2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 2

[ Page 17255 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today my CA, Kevin

Collins, who is here to watch question period for the first time. I bid the

House make him welcome.

Hon. G. Robertson: With us in the galleries this afternoon we have a

number of members from Kwakiutl Laich-Kwil-Tach Nations Treaty Society. We have

Chief John Smith of Tlowitsis; Chief Ernie Hardy of the Comox band; Rod Naknakim,

senior analyst for treaty society; Dan Smith, chief negotiator of the Kwakiutl

Laich-Kwil-Tach Nations Treaty Society; and John Munro and Rodney Arnold of the

treaty society. I would ask that the members please make them welcome to the

House this afternoon.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the gallery today are two members of my ministry

office staff. I would like you to welcome Teresa Sepala and Suzanne Life.

G. Campbell: Today we are joined in the House by 33 constituency

assistants for the Liberal MLAs in the House. I know they've come here to enjoy

the public debate, and I want to welcome them. I hope you look forward to this

encouraging public spectacle that you're going to see today. Thank you for

coming.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to reintroduce today my daughter

Cara, who's visiting the House, taking a well-earned break from her university

studies. She's joined by a friend, Scott Hart, who's also the chair of the UVic

NDP club. Would the House please make those two young people welcome.

[1410]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to introduce two constituents in

the gallery today, Marjory Kingsbury and Ben Swankey. Would the House please

make them welcome on their visit to Victoria.

V. Roddick: Gracing the cover of this year's B.C. Holstein

Directory , shot . . . .

An Hon. Member: You're not allowed to use props. Just go:

"Moo."

V. Roddick: Okay -- moo.

Gracing the cover of this year's B.C. Holstein Directory is national,

international and world champion, 15-year-old Rainyridge Tony Beauty. It was

Beauty's year in 1999, as accolades and congratulations poured in from around

the world after this magnificent old cow was bestowed honour after honour for

her success on the show circuit. Winner of Canada's 1999 cow of the year award

and all-Canadian aged cow; supreme champion at World Dairy Expo; people's choice

to win the world champion over all international champions; western national

grand champion; and doing the millennium right, winning the grand champion

honours at B.C.'s Spring Show -- she's done it; owned by Stanhope-Wedgwood,

Victoria and Cobble Hill, B.C.

Will the House please acknowledge our very own queen of the Holstein world.

[Applause.] We really needed something to lighten things up today.

D. Streifel: I was -- as was the rest of the House, all the members --

captivated by that previous introduction. Being, I guess, somewhat soft towards

animals myself, I would like to . . . .

Anyway, on with the introduction. I have a serious introduction today, hon.

Speaker. We have visitors in the gallery from India today. We have a special

guest from India. I hope the members would join me in welcoming Mr. Satpal

Gosain, Deputy Speaker of the Punjab State Legislative Assembly. Accompanying

Mr. Gosanh from the Punjab government are Beginder Pal Singh and Rajinder Kumar.

I would also like to thank lower mainland residents Gurmeet Singh, Harpreet

Singh and Talwinder Singh for their hospitality in having the group join us

today in the House. Once again, please welcome our guests from the Punjab.

G. Campbell: Often, I know, in elected office there are people in the

public who offer positive solutions to the problems that we face. I would like

the House to welcome Ivor Cura and Barbara Cura, who are trying to explain to

the people of British Columbia how we can make ICBC and automobile insurance

work better for all of us. Welcome them to the House, please.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are two very strident

advocates for mental health in the community I represent in Victoria. Joining us

is Mr. Murray Galbraith; he's the past president of the Schizophrenia Society of

Canada and the current president of the Victoria branch of the B.C.

Schizophrenia Society. Accompanying him is Ms. Patricia Donaldson, the executive

director of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society, Victoria branch. I ask the House to

make both of these advocates very welcome to these chambers.

[1415]

Oral Questions

PROVINCIAL HEALTH CARE FUNDING

G. Campbell: For years this government has been ignoring the growing

health care crisis that's facing the people of British Columbia. For years

Health minister after Health minister after Health minister after Health

minister after Health minister after Health minister -- six in all -- has told

us that no crisis exists. Yesterday the Premier said: "I didn't know the

enormity of the problem." In fact, the Premier has been well aware of the

extent of the problem for at least six months. We have yet another NDP secret

strategy document that shows the NDP caucus was fully briefed last June on the

magnitude of the problem and on what these latest announcements would be.

My question to the Premier is: why did the Premier decide to hold patients

hostage for six months before he decided to make announcements he knew about

last June?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Health care is an institution that Canadians and

British Columbians cherish. Health care is so important an issue for me that in

February, shortly after I became the Premier, I travelled to Ottawa to talk to

the Prime Minister

[ Page 17256 ]

directly, to make sure that at the end of the day we have more dollars

starting to flow back into British Columbia -- at the cutting of which dollar

the opposition leader said the cuts were not deep enough. That opposition leader

said in 1996 -- he's been around for seven years -- that $6 billion is not

enough. He said that federal cuts were not deep enough.

Now, we poured money into health care. In the budget in September, we put an

additional $300 million into health care as soon as the federal dollars started

flowing. We realized that more needed to be done. The new Health minister and I

went to various hospitals, from Vancouver General to Children's Hospital and

Women's Hospital to Royal Columbian to Prince Rupert to Williams Lake to Quesnel

to Campbell River to Powell River. We talked to people on the front lines of

health care. We did not hold secret meetings behind closed doors with invited

guests.

Each and every member, each and every health care provider that we talked to

said to me: "We need to do more for health care." The budget today is

$8.6 billion. We have $200 million being injected. The hon. member opposite has

no plan.

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me conclude my remarks.

The Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Premier. I believe there will be a

supplemental question.

G. Campbell: This document is actually a document that records a

secret NDP meeting that was held in June of this year. Among other things, the

document says: "Capital equipment in health care has been underfunded for

several years. Health authorities are concerned that they will not be able to

provide appropriate levels of service due to aging and dysfunctional

equipment." It goes on to say that the ministry indicates that funding of

$80 million annually is needed, and the average budget over the last five years

has been $27 million under the NDP.

My question to the Premier is simple: why did the Premier make patients wait

for six months before finally announcing some of the resources they needed for

patient care in the province of British Columbia?

[1420]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, we are now getting more money from

Ottawa. The economy is now turning around. We poured more money into health care

in September. This is an additional increment that's now being debated before

the House. I want to make sure that we meet the needs of British Columbians and

that we do so in a wise, comprehensive fashion. That's why we have a plan that

has several prongs to it -- several aspects to it. We announced it with 200

people from all over British Columbia present.

Let me just say this. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said to the media at

noon that he is committed to keeping the expenditures on health care at 40

percent. After giving $2.9 billion in tax cuts, that would mean a billion

dollars of cuts in health care in British Columbia, and I will not let that

happen.

Some Hon. Members: Shame! Shame!

The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Order, members.

NURSING SHORTAGE IN PROVINCE

G. Campbell: For years now we have known that there is a nursing

shortage in British Columbia. One of the solutions for that is to bring

foreign-trained, qualified nurses into the province of British Columbia to help

provide care for patients. A week ago the Premier tried to pretend that the

bureaucracy was thwarting that program, that they in fact were stopping that

from taking place. Then we learned that in fact the cabinet had dealt with it

three times, and the Premier and his cabinet had rejected those qualified

foreign nurses from coming to work in British Columbia.

The Premier claimed he didn't remember. But again, this document makes it

clear that not just the Premier but the members of the NDP caucus were told that

there was a need for foreign nurses. They discussed it; they had working groups.

My question to the Premier is simply this: why doesn't the Premier admit the

truth? The Premier and his cabinet have stopped foreign-qualified nurses from

coming and providing care in British Columbia for the last two years.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: When this program was put in place, there was an

institutional view that this program is just for capital investors and immigrant

business persons to come into British Columbia. When I became the Premier, I

instructed my minister to come back with a proposal. That proposal came to

Treasury Board in July, asking for over a million dollars to administer a

program that shouldn't cost that much. It finally came back in October. It was

approved with almost a $750,000 lower bill attached to it. I want to make sure

we invest people's money wisely and that we get the nurses we need.

However, the opposition leader is committed to reducing overall expenditures

in British Columbia. That's going to mean a billion-dollar tax cut if he keeps

the level of expenditure at 40 percent. Shame on him!

POSSIBLE SALE OF CROWN CORPORATIONS

M. de Jong: This document is actually full of interesting little NDP

policy nuggets. Here's an interesting one. Back a few years ago, I think it was

the Minister of Finance who said -- I think I'm getting this correctly -- that

he'd "rather be electrocuted than sell B.C. Hydro." That was the quote

in the newspaper.

It might actually be time for him to pull out a pair of insulated underwear,

because reading from the "Book of Hidden Policy,"

chapter 2, reveals

that a key part of the government's fiscal program is to "sell big-ticket

symbolic assets." And that list includes, amongst other things, the liquor

distribution branch, B.C. Lottery Corp, ICBC and, yes, even B.C. Hydro.

But my question is for the Premier. Why is he going around the province

telling his union friends that there isn't going to be any privatization, when

his own secret policy document says that the biggest Crown corporations are on

the block?

[1425]

[ Page 17257 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Leader of the Opposition says in one quote that

was raised here this morning in this House that he has no strategic plan for

health care. And after, during the break in the House, he goes out and says that

he's going to keep the expenditures at 40 percent after providing dramatic tax

cuts and after reducing expenditures. Let me tell you: now we know what the

secret agenda is on the other side.

Hon. Speaker, it's absolutely wonderful to be in the House, because I want to

tell all British Columbians that unlike that side of the House, we're not going

to sell B.C. Hydro. We're not going to sell ICBC. We're not going to sell B.C.

Rail.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.

M. de Jong: Getting back to the list, Premier . . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, member.

M. de Jong: It was your document. And it was your meeting.

The Speaker: Order, member. Through the Chair, please.

M. de Jong: It's interesting, Mr. Speaker. You know, there's one

asset, perhaps the most symbolic asset of them all, that's not on this list. You

remember the one. It's tied to a dock in North Vancouver already gift-wrapped

for Christmas.

I think the Premier is a little upset because he's had his hidden agenda

revealed. And now I think he should tell British Columbians which big-ticket

symbolic assets the NDP is going to sell first. Is it going to be the liquor

distribution branch? Is it going to be the B.C. Lottery Corporation? Is it going

to be ICBC? Which one is going to be sold first?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The secret agenda is all on the other side -- all on

the other side. And that secret agenda is to keep the expenditures in health

care to 40 percent and give dramatic tax cuts to the wealthiest British

Columbians; that means a billion dollars in tax cuts. We just learned that at

noon today from the opposition leader -- just noon today.

So I want to know: what is the secret plan for health care? He says one

minute that he doesn't have a strategic plan, but the other minute he says 40

percent expenditures on health care. With a reduced expenditure amount, 40

percent would mean a huge cut in health care. Dramatic tax cuts would mean a

huge cut in health care. If the opposition member opposite me now says he's

going to do deficit budgets after we are going to have balanced three budgets in

a row, we will not let that happen. We'll defeat that opposition in the polls.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

POTENTIAL CLOSURE OF LAW FACULTY

G. Plant: According to this document, on June 1 and June 2 the NDP

were talking about some very big changes in our province's universities.

Interjections.

G. Plant: Wait for it, because you've probably forgotten this. But

apparently the NDP is looking at "phasing out some facilities and studies

to be replaced by future needs." And one of the examples given is to phase

out the province's law faculties. Well, I know the NDP have had a heck of a time

with lawsuits -- lawyers all over the place, going to court, losing, paying

those bills. My question for the Attorney General is: which of the province's

two law faculties is he planning to close?

[1430]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have the opposition that said they were going to

cut, in 1996, 15 cents out of every dollar in public expenditures -- every

dollar. They are still committed to reducing expenditures and then giving health

care only 40 percent of that reduced expenditure. In contradistinction to that,

we have added 40,000 additional post-secondary spaces in British Columbia in the

last nine years. We have opened in British Columbia the only three new

universities anywhere in Canada in the last nine years. We are the party of

education; we are the party of health care. That is the party of dramatic tax

cuts.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Petitions

J. van Dongen: This petition is signed by 8,335 residents of the

Fraser Valley who are concerned about air pollution and the health hazards from

the proposed Sumas Energy power plant. The petitioners ask the government to

take all possible steps to prevent the construction of this plant.

Hon. G. Wilson: I have a petition of 657 names from the residents of

the lower Sunshine Coast and Pender Harbour area requesting that the government

immediately move to put in place a management policy for Roosevelt elk in order

to protect local businesses in that area.

S. Orcherton: I rise to present a petition signed by over 16,000

British Columbians supporting private member's Bill M212. They're supporting an

act to amend the Medical Practitioners Act, which will allow physicians to

practise complementary medicine and refer patients to complementary medical

treatments and therapies without fear of harassment and without fear of

intimidation from their governing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

This is the largest petition on health care presented to this House.

G. Campbell: I rise to present a petition. This is a petition of 2,700

citizens who are asking for an end to ICBC's monopoly and for a return of

competition to the automobile insurance industry in British Columbia. I submit

it for the House's consideration.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Janssen: I call Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of

the Ministry of Health.

The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Streifel in the chair.

[ Page 17258 ]

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE

FOR SENIORS

(continued)

On vote 36(S2): ministry operations, $212,000,000 (continued).

C. Hansen: Before the lunch break we were talking about the amount of

money that's going to be flowing to British Columbia as a result of the

increases to the CHST transfers. The minister advised that there was $331

million in additional dollars that would flow as a result of the first

ministers' meeting that was held in September. Given that this health action

plan that he announced earlier this week is going to add $146 million to the

budget, could the minister tell us whether or not the additional dollars that

will flow from Ottawa are in fact going to be allocated to health care or to

other government priorities?

Hon. C. Evans: I would repeat the answer I gave this morning, which is

that the question, while interesting, is more correctly . . . the

Ministry of Finance. I suggest that the hon. member raise it with the Minister

of Finance in his budget estimates in the spring.

The Chair: I think we'll just take this question from Quilchena. I

think I was in the middle of a thought; I missed the motion behind me. And then

we'll move to another member.

C. Hansen: This morning the minister advised us that the increase in

the supplementary estimates from $180 million to $212 million that are before us .

. . . So $31.6 million of that was not for the implementation of the

health action plan. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us how that

$31.6 million will be allocated.

Hon. C. Evans: The answer to the hon. member's question is that the

health authorities' administrative reductions are being reinstated to the total

of $25 million. There is a built-in estimate of the increased cost of mediated

settlements with rural physicians at $1.3 million. There is a funding of

shortfall and amortization expenses for capital assets of $2.7 million and a

systems shortfall being funded at $2.6 million. The total is $31.6 million,

which I believe is the total of the hon. member's question.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Hon. Chair, I am a firm believer in casting light

on debates, and I heard something today at lunchtime that I find to be so

astounding that I think we need to not only . . . .

An Hon. Member: Well, tell us about it.

Hon. J. Smallwood: And I will. You know, we heard today from the

Leader of the Official Opposition that he was committed to maintaining 40

percent of the budget for health care. That was part of his plan. But at the

same time -- and I think it's important that the people that . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Now settle down; settle down. Settle down. Take a

deep breath. Everything's okay. All right.

An Hon. Member: A deep breath makes me angrier at you.

Hon. J. Smallwood: A deep breath makes you angrier at me.

I think we all know that the opposition has been pretty docile over the last

number of months. We can all envision that we've had some strategists in the

caucus room saying: "Now, none of you say anything, because if any of you

open your mouth in the public . . . . Oh my God, they might find out

what we're really about."

[1440]

I know that must be really chomping at the bit for you. The opportunity to

come in the House and actually blow off some steam must feel really good. But

you know . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member across the way wants us to talk about

health care. So let's examine where this opposition is coming from. The Leader

of the Opposition says that he's going to maintain 40 percent of the budget, but

he is committed to cutting the overall budget of government by almost $3

billion. Now, the opposition brags that within the first 90 days of them forming

government, they will drive to the lowest personal income tax anywhere in

Canada. The outcome of that particular initiative means that we will see serious

cuts in government services, serious cuts in health care. As a matter of fact,

if you do the math, we're talking about probably a billion dollars in health

care cuts alone within the first year.

When you shine a little bit of light on what these people stand for and what

they're really talking about, I can understand their strategists saying to the

back bench and to these fellows over here that they ought to watch what they're

saying. They'd better not say anything publicly, because -- oh my goodness -- if

the people of this province really understand what they stand for, who they're

serving in this province, they won't get elected.

So I want to just take a look at what the opposition leader has said when he

has toured the province talking to his friends. The orchestrated meetings that

happened in communities all around this province, orchestrated by old Socreds,

orchestrated by old Reformers -- yeah, you guys too -- orchestrated by some of

the most extreme right-wing activists we've got in this province . . . .

What has this Leader of the Opposition said? Well, let's see.

In Prince George, in the Citizen he says, when he's talking about

health care, that it requires a strategic long-term plan for the province and

that we don't have one yet. Okay. What is it? We don't have a plan, or we're

going to maintain 40 percent of the budget, but it will be a severely cut budget

-- a $1 billion cut? No plan, or a $1 billion cut?

Now, it could have been a slip of the lip in Prince George. Maybe he really

didn't mean it. Maybe, if we take a look at where he was during some of the

other forums, we'll better understand what the Liberals have to say about health

care and what their plan is. So I took a look at the Vernon Morning

[ Page 17259 ]

Star . Now then, the Leader of the Opposition told the participants that

the Liberal government would talk to front-line health care workers and attempt

to correct the system. "You won't hear that I have a magic pill and that it

will be all okay. But there are some things that need to be done."

He says in Prince Rupert -- and I'm going to quote from the Prince Rupert

Daily News : "Clearly speaking, in preparation for an election . .

. . "

I read that and thought: hey, maybe this is it; maybe we're going to hear.

Maybe we'll understand what those folks have been learning when they've been

touring the province. Maybe we'll understand what their position is after nine

years in opposition. Maybe we'll understand, in spite of the gag order, what it

is these folks stand for.

[1445]

What it says in the Prince Rupert Daily News is that while he is

clearly speaking in preparation for an election, the Leader of the Official

Opposition would solve the provincial health care woes by developing a strategic

long-term plan. But he refused to give a timetable for how soon after the

election his party would roll out such a plan, if they won it. And I thought to

myself: huh? What's that about?

We've got these guys over here bragging to everybody in the province that

within 90 days . . . . The first thing they're going to do is put

money in the pockets of their friends. The first thing they're going to do is

give money to their buddies at the top end of the income scale. They're going to

cut services, and they're going to work on the health care crisis.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. member.

Interjection.

The Chair: Minister, hon. member, you're making it very difficult for

the Chair. It's awkward. The individual that sat in this chair a number of years

ago was actually my MLA, Austin Pelton. He understood, as we understand, that

the Chair is in the hands of the House. It's your rules. The rules of debate in

committee are relatively rigid around relevancy. I would ask the members, as

they're up on their feet in debate . . . . I recognize that all

members want to participate in this debate. The standing orders provide for

that. The Chair will be in a position where . . . . I'm going to ask

the members to keep it within order and come to a question and formulate your

question to the minister involved.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Not only are my comments relevant, but they are

perhaps the crucial question in this debate around health care funding. I want

to go a little bit further. I want to talk about the Liberal leader suggesting

that the cuts made by the federal government that put us in this position were

"only a myth." That is a quote from the Nanaimo Daily News in

October. I want to quote the Leader of the Official Opposition, who says that a

$6 billion annual budget is plenty of funding to run a public health care system

-- again, in the Nanaimo Daily News.

Now, if the opposition is not prepared to come clean about what it is

they stand for, where their priorities are and what their commitment to this

health care system is -- if there aren't enough clues on the public record

already -- I have a question for the Minister of Health. My question to the

Minister of Health is: what, Mr. Minister, would the effects be of this plan

that we seem to be seeing unfolding, by these quotes that we've heard from the

opposite side? What is it going to mean to a health care system that is cut by a

billion dollars in the first year of a Liberal government? The only thing that

gives me any comfort in the kind of answer that I'm going to hear is that I

don't believe for a moment that the people of this province are going to stand

by and elect a government that won't come clean with them.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. minister, recognizing standing order 61.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Chair, it would begin to appear that we're

debating two health care plans here today: the one that is open, which I

presented in Richmond two days ago -- and it has been published in the newspaper

-- and the one that's evolving by the hour. I would ask some forgiveness for

getting the numbers together, because the concept . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Chair, this is a fairly . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. Order, hon. member.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Chair, as you know, government likes to have

options before we make decisions. And so the answer to the hon. member's

question -- what would the impact be of the Liberal plan to cut a billion

dollars from the health care budget . . . ? -- would require one of

several options.

Option 1. I address this first because it's where the hon. member lives. We

could eliminate the entire health care budget for the South Fraser and Simon

Fraser . . . .

[1450]

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: You could think this is funny. I'll say it again, hon.

member: the entire budget for the Simon Fraser and South Fraser districts.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. member, it might seem like a joke to you.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. Minister . . . .

Hon. C. Evans: But there's a whole bunch of people living in Surrey

who in option 1 . . . .

[ Page 17260 ]

Interjections.

The Chair: Minister -- order, please.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to hear the debate here, so I would

bring the members to order.

Hon. C. Evans: Option 2 would be to eliminate health care entirely on

Vancouver Island -- just saw it off from the mainland and let it go.

Now, option 3 is somewhat more complex. Hon. member, option 3 . . . .

Perhaps we would not wish to have an impact in the large urban centres of

Victoria, Vancouver, Surrey. Option 3: you could eliminate health care entirely,

according to the plan we heard at lunch, in Creston, where I live; Elk Valley;

Fort Nelson; Golden; Trail; Kimberley; Kitimat; Mount Waddington; Nelson;

Nisga'a; Arrow Lakes, and that's Nakusp, for those of you who don't know; the

Bella Coola Valley; Boundary, and that's the Boundary area; Bulkley Valley;

Campbell River; Castlegar; Central Cariboo; Central Coast; Columbia Valley,

Comox Valley; Cranbrook; North Coast; North Peace; Powell River -- wiped right

out; Queen Charlottes, hon. member -- gone; Quesnel; Sea to Sky; Snow Country;

South Cariboo; South Peace; Stikine; Sunshine Coast; Terrace; and the Upper

Skeena.

Of course no one in the real world would ever choose one of these options,

which is why the idea that we have now heard of the Liberal plan to cut a

billion dollars from health care wouldn't work, hon. member.

C. Hansen: I'm not sure much was accomplished by that intervention by

the member for Surrey-Whalley, but we will try to get this back on track.

Hon. Chair, the minister earlier, before that intervention from the member

for Surrey-Whalley, was telling us of the dollars that were flowing from the

federal government. He gave us a breakdown of the extra $31.6 million that is in

this supplementary estimates -- which is not there -- to fund this so-called

health action plan.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell us: what are the projected deficits

of the 52 health authorities in British Columbia? What is the cumulative number

today, given that we had this infusion of $180 million in September which in

theory was to cover the deficits that were projected at that time? He knows and

I know that it did not cover those deficits, that many of those health

authorities are still looking at some pretty significant red ink for this

current fiscal year. So I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what that

red ink amounts to.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. member, our best estimate at this time would be

zero.

C. Hansen: Well, I'm certainly aware of several health authorities

that are projecting deficits at this time and that the allocation that came as a

result of the September supplementary estimates did not meet those needs. I'm

wondering if the minister could tell me if he's aware of any health authorities

that are projecting deficits.

Hon. C. Evans: As of December 5 we had received from the 52 health

authorities 45 budget statements; we are still awaiting seven. And of the 45 we

have received, there are deficits of zero.

C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us, then: in order to bring those

deficits under control, to make sure that there are not deficits in any one of

those health regions, have any of them had to implement cuts in order to meet

the zero deficit projection that the minister is now claiming exists?

[1455]

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Chair, all authorities have had to manage money

carefully, and I don't know of any that have had to implement cuts. But I think

I have heard the word "cuts" often applied in such a way that you can

interpret it to mean almost anything. They have to manage the money carefully;

there is no glut. They have to make decisions, but I don't know of any that have

actually had to cut their budgets.

C. Hansen: The minister indicated earlier that part of the $31.6

million was $25 million that would go to health authorities. Could the minister

give us a breakdown as to how that money is allocated?

Hon. C. Evans: We had thought, when the budget was created, that we

could get $25 million in savings from the health authorities. We did a study,

looked at their administration costs compared to every other province and

hospital in the country, and found that they were in keeping with the

administrative costs all the way across Canada. So what is happening with the

$25 million is that we are reinstating the requested reductions that we had made

in the spring.

C. Hansen: So, if I can get this correct, then the extra $25 million

is going to flow to the health authorities to cover dollars that were cut back

initially because of anticipated savings in administrative costs. When the

minister talks about the December 5 budget statements that have come in, does

that include their allocation of this anticipated $25 million?

Hon. C. Evans: The answer is no. The reason that the answer is no is

that we agreed to do the national study prior to implementing the cuts. So we

had not implemented the cuts until the study was finished, and the study said

not to do it.

C. Hansen: In other words, spending authority was not granted for that

$25 million in the initial supply bill that we passed in this House. And yet

that $25 million was included in the budget letters that went to the health

authorities; unfortunately, that didn't happen until after six months into the

fiscal year. But the health authorities' budgets were operating on the

assumption that that $25 million was there. So, in fact, this money has been

spent, it has been in the budget, and what the ministry is doing now -- if I get

the minister correctly -- is coming to the Legislature, nine months after the

start of the fiscal year, to ask for legislative authority for that $25 million,

which has in fact already been spent. It's already been in the health

authorities' budgets throughout this current fiscal year. Is my

interpretation

correct?

Hon. C. Evans: No, that's not correct. We held the $25 million

reduction centrally inside the ministry while we did the study. The budget

letters to the health authorities in the spring did not instruct them to make

the cuts.

C. Hansen: There are some aspects of the explanation that just don't

connect. On one hand, he has told me that there are no deficits being projected.

On the other hand, he has said

[ Page 17261 ]

that the health authorities were cut back by a total of $25 million because

of anticipated savings in administration costs. Then he said that the money that

was there was held back by the ministry. Now he's saying that in these

supplementary estimates, we're being asked to approve it. Those don't connect.

Somewhere in there, there have been dollars that have not been approved by this

Legislature, and that's why he's asking for it today.

[1500]

If we can simplify this, why is it that the health authorities did not

realize that they had to adjust their budgets for this $25 million reduction?

Why have they not been operating on that assumption up till now? On the other

hand, if they have been operating on the assumption that the $25 million was not

going to be available, then why is it that their budget statements are not

showing deficits?

Hon. C. Evans: I'm going to try and explain this as carefully as I can

for the hon. member. The budget in the spring was assumed on the capacity of

health authorities to reduce administrative function by $25 million around the

province. However, prior to implementing those cuts, we agreed to do a study of

their administrative costs and their comparisons with other jurisdictions to see

whether or not that was a justifiable cut. The outcome of the study was that it

is not. Happily, everybody can share in the information that the health

authorities are operating as lean an administrative cost as is found elsewhere

in Canada.

The $25 million that did not come to the ministry in the spring, therefore,

needs to come and flow to the authority. We are asking for that appropriation.

You can, if you want, interpret it as that we did not ask for enough money in

the spring or that the ministry was incorrect in assuming that you could make

those cuts. You can interpret it however you want. The fact of the matter is

that the money was intended for the authority if the study said that they were

offering efficient operations, and that is what happened. And we are here today

appropriating that money.

C. Hansen: I still am not sure that that explains it, but I also

realize that we're not getting any further along on it.

I want to shift to the issue of mental health. In this supplementary estimate

that has been presented to us today, there is a grand total increase for adult

mental health programs of $2 million out of a $212 million increase. There was a

commitment made by this government, three years ago now, for a seven-year, $125

million mental health plan. We are now almost at the end of the third year since

that announcement was made.

The Minister of Health -- not the previous one, but the Minister of Health

who was actually in that position as of January of this year -- indicated that

that was a mental health plan which, while it was announced, was never budgeted

for. Perhaps when the minister talks about this government making announcements

that they never had any intentions of implementing . . . . Perhaps

the mental health plan was the subject area that was top of his mind at the

time.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell us where the mental health plan is. Is

the government still committed to implementing it, and why do we not see any

evidence of it?

[J. Sawicki in the chair.]

Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member suggests that there should be increased

funding for mental health. While I would agree, I just want to set the record

straight. The first budget of this government, in 1991, had funding of $194.8

million for mental health. The 1999 budget was $348.7 million for the mental

health. So while it's not quite double, it is pushing double over nine years.

[1505]

The health action plan provided for a total of $8 million new investment in

mental health over the course of the next two years: $2 million that will be

spent this fiscal year and a further $6 million budgeted for 2001-02.

Hon. Chair, the plan will provide for the creation of 275 supported

residential care spaces so that people can live on their own and still obtain

the support they need in the mental health community. It provides for seven

community support workers who are intended to provide care for up to 77 people.

It will provide for a demonstration research project to evaluate home-based

treatment for adults with acute psychosis. It will also test emergency

stabilization in two regions: one rural and one urban.

Now, I don't want to suggest that the health action plan replaces or detracts

from the mental health plan. They are intended to complement one another, and I

believe that we maintain the commitment to achieve the goal of completion of the

mental health plan.

C. Hansen: The minister's comments just now don't give me any comfort

that he even understands the mental health plan, that he even knows what's in

it. And it doesn't give me any comfort that he understands what has transpired

in the last three years in terms of funding for the mental health plan. In this

budget that we approved earlier this year in the main estimates, there was only

a grand total of $5 million to go towards the mental health plan this year, and

I am told that only about $3 million of that has actually been allocated. So

now, in this supplementary estimate, we're being told: "Never mind the

mental health plan; the entire adult mental health services are only being

increased by $2 million this year." And as the minister indicated, only $6

million next year is projected for adult mental health services.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

If the mental health plan was being implemented according to what this

government had committed to three years ago, we would have been allocating, on

average, $15 million a year. So basically by the end of next year we should have

been four years into that. We should have been at a $60 million mark if we were

to be on target for rolling out that plan over seven years and $125 million.

Instead what we see is that only $13 million has been disbursed in three years.

Supposedly there's another $2 million in the existing budget, and now we're

asking for $2 million more. That's $17 million. If we then add $6 million next

year, we're still only up to $23 million. So at that point we would be halfway

through the implementation of the mental health plan, and all that would have

been allocated is slightly more than what should have been anticipated for year

1 alone.

I have heard through the grapevine that the Ministry of Health has abandoned

the mental health plan. Will the minister confirm whether or not that is true?

Hon. C. Evans: That is not true. I'm not going to argue with the hon.

member's assertions about money. However, I

[ Page 17262 ]

would like to point out that a whole lot of the mental health plan isn't just

dollars; it's changes requested in how we deliver care. And the mental health

division and their advisory group state that we have . . . . There

were 81 recommendations in the mental health plan, and we have made measurable

progress on 79. So I would like to accept that the funding levels that the hon.

member is referring to have not been met. However, I think we have to point out

that we've made a considerable amount of progress. I'll keep my answer short,

but if the hon. member would like to ask me about progress on what fronts, I'd

be happy to run through the list with him.

[1510]

Hon. G. Wilson: I want to come back to an answer that the ministry

gave in this debate earlier on, because I think we have today . . . .

Certainly I -- and I can't speak for all of my colleagues -- have seen a fairly

shocking revelation from the announcements that the Leader of the Official

Opposition made at noon today. We know that this debate is about whether or not

we should pass additional spending in Health that results from a surplus that we

now find ourselves in, in British Columbia. We know that the members opposite

are going to vote against this, because if they didn't vote against it, it would

be inherently dishonest by virtue of the fact that the private member's bill

that was tabled by the Leader of the Official Opposition states within that bill

that that opposition believes that all surplus money should be committed to debt

retirement. That's what that private member's bill says. So they're all going to

vote against it, because that clearly is what the Leader of the Official

Opposition has tabled in this Legislative Assembly as their policy.

So given that they're going to oppose this, given that the Leader of the

Official Opposition declared today that their policy is to stick at 40 percent

of budget, having already told us that he intends to reduce, by $2.9 billion of

tax cuts, the overall budget -- $19.4 billion . . . . The minister,

in response to a question from the members opposite, has told us that that

impact of $1 billion cuts would affect the entire budgets of Powell River and

Sunshine Coast health districts. And he said that with people observing this. I

need to come back and have that clarified, because that is going to be news to

those people in Powell River and Sunshine Coast, who now see what the clear

option is, if that party opposite ever forms government in this province.

I ask this because I know that the Leader of the Official Opposition went up

to Powell River, met with people in Powell River -- had a couple of dozen in a

private, invitation-only meeting -- and at that point he told us that he didn't

have a plan. It was clearly reported that he was there only to listen, that

there was no plan, and that was widely reported among the health care

professionals. The Premier of this province has gone up to Powell River, has met

with health care professionals, has identified what the needs are. And in the

moneys that we're debating today, the moneys that will be released into that

health district will largely go to solve the problems that the Premier and I, as

their MLA, have heard about today.

But what I want to ask the minister to clarify . . . . I want him

to clarify that in fact the plan we have heard today from the Liberal opposition

to cut $1 billion out of health care funding in the province of British

Columbia, fully recognizing that to be honest to their commitment and the

private member's bill that was tabled in this House, they will vote against

these additional expenditures for health . . . . I want the minister

to clarify what he meant when he said that a billion dollars lost could mean

potentially the entire budgets for Powell River and Sunshine Coast.

Hon. C. Evans: What I was trying to estimate was what would be the

ramifications of the plan that we heard earlier to cut a billion dollars from

the Ministry of Health budget. Of course, you can estimate that however you

want. You could saw off whole divisions of the ministry, like continuing care.

Or you could decide to expend money geographically. One of the options would be

to eliminate the funding of the health authorities in almost all of rural

British Columbia. And absolutely, that would have an impact on Powell River and

all of the rest of your constituency and all adjoining constituencies. But of

course that's not the only option.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, hon. minister.

Hon. C. Evans: We could, on the other hand, wipe out the funding for

health care in the Fraser Valley or the Fraser Valley and Surrey. One thing I

don't wish -- through the Chair to the hon. member -- is for your constituents

to become overly concerned, because as long as I have this job and we govern,

nothing like that is ever going to happen.

C. Hansen: I would like to get back to the subject of mental health. I

would like to point out that it has always been a tradition in this House that

there has always been continuity to questions to allow us members to actually

follow through on subject areas. I just wanted to say how regrettable I thought

it was that people trying to follow this debate suddenly realize that we're

talking about mental health, and then the Chair chooses to recognize another

member who goes off on another tangent which is totally political. And now we

come back to some serious business about discussing mental programs in British

Columbia. So perhaps anyone that's trying to follow this debate will have to

bear with us, because obviously there are some long-held traditions in this

House that are eroding today.

[1515]

I do want to come back to mental health. In the spring of this year, in May,

when we were in the middle of Health estimates, we repeatedly asked: "Where

is the implementation plan for the mental health plan?" The mental health

plan itself was a document that set out some principles. It was well supported

by those in the province who are mental health advocates and those in health

care delivery around the province, but there was never an implementation

strategy that was attached to it.

Well, we repeatedly asked the Minister of Health when we would see that

implementation strategy. In the middle of May the minister promised us that we

would see it in a month. So that would have taken us up to the middle of June.

On May 16 we asked again, and the minister said -- this was in response to a

question from one of my colleagues: "If she's looking at it in terms of the

mental health plan, there is the framework implementation which will probably be

released within, I think, a month . . . . " It comes up several

times. I won't refer to all of them. Oh, actually, here's one, on May 17, where

the minister starts to change a little bit. He said: "I've said that we are

having a plan of implementation around the

[ Page 17263 ]

framework that is coming up; it will be ready in about a month to six

weeks." So there was a little fudging there, and that was only two days

later. It was no longer a month, but adding perhaps another two weeks to that.

Well, the minister, on June 14, when we asked about it again . . . .

His comments were: "Stay tuned. It will be released very soon."

Well, hon. Chair, we never did see the mental health plan implementation

plan. I'm wondering what happened to the promise that was made by this

government for the release of an implementation plan.

Hon. C. Evans: I completely agree with the hon. member that mental

health is of the highest priority. I wish it was in Canada. Currently the

ministry spends $0.6 billion on mental health. That goes: $87 million in

fee-for-service -- essentially psychiatric diagnosis; $33 million for sessional

psychiatry; $133 million for acute hospitals; $2.5 million for home support; $20

million for forensic psychiatric services; $274 million for adult mental health;

and $65 million to Pharmacare.

I have an implementation status report about the sections of the funding I

just listed that apply to the mental health plan, but it runs to eight pages.

It's broken down into such titles as -- I'm sure the hon. member is aware --

access project, early intervention, information technology and the like. I would

be pleased to read the status report on each section, if the hon. member would

like, or to share the papers with him, if he would like.

C. Hansen: Thank you. I already have that document. I've already read

it. It has nothing to do with the mental health plan. You're talking about the

adult mental health services that have been existing in the province for some

time.

In the mental health plan there were specific commitments made for $125

million towards those programs that were advocated in the mental health plan. We

were promised, in May of this year, that there would be an implementation plan

released as to how and when aspects of the mental health plan would be rolled

out. That promise was never fulfilled. And I'm wondering if the minister can

tell us: is he breaking that promise and telling us that it's never going to be

released? Or is he going to make a commitment for a new deadline -- we've

already missed that one from last June -- for releasing a mental health plan

implementation plan or implementation strategy or whatever words you want to put

on the cover of the document?

[1520]

Hon. C. Evans: I am holding in my hands . . . . I think

we're both operating from the same paper, but at the bottom of mine it says:

"The Mental Health Plan Implementation Status Report on Key

Initiatives." For example, we can go to hospital-based emergency mental

health care, and in the status report we find all of the changes thus far -- and

there are 40 or 50 of these.

The hon. member asks: is there a mental health implementation plan? He says

he's got the same document I have, and that's what it's titled, right on that

piece of paper. So maybe it would best work if I share my paper with the hon.

member, and then we'd talk about the contents of the paper.

C. Hansen: I have read the documents the minister is referring to,

because they were available for public distribution at the conference in

Richmond. But what was promised was not a mental health plan status report. What

was promised was an implementation report. Actually, in a couple of places here,

his predecessor refers to this as a framework of implementation, and that we

have never seen.

I would like to ask the minister not for a document that is a status report

on what has been done, which we know is woefully not enough, because we're only

$13 million into a $125 million implementation. What we are looking for is what

his predecessor promised us, and that was a framework for implementation of the

remaining portions of the mental health plan, which have not been addressed and

which have not been funded by this government.

Hon. C. Evans: I want to repeat my earlier comment. I make no argument

with the hon. member's quite correct assertion that if you measure the mental

health plan in dollar form only, the government has yet to meet its commitment.

I want, though, to put this in a little bit of context.

Our expenditures are greater than -- and in some cases, much greater than --

other provinces in Canada on mental health. It is usual in an estimates process

for members of the opposition to question government about whether they're

spending money well. The assertion is that of the 71 recommendations in the

mental health plan, there has been progress on 69 of them. I would encourage the

hon. member to question me: why don't we get on with the other two?

The government needs to increase funding for mental health in the future. I

don't think anybody here would disagree with that. I'd be happy to answer any

questions about whether or not we're getting good value for the money we're

spending. Perhaps I'm obtuse. I do not understand why the hon. member doesn't

find the implementation status report on key initiatives to be a satisfactory

document for answering his question of where we are in terms of implementation

of the mental health plan.

C. Hansen: I think, to answer the minister's point, the difference is

that the status report talks about what has been done, which is woefully

inadequate. What was promised to us was a framework for the future

implementation of the mental health plan. I would like to ask the minister: if

he says that the mental health plan is not dead, then where do we see any

evidence that this government, in its forward planning in terms of the next

three, four years of this health action plan . . . ? There is no

commitment in there to fully fund the mental health plan as they had promised.

It is one of the worst examples of a broken promise and a broken commitment

by this government -- to actually make a promise of $125 million over seven

years for those in our society who probably need that reassurance more than

anyone. They need reason to trust government, and what this government has given

is reason not to trust government, reason to show that they have been betrayed

by this government and this party.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell us at what stage he is going to unveil

to mental health advocates in British Columbia how the remaining $102 million of

that mental health plan commitment is going to be forthcoming.

[1525]

Hon. C. Evans: I'd like to repeat: we all agree on the need to

increase funding for mental health. Of course, that will

[ Page 17264 ]

require increasing the funding for the health budget generally, and of

course, that will require that we get on with this debate and vote for the

appropriation.

I will go back to my original comments. The health action plan includes $2

million funding for mental health and a series of initiatives that I just laid

out. We have agreed on the need to increase funding for mental health generally.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: Maybe what the hon. member is looking for is this

document called "Foundations for Reform: the Mental Health Policy Framework

for the Ministry of Health and Health Authorities 2000-05." The hon. member

shakes his head. There are advocates for the mental health community on the

adult mental health services advisory board that made up this document. If this

isn't it, I'm not sure what it is.

I will reiterate. We agree -- government, opposition -- on the need for

increased funding. We are here today trying to obtain increased funding for the

Ministry of Health. We agree on the need to implement structurally and also

fiscally the mental health plan. We have made measurable progress on 69 out of

71 recommendations, and I think we need to keep going. I absolutely agree with

the hon. member that we need to progress in implementation of the mental health

plan, both structurally and fiscally.

C. Clark: Over the course of the debate this morning and this

afternoon, we've watched this spectacle of cabinet ministers getting up in

estimates and throwing softballs at the Minister of Health, in an effort to try

to reframe this debate so that it's about anything but the government's record

on health care, so that it's about anything but what this government really

plans to do, so that it's about anything but the government's secret plan that

they cooked up six months ago and have been sitting on, so that it's about

anything but what they really plan to present to British Columbians in the next

election. You know what that is? That is a total lack of a plan.

We have sat here for a decade with the NDP in government and watched our

health care system fall apart. These cabinet ministers get up and ask questions,

when you would think that they would have the opportunity to ask those very

questions in cabinet. How about that? Maybe they'd have the opportunity to ask

those questions in caucus. Maybe they'd have the opportunity to ask those

question at their retreats. Maybe they'd have the opportunity to do it when they

go out for their regular meals with one another. Who knows?

The fact is that members of cabinet have ample opportunity to request answers

from this minister, and the fact is that the one single opportunity that the

opposition gets to ask those questions -- the one single opportunity that we get

to stand up in this House and present questions on behalf of the citizens -- is

during the estimates debate.

When we are denied the opportunity to do that -- because we have an emergency

session that's for a short period of time, and we have cabinet ministers who

demand opportunity on that agenda to speak -- it's an abuse. It's an admission

of the total incompetence of every member of this cabinet who's gotten up to

speak today, because they have a duty. They have a duty to share this

information in advance of coming to the House.

If this indeed is a plan that the government has worked on for months, if

indeed it's a plan that they've discussed, and they've gone out and consulted

on, and they've talked to everybody else about, then why all the questions?

Because this is the one opportunity that people like the mental health

advocates, who are here today, have to put their questions forward. I don't see

the members of the government doing that.

I don't see the members of the government that have gotten up to speak asking

the minister where the money is for mental health -- asking the minister why he

hasn't fulfilled his promises, why this government hasn't fulfilled its promises

to people who are mentally ill in British Columbia. I don't see a single member

of cabinet getting up and asking those questions. I don't see a single member of

cabinet getting up and asking what the minister is going to do about the

disgraceful waiting lists at Royal Columbian Hospital.

[1530]

I don't see the members of cabinet standing up. I didn't see the member for

New Westminster stand up and ask this minister why he doesn't do something about

opening up the perfectly good intensive care unit that sits closed and idle and

collecting dust at Eagle Ridge Hospital, so that it can relieve the wait-lists

and the backup at Royal Columbian Hospital, which is, after all, in his

community. No, instead these cabinet ministers want to stand up and reframe this

debate so that it's about anything but this government's hopeless, shameful,

irresponsible incompetence with our health care system in British Columbia.

That's what this has been.

For this government to come here and call a special session today, because

they forgot that they might need . . . . Because the Premier was

never aware of the acuity of the problem. He didn't know the enormity of the

problem until yesterday. What did he think? What did he think that the rural

health care providers were leaving their hospitals for? What did he think over

these last months that all those rural communities that have come down here

protesting the lack of services in their community were talking about? What did

he think was going on with Sharon Singh when she couldn't get her transplant?

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. member, order.

C. Clark: It was only yesterday that he recognized the enormity of the

problem.

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. member, order, please.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order. Would the Minister of Employment and Investment come

to order, please.

C. Clark: One of the cabinet ministers got up today . . . .

The member from Surrey did say something that I connected with. She said:

"Maybe it feels good for members of the opposition to get this opportunity

and stand up and let off a little steam about what's been going on with the

government."

You know what? That's true, because every time anyone, any single member of

this opposition, stands up, we are

[ Page 17265 ]

acutely aware that we are doing it on behalf of the three million British

Columbians who stand in opposition to this government, who are begging for an

election -- all the British Columbians who've been denied care in our health

care system, all the British Columbians that would desperately love to be able

to stand up for one minute and tell their story to this government, be able to

ask the Minister of Health how he can stand to be part of a government that is

so hopelessly incompetent that our health care system has been driven into the

ground.

We spend a lot of money on health care in British Columbia, and we've got to

ask ourselves why the NDP still haven't even come close to starting to make it

better. Every year we spend more money, and they seem to make it worse. This

debate is about the hopeless, total incompetence of this government. And we have

a duty on this side of the House to make sure that this money is spent

correctly, because it's not the size of the budget that counts; it's how you

spend it. That's what counts.

You know, this government can sit there and throw money at the problem. But

what we in the opposition want, what British Columbians are desperate for, is a

plan to fix the problem. We need a plan that will look at the problem

holistically. Why doesn't the government say, for example, that they would like

to provide long-term funding to health regions so that they can operate in a

stable environment. Instead, the health care system reels from crisis to crisis,

minister to minister.

We've had six Ministers of Health in four and a half years, since the member

for Vancouver-Kingsway was elected Premier. That's disgraceful. How can the

government -- how can the Premier -- pretend that he's providing any stability

for the health care system when he won't keep with a minister long enough to let

them even get to know the names of the folks that work in his office? How can we

have stability in our system?

The biggest problem facing our system today is the chaos that people are

expected to work within, and I'm going to tell one story about that, because

it's, I'm sure . . . . Maybe the Premier doesn't get this kind of

correspondence, because he wasn't aware of the enormity of the problem until --

guess what -- just yesterday. But maybe I'll share this with the minister. This

is a story from a daughter whose father-in-law was 86 years old. They waited a

week for a bed -- a week for a bed -- in Royal Columbian Hospital, until finally

her father got sick enough that they had to send him to emergency.

[1535]

An Hon. Member: You always find one.

C. Clark: No, hon. member, this isn't just one.

Hon. Chair, the minister, in his heckling, says that we always find one.

Well, the fact is that these stories are legion. And if he would check with his

constituency assistant, he'd find that it happens in Vancouver-Burrard too.

These problems are not specific to Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. It's true in

every constituency from every side of the House as well.

Let me give you the story. He waited a week for his bed, until he became so

acute that he had to go into emergency. He sat in a wheelchair in emergency at

Royal Columbian for three hours. After that, the family finally found him a

couch to lie on in the waiting room. Then she phoned the administration to try

to get some help, and she got an answering machine. Then she finally phoned her

MLA's office, who didn't happen to be me; it was an NDP MLA. She still got no

help. She phoned my office. Then, after we phoned the hospital, he got a bed --

after six hours.

Now, it may not have been the phone call from my office that got him a bed.

But the fact is that the man had to wait six hours until he got a bed. And do

you know the response from the nurses, the desperate nurses in that hospital who

are totally run off their feet? They said he wasn't sick enough to get a bed. In

the context of all the other people in that waiting room who were so acute, this

man wasn't sick enough to get a bed. He finally got a bed, after six hours of

waiting, and then he died. Now, I don't know if he would have died anyway. But I

do know that that man spent the last six hours of his life without the dignity

that he deserved before he died. I know that his family went through a great

deal of pain not just in those six hours but in the week before that they had to

wait for a bed.

The minister knows that these stories are common, and the minister, I'm sure,

sympathizes with the family. But the fact is that these problems are legion in

British Columbia, and they have been for a long time -- not just when the

Premier discovered the problem yesterday, not just when the new minister was

appointed a month ago, not just when the government came out with its last

health plan in the fall or its plan before that in the previous budget. These

problems have been multiplying and getting worse for a decade, because the

government has been entirely neglectful of our health care system. The

government has been so incompetent in its allocations of our public money that

the system is falling apart.

There is one thing that this minister can do to try to relieve the problems

for people like this family and to make sure that Royal Columbian works a little

better. One of those is to devote some money to getting the intensive care unit

at Eagle Ridge Hospital -- which is a feeder hospital for Royal Columbian --

back working again. It was built years ago, and it's never been used. It's fully

prepared and ready to function.

The health region is out there now trying to scrape together enough dollars

within their existing budget to get the thing going, because they know that if

they can get the ICU at Eagle Ridge up and running, they won't have the problems

that they currently have at Royal Columbian. They won't have patients on

stretchers, practically out the door, waiting for beds. That's what they need to

do to relieve the pressure. So where in this budget, in these supplementary

estimates, has the minister accounted for money for the Simon Fraser health

region, for the ICU at Eagle Ridge Hospital, so we can relieve the acute

pressures at the hospital that's in the Attorney General's riding?

[1540]

Hon. C. Evans: Staff are unaware of whether the Simon Fraser district

has put in a submission for funding for that particular unit, and we are going

to attempt to find out.

I do want to respond in one respect, and that is to say this: the entire

system, including members from the hon. member's community, has said that we

need a provincial bed-management system in order that the entire system,

especially in the lower mainland, can relate to one another without having to do

so individually by telephone. That is in the

[ Page 17266 ]

health action plan. If I get an answer to the specific question that the hon.

member asked about the specific hospital during debate, I will supply it to her.

M. Sihota: Finally, after listening to the member for Port

Moody-Burnaby Mountain, we're starting to have the kind of debate that we ought

to be having in this chamber. If I may say so, hon. Chair -- and it's not often

that I say this -- the member opposite is right on one point: this debate in the

House today is all about plans. It's all about the kind of vision about health

care that we on this side hold versus the kind of vision that they hold on the

side opposite.

Let's be clear about those visions, about what we stand for versus what they

stand for. On this side of the House, we've made it very clear. In this health

action plan, which the Premier and the Minister of Health tabled before British

Columbians a few days ago, we've made a fundamental commitment for more beds,

for more doctors, for more nurses, for more community care and for more

equipment in hospitals throughout this province, whether it's the urban regions

of the province or the rural regions of the province.

And you know what? In doing so, we have increased our expenditures. Let me

say, parenthetically, that we don't make those expenditures simply to make them;

we make them to try to get best value for dollar. But we've increased them by

almost a billion dollars -- by $800 million over the course of this fiscal year.

And we're very proud on this side of the House, as this debate has

demonstrated today, to stand up and talk with some passion about our commitment

to health care. After all, we are the political party that gave birth to health

care -- the concept of medicare, a publicly funded health care -- in this

country. We feel, on this side of the House, a special obligation to make sure

that that publicly funded health care system is never threatened in any way

whatsoever. That's what this expenditure is all about.

You know, you never hear anybody opposite, including the member for Port

Moody-Burnaby Mountain, stand up and speak with pride about their vision,

outline in any comprehensive way their plan, articulate what it is that they

would do in terms of health care. But it is fascinating that during the course

of this debate, a number of plans from the members opposite have emerged.

First of all, it was apparent from the debate this morning that the members

themselves, through their leader, were prepared to concede that they have no

plan for health care. Imagine that. On the eve of a provincial election, before

they are to go to the voters of this province, after nine years in the political

wilderness in opposition, they still don't have a plan. If I am to be doubted on

that point, let me just read what was stated in the Prince George Citizen

after the Leader of the Opposition gave an interview. He says: "This

requires a strategic long-term plan for the province of British Columbia, and we

don't have one yet." That was on September 21.

Again, a few days prior to that, on September 19 in Prince Rupert, he said he

would refuse to give a timetable for how soon after the election his party would

roll out a plan on health care, if it won the election. Imagine that -- no plan.

That's where this debate started today. But now the members opposite start

saying: "Don't worry. We have a plan. Don't worry. We'll release it after

the election." Well, if you have a plan, where is it? Why do you have to

keep it in a state of concealment between now and the next election?

An Hon. Member: Call an election.

M. Sihota: We'll get to the election. We'll get to the election in a

second.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Hon. member, you will show the cowardly side of yourself in

a few minutes, when I get to the election.

So then they say: "We'll release it come the election." So we

think: okay, fine, they do have a plan, but it's part of a hidden agenda.

Obviously, with our knowledge of where those members are often at, that hidden

agenda, in my view, must contain elements of privatization.

[1545]

But this afternoon, during the lunch hour, the Leader of the Opposition

finally found the way to walk through those doors and face the scrutiny of the

press, and he had to concede that his health care plan contained a $1 billion

cut. In other words, with the Liberals there would be $7 billion, not $8

billion, spent on health care.

The Minister of Health has pointed out the catastrophic consequences to

British Columbians if we were to have a billion-dollar cut in the health care

system. And there's every reason to believe that that's what we would see from

the opposition. After all, during the course of the last election campaign, the

Leader of the Opposition stood up and said that he would make an expenditure of

about $6 billion, because he thought that was enough. And now he stands today --

finally -- and discloses his plan of making a billion-dollar cut. Now all of us

are informed about the consequences of a billion-dollar cut, because the

Minister of Health has informed us of those consequences. That may explain why

it is that the member opposite, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, is

not prepared to speak with some passion to defend the position of her leader. I

challenge her -- and this is the cowardly side -- or the Health critic opposite

to stand up and defend that billion-dollar plan.

The one thing I would say about them . . . . The Leader of the

Opposition, in his comments, went further today. Not only did he say that he'd

make a billion-dollar cut to health care, but he committed himself to two

consecutive deficit budgets should his party form government. Now, think about

that. On this side of the House, we have gone through some turbulent economic

times. We've turned the corner. We've balanced our budgets. We have a surplus.

We are applying those funds to health care. We're looking after the priorities

of today's families. And what would they do? They would cut the system by a

billion dollars. They would run two consecutive deficits in a row.

So we now know the difference. On this side of the House we are prepared,

through this initiative, to increase funding to health care by $180 million. On

the other side of the coin, they are prepared to cut health care by a billion

dollars. I say to that member opposite: be courageous; don't be cowardly. I

challenge her right now to stand behind the program that's been outlined by her

leader -- to stand up and vote against this expenditure. I challenge that member

opposite not to speak against what we're doing and then vote in favour of it. I

challenge her, just for once, to have the strength of her convictions and all of

her colleagues opposite and vote against this $180 million expenditure.

[ Page 17267 ]

I'm sure the minister will now answer my question about what the implications

of cutting it by $180 million will be.

Hon. C. Evans: The answer to the hon. member's question is the same as

it was before: government would have options. Since the hon. member lives on

Vancouver Island, he probably would rather that government didn't choose the

option of eliminating all health care on Vancouver Island. But that would only

leave a couple of other options. You eliminate health care generally in the

entire southwestern Fraser Valley, all the way up to Surrey, or you wipe it out

in every rural part of the province. Unless you wanted to eliminate some entire

division of the Ministry of Health, I don't see any other way to solve the

problem. Consequently, I think it would be bordering on immoral to cut a billion

dollars from the Ministry of Health at this time.

C. Clark: It is amazing to hear members of the NDP talk about

convictions. I think they're the last people that should be having discussions

about that in this House.

Having said that, though, let me add this: the thing that would show real

courage, real leadership, on the part of this Premier . . . . The

thing that the spin doctors around the NDP are so desperate to veil him in --

this idea that he's a great leader, a man capable of courage and leadership for

British Columbia . . . . Well, if he's got so much courage and

leadership, call an election. That's the thing that would be gutsy. That's the

thing that would show the courage of his convictions. Call an election. Go to

the public with your record. Go to the public with your plan, and let them issue

their verdict on what you've done for the last ten years in government.

[1550]

But I do have a question following up on my previous topic -- before I was

interrupted by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- and that is about the Simon

Fraser health care region and, in particular, Royal Columbian Hospital and its

very acute bed shortage. The minister said he didn't have the details about what

would be going on with Eagle Ridge Hospital. What else, then, is the ministry

specifically intending to do to relieve the bed shortage in the Simon Fraser

health region, particularly at Royal Columbian Hospital, and where can we find

that in this plan?

Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member's question, I think, is: how are we

going to relieve the shortage of acute care beds at Royal Columbian? Just for

interest's sake, that is one of the hospitals that the Premier and I visited. I

found the physicians and nurses and hospital staff most helpful and very

educational. Then we met with the chair of the health authority, who pointed out

to us that their greatest need was for continuing-care beds in order to relieve

the pressure on the acute care system.

Through the Chair to the hon. member, the exact answer to her . . . .

The Simon Fraser health authority will receive funding for 258 continuing-care

beds as a result of the health action plan. Just for interest's sake, staff are

still looking for the answer to her previous question.

C. Clark: Do those continuing-care beds include the expansion of the

Burquitlam Lions intermediate care facility in Coquitlam, which was promised in

1996?

Hon. C. Evans: In the interests of keeping things moving, staff will

look for that answer. The information thus far on her previous question is that

there is an ICU review at Eagle Ridge presently underway. That review has not

reported out, and we do not have requests from the health authority based on it.

It's expected that the report will be done early in 2001. And we will look for

the answer to her present question.

I. Chong: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate

for supplementary estimates of the spending for Health. I think it's no surprise

that all of us have constituents in our areas who have been contacting our

offices, because health care has become a crisis. Health care is in chaos in our

regions. I'm receiving letters on a daily basis and phone calls on a daily basis

from people who are telling me this. I'm not putting these words in their

mouths; they're expressing these to me.

Today I would like to share three of those incidents with this minister in

hopes that he can perhaps provide me with an answer -- an answer that this new

plan is supposed to provide for those constituents. And then they'll have some

assurances that this government is doing something about health care -- health

care that they have so terribly mismanaged.

I'm not going to engage in the kind of rhetoric that government members have

done. I know that the purpose of this emergency session is about finding out

where the moneys are going to be allocated, for what purposes, so that our

constituents are well served by that. I will focus on that, and I will ask the

minister if he can provide me with specific answers.

The issue of long term care beds, I know, is a growing one. In the Speech

from the Throne in this past spring, I believe that in fact it was indicated

that there would be 2,000 new beds that would be promised provincewide. And to

date, I understand, there's been no funding for that. I know that in this

particular region, 300 beds at least are needed. And as a result of no action on

the part of this government, we do have some very severe cases occurring.

[1555]

One in particular just happened within three weeks ago, where a constituent

called -- a Mrs. Rolstone -- and said that her husband has been in an acute bed

for eight weeks. She asked that I mention this to you, knowing that we were

coming back to the House today. She says she has no idea what's going to happen.

She's an elderly person; her husband is a veteran and currently is taking up

space in an acute care bed. He has been there for eight weeks.

She would just like to know -- and I'm wondering if the minister can provide

any kind of answer -- just how soon we can look to be placing him in a long term

care bed. Given that there are new moneys being provided, what kind of action

immediately will be effected in this area, so that I can at least tell her? Will

he have a long term care bed before Christmas? Will it be after Christmas? How

much longer is it going to be? There is tremendous stress on her part. That is

one of those questions I'm going to ask or that I would like the minister to

provide an answer for, hon. Chair.

I'll lay it out so that the staff can help look for those answers. And I'll

give all these three cases at once, to be an effective use of time.

The second is another constituent who contacted me, by the name of Andy Horn.

This young man is only 22 years old.

[ Page 17268 ]

Basically his e-mail to me is quite alarming. He writes and says: "I

hope to see my twenty-third birthday in December." This gentleman has

cystic fibrosis and has been on a wait-list for a double lung transplant. He

realizes that transplant of organs is difficult enough, that you have to wait

for those things and that it requires a tragedy in another case to save a life.

But his concern is -- in light of the recent revelations, as he's indicated --

the shortage of critical care beds that happen at Vancouver General. His

question is very simple, and I can't answer it.

So maybe the minister can provide an answer as to, again, what part of the

funding that's available in this new capital health plan will deal with this and

specifically, perhaps, for this area. He says: "Is there anything that the

Minister of Health can do to assure me not only that I will receive my

transplant when an organ becomes available but also that the lack of critical

care beds will not interfere with the timing of my transplant?" It's a

simple question but a very serious one. I know, as I say, that it takes time to

put some of these things in place. But maybe the minister can again share with

us just how long that will be. And what kind of funding is being allocated for

the critical care bed shortages?

Another instance: a Mrs. Barton also contacted me, and it was again in

regards to, in this particular case, hip surgery. This has to do once again with

wait-lists. We thought that wait-lists had been dealt with when we provided or

approved the extra spending in September, but apparently it's still escalating.

And there are still problems. Mrs. Barton says she requires hip surgery and has

been rescheduled for the third time. Originally it was supposed to be October

27; it was moved then to November 17; now she's been told December 18. Again,

this woman is definitely in pain and not able to sleep in the evenings due to

her hip problem and certainly has difficulties with mobility and can only handle

short distances with a cane, if in fact she is able to get out. And she just

wants to know, as well, what we're doing about the wait-lists.

So these are some of the issues that I, as an elected MLA, am experiencing in

my area. And I've been asked by these particular constituents, when I return to

the House today, to ask the minister these questions, because only he would be

able to shed a little light here. Only he will be able to tell us whether or not

money has been targeted for these areas, and I certainly hope they have been

targeted. Also, how much of that is targeted for this area in particular, the

capital health region?

In conclusion, I do want to also mention the area of the medical equipment,

because I'm aware that in the last expenditure in September, of the $70 million

that had been allocated for that, Victoria in fact did get $7 million. And I am

grateful for that, as are all the residents in greater Victoria. I would also

ask the minister if he would be able to give me an idea -- a detailed list, if

he will -- of the amount that is going to be allocated to Victoria, in addition

to the kinds of equipment that are going to be made available.

[1600]

I'm not going to ask questions on the mental health plan, because I know that

my colleague the opposition critic has already done so. But I can tell the

minister that when I met with the mental health advocates only two days ago,

they had some serious concerns about the genuine integrity of the mental health

plan that was introduced, the $125 million commitment that was made some years

ago, which is still at this time not being funded. I just put that on the table

once again for the minister, for his awareness that in this particular area, in

the capital health region, we are watching very closely to see that we do get

our fair share of the dollars to be allocated to deal with the health care

crisis in our area. I'll ask the minister if he would provide those answers to

me.

The Chair: Just before the Chair recognizes the minister, the Chair is

going to draw attention to the committee. There's a background ambient noise

here, with the multiple conversations. If we could tone them down, whisper

softer . . . . I don't know if the Chair's hearing is getting better

or not, but that's all the Chair can hear at this stage.

Hon. C. Evans: I'd like to preface my remarks to the hon. member by

saying that I'm going to speak about the generalities of the three different

issues she raised: the need for continuing care beds, the transplant issue and

the hip surgery wait-lists. I want to say on the record that I do not wish the

citizens involved to think I am commenting on the particular care of any

individual. That's inappropriate for the Minister of Health.

On the first issue of people living for eight weeks in an acute care bed, the

story that the hon. member tells is all too frequent around British Columbia.

That situation pertains in my constituency and hers and around the province. My

anecdotal observation would be that 20 percent of the acute care beds in the

province have people occupying those beds who ought more properly to be cared

for at home or in some other level of care. Now, in her region the allocation of

the continuing care beds ought to fund, over the course of the next four years,

186 continuing care beds for people in the situation like the one she describes

here today.

Secondly, I want to repeat that I don't know anything about the individual

case. But there are some people in acute care beds who can, through home care

nursing and the like, go home. There is an allocation for home care services,

including nursing, increasing in the capital region. I don't have it right here.

Oh, hang on -- yes I do. The increase in the capital budget for home care is

$1.24 million -- the operating budget for delivery of home care.

Now, the second issue that she raises -- again, I don't know about the

individual case -- is the question of transplants. She raises the somewhat

disturbing question that an individual and perhaps some individuals around the

province expressed some concern, as a result of recent events, that they might

be at risk. Staff advise me -- and again, this is anecdotal; it's not based on

statistics -- that the only person that we at present know of who has missed a

transplant due to the inability to assemble the team at the appropriate moment

is the case involving Mrs. Singh, which has since been resolved. The people of

British Columbia, and especially the hon. member's constituents, should keep in

mind that we had never tried before to deliver two liver transplants in one

facility on one day. I acknowledge that we ought to be able, if we have that

need ever again, to meet that level of need on an ongoing basis.

The B.C. Transplant Society was just awarded a national award as best in

Canada for its capacity to manage the needs for transplants here in the

province. And I'm quite proud that we have a transplant society managing the

process, because it assures everybody that Ministers of Health don't decide who

receives care.

[1605]

[ Page 17269 ]

The third issue that she raises . . . . She asked what we are

doing to improve the number of critical care beds around the province. In the

short term, immediately there will be an increase of three critical care beds in

the lower mainland. In the middle term, there will be an increase of six --

three before the end of this fiscal year and three more next year.

The third issue that she raises is the question of an individual who was

scheduled for hip surgery three times. Of course, hon. Chair, I know nothing

about this particular case. I will say that one of the cost-effective ways of

managing an operating theatre and staff resources is that optional operations

are scheduled to use those resources and then, through the process of immediate

triage, are sometimes dropped off the list because there's someone in a

life-threatening situation on that day. While I don't know the case of the hon.

member's constituent, I consider that to be a rational use of resources, because

it assures that we have the people at the appropriate place on the day that

they're needed by anyone in a life-threatening situation.

The last thing I would like to say -- thanking the member for the concise

nature of her questions -- is that staff will follow her question in Hansard ,

and if she requires further follow-up on those individuals or on those

particular questions, she can obtain it at another time.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for answering those questions, but I

would just like some clarity, because I might have misunderstood. I will check Hansard

again, but before I leave the debate . . . . The 186

continuing-care beds which will be funded -- does that mean that they're funding

the beds which perhaps aren't funded now? Or are these new beds that will be

opened up? And are the 186 beds in the capital health region? If he could just

confirm that very quickly for me.

Then home care -- the $1.24 million that he said has been allocated. Is that

also specific to the capital health region? As he can understand, I'm looking

for specifics for my area. That's what my job is, to come to this legislative

precinct to ask questions of the minister on behalf of my constituents. If the

minister can provide those answers, I'd appreciate it. And I do thank him for

being cooperative, and I hope other members on the other side of the House will

be concise when they ask their questions of the minister as well.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear.

Hon. C. Evans: The equipment allocation for the hon. member's area --

in the greater sense, the capital region -- is $6.919 million; the home care

allocation -- new money -- is $1.24 million; the flex-bed money is $813,000 of

new money; the mental health allocation is $140,000 of new money -- for a total

of $8,997,740. And the allocation of beds -- and this is not capital costs but

operational costs of new beds . . . . I make no comment about

whether those beds physically exist at present or not. We are going to fund the

operations of beds, and it's up to the capital region health district how they

come to exist. That's 186 new beds.

D. Miller: Well, Mr. Chairman, I followed the discussion with

interest. I would note and commend the minister on the plan. If the minister has

not had an opportunity to read the press in my constituency, in Prince Rupert, I

just want the minister to know that the CEO of the health council has described

the new spending as "very positive" and goes on to say -- and I think,

illustrative for all members: "I think everyone realizes that there has to

be action. I can't see anybody disagreeing with this -- whatever the political

party." From a very unbiased source, albeit one that is concerned with

health care, there seems to be some satisfaction with the action plan that the

government has outlined.

[1610]

Now, rural health care has been a very divisive issue, and I took

part in

some meetings myself in Terrace and met with doctors in my home community of

Prince Rupert in an attempt to try to understand it. I note that there had been

a significant amount of controversy vis-à-vis the $40 million offer that was on

the table for rural physicians and a great deal of debate. Some doctors

themselves were saying, for example, that they thought the Prince George

agreement was too rich; it shouldn't be that high.

I followed the debate here, particularly both what the members of the

opposition have said in written form outside of this House and what they've been

saying inside this House. It's very difficult. I'm trying to look for some

clarification, I suppose. On the one hand, when we -- and I've done this in my

capacity as chair of caucus -- have said, "Here's what we think the Liberal

agenda is," and we've itemized that, and we've taken their statements about

massive tax cuts -- which they continue to say, by the way -- they deny it.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

I'm flabbergasted that the Liberals have spent -- at least in the last couple

of weeks -- a fair amount of time actually denying that they ever had an agenda

of tax cuts. Yet every time I pick up a newspaper and read the quote from the

Liberal House Leader or whatever, they say tax cuts are the key. So you can

appreciate that I, like members of the public, am somewhat confused. Somewhat

confused, somewhat -- in fact, very -- confused . . . .

They've cited as one of the reasons for their failure, after nine years in

opposition, to actually table a plan . . . . They've said:

"Well, we're not the government." That's one of the excuses they give.

The other excuse they give is: "Wait till the election is called, and we

will tell you." That's a bit of an insult to British Columbians, but fair

enough; if they want to insult British Columbians, they should do it.

They have stressed repeatedly that they can't make commitments because they

don't have the information. Yet I was struck by a release put out by the Leader

of the Opposition in which he said, two years ago March, that we should commit

$100 million to rural physicians -- $100 million. This is the same gang that

says they can't make commitments because they don't have the information and

then puts out a release saying $100 million.

I note that the Vancouver Sun on October 19, 2000, made a reasonable

observation, and I'll quote that: "One promise has been to put $100 million

more into rural health, a number he" -- meaning the Leader of the

Opposition -- "now concedes was plucked from the air . . . rather

than arrived at through any calculation of needs."

Maybe there was some other motive. Maybe there was another motive. I'm

curious about that. After saying repeatedly that they couldn't make commitments

because they didn't have the information, or there was an election called, or

they weren't the government, they managed to come up with a number that was two

and a half times what

[ Page 17270 ]

we've got on the table to try to resolve the important rural doctors issue.

Maybe the ulterior motive was a letter they sent out this past November to all

the doctors -- and I'm quite curious where they got the list of all the doctors.

But the letter went out to all the doctors asking for money.

Here we have an opposition party that claims they don't have the facts to

make these kinds of announcements and that made an announcement, a commitment by

the Leader of the Opposition for $100 million, even though he admits he doesn't

know where it's coming from or indeed if it's an appropriate number. But they do

know how to raise money. They do know how to raise money, and they've managed to

send a letter to the doctors in effect saying: "Give us money." It's

sort of a quid pro quo. "We'll give you money if you give us a little bit

back."

[1615]

In my book, some people might call that a conflict of interest. Some people

might call that not being very straight up. I'm just kind of curious where these

lists came from, where they got the lists for the doctors. I'm kind of curious

how much money they've collected from the doctors. Is it linked in any way to

their promise to give them $100 million without even knowing whether or not that

is an appropriate amount?

You know, we have lots of . . . . I'll go back to the quote from

the CEO of the community health council, who says that this should not be

political, this should not be partisan. We have a Liberal opposition who, in my

view, as I said earlier, are trying to exploit the very real strains that exist

in our health care system, not just in British Columbia but right across this

country -- very real strains exacerbated to a large degree by the withdrawal of

federal transfer payments.

We now have an opportunity -- with the restoration, at least in part, of some

of those transfer payments and the additional money we're putting into health

care -- to try to improve the system. Nobody would say that you can have a

flawless system where there are never any problems. But it is a bit unseemly to

have an opposition party who appear, in my book, to simply be trying to

capitalize on these problems for political gain and who make irresponsible

statements about spending $100 million when they don't even know where the money

comes from or if it is appropriate. Then they follow that up in the most

shallow, shameful way with a letter to the doctors saying, "Give us some

money," when they've already promised to give the doctors a lot of money.

I think maybe part of the problem we've been having in this province with

respect to the debate around health care is that we've got an opposition party

that would rather try to capitalize on these problems for political gain than

actually try to propose solutions. The proof of that is, I think, that despite

our repeated requests -- not just us but others in British Columbia -- they will

not table any document that says how much money they will spend on health care,

what their priorities are and how they're going to manage that vis-à-vis the

kinds of tax cuts they're proposing. Their questions to me ring rather hollow,

and I'm wondering what kind of destabilizing effect these Liberal games are

having on our ability to try to bring some sense and calmness in terms of our

relationship with doctors and other health care providers in the province.

An Hon. Member: What was the question?

Hon. C. Evans: The question -- I'll repeat it for anyone who missed it

-- was: what kind of destabilizing effect do political promises have on

negotiations with physicians? I'm pretty sure that's what Hansard would

say is exactly what the question was.

I would like to make a request of all hon. members that they respect the six

negotiating tables that we are at with physicians, the negotiating tables that

we are at with nurses, HSA workers and HEU workers. And please do not continue

making partisan statements about how those negotiations should come out.

An Hon. Member: You're not serious.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Chair, I'm deadly serious, and I mean it for

people on all sides. The only way to have peace in the land on health care

negotiations is for them to be many steps removed from partisan politics, and

that goes for members of the government as well as for members of the

opposition.

[1620]

I would like to commend the rural physicians, who, as everybody knows, have

been negotiating in good faith for some time now. And those negotiations, now

that they are removed from the front pages, are, I think, going quite well.

Tomorrow, I believe, the Hope report -- the rural mediation report -- will be

released jointly by the Ministry of Health and by the doctors themselves.

Through the Chair to the hon. member, you may have noticed that I have not

commented on the outcome of those negotiations ever since I got this portfolio.

Nor have I commented on any of the other tables, because it feels to me like the

only way to make the system work is if we -- elected people -- stay away from

the process of labour negotiations or physician negotiations.

So congratulations to all the parties. I have nothing but hope that we can

resolve this. I would ask members on all sides: as we move through the next few

months, please remain aloof from the process of discussing settlements at any

table.

P. Nettleton: We've heard it all today. We've heard the minister

implore us to refrain from partisan debate after having himself led in what was

clearly orchestrated, a string of partisan comments directed to himself. In any

event, here we are today, with the latest health care minister delivering this

government's latest vision for health care.

As a member who represents the people of Prince George and surrounding

communities, I witnessed the local health care system come awfully close -- too

close -- to collapsing in the past year, after years of neglect by this

government.

The Minister of Health suggested some months ago that the health crisis was

simply a concoction of the news media. I wonder if he might tell the people of

Prince George and other rural and northern communities if he still believes the

health crisis is simply a concoction of the media.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Chair, I believe and I've said over the course of

the last few days that the story of the status of health care in British

Columbia is fairly complex. I'm going to give you an example. On the one hand,

we all know that there have been moments in communities or, in particular,

hospitals where there have been moments of crisis with our inability to

[ Page 17271 ]

deliver either the equipment or the staff or, literally, the beds at moments

of people's need. On the other hand . . . . And of course that gets

the public's attention.

But hon. member, I want you to have some pride, especially as a rural MLA,

about the progress that we've made in ten years. Ten years ago the infant

mortality rate in British Columbia was eight per 1,000. My understanding is that

this means that of every 1,000 babies born, at the end of one year's time there

had been eight premature deaths. Now, hon. member, all over the world the

measurement of the well-being of society is based on that figure of infant

mortality. I understand that the reason for that is that this single number

constitutes the nutrition or malnutrition factor, the ability of governments to

deliver health care in all regions and to all people. It has something to do

with substance abuse; it has something to do with income levels; it has

something to do with reproductive options for parents. So the United Nations

uses infant mortality figures to basically say what is the health of a society.

While we talk about crisis -- and I'd be the first to recognize that there

are moments of constriction in the system that need the health action plan to

fix them so those constriction points go away -- I would like the hon. member,

especially as a rural MLA, to take huge comfort in the fact that over the course

of the last ten years, we've gone from an infant mortality figure of eight to

3.7 per 1,000. Hon. member, that means there are now only four nations in the

whole world healthier than our population, by that figure. And we started ten

years ago from a place somewhat shameful in the position in the world. The great

news is that northern citizens, by our ability to deliver health care and

nutrition and options to people where they live -- rural citizens -- improved at

twice the rate, 200 percent the rate, to bring that number down than did urban

citizens.

[1625]

So I guess my answer to your question would be: it's a complex story. On the

one hand, there are points of constriction or failure in the system, which the

health management plan is intended to rectify. On the other hand, this group of

people should celebrate. Over the course of a decade we improved public health

in the province of British Columbia at a rate which I think is somewhat

phenomenal, not just in this country or on this continent but in the world.

P. Nettleton: It's a sorry state of affairs when the current Minister

of Health has to point to an obscure United Nations report dealing with infant

mortality to take some credit for this government's mismanagement of health care

in northern rural British Columbia. It's an absolute disgrace. I'm just

absolutely shocked.

It appears the only way this government knows how to operate is by crisis

management. In Prince George, only after specialists withdrew services did this

government finally take action, not because they finally awakened to the health

care crisis in Prince George or the fact that patients were suffering but

because of political pressure.

On the nursing front, it's been suggested that Prince George Regional

Hospital is in need of as many as 100 nurses. At the same time, UNBC will

graduate seven nurses this year, and only two of those are likely to remain in

the north. How, specifically, is this so-called action plan going to address the

need for more nurses and other health care professionals from the north?

Frankly, we've heard it all before.

Hon. C. Evans: I just would like to correct the record. That obscure

report -- the one that didn't make any sense to him and that he doesn't think is

relevant -- is written by the provincial health officer. That's the gentleman

whose job it is to measure the health of British Columbians, especially northern

and rural British Columbians, who the provincial health officer was talking

about.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: I was very quiet. Okay -- I'm going to calm down.

It isn't obscure. It means that the people here are getting healthier,

especially in rural areas. I wasn't even taking credit for it. All I was

suggesting to the hon. member is that we should be glad, as British Columbians,

of the improvement we made over ten years. The gentleman who said so is kind of

like the ombudsman, the child protection officer, the auditor general. He is an

independent appointment to talk to you, hon. member. I've sent a copy of that

report to your Health critic. Perhaps he could share it with you, and you could

correct your notion about the obscurity of the data.

The question was, as I took it: what particular benefit will this have to

rural nursing? There is $2.5 million, hon. member, allocated for recruitment and

retention strategies and initiatives for nurses and other health care workers,

expressly for rural areas -- bursaries for nursing students from rural areas and

bursaries for aboriginal students, especially to rural areas. And there will be

increased funding and access for rural health science students. So that the hon.

member understands the difference I'm talking about . . . . Well,

perhaps the hon. member knows: those technicians like radiation therapy, the

X-ray technician and the physios -- all aimed at rural British Columbia.

[1630]

B. Barisoff: Just a couple of questions to the minister. I was going

through the document, and I noticed that there was nothing on long-term care,

particularly in South Okanagan. The reason I ask the question is that I had an

opportunity earlier in the week to meet some of the people that were involved in

long term care in the South Okanagan -- in Penticton, Oliver, Osoyoos. They

indicated to me that there was a great possibility that there would be some long

term care funding in this announcement, particularly for Penticton, Oliver and

Osoyoos.

I'm just wondering whether the minister could elaborate what happened to it

or whether it got pulled out at the last minute, because there was a strong

indication in one of the documents -- I don't know how many documents there were

-- that there was some facilitation for some new long term care beds in the

South Okanagan. The minister knows that we are short at least 300 beds, and it's

climbing. Could the minister elaborate on what happened to that?

Hon. C. Evans: The allocation of beds isn't up to the Minister of

Health -- or even, really, up to the ministry staff. The allocation of beds is a

decision made by the health authorities and funded by the ministry, so of course

the ministry is somewhat involved, at least in okaying that allocation. But we

will not be deciding whether those beds go to Penticton or Summerland or Oliver

or what have you.

The allocation to the health authority that the hon. member refers to is 230

continuing-care, long term care beds over

[ Page 17272 ]

the course of the next few years. I can't answer for the hon. member exactly

what towns or facilities the local health authority would choose to assign those

operational costs to.

Even though it wasn't part of his question, I'll suggest that as well as

continuing care, most of the health authorities desire relief on the acute care

side by home care. The Okanagan-Similkameen health authority also has an

allocation of $757,950 for a home care increase.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

B. Barisoff: The regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen has

approached the ministry on funding for the new multicare facility in Keremeos.

I've been led to believe that this funding is supposed to have come on a number

of occasions. The facility is almost ready to be opened, and the operating costs

and everything seem to be in limbo. I took the opportunity to phone your office,

and the response I got was: "Don't worry; it's going to be coming."

Then I heard of this big announcement that was coming on Tuesday. And of course,

we're coming to sit today, so I assumed that's when the money would be coming.

I'm just asking the minister: what happened to the operating funding that was

supposed to come to the new multicare facility in Keremeos?

Hon. C. Evans: I would like to preface my remarks by saying the

particular question the hon. member is asking is not part of the health action

plan, and the resolution of the issue is not part of the health action plan. I'm

going to try and answer the question anyway, because it seems perfectly

reasonable to do so.

The hon. member's belief that an announcement would be about a particular

issue in his constituency was erroneous. I'm very disturbed by any notion that

any MLA on either side would phone my office and receive an assurance one way or

another on a particular project. A minister's office doesn't usually operate

that way, and I would like to hear from the member about who he phoned in my

office and who it was that was giving him assurances.

[1635]

I am advised by staff that the operational funding of the facility the hon.

member is asking about is in the ministry budget, and there is an issue related

to the ownership of the facility, which the health authority is working its way

through.

B. Barisoff: I think what I was asking . . . . It wasn't a

matter that the minister or the minister's office has got letters from the

regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen. There were some real concerns -- in

particular by the chairman, Roger Mayer, and the chairman of the health

authority, Joe Cardoso -- that this money, for whatever reason, wasn't there.

The startup operating costs for the new facility weren't there. They both

contacted me. They have grave concerns that this money wasn't there. It just so

happened that I phoned last week because they had asked me if I could contact

the minister's office to see what was happening with this money.

Maybe it was coincidental that these big announcements were coming and

whatever else was happening. I didn't know the announcement was coming. But

after I heard that the announcement was coming, with the comment I had from the

minister's office -- as one of my colleagues said, the "cheque is in the

mail" kind of attitude -- I assumed that maybe it was tied to this. So my

real concern is to make sure that when the chairman of the regional district and

the chairman of the hospital board are concerned about what's happening . .

. . I guess my concern, along with them, was: what is the delay, and why

isn't this money forthcoming?

Hon. C. Evans: I'm advised by staff that there is some issue about the

fact that the regional hospital district owns the long term care facility and

are reluctant to transfer title to the health authority. I have no idea of the

cause or the resolution of this issue. I would like to offer the hon. member a

briefing and an opportunity to discuss his suggestions for resolution with the

staff.

B. Barisoff: I'll certainly take the minister up on that. I think that

the area of the Similkameen has waited through two previous governments. I think

it started back in the eighties when they were promised, and they were promised

again, and then they were promised again. And lo and behold, it came to my point

of seeing what I could do for them. The building was built, and I would just

like to make sure that the facility is up and operating.

The other question that I have to the minister -- because over the years we

have had a substantial amount of dealings, working with Agriculture -- is the

fact that I asked the previous minister in estimates about the long term care

problems in the South Okanagan and the fact that there was an assisted-living

facility in the Oliver area that had offered 15 or 20 beds or whatever to

alleviate the problem with the acute care in the region of the South Okanagan.

The minister of the day assured me -- and that was back in June or late May --

that he would look into it and that something would be done and that we could

alleviate some of those problems, rather than having some of the long term care

patients in acute care beds at whatever it is -- $900 per day.

The assurances I got were that something would happen. Well, nothing has

happened, and we've gone through some six months now. I'm asking you, as the new

minister, whether I could get more than just assurances to make sure something

will happen and that we alleviate some of these problems.

[1640]

Hon. C. Evans: Well, absolutely. Although I don't want the hon. member

to think that I'm . . . . It's just good luck that I happen to have

this opportunity. We are able to give you not only some assurance, we're able to

give you a commitment for 230 continuing-care beds over the course of the next

four years. The intention is precisely that your health authority source those

beds, and then the Ministry of Health will pay for their operational costs in

order to move people out of the acute care beds, exactly as the hon. member

suggests.

Similarly, the $757,000 for home care . . . . That's exactly what

we're intending to do. If the previous minister gave you a commitment that

there'd be some resolution, I hope you'll find that the operational costs of 230

beds in the Okanagan-Similkameen constitute keeping that commitment.

B. Barisoff: I guess looking on paper and seeing the minister indicate

that there would be 230 new beds in the next four years is not really the answer

I was looking for, on the basis of the fact that we're short today. The

Okanagan, and particularly the South Okanagan, is the draw for a lot of our

retired people. By the time we get 230 beds built, we'll be short 500 or 800. As

my colleague from Penticton says, we'll

[ Page 17273 ]

be probably short 800 beds by that point in time. My concern is, I guess,

that there was great anticipation when this announcement was coming, and the

people that I talked to . . . . I think there was more than just

anticipation. There was something there. There would be absolutely no reason for

them to indicate to me that there was some movement or there was some document

by the ministry that said that these were going to start. In fact, the comment

that the person made was that they would probably even be started before there

was an election. I said that that was highly unlikely because we expect an

election probably within the next two or three months. And he said: "Trust

me; this is going to happen."

So I guess my concern, again, to the minister is: was there something there?

Was there something in one of the documents that said . . . ? You're

indicating that there is a proposal for 230 long term care beds. I'm looking to

see whether there was something in the document that was supposed to happen

immediately, not a year from now or two years from now or whatever else; that

there was something that was going to be announced; that we were going to be

looking at an immediate building of some long term care beds. I think the

indication was that it would be starting with Penticton, and then there were

going to be some in the Oliver-Osoyoos area.

So I want to go back to that question and find out whether the minister can

find out whether there was actually something there that was going to start

immediately, not looking at a year or two years or three years down the way. As

the minister knows, because he's probably driven through the Okanagan enough

times, it is the retirement area of British Columbia. It's a beautiful area, and

people are moving in all the time, so we have to look to see how we're going to

alleviate this problem.

Hon. C. Evans: I'm talking with the staff about whether anyone knows

of a document related to a particular construction opportunity in the southern

Okanagan that might have been what the hon. member's talking about. We don't. It

was suggested that perhaps it's a Kelowna initiative, but I doubt it, because

the hon. member knows exactly where Kelowna is.

[1645]

I want to speak more generally. What we're announcing is operational funding

for 2,000 beds. The speed with which they get there is largely due to the

individual health authorities' ability to deliver the physical plant. Of course,

there's some private, some non-profit, some public. Every health authority in

the province, I think, has plans on the shelf or that they're engaged in with

the ministry or that they have been thinking about, if they had operational

funding. The fact that we are guaranteeing operational funding for approximately

230 beds in the hon. member's area ought to liberate the capital to initiate

events. This is not the lollipop session of the government. We're not cutting

ribbons here; we're not announcing goodies. We're saying: "Here is the

operational funding for 2,000 beds, and your health authority can source those

beds in the most creative way they can."

The other thing I would like to say is that the hon. member referred to the

fact that by the time he got 230 beds built, he might need 800 or 1,000 or

something. There are several steps here. I don't disagree; I think the health

planners think that when I and the hon. member are in need of continuing-care

beds there may be a need fo