as reasonable people, to reasonable suggestions about how these things might be done better. The member will recall that much of this work was initiated as a consequence of the sad and unfortunate case of Fanny Albo, where some unfortunate decisions were made, some mistakes were made, and some errors of judgment were made.

What we are trying to do is to put in place an opportunity for a second look, for reconsideration where families raise issues, and there are lots of different ways that we could do that. There are lots of different ways that we could structure a review or appeal process. We have a suggested model, and we will be watching with interest to see whether that suggested model is one that takes root, or perhaps it may be improved in some ways. We'll look to find what works well, and when we have a clear understanding that something's working well, then we might consider trying to see it put in place across the province. But we want to do some additional work around that.

The other point, I guess, around this is that notwithstanding the opportunity to request a review or to request an appeal, there are still difficult decisions that have to be made by the health authorities.

[1535]

They still have to try to ensure that acute care beds are being appropriately…. They still have to try to find the best alternatives for patients. They still have to try to meet the wishes of the patients and their families.

One shouldn't conclude that because there are relatively few reversals after reviews, the process is wrong. Sometimes people believe the processes are correct only when the processes produce the decisions that meet their interests. So it can be challenging.

There are a number of criteria that come into play in terms of the review of what's appropriate and what's not appropriate in the application of the first-available-bed policy. For example, among the criteria are: urgency, facility location, client's diagnosis and condition, facility suitability, family supports, client preference, impact on client's health or psychosocial well-being and financial or physical impact on client's designated support person. All of these are issues that can and should be considered by the authorities making a difficult review or appeal decision.

The attempt here is to be thoughtful, to match up, as best we can, the client's care needs with the available resources that can be brought to bear in the particular case.

K. Conroy: As we found out, this wasn't…. When everything happened with the Albo family, we found out very quickly that this wasn't an isolated incident. This, in fact, was happening with a number of other families. Names have been brought forward, and more and more people…. We're not going to do that today, but we know that this is not just an isolated incident and that this is happening in other parts of the province, in other parts of the IHA, because we have documentation of that.

We also know that one thing that was not on the minister's list when they were reviewing was the need for the bed. In a number of situations, we have been told by health care professionals, by families, that the reason seniors were moved was because they needed the bed. That's the reality. So that's one thing that is not on that list and needs to be looked at.

We need a far-reaching review on this issue. My question to the minister is: is there a time frame, and who would be consulted with to deal with these issues?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to give the member a sense of the challenge we have here, about 35,000 clients a year are making use of residential care facilities, and we have about 7,000 new admissions per year. Again, the wait times for appropriate placement, either in residential care or assisted living, have been dramatically reduced since 2001. As we see the number of assisted-living and residential care beds come on stream between now and the end of 2006, those numbers will, I believe, continue to improve.

As I noted, I think, in discussion earlier in these estimates, we're currently in a position of about 1,500 net new beds. We will be up to about 2,500 to 2,700 by the end of 2006. That will be remarkably useful in terms of moving forward.

[1540]

We are seeing a 4.7-percent increase overall in all categories of beds — about 1,910 additional beds, based on the year 2005-2006 over 2001-2002 — so we actually have seen an increase. Palliative care beds, for example, increased by 67 percent; residential care, assisted-living and supportive housing beds were up by 5.4 percent; mental health and addiction beds were up 28 percent. That has been very useful.

Also, and I think this is very important, the number of alternate-level-of-care patients — that is, folks who

[ Page 4603 ]

really should be in either residential care or assisted living but are in acute care beds for a time awaiting residential care placement — has gone down. The percentage of ALC, alternate-level-of-care patients, in acute care beds has gone down by some 27 percent in 2004-2005 over 2001-2002.

K. Conroy: We're going to need to exchange research because my information shows me that the alternate level of the care in this province in the north and the interior has actually gone up. You're correct in the Fraser Valley and in Vancouver. Those numbers have gone down, but it's my understanding that the numbers have gone up, and in the north, since 2001. So that's a rising figure. It is a concern for families.

I don't think anyone would disagree with the challenge the ministry faces with the situation with placing seniors. I think what I've heard is that the issue for seniors' and caregivers' families in the province is the fact that we've moved too quickly in this province. There is this need for assisted-living beds, and at the same time, there hasn't been the attention paid to the residential care, or to that interim level of care where you're not quite ready for residential care and you can't be in an assisted-living facility and get the required supports you need.

There needs to be an adjustment around how the beds are looked at and how they're named. I know in our region they call it the name game on beds.

We could probably spend the whole afternoon talking about beds, but I have a lot of other things I want to cover, and I only get today, so we're going to move on a bit. One of the issues that I also talked to people about is the issue around licensing regulations and the quality of care. The assisted-living registrar: what kinds of resources are appointed to this office?

Hon. G. Abbott: We believe that we can get the answer to the member's question here shortly, but rather than wait a couple of extra minutes, if she has an additional question, we can move on to that, and I'll provide her with that information as it becomes available.

K. Conroy: With the office of the assisted-living registrar, is the number of complaints that come into that office documented? If so, how many have been received since it was created?

[1545]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll just provide this information. I think it goes to the heart of what the member was asking. As of January 2006, 98 assisted-living residences have been registered or approved for registration. The registrar has received 35 complaints about health and safety in assisted-living residences since January 1, 2005. The registrar's office was able to assist with the resolution of all the health and safety complaints except for three, and those three remain in progress.

Four of the 35 health and safety complaints were referred by the registrar to ALCE — we have to go to the acronym department to get that one, and we will — for resolution when the operator needed support or guidance to comply with health and safety standards. Those complaints related to tenancy concerns were referred to the residential tenancy office for assistance, all of which have been resolved.

K. Conroy: When there are outstanding issues, are they corrected? Will you continue to work on them so they are corrected, or do they ever become an issue that can't be resolved?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're getting some additional information for the member here, but I will give her this piece, and then we'll come back to some of this. The ALCE, for those who have been sitting on pins and needles awaiting what that is, is the Assisted Living Centre of Excellence.

Relatively few of those go on to the ALCE. Most of these 35 complaints have been resolved informally at the registrar level. There are no fines, but the potential of losing registration, which obviously is a far more compelling penalty even than a fine, remains a possibility and remains a very live concern for a facility that would be subject to a complaint.

K. Conroy: Is there somewhere where families can go? Is this public information where they can go and punch in a facility on some website and they can tell if there have been any complaints registered against them? Is there some avenue for that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The registrar of assisted living is developing a website that will have information with respect to those registered assisted-living premises. Right now that doesn't exist. I guess the best thing would be to call the registrar, and the registrar can provide information as appropriate to the caller.

[1550]

K. Conroy: For licensed community care facilities, what we've understood is that the health authorities can send in persons to go and make unannounced visits to check the licensing issues with those kinds of facilities. What I'm wondering is if the ministry has information on those kinds of inspections and how they're carried out.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member may wish to explore this more, but my understanding of how this works is that should the registrar, for example, receive a complaint, the registrar has the authority to invite whatever officials she feels appropriate to go in and review the situation. She might involve, for example, a nurse. She might involve licensing officers. She might involve other health professionals that she deems appropriate, based on the case at hand.

That is my understanding of how the process works. I'm not sure I have addressed the member's point. I'll invite her to throw in a supplementary here, if I've missed it.

[ Page 4604 ]

K. Conroy: Are the inspections only complaint-based, or are they done on a routine basis?

Hon. G. Abbott: The role of the registrar is a complaints-driven role. However, the Assisted Living Centre of Excellence, which I noted earlier, is an industry self-regulating model that will be building best practices, which will be attempting to ensure that all of its members achieve the standards that are set out by the Assisted Living Centre of Excellence. So there are drives for quality at two levels, both from the industry association and the Assisted Living Centre of Excellence and from the registrar on a complaints-driven basis.

As of May 14, 2004, the assisted-living registrar has authority to receive and investigate complaints about assisted-living residences, including the power to enter and inspect a residence where there is a concern about the health or safety of a resident. In addition, health and safety standards for assisted living are now in place to ensure that the health and safety of assisted-living residents is not jeopardized.

K. Conroy: For the facilities that are not under the assisted-living registrar but are, in fact, under community care licensing, they would be governed, monitored and inspected by community care licensing — under that act, I'm assuming.

[1555]

I'll ask the same questions: are inspections in that sector complaint-based, or are they routine?

Hon. G. Abbott: Residential care facilities are licensed either under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act or under the Hospital Act. I understand that for those that have been licensed under the Hospital Act, there is a transition of those facilities into what's termed

section 12 of the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. That's one level of the licensing under residential care.

Assisted living is a registration under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, and it flows, as we have been discussing, around the registrar and how the office of the registrar works.

K. Conroy: The inspections that are done on those sites: would they also be available somewhere, in some way that the public could access them?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is a different process around residential care and assisted living in terms of how due process is undertaken around inspections. In residential care — because, as the member knows, of the level of acuity or need by those patients — they're typically there because they require 24-7 support within their facilities. For those residential care facilities, they are subject to unannounced inspections by the licensing officers as well as, obviously, enforcement on a complaints basis where that occurs. The licensing reports, which I think the member was also asking about, are typically available from the health authorities and maybe on line as well.

A final point I should note is that British Columbia is the first province in Canada to regulate assisted-living residences. We have been viewing it for some time as a gap in terms of the regulatory framework, and I think it is going to be a very useful addition to the way in which these issues are managed. Should a person have a concern about a person in care in a licensed community care facility, they should contact the community care facilities licensing program in their health authority.

[1600]

K. Conroy: The minister brought up issues around

section 12 of Bill 73 and some of the issues that are arising from that. I want to talk about some of them, but I would also first like to ask the ministry: when is this process going to be completed — the issues around

section 12 — and when will that be presented?

[J. Yap in the chair.]

Hon. W. Oppal: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. W. Oppal: In the House this afternoon is a class of grade 11 students from my riding, David Thompson high school. With them is their teacher, Mr.

Vellescig. I had the privilege of meeting them outside in the foyer. I would ask that they feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's question, and I'll just try to be sure that we're answering the right question. I think the member's question is around the transition of, particularly, denominational private hospitals from the existing regulatory framework to

section 12 of the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. That's my understanding. If her question is broader than that, I'm glad to add some further information for her consideration.

Our understanding is that in terms of the transition of those denominational private hospitals, there are some complex issues involved. There's an extensive consultation process underway with them. There are issues around management structures, around taxation and so on. These discussions for the private denominational hospitals involve 23 facilities and, at the most recent count, 2,353 residents or beds in those facilities.

We haven't put a fixed time line around the transition of those facilities to

section 12 of the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. We aim to do it efficiently and effectively, but there are some complex issues which we have committed to working through with the denominational providers.

K. Conroy: That will suffice. The minister has wrapped up a number of issues into one, so that answer does suffice.

[ Page 4605 ]

One of the things with the community care facilities licensing and the adult care regulations that I've been looking at…. I did bring this up in estimates last fall. My background is early childhood education, so I'm pretty familiar with how the community care facilities and their regulations work.

[1605]

I still have concern around the lack of staffing regulations that are in the regulations. The licensee has to ensure that a person is of good character, that they have the personality, ability and temperament necessary…. That's to manage a facility. There are no regulations for either managing the facility or for working in the facility that are specific to the training required.

A number of facilities have expressed concern around the lack of RNs in their facilities. There was some real concern about the cost-effectiveness of this, in that RNs are able to determine some issues that are coming up that a long-term care aide might not be able to determine, and residents end up in acute care facilities requiring further support and acute care services.

It is a concern. Is the ministry looking at any way of ensuring that facilities do have the proper training? I don't think it's enough that a person is a person of good character, although that's a very good skill to have. I think that we need to ensure that there are skills like specific long-term care aides, LPNs, and those are specific credentials that need to be recognized in these facilities.

Hon. G. Abbott: For those who are watching the proceedings today who've been waiting for this number, I'm glad to advise that the budget for the assisted-living registrar is $420,000 per year.

In terms of the member's, I think, very good question about how we can ensure that we have quality of care in those institutions, whether they're assisted living or residential care, we basically have two ways in which those care packages are provided to the folks in assisted living or residential care. They are typically provided either through the health authorities, where quality improvement programs are in place and the health authorities are looking at ways to continuously improve the quality in those facilities….

The second way in which care is delivered is through what's known as the affiliate sector. The affiliate sector might, for example, include groups like the Salvation Army that provide care facilities on a contract basis for us. More and more, those contract provisions that we have with the affiliate sector are also aimed at establishing benchmarks for quality and driving continuous quality improvement in the facilities.

We also work with groups like Ed Helfrich and the B.C. Pricare Association that is representative of those in the private care sector. The aim is to ensure that across the board we have the best possible quality in the facilities that are licensed or registered to operate in this province.

[1610]

Final point. Both the nurses' bargaining agreement and the facilities bargaining agreement, as the member knows, were recently concluded. Those provide policies and support for training and the building of further best practices and better management in the area of quality as well.

K. Conroy: I think this is a good time…. The minister had asked previously about my concerns around private versus non-profit facilities. I think that what's at issue for me and for many members and people that I talk to is the fact that at the end of the day a private owner-operator needs to put money in their bank account, which is business, which is fine. But in the non-profit facilities, the facilities run by the health authorities, the money goes back into the facilities.

I've seen some fabulous facilities. I think a sterling example is Mount St. Mary, right across the street here, non-profit residential care run by a non-denominational organization — amazing facilities. The building was newly constructed. Construction started in the late '90s — just well done. They have excellent quality of care. They have staffing levels that are commendable — RNs, LPNs, long-term care aides. It's an example of what people can do when all the funds are put back into the facility.

There is a real concern around staffing levels. I think of Polson Extended Care Facility in Vernon. The staff there express their concern around the shortage of staff for proper patient care.

When I toured around the province visiting facilities…. I'm the first to say that it doesn't matter how fancy the facility is or if it's brand-new. What people tell me about is the quality of care and how they love their caregivers. In some of the facilities I was in the people weren't too happy with their caregivers. Those were facilities where the staffing ratio…. There was a large number of residents to caregivers. There were few, if any, RNs on. It's a real concern — the quality of care around staffing issues — across the province.

There doesn't seem to be any continuity or any regulations that all facilities have to abide by. That's a concern that's been expressed by facility operators, by families, by residents who live in the facilities, as well as the people who work in the facilities. Is there anything that the ministry is going to do to alleviate that issue?

[1615]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question.

An enormous amount of work has been done by the staff at the Ministry of Health in respect of the important issues that the member raises around driving quality across the board, whether the facilities are privately owned but under contract with the health authority, whether they're not-for-profit societies that, again, are working under contract with the health authority or whether they are facilities that are owned by the health authority itself or existing public facilities.

In all of those cases, the aim of the work we are doing is to drive improved quality. There's a ton of work that's been done there. The member mentioned Vernon, and we know that there is a Vernon advocacy group that's been concerned about staffing levels at

[ Page 4606 ]

Interior Health residential care facilities. It's not clear to me whether that is a broad-based concern — you know, whether it's owned by public or not-for-profit.

Also, so we're clear: the private, for-profit ownership of residential care beds remained constant at about 24 percent between 2002 and September 2005, which is the most recent date we have information on. So there hasn't been a big change in terms of the percentage — in fact, there's been no change in the percentage — of private, for-profit ownership in the residential care sector. It's remained about the same.

There is work being done around ensuring that LPNs and care aides and so on are able to work to full scope of practice. There is a forum undertaken in the nurses' bargaining agreement, which I referenced. So we are working on a range of issues in that joint policy committee, and I should mention those to the member. Policy discussions among the Ministry of Health; the six health authorities; HEABC, the Health Employers Association of B.C.; and the Facilities Bargaining Association will continue through the establishment of a joint policy committee.

The ministry has committed an initial $100,000 for the work of the FBA-joint policy committee. Projects to be undertaken by the committee include complex care policy discussions, competencies and training standards for care aides, a report on LPN and care aide best practices and effective utilization. Work will be done on responsive shift scheduling.

As the member knows, this is a very big issue for nurses — how we can better manage the area of shift schedules. As well, we will be looking at practice dialogues and professional practice councils to increase knowledge and understanding of practice areas and skills which LPNs and care aides can bring to health care.

A final point around education. During the bargaining process the ministry agreed to transfer $5 million to the facilities bargaining agreement for administration of a program of educational supports for members on terms outlined in the agreement.

K. Conroy: I thank the minister for the response. I still think it's an issue that continues to come up. I think last fall in Williams Lake, when the COSCO group did their study with Charmaine Spencer, a lot of the issues around their concerns for the housing up in Williams Lake for seniors were around minimum staff levels — that they weren't appropriate.

[1620]

I think the Pederson report that the IHA did afterwards reiterated that. I can tell you that there were some issues in the Nelson constituency. The member for Nelson-Creston and I toured a facility, and there were concerns expressed about a new facility, Mountain Lakes, around staffing levels. We will continue to monitor those staffing levels and make sure that they are not only adequate but are appropriate for the seniors.

Not so much in the residential care, but we notice when talking to facilities in the newer assisted-living facilities, some of which did have residential care associated with them…. With the new facilities that took over buildings, when they were built, staff were let go. When they were hired back, they were hired back to an existing union. I'm just curious if that's a policy the ministry supports — that these new facilities have the right to tell the staff that in order to work, the union is existing in new facilities.

The member is correct, though, to identify the need for nurses as one of the biggest challenges we have across the province. I don't want to appear to harp on this, but in the Vancouver Health Authority today we have 772 nurse vacancies. That, to me, is an astonishing figure — 772 vacancies.

They are actively recruiting from graduating nursing classes in the province. They're recruiting nationally and internationally for nurses who can help fill those 772 vacancies, because whether it's an emergency room, critical care, acute care or residential care, there is a huge need for nurses. We need to find ways to meet that gap because the biggest challenge we have in delivering quality care across the board is ensuring that we have a sufficient number of nurses.

Similarly, in the Fraser Health Authority: 321 nurse vacancies at the present day. So just those two of five regional health authorities have 1,100 vacancies. Those are two of the largest health authorities in the province, but there are three others that are substantial as well, and it goes to the magnitude of the problem that we have in respect of nursing resources.

The health authorities and, I think, Health Match B.C. and others have been recruiting aggressively. We've brought many nurses in through the provincial nominee program. Most importantly, perhaps, we have expanded the number of nursing spaces since 2001 by 62 percent, or 2,511 spaces. That is a very critical part of meeting the health human resource needs we have in the area of nursing.

All of those initiatives are helpful, but there is more work to be done. I am very proud that when we came in, in 2001, after seeing this area of health human resource policy not receiving the resources it should in the previous ten years — there had not been any expansion of the nursing seats in the 1990s — we did make a huge investment in that area. I believe we're beginning to see the benefits of that investment in health human resources.

[1625]

K. Conroy: Along that line, one of the biggest issues, when I talk to nurses and people that are working in the health care sector, especially with what's happened lately in the Interior Health Authority, is the fact that nurses are also leaving the field and leaving the region because of lack of support in the facilities they're working in — lack of morale, issues that are very diffi-

[ Page 4607 ]

cult for nurses to face. We've had nurses in our area who have retired early, who have taken stress leaves because of the workload.

I'm hoping that the new nurses coming on stream will alleviate that. I'm also hoping that some of the work done in the review that's been undertaken in the Kootenay-Boundary area will alleviate some of that too.

Along that line, I just want to bring up an issue with the Interior Health Authority that has come up quite a bit as of late: the fact that there is this inquiry happening. Or a review is happening. While that review is happening just in the West Kootenay–Boundary region, there are issues throughout the entire region, including issues of staffing and nurses. Nurses have been speaking out. I know, Mr. Minister, that you will agree that there isn't a gag order, but many of the people that are working in the region don't agree with you.

Now we know that there are a number of municipalities, regional districts that have joined in the request, along with thousands of people who have signed petitions in the region asking for a full, independent inquiry into what's happening in the Interior Health Authority. It's not just about long-term care beds, it's not just about the cuts to acute care beds, and it's not just about the nurses and the mental health issues. There are many, many issues that need to be looked at globally in that health authority region.

People are requesting that some type of inquiry be held. People want to ensure that this is done in an independent process, and I ask the minister: is this going to happen?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raises a number of issues. Let's start with the nurses. Clearly, the last thing that anyone wants in this province is for us to lose additional nursing resources. When we see any reduction in the number of nurses, it obviously puts a strain on the remaining body of nurses, and that makes it even more difficult for them. So we do very much want to avoid any kind of cyclical process that saw a reduction in the number of nurses that were able to practise in this province.

I'm confident, in fact, that what we are seeing — not just in Interior Health but across the province — is a shifting culture where the contribution of nurses is ever more appreciated, and the importance of their role is ever more appreciated.

We know we have a challenge in respect of the demographics in the nursing population, just as we do in the general population. The majority of nurses in the province are my age — in their early 50s — and contemplating retirement within, possibly, the next five years. We do need to be educating a younger cohort of nurses, and we're doing that with a 62-percent expansion in the number of nursing seats in this province.

We've come a long way, and we're starting to see, as those expanded nursing graduating classes come on stream, the opportunities for health authorities to literally hire the entire classes. Vancouver Island Health Authority, for example, has indicated that it's looking to see the hiring of pretty much every graduate out of the nursing schools this year.

[1630]

That's the pressure the system is under. That's the pressure that is generated by insufficient training and education dollars being devoted to this important area in the 1990s. Again, if the member is concerned about the workload of nurses and the pressure that nurses are under, why was it that we did not see that investment in additional spaces in the 1990s? Because we didn't. If the member thinks I'm wrong, then she should tell me that I'm wrong and explain to me why I'm wrong, because we know our facts are right here.

Rather than sort of be histrionic about this, though, I think what we have attempted to do with nurses across the province over the past couple of years is to start to build processes where the ministry, the nursing profession, the health authorities, HEABC are all engaged around the issues that can help ensure the health, safety, well-being, job satisfaction, etc., of the nursing profession, because we know the quickest route to burnout is unsatisfactory working conditions.

Through the processes that led up to the recent 97.1 percent ratification vote by the nurses…. That wasn't something that happened in the week before ratification. That was a process that goes back many months and involved prolonged and protracted efforts by all of the parties at the table to identify those things and areas where we can work to make the satisfaction level among nurses higher than it currently is.

We know there are lots of factors in respect of that. We know this is a work-in-progress. We know there's an opportunity for continuous improvement. I salute the nursing profession and their leadership that have, I think, come to the table with the disposition to work, to sit down with the government and the health authorities and work through these issues and actually find agreements and accommodation that will make sense on the ground and deliver better health care.

The nursing bargaining agreement makes plenty of opportunities for us to continue to work in that area. We don't see those discussions ending with the ratification of the nurses agreement. In fact, they're an opportunity for us to redouble our efforts and work through those issues that will strengthen the nursing profession in this province even more and, as a consequence, strengthen patient care in this province even more.

The member referred to "a gag order" which supposedly exists in the Interior Health Authority. I had the opportunity at a recent meeting with Interior Health to talk about that. There is no gag order in respect of nurses or any other profession in Interior Health.

In fact, much to their credit, and I hope the member will acknowledge this, Interior Health and their board have recently enacted a whistle-blower policy, which actually encourages nurses and anyone else who works within the Interior Health Authority to actually bring forward their issues where they see the potential for patient care being compromised. It actually invites them, encourages those nurses or other health profes-

[ Page 4608 ]

sionals or front-line health care workers to come forward with those concerns. Well, it's just the reverse of a gag order. In fact, it's a policy that puts a policy backdrop to the encouragement of people working together.

The object of all this is to improve the culture of care that exists in Interior Health and other locations in the province. The whistle-blower policy of Interior Health is obviously intended for Interior Health, although I think other health authorities have, at least in some cases, comparable policies. But the aim of this is to improve the culture of care; to improve the relationships that exist between administration and nurses, between administration and front-line health care workers, home care aides and so on; to improve the culture between doctors and nurses and home care aides.

[1635]

I think we can see great improvement in all of these things. I do look forward to that. Again, I think responsible, appropriate steps are being taken by Interior Health and other health authorities to achieve that objective.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Finally, the member says: "Well, have a public inquiry looking at all aspects of Interior Health." Well, I don't think that's justified. In fact, Interior Health do a very, very good job of delivering health care and health care services in a geographic region that is very, very challenging to deliver health care in.

Interior Health is not a large metropolitan region. Interior Health is an expansive geographical region with probably a dozen or more large cities and many, many more, dozens more smaller communities which have their expectations for health care as well. So I actually think there is no justification for undertaking anything termed an inquiry.

Further, I believe that such an inquiry is not a recipe for action. It is, in fact, a recipe for inaction. I don't plan to stand by, as Health Minister in this province, and await the outcome of somebody else to tell us how to do these things. I think, in fact, we are on the right road under the leadership of the ministry and the health authorities. We are on the road to improving health care in hundreds of ways, every day, across Interior Health and across this province.

I'm not going to stand back and say that an inquiry can add value. I don't believe it will. We are working each and every day with the health authorities and the 120,000 people who provide health care across the province. We're identifying, each and every day, new ways to bring about continuous improvement for the residents of this province.

K. Conroy: There are many, many people in the Interior Health Authority region that would disagree with the minister — nurses, doctors, advocates, patients, many people in the Kelowna hospital dealing with code purples, many people in Kamloops dealing with code purples, people in Williams Lake dealing with long-term care issues, and people throughout our region. It goes on and on and on.

I'm not going to take up all my estimates time arguing with you the benefits of an internal inquiry, but I do believe that some form of inquiry that's external, that's transparent, that could show some accountability issues, that could bring things to the fore would give staff and people that work in that region the sense of security that they can speak out. As of last week I talked to people who still do not feel they have the sense of security to actually speak out against the issues that are very, very troubling to them in the health authority.

On that note I'm going to move on. One of the issues that has come up is around the RFP process for residential care facilities in the province. Most recently, there was an RFP process in the Vancouver Island Health Authority that led to some questions from various people across the region about how those RFPs are processed. So a question to the minister: what is the normal length of time that persons have to reply to RFPs of a significant nature, such as residential construction?

[1640]

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to comment on the general and then move to the more specific, because the member did reference the Vancouver Island Health Authority and some concerns which she said had been expressed around their RFP processes.

Request for proposals is typically the last stage in identifying what will be a successful project. It might be a housing project. It might be a health facility project. Generally, the time line that is contained in the request for proposal will vary with the size and complexity of the project. Often, we see a typical RFP period being around three months, but there will be variation on that depending on the size and complexity of the project.

There are procurement guidelines on the government website to guide one in respect of procurement. The pros in this area tend to be Partnerships B.C. and B.C. Housing. They do a lot of these RFPs. In every case, what they do during the RFP process is assess the proposal against what it is they seek to achieve.

I've got here a two-month deadline for a request-for-proposal process. Two months is typical of time frames provided for this process and consistent with time frames used for residential care RFPs: for Interior Health Authority, ten weeks including two over the Christmas period; and Fraser Health Authority, six weeks. Additionally, VIHA provided six weeks of advance notice that an RFP was being released. The advance notice identified the approximate number and type of beds and spaces required by the community.

To date, only three requests have been made seeking an extension to the RFP closing date. VIHA had over 100 people attend a bidders' meeting, so the anticipated response rate is high. The process needs to be kept on a tight

schedule to ensure that the complex

[ Page 4609 ]

care and assisted-living spaces are built and in service in as timely a manner as possible.

I think that's probably what the member was referencing around the complex care and assisted-living RFP process with the Vancouver Island Health Authority. I presume she had heard some concern that the time frame was too tight in respect of the VIHA process. I think what I've just noted are the reasons why the time frame was appropriate and, further, a lot of evidence that, in fact, most of the interested parties found the time lines appropriate, because there has been very good uptake on interest in proceeding with some of these projects.

K. Conroy: When you're looking at the RFPs that are awarded, does the ministry or Partnerships B.C. take into consideration the past practices of people who they're awarding the RFPs to — if they've had other facilities around the province?

[1645]

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, the quality of care that has been provided historically by the provider would come into play.

K. Conroy: Then I just want to put on the record that the community of Nelson was quite concerned about the direct granting of an RFP to a manager who had had his facility close down due to a number of concerns. During the RFP process, even though he didn't have the highest bid, he was awarded the RFP to build this facility. It's caused incredible concern in the community. I just want to put that on record. I think that, in this instance, the past practices of this manager were not taken into consideration.

It would seem that this isn't the practice that is utilized across the province and that it might be health authority specific?

Hon. G. Abbott: We are not intimately familiar with the case that the member raises. Given that I don't know all of the details around that particular case, it would probably be unfair and inappropriate for me to make comment in what is obviously a public setting here in the Legislature. The member may wish to provide me with more information on this case in this setting, or she may wish to advance the information to me in a private communication. I'm glad to receive that information in either case.

What I can say in a general way is that quality of care and history of quality of care is an important element when we are looking at a partnership with a care provider for the future in any corner of this province. We often will work, particularly on the larger projects, with Partnerships B.C., who bring a professional approach to the issues of tendering and so on.

As well, I know from experience in Salmon Arm that often we will put in place what are termed "third-party fairness auditors." Where concerns are raised by one or other of the competitors in a process about how the process was structured or managed, we can also engage a third-party auditor to look at the process and advise us whether the processes, in any sense, may have been skewed or unfair or should be reconsidered. Those are all possibilities.

[1650]

Again, I won't try to be definitive about the application of those issues to the case the member raises in Nelson, because we don't know enough about it. The member may do as I suggested at the outset — raise more points here or advance more information to us. We'd be fine to look at it.

K. Conroy: I'll take the opportunity to discuss it with the minister out of the chamber.

I want to talk a bit about home support. The minister brings up the issue around continuum of care, campus of care and the need for home support for seniors. It is an issue, when I talk to seniors in this province, that there isn't enough home support for them. We know that home support is cost-effective, that seniors can stay in their homes longer, in supported housing facilities longer, if they have that home support that can keep them in those facilities.

In the minister's service plan, there's a strategy to increase the range of supportive living environments and community care options across the spectrum from home care to residential care facilities, and I'm wondering how much of this funding is dedicated to the home care aspect of that.

Hon. G. Abbott: We're still doing some math in respect of breaking out the home care component of the budget from the residential care portion of the budget, and we'll have that shortly.

I do want to note, however — and this is, I think, an important point — that the average number of hours that a home care client receives per year has increased overall from 212 hours per client in 2001-2002 to 244 hours per client in 2004-2005. That is an important statistic.

I think I should also note that the first ministers' agreement around the ten-year action plan on health was able to provide additional funding to the five regional health authorities in the '05-06 budget allocation to support short-term, acute care, home care and end-of-life services. So there has been some enhancement of services in that area.

In '05-06, the budget that we approved last fall, government allocated an additional $150 million over two years to strengthen and modernize the full range of services for seniors and to ensure that seniors age in place where appropriate. That included just over $1 million of this amount being spent on increasing home care services.

[1655]

There's lots of work being done by the health authorities and others around comprehensive home care planning, development of assessment tools and so on. So there is some excellent work being done there — not to say there aren't challenges in that area, because there are. We are always working to try to build our health human resources in that area. Again, I do hope that the

[ Page 4610 ]

recent contract agreement will be supportive of that aim.

K. Conroy: I'm assuming those are provincial numbers, because actually in the greater Trail area, to be specific…. I'm focusing a bit on that because, just to give some background, it seemed like a lot of issues had happened with seniors who had been moved out of the area and were separated — in fact, we know it was an issue with the Albos. It was a lack of home support services that put them back in the acute care system. That is quite common. I hear that a lot from seniors.

In our local area — the Kootenay Lake, Nelson, Castlegar, Trail area — there's actually been a 42-percent cut in the number of home support services. It's interesting because the population has increased, which is the statistic that the minister uses of 75,000 seniors over the age of 75. In fact, that's a concern in our region. People aren't accessing the required home support services. For the most part, as I've talked to people, it's not so much an issue about services, resources and staffing as it is the number of staff hired to do the work. They're available.

I know that in the other parts of the Interior Health Authority, there was actually what was referred to as a "code purple" in the home support just after Christmas, where they were not taking on any more home support clients. Even if you were in the system, ended up in the hospital and were sent back home, you were put at the bottom of the list and weren't able to access the home support system. That was quite a concern in the Kelowna area as well as in the Okanagan area.

Statistically, those numbers might be working, but the reality is that the seniors aren't accessing the home support as they should be. Again to the minister: what kind of programs or support will the ministry be putting in place to ensure that what is happening, especially in the Interior Health Authority, isn't going to continue to happen across the province?

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue the member raises, about the number of home care and home support workers that we have in the system, is an important one. It is one that is of great concern to me. It is an issue which we recognize needs attention, and I'm working with my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, working with my colleague the Minister of Education, working with government to try to ensure that we are putting in place all of the opportunities for training and education that will build the numbers of home care workers available to us.

One part of that is ensuring that we have a contract in place that supports those objectives, which I believe we do. I think it will be supportive of that. Second, ensure that we have tuitions to those programs that are affordable and are supported — so that tuition doesn't become a barrier to folks entering the home care aide programs and so on that are offered at community colleges and university colleges in the province. That's very important.

[1700]

I think, third, that we need to begin, if we're not already doing it, to think about home care aides as being positions where people can grow, where they can continue to access training opportunities, where they can continue to grow into other positions and areas of caregiving within the health authorities. It should be an opportunity for a lifelong career in the health authorities when one enters that area.

The member referenced cuts, which is always a fascinating thing to hear in a ministry that has gone from $8.3 billion in 2001 to $12 billion in the current year budget, plus capital. In fact, when we are talking about home care, including home support specifically, we see a $107 million lift across the province for that budget item. That's very, very important. So there is a major lift in that area. In fact, it is a $108 million lift that has occurred over those five fiscal years.

The member can say "cuts" — and I know that is part of the mantra of the opposition to reference cuts — but there has been anything but a cut in the allocation of resources to this very important area of health care. There has been a huge lift of $108 million to the area. Does that mean it's perfect? Heck, no. It's far from it. We've got lots of work to do, but just as we have seen great progress in the area of reuniting seniors over time….

Just for the record, we know that in August of 2001 there were 615 married residential clients in different facilities from their spouses. In November 2005 that number had been reduced to 73. So home care is a part of the work we need to do to ensure that to the extent we can — because, again, medical conditions can separate couples — we need to put those supports in place that allow people in their latter years to enjoy the quality of life which they should expect from a society as rich and prosperous as the one we're in.

K. Conroy: Can the minister explain…? Is there not some type of policy that goes across authorities so that the ministry is assured, when they give their money to the authorities to implement home support programs, that it's actually implemented? The reality in Trail is that the home support hours were reduced by 64 percent. A cut's a cut's a cut.

I think there needs to be some policy that the ministry has to ensure that every health authority puts those dollars into home support. Is there such a policy to ensure that happens?

[1705]

Hon. G. Abbott: This is what we know. In every case in every health authority — IHA or any other — there are standardized assessment tools in place that, as we talked about earlier, provide a comprehensive assessment of patient needs. We will know, through those standardized assessment tools, whether home care is appropriate in this case, whether the patient might require a level of assistance — for example, assisted living — or, where the care needs are more compelling and comprehensive, perhaps the need for residential care.

[ Page 4611 ]

We do have those standardized assessments. Based on that assessment, there is a distribution of resources across the health authorities by the health authorities in the most appropriate and efficacious way that they can. We do know that the IHA has about $20 million more expended in the area of home care, including home support, than they did back in '01-02. So the budget line has increased by some $20 million. Again, I'm not sure on what basis the member is making her accusation.

K. Conroy: They weren't accusations; they were facts. I will ensure that the minister has a copy of the study that's been done.

At the risk of getting a lecture about the '90s, I'm going to ask the minister: is the ministry going to consider reinstating personal care like the IC-1 home support? I hear about that a lot, and I'll remind the minister I wasn't here in the '90s. What I do hear is the comment from the senior who said that she gets a bath once a week, but it's in a tub that's not very clean because she can't clean it and the home support person is not allowed to clean it. The seniors who have fallen because they've tripped over rugs or….

Just the whole issue around the hygenic issues that keep people healthy. I'm hoping that the minister can rise above it and talk about the positive benefits of personal care and potentially reinstate them, because seniors do need them.

[1710]

Hon. G. Abbott: To the member's question, I want to first of all make it clear that I would never want to deliver a lecture in respect of the 1990s. I read a very thoughtful column recently by Les Leyne, which suggested my occasional references to the 1990s were really getting kind of worn. So I had a brief discussion with Les about that point and acknowledged the force of the arguments he advanced in his column.

I said it was only the fact that the current member shared the same name as the government in the '90s, that they shared a number of the same members as in the 1990s, that they shared a number of the same political aides who are now re-ignited as MLAs…. It was only the fact of the same essential party and the same direction that occasionally I'd call attention to the record of the 1990s.

I know the member wasn't here in the 1990s. I do know, though, the former member for the constituency that she is now proud to represent today. He was an excellent fellow, and I understand that she may have some personal knowledge of that former member. He was an excellent member and a delightful friend to all of us in the Legislature.

However, turning to the important, serious side of this discussion…. The issue of home support or personal care for the frail elderly is a very important one, where I do think that we can do some innovative thinking. The issue that has been around — and it's been around for a while — is whether the housekeeping component should be a part of the personal care in home support.

Freestanding housekeeping, as the member will know, was something that in a formal sense was eliminated in 1996. There was a policy decision made by the former government — and I hope it's fair for me to point that out — in 1996. The on-the-ground application of that policy, because there were 52 health authorities at that time…. The on-the-ground application of that shift came, in some cases, a year or two or more later, but the general policy direction was shifted in 1996.

I think that decision was made with the aim of getting the best possible and useful allocation of the resources available to government and to health authorities to achieve the purposes that we wish to achieve. I think the shift that was made in 1996 was consistent with trying to achieve that. That having been said, I think there will be cases, and they may be exceptional cases, where the application, judiciously, of housekeeping resources where it is pivotal to a frail elderly person remaining in their home…. There might be some judicious application of a more flexible policy in respect of that.

That's not to say the shift that was made in '96 and that continues today was the wrong one. I think it was the correct one, but I think there can be exceptional circumstances. This is a matter of taking the policy and applying it in a commonsense way to the specific circumstances that might face a frail elderly individual. I think we do need, on occasion, to look at that and look at a more flexible application of that particular policy.

K. Conroy: I'm happy to hear that. I'm sure numerous groups around the province, who are also asking for this, will be happy to hear it. I know the B.C. Health Coalition has done a home support campaign that they've been lobbying for, as have other seniors groups that are very concerned about this. It is an issue.

[1715]

One of the other concerns that has been expressed to me is that some of the assisted-living facilities that aren't adequately staffed are utilizing home support services, and seniors justifiably should access those services. There are facilities that are utilizing them more than other facilities, and it's usually dependent on staffing levels.

Back to staffing levels in assisted-living facilities. I know we talked a little bit about it earlier, but just to clarify. The minister talked about the actual qualifications and issues around that but didn't talk about numbers. Is there going to be any movement towards actual ratios of residents to caregivers in facilities?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. Assisted living by definition is a housing arrangement that consists of three elements: a private housing unit with a lockable door, hospitality services and personal care services. We know that in some cases the assisted-living operators will contract with the health authorities to provide the third — the personal care services — and that's possible.

A second point: do we plan to put in place fixed ratios with respect to residents to caregivers? No, we

[ Page 4612 ]

drive outcomes through the standards that are set out through contract. We also drive quality through evaluation criteria when we are considering undertaking a contract with the proponents.

[1720]

For example, when we're looking at the evaluation criteria for an EOI or RFP submission, we would look at demonstrated understanding in the delivery of hospitality and personal care services. We would be looking at a staffing plan that demonstrates an understanding of the services required, demonstrated ability to meet required number of units, demonstrated ability to meet required time line and demonstrated ability to meet expected funding range, a location appropriate for assisted living, and building meets mandatory design and construction standards for assisted living. Those are the kinds of things that we would look at.

Then in terms of the contract that is developed, that contract will contain a number of quality indicators, which will be incumbent upon the operator or the contractor to meet, were he or she to meet the terms of the contract provisions.

K. Conroy: So would it specifically be laid out in the contract? You're not saying the numbers would actually be put into the contract. You're just saying that the outcomes are placed in the contract, and the management is expected to come up with the right number of staff to ensure that those outcomes are carried out?

Hon. G. Abbott: To the member's question: the quality indicators would be embedded in the contract. It would look at hours of care and all of the quality issues around what would be provided to the patient or the resident within the facility.

We would not be prescriptive in the contract about the ratio, for example, between LPNs and RNs. That would not be something that would be addressed. Ra