2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th 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)

MONDAY, MAY 26, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jack Radford

J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Aga Khan Foundation

J. Nuraney

Duke of Edinburgh's Award recipients

V. Roddick

Ronald Lou-Poy

I. Chong

Oral Questions

Privatization of B.C. Rail

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

Liquor sales and identification requirements

M. Hunter

Hon. R. Coleman

Privatization of B.C. Rail

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

Management of Coquihalla Highway

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Reid

B.C. Rail staff layoffs

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. Reid

University college designation

T. Bhullar

Hon. S. Bond

Regulation of floatplane landings

B. Suffredine

Hon. J. Murray

Petitions

R. Harris

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Legislative Library, annual report, 2002

Ministry of Finance, notification of accounting policy change, 2002-03

Motions without Notice

Adoption of government business

schedule for

May 26 to May 29, 2003

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Second Reading of Bills

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40)

(continued)

Hon. R. Neufeld

J. MacPhail

P. Nettleton

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45)

Hon. M. de Jong

J. MacPhail

P. Bell

R. Harris

R. Hawes

B. Suffredine

Hon. M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health Planning (continued)

Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. K. Whittred

Hon. G. Cheema

Point of Privilege

J. Kwan

[ Page 6891 ]

MONDAY, MAY 26, 2003

The House

met at 2:06 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Campbell: Unfortunately, this particular guest isn't with us today, but the

press gallery has yet another member added to its tribe. The CBC TV reporter

Justine Hunter gave birth to a seven-pound, six-ounce baby boy on Victoria Day.

Evidently, Justine and her partner Darrell Gittens are having difficulty coming

up with a name, and I'm sure that the member from Mount Pleasant will be able to

tell her what names she didn't use. That would probably be helpful to Justine.

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the Legislature, I think simply "Claude"

would be good.

Mr.

Speaker: So I'm getting blamed again. [Laughter.]

Harris: We are joined in the House today by a very good friend of mine down

from Kitimat. She has served a large part of her life in municipal politics, in

the municipality, but also on the federal scene. She is the past president for

the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Would the House please make Joanne

Monaghan very welcome.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I'm very pleased to introduce a special guest in the gallery today.

Her name is Mrs. Nomalanga Makwedini. She is the director of the HIV/AIDS, STI

and TB control unit department of health at the Eastern Cape province in South

Africa. In 1996 the Eastern Cape province and British Columbia signed an

agreement on cooperation and governance under the aegis of the Canada–South

Africa Provincial Twinning Project. Study and work exchanges are funded by the

Canadian International Development Agency and administered by the Institute of

Public Administration of Canada.

This

partnership has been an enriching experience in both provinces. In the next two

weeks Mrs. Makwedini and her colleague — and I hope I'm saying the names right

— Dr. Buyiswa Mjamba will study best practices and share innovative solutions

in prevention, treatment and research in the area of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis

control. She will observe the roles and the structures of the British Columbia

Centre for Disease Control, the Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the

Ministries of Health Services and Health Planning and NGOs in the province.

Please join

me in welcoming to this House our guest from Eastern Cape province, and we wish

her a productive and enjoyable stay in our Pacific province.

Tributes

JACK RADFORD

MacPhail: I'm reminded by the Premier's announcement that in the Bible it

talks about how as the seasons turn, there are ebbs and flows in life. As he

announced a flow and a growing of life, I am sad to announce today that the MLA

for Vancouver South from 1972 to 1975, Jack Radford, passed away in Victoria in

hospice on May 19, 2003 — the same day the baby was born. He had a valiant

battle with cancer and died at the age of 73.

He is

survived by his wife Shirley, daughters Denise, Cheryl and Brenda, two

stepchildren, Susan and David, seven grandchildren and four great-grandchildren.

He ran in Vancouver South — what was then called Vancouver South — for the

NDP in 1972 and was appointed Minister of Recreation and Conservation in that

government. He devoted all of his life to improving the conservation of

wildlife, providing parks, recreation and greenspace for people around the

province.

[1410]

As we bless

the birth of one, we mourn the passing of another very important person. I hope

that the Legislature would send condolences to Mr. Radford's family.

Mr.

Speaker: So ordered.

Introductions by Members

MacKay: Today in the gallery we're joined by 16 grade 7 students from St.

Joseph's Catholic independent school in Smithers in the beautiful Bulkley

Valley. They are accompanied today by two chaperons, Mark Adamson and Sally

Toman, as well as their teacher, Elizabeth Creyke. I'd ask the House to please

make them welcome.

Chong: In the gallery today I am pleased to introduce some very special

friends and community leaders who are here to watch question period. We have

amongst ourselves Ron and May Lou-Poy, who I will speak a little bit more about

later, as well as Mr. Ben Low, who represents the Lung Kong Association here in

Victoria; Mr. Eric Donald, who is a director on the board of governors of the

University of Victoria; Mr. Paul Chan, who represents the Hoy Sun Association;

Mr. Thomas Chan, who also represents the Chinese Freemason Society here in

Victoria; and Georgina Wong, who is a winner of a Women of Distinction award as

well as a founding member of the Victoria Chinatown Lioness Club. I hope the

House would make them all very welcome.

Hon. S.

Santori: I would like the House to welcome today Kristin Knutson from

Castlegar, who is a student at Selkirk College in Trail. Kristen is working —

for free, I might add — in the office of the Clerk of Committees for two weeks

as part of her practicum studies. I would ask that the House make her feel very

welcome.

Nuraney: We have in the gallery today some of my favourite people. I have my

older brother Badrudin, who is here — who spared no rod as I was growing up

— and his wife, Nabat. I also have my

[ Page 6892 ]

younger brother Salim and his wife, Yasmin, who have joined us today. I also

have a friend in Rashida Haji, a member of a prominent family of my community. I

would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

J. Bray:

Joining us in the gallery today is a Vic High student, Sarah Taylor. Sarah is a

budding journalist who is spending some time with Times Colonist reporter

Judy Lavoie. I'm not sure if she'll find the experience here to encourage her to

be a journalist or make her decide to take a different career, but I know that

she's going to find it an interesting experience. I ask the House to please make

her very welcome.

H. Long:

I want to inform all the members of the House that there are people out there

who are out for our blood. Due to the West Nile virus that is expected this way,

in British Columbia, at some point this year, the Canadian Blood Services needs

thousands of new donors to help build reserve blood should the agency require

certain collection activities as a result of the virus. In light of the

situation, I want to make all members aware of the blood drive with the Canadian

Blood Services that we'll be having here in the buildings on Thursday, May 29,

from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. in the Birch Room, in 339. I encourage all the members to

participate in that important initiative.

For the

public, I'd like to say that they can reach Blood Services through a 1-800

number: 236-6283. This is a very important initiative for British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: I note it's just before question period.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: In the gallery today is a lady from Fort St. John who came down to

visit the capital. Her name is Dorene Callison, and she has worked with me in my

office in Fort St. John since 1991. I'd like to make her welcome to Victoria

today.

[1415]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) AGA KHAN FOUNDATION

Nuraney: Yesterday was the day when over 6,000 people walked across Canada

to raise money for the Aga Khan Foundation Canada. The first report indicates

that over $3 million was raised yesterday. Since its inception, the World

Partnership Walk has raised more than $20 million across Canada, and more than

60,000 people have taken part.

The Aga

Khan Foundation has now become the leading philanthropic organization in the

world serving central and south Asia and East African countries. A full 100

percent of the sponsorship to the Aga Khan Foundation goes to the projects. The

World Bank and CIDA evaluate these projects and have concluded that the Aga Khan

Foundation Canada's stewardship and utilization of donor funds is impeccable.

The Aga

Khan Foundation is one of the agencies under the aegis of the Aga Khan

development network, which includes Aga Khan education services, Aga Khan trusts

for culture, Aga Khan University and Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development. The

Ismaili community around the world takes enormous pride in the work of their

leader, His Highness the Aga Khan.

We in

Canada derive much comfort and satisfaction in being able to contribute and make

a small contribution to this global trust to improve the lives of those in need.

This is truly the Canadian way. Our Premier and my colleagues in this House have

shown their continued support for this worthy cause, and I would like to take

this opportunity to thank them all.

DUKE OF EDINBURGH'S

AWARD RECIPIENTS

Roddick: The Duke of Edinburgh's Award, designed with great care by a small

team in 1956, is a means to encourage and motivate all young people between the

ages of 14 and 25 in areas of community service right through to physical

recreation. In the words of our Lieutenant-Governor, these remarkable words

teach the wisdom of toughening the body, inspiring the heart, enlightening the

mind and polishing the precious human spirit.

This is not

a competition but rather a test of the individual's self-reliance. The program

includes children with special needs, providing them with a great opportunity to

reach for their best. On June 3 there will be a ceremony held in Tsawwassen at

South Delta Secondary school to award bronze medals to young people from the

lower mainland. I'm proud to say that Delta has had its fair share of Duke of

Edinburgh achievers, including last year's gold medallists, Bren Farrish, Jessy

Dhillon, Cole Anderson, Scott Fattedad, Blake Jamieson, Jeremy Lasell and Shafiq

Vallani.

Recent

silver award winners include Ben Linkowich, Ian McLennan and Christina

Chamberlain. I would also to mention Clint Gurniak of the Tsawwassen first

nation, who has also won gold and silver awards, and Ruthie Adams, a silver

award winner — both from the TFN — who will be receiving their bronze award

in June along with Vanessa Nielson, Lisa Hislop, Kirin Jacobson, Suzanne Pereira

and Alyssia Premji. Congratulations to all participants and their mentors. Your

contribution is exemplary.

RONALD LOU-POY

Chong: It is my pleasure today to introduce the University of Victoria's

newest chancellor, Dr. Ronald Lou-Poy, QC. Last November members of the

University of Victoria convocation, including alumni and faculty, cast their

ballots and elected Ron as their ninth chancellor, succeeding Dr. Norma

Mickelson. Ron's three-year term began on January 1, and the official

installation takes place next Tuesday morning on June

[ Page 6893 ]

3. However, he has already been very busy attending meetings and many

functions.

Ron is a

graduate of Victoria College, UVic's forerunner, and he is a senior partner in

the Victoria law firm of Crease Harmon and Co. He has had extensive involvement

with the university and the broader community, including two terms on the UVic

board of governors from '72 to '74 and from 1992 to '95, and as an original

director of the UVic Innovation and Development Corp.

[1420]

Under Ron's

direction, the Lou-Poy family has been instrumental in spearheading many local

fundraising efforts. In particular, their support in the construction of

much-needed child care space at UVic led to its being named the Harry Lou-Poy

Infant and Toddler Child Care Centre, named for Ron Lou-Poy's father.

Within the

broader community, Ron has held various positions with the Kiwanis Club, the

United Way, Victoria Crime Stoppers, the Victoria McPherson Foundation and the

Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association. He is a Queen's Counsel, an

honorary citizen of Victoria, a recipient of the community service award from

the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. Branch, and last year received the Queen's

Golden Jubilee medal. Almost three years ago Ron Lou-Poy was granted an honorary

doctorate of law from the University of Victoria.

While

Ronald Lou-Poy credits much of his success to the example set by his father, he

has certainly distinguished himself through many selfless years of commitment to

the community to help make Victoria a better place to live. Ron assumes the role

as the ninth chancellor for the university, but he represents much more. He

becomes the first-ever Chinese person to be bestowed this honour at this

university. As the titular head of the university who confers degrees and as a

member of UVic's senate and board of governors, we are privileged to have such a

distinguished gentleman serve as chancellor, and we wish him much success.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL

MacPhail: Just days ago the opposition released documents from B.C. Rail

that indicated that selling this profitable Crown corporation to Liberal

campaign backers could have potentially dire consequences for the economy of

this province. Today we see even more implications of the Premier's now

thoroughly broken promise to not sell B.C. Rail. It was revealed today in a

newspaper that thousands of well-paid jobs will be sent to other provinces.

That's a really innovative economic strategy, isn't it?

Can the

Premier tell us why it's good for the taxpayers to export more than a thousand

jobs and millions of dollars of profits to Alberta and Quebec?

Hon. J.

Reid: Our B.C. Rail initiative is all about jobs. It's all about prosperity.

It's all about sustainability. It's all about the heartlands. It's about the

industries in the heartlands. Right now we have industries that are trucking

their product to Alberta to put on rail in Alberta instead of jobs here in B.C.

We want

sustainable….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the answer, or we will

terminate question period right now.

Hon. J.

Reid: We want sustainable, long-term rail service in British Columbia, and

we are looking at the private sector to be an operating partner to be able to

service our industry and service our communities.

LIQUOR SALES AND

IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Hunter: As the Solicitor General knows, pub and bar owners in Nanaimo and in

other parts of the province are unhappy with new identification requirements

that were introduced last December. Although the legal drinking age is 19,

licensees must request two pieces of identification if a patron appears to be

under the age of 25. Can the Solicitor General explain why these regulations

were introduced and what enforcement of them has achieved?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Last December when we brought in the new regulations for liquor and

eliminated 2,500 to 3,000 silly regulations in the liquor sector, we told

industry and we told the public that we were going to concentrate on four public

safety issues: service to minors, over-service, overcrowding and illegal liquor

in our establishments.

Part of

that is an initiative to ask our operators to ask for two pieces of ID, which

was done in consultation with the industry. What we have found, through testing,

is that we weren't getting the compliance rates we were looking for. We have not

done any more than warn the industry to improve its role and do its job better.

We make no apologies for having rules that say we will now enforce minors in

licensed premises. We will go forward and work with the industry so that

compliance goes up and the need for inspections goes down.

[1425]

PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL

MacPhail: The exporting of good jobs isn't the only new piece in the

Premier's broken promise puzzle that came out today. The leaked briefing

document also shows that after this government hands over B.C. Rail to its

campaign backers at CN, customers who now ship their goods through B.C. Rail

will pay more — lots more, more than 600 percent more — when this government

privatizes and gives it away to CN.

[ Page 6894 ]

It's

starting to become even clearer why there's so much interest in scooping up B.C.

Rail from the Liberal campaign backers: eliminate the competition and be able to

charge 600 percent more. Who wouldn't sign up for such a deal?

Will the

Premier commit today that he will stop the sell-off of this vital provincial

asset to Liberal campaign backers and actually keep the promise that he made in

the last election to keep B.C. Rail in public hands?

Hon. J.

Reid: It's unfortunate that the member opposite has not been paying

attention to the process we're involved in with B.C. Rail. We have been working

with communities and we have been working with shippers to develop an RFP

document that is public. The RFP document clearly states that what we're looking

for is a proposal that would address competitiveness, sustainability, growth

opportunities and community-specific issues. We have not received any proposals

to date. This has just gone out.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Well, this is becoming a theme of this government: "Oh, it's

just an idea we're floating. Relax." Isn't it interesting? Maybe the

government would like to say that all these leaked documents are wrong. Just

stand up and say it. Here's a chance, because the biggest customer that B.C.

Rail has right now is the forest industry.

We may have

known, in our absence last week, that several mills shut down in the province,

to add to other mills that shut down in the weeks previous. It's the forest

industry, which is already reeling from this government's inability to solve the

softwood lumber dispute, that will pay the vast majority of the 600 percent

increase in shipping costs if this goes to CN Rail.

Is there

any MLA from the north or the interior that will stand up for their

forest-dependent communities? Can the Premier tell this House what analysis he

has done to determine the effect of this more than 600 percent increase on the

forest industry? Will he release that information — that economic study that

I'm sure he's done — to the House today?

Hon. J.

Reid: The nonsense that is being discussed here is frustrating to be able to

address. We want investment in B.C. Rail that will be sustainable, that will

meet the needs of industry and that meets the needs of communities. It is the

industry and communities that are saying that the status quo is not acceptable.

It is the industry and communities that we have been working with in order to

come up with this RFP, and it is this RFP that is our basis for evaluating

proposals.

MANAGEMENT OF COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

J. Kwan:

Thousands of people in the interior are attending meetings and organizing

against the government's sell-off of the Coquihalla tolls. The Kamloops and

Kelowna Chambers of Commerce are just two of the voices of business who have

condemned the plan. Ron Cannan, president of the Okanagan mainline municipal

association, says the sell-off is "totally unfair and discriminatory."

Even Paul Mitchell, head of the Coquihalla coalition and a Liberal who gave

$4,600 to the Liberal election machine, is asking: "Where are the MLAs?

They should be pounding their fists on the table."

Today the

mayor of Kamloops stated that the sell-off of the Coquihalla tolls doesn't meet

"the heartlands test." To the Minister of Transportation: will she

admit today that the sell-off is a bad idea for the interior of B.C. and cancel

her plan to impose a permanent toll on the Coquihalla? Will she tell the

Minister of Finance to go somewhere else to find the money to pay off his

record-breaking deficits?

[1430]

Hon. J.

Reid: When I travelled around this province for the first year, I heard,

from all those people who were mentioned as well as all the communities, that

investment in transportation infrastructure was critical for economic

development around this province. I heard from all the MLAs representing all

these areas that transportation infrastructure in their area was absolutely

necessary.

We have

taken steps to be able to look at an increase in fuel tax that is only partially

the solution. We are looking at being able to provide investment in

infrastructure, and in this area alone — in the central area of the province

— we're looking at $350 million worth of infrastructure improvements over

three years. The Coquihalla provides benefits if we are able to get the operator

to maintain and rehabilitate the highway. We have benefits for greater use of

the highway, better rehabilitation and investment in that highway, as well as

frequent-traveller passes.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

The mayor of Kamloops has identified a simple heartlands test where a government

initiative must "be in keeping with the expressed aspirations of the

heartlands." Community and business leaders throughout the interior say the

sell-off of the Coquihalla tolls does not meet the test, but the government

isn't listening.

There might

be hope, though. In a letter to the local paper, the member from Kamloops begs

readers to try to get past the emotion — that it is a proposal only. The

letter makes every effort to put the government's plan in the best light and

attacks the previous administration.

But it does

raise the following question. To the Minister of Transportation: given that she

isn't prepared to listen to municipal leaders and business leaders, will she

commit today that if the local MLAs tell her that the sell-off of the Coquihalla

tolls to pay for the Finance

[ Page 6895 ]

minister's record-breaking deficit doesn't meet the heartlands test, she will

kill it?

Hon. J.

Reid: As we look at investing in transportation infrastructure — which is

what this is about; as we look at being able to provide benefits to areas, to

users, to local residents, to frequent travellers; as we look at the fact that

81 percent…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Reid: …of the people using the Coquihalla are not from the local area; and

as we look at the return to the taxpayer….

We have a

bottom line. If we do not exceed our bottom line, we will not be going ahead

with this deal. It will make sense, and it will provide the benefits we need.

B.C. RAIL STAFF LAYOFFS

Nettleton: Back to B.C. Rail. I'm eager to read the Prince George newspapers

tomorrow to see what kind of empty assurances the member for Prince George North

will give this one.

CN Rail's

briefing note would see this private operator cut 70 percent of B.C. Rail jobs.

That comes out to more than 1,200 jobs — hundreds alone in Prince George.

That's a huge blow for rail-dependent communities, including Prince George.

To the

minister: does her government support this gutting of B.C. Rail jobs? Or will

she disqualify CN Rail from winning the bid, since her own request for proposals

— to which she made reference earlier — states that any private operator

must show how employees in communities would benefit and not be adversely

affected by this form of privatization?

[1435]

Hon. J.

Reid: There has been no proposal that's been received by CN. There's been no

proposal received by anyone. We've put out the RFP, and interested parties will

seek to be qualified. From there they'll put proposals in, which will be

evaluated according to the criteria outlined in the RFP request.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DESIGNATION

Bhullar: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Many of the

educational institutions around the province bear the name "University

College." Would it not make more sense to designate them as one or the

other, as they were previously designated?

Hon. S.

Bond: University colleges in this province provide a broad spectrum of

opportunities for students — everything from career and trades training to

university degrees — and now under the Degree Authorization Act, university

colleges have the ability to grant applied master's degrees.

They're

outstanding institutions in the province. They provide a broad opportunity of

choice for our students, and we think they have an important role to play in

post-secondary education in this province.

REGULATION OF FLOATPLANE LANDINGS

Suffredine: Floatplane operators in this province have concerns about why it

is difficult to access lakes in B.C. parks. Those pilots have traditionally

provided observations for free that help park officials monitor activities in

the parks and protect the environment. Now they have to negotiate landings on a

region-by-region basis. This is inconvenient, it discourages exploration of our

parks and back country, and it increases risk to the environment. Can the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us why we have this rule and

what's being done to make floatplane landings more practical?

Hon. J.

Murray: I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the B.C.

Floatplane Association last month, and they raised this issue, which relates to

a regulation dating from 1990 that hasn't been amended at this point despite

ongoing discussions between the association and government over the past decade.

I'm pleased to report that in that meeting, we did agree on a process and a time

line for reviewing the regulation and addressing those concerns by the end of

the year.

I'd like to

reassure the member that I'm very aware that responsible floatplane owners can

be extra sets of eyes and ears that help to protect our parks. I, as well as the

rest of government, appreciate that role that they do play.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

Harris: I'd like to take this opportunity to present a petition to the

House, signed by 5,000 people from the Terrace-Kitimat area, requesting that the

Ministry of Transportation put in place a stronger regime of highway maintenance

that is more proactive and has greater monitoring and enforcement requirements

so that our highway system is maintained at the highest and safest standards.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the annual report of the

British Columbia Legislative Library for the year 2002.

Hon. G.

Collins: In accordance with

section 11(2) of the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act, I'm announcing a change in accounting policy for the fiscal

year ending March 31, 2003.

In fiscal

year 2001-02 the province qualified for and received federal equalization

payments of $226 million.

[ Page 6896 ]

This receipt was recorded on a cash basis because

detailed information was unavailable at budget time to record it on the accrual

basis. This was the first federal equalization payment made to British Columbia

since 1962.

Equalization

payments are based on a complex economic model and calculation, including

changes in population and economic conditions for the previous three-year

period. During fiscal 2002-03 additional detailed information became available

to us from the federal government, which now permits the recording of the

federal equalization funds using the accrual method of accounting, consistent

with other types of provincial revenue and generally accepted accounting

principles.

Estimates

of the accrual basis for equalization payments were first disclosed in the

quarterly reports of the Ministry of Finance in the fiscal year 2002-03. This

change in accounting policy is made public in accordance with the Budget

Transparency and Accountability Act as described in the document I'll table

momentarily.

[1440]

The effect

of the change is that the bottom line for 1999-2000 will be increased by

$125.286 million, and the bottom lines for 2001-02 and 2002-03 will be decreased

by $67.533 million and $57.753 million, respectively. It's important to note

that this change in accounting policy does not affect the results reported under

the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. The Balanced Budget and

Ministerial Accountability Act reporting must be based on the accounting

policies used in the estimates of the same year. Therefore, the current

summary

bottom line in the public accounts will be $57.753 million more than that

reported in the ministerial accountability report and will include a

reconciliation. All future federal equalization receipts will be recorded on the

accrual basis according to generally accepted accounting principles.

Additional

information about the federal equalization program may be obtained from pages 45

to 48 of the first quarterly report for April to June of 2002, which is

published by the Ministry of Finance. That quarterly report is also available

electronically on the ministry website. I table the report.

Motions without Notice

ADOPTION OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

SCHEDULE FOR MAY 26 TO MAY 29, 2003

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the

schedule in the hands of the Clerk, as well as the

opposition, be adopted for the conclusion of the government business for the

week of May 26 to May 29, 2003.

[That

the following page be adopted for the conclusion of government businesss for the

week of May 26 to May 29, 2003.

Monday

2:45-4:45

4:45-9:00

Health

Services

Bills 40, 45

Com. of Supply

2nd Reading

Section A:

5:00-9:00

MOS

Mental Health

MOS Int., Long

Term Home Care

Com. of Supply

Tuesday:

10:00-12:00

2:45-3:45

3:45-4:30

4:30-6:00

Bills

50, 51

Bills 64, 66, 58

Bill 61

Bills 40, 45

2nd Reading

2nd Reading

2nd Reading

Committee

Section A:

10:00-6:00

Health

Services

Com. of Supply

Wednesday

2:45-4:30

4:30-9:00

Bills

61, 66

Office of the Premier

Vote 1 and Final

Supply (1-7)

Committee

Com. of Supply

Thursday

10:00-11:00

11:00-12:00

2:45-6:00

Bills

50, 51

Bills

58, 64

Bills

29, 39

Committee

Committee

Committee]

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition wishes to speak on this. It's not a

debatable….

MacPhail: I just want to make sure that this is not unanimous and that we'll

be able to call a vote on it.

Mr.

Speaker: Yes, we'll call a vote on the motion.

The motion

in front of you is the

schedule of bills to be passed for the remainder of this

week. I'm sure all members have a copy. Hon. members, the question before the

House is adoption of the

schedule of business for the week of May 26 to May 29

inclusive.

[1445]

Motion

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 69

Falcon

Coell

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

[ Page 6897 ]

NAYS — 3

Nettleton

MacPhail

Kwan

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply for continued debate on the estimates of

the Ministry of Health Services.

[1450-1455]

Committee of Supply

The House in

Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:58 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 29:

ministry operations, $10,038,097,000 (continued) .

MacPhail: We left off going through health authority by health authority,

and we were just about to deal with the Fraser health authority. I have a

question to ask the minister — maybe a couple of questions — about the

recent court decision regarding health authorities.

As the

minister knows, last week while we were in our ridings working, Justice Macaulay

of the Supreme Court of B.C. issued a ruling on whether health authorities were

meeting their obligations in being publicly accountable. The complaint was

brought forward by the Hospital Employees Union, and it was ruled upon last week

when we were absent. It is timely now in the context of us trying to find out

information from health authorities from the minister, but also the public

[1500]

Let me read

the key quote from this decision. The PHSA, or provincial health services

authority…. Even the judge is using the short form. It is the sixth — for

lack of a better term — health authority that covers all tertiary care

services in the province. Here is what the judge said: "The functions of

the provincial health services authority are administrative and advisory. The

minister remains legally and politically responsible. The minister" — and

he means the Minister of Health Services — "sets the applicable

provincial guidelines, not the provincial health services authority. The

provincial health services authority was required to develop its redesign plan

in accordance with guidelines provided by the minister."

Essentially,

Mr. Chair, this decision would counter any of the Health minister's claims that

he can avoid a question or dodge answers by placing responsibility on the health

authorities. Clearly, this decision says that the minister is responsible for

guidelines, approves their plans, and as the judge pointed out, the government

— the minister — remains politically and legally responsible. This, I think,

warrants some clarification when the following quotes are considered from the

ministry website, so this is advice that I'm giving to the minister and asking

him how he reacts.

Here's what

the Ministry of Health Services website says: "Health authorities have the

responsibility for delivering health services for their overall populations,

including acute, continuing care, public health and mental health." Second

quote from the ministry website: "Within the regionalized system of health

care in the province, the Ministry of Health Services is responsible for the

requirements, conditions and policies within which health authorities manage

their services and supports. Health authorities are responsible for determining

how best to provide a range of services and supports…. Health authorities are

responsible for outcomes."

I would

argue, given this court decision of last week, that the description on the

website is now inaccurate and that it should change to reflect what the court

decision said, which is that the minister is accountable legally and

politically. Will the website be changed?

Hon. C.

Hansen: First of all, to address the issue of the open board meetings that

was included in that. All of the health authorities have had open board

meetings. It is a requirement in the legislation, the Health Authorities Act.

Certainly, the Attorney General ministry as well as the Ministry of Health

Services are reviewing the court decision so that we can learn from it with

regard to what an appropriate

interpretation of the requirement is, and we will

be following up on that with the health authorities.

On the

other point that the member raises around the accountability of the minister,

what is on the website and what is in the judge's ruling are certainly not in

any way inconsistent. I have made it quite clear — in fact, we had this

discussion when we were in the middle of Health estimates about two weeks ago

— that I take responsibility.

I am

responsible for the activities that fall under my ministry and flow from my

ministry, and some of those responsibilities are, in fact, delegated. We have

delegated the operational and management responsibilities to our various health

authorities, but that in no way diminishes the overall accountability of the

Minister of Health Services.

MacPhail: What about what the website says? The two quotes I read out from

the website are in contradiction to the court decision.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I don't see them as contradictions. We have set up a framework

whereby the health authorities are responsible for management and operations,

but we do hold them accountable. We've put in place the budget controls around

how they spend moneys, but we have also put in place the accountability and

performance measures so that we can ascertain

[ Page 6898 ]

that they are, in fact, achieving the desired outcomes with the way they are

managing their affairs.

At the end

of the day, we want to let the managers manage — we will get much better

results if we do that — but that does not diminish the accountability I have

for the overall operations of the health authorities. I think it's fair to say

that in this very complex organization known as health care delivery, with a $10

billion budget and 100-plus staff that work to make this system work, the

Minister of Health Services can't do everything. You know, he or she has to

delegate, and that's exactly what we've done in this case. Therefore, the

wording in the website I don't think is inconsistent.

[1505]

MacPhail: All right. I'm not going to pursue this. If the minister says he's

completely unaffected by the court decision, that's very interesting. But the

first quote I read said: "Health authorities" — this is from the

website — "have the responsibility for delivering health services for

their overall populations, including acute, continuing care, public health and

mental health." The quote from the judgment is that the minister remains

legally and politically responsible. That's directly contrary to what the

website says.

The

minister shakes his head. I guess we'll leave it up to the public to decide

whether he's going to be unmoved by the decision, but certainly it seems to me

that a statement saying health authorities have the responsibility for

delivering health services is directly contradictory to what the judge said.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I was waiting for a specific question there.

We will

certainly take advice from the ruling, but I don't see it as inconsistent in any

way that I will not shirk my overall responsibility for the way the health

system works. The policy framework is certainly dictated by the provincial

Ministry of Health Services, so the health authorities have to operate within

that framework, but we have to allow the managers to manage those affairs and

deliver a good health care delivery system in this province.

Mr. Chair,

before I turn it back to the Leader of the Opposition, I ask leave to make an

introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'm actually very pleased to welcome a group of students here today

from Crofton House School in the riding of Vancouver-Quilchena. There are 40

grade 4 students from the school, along with five adults. Their teacher, Mrs.

McGrath, I think, is here. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

J. MacPhail:

Well, one of the reasons why I'm pursuing this so vigorously is exactly because

of the discussions we've had in the Health estimates. To date, this is perhaps

one of the few, if only, places where any light can be shone on what goes on in

the Ministry of Health Services. I'm pursuing this with the minister because

just the very last discussion that we had, which was in the hours prior to us

going to our ridings for a week, here's what the Minister of State for Mental

Health said: "If this member or her colleague is concerned about missing

funds, they should report to the CEO of the appropriate health authority."

I would

hate to suggest how many times in this Legislature we've been told that the

health authorities are in charge. That was the most recent example of it, on

Thursday last, when the Minister of State for Mental Health shirked his

responsibility to the health authorities.

I would

also quote from a decision…. Actually, this is a very interesting decision

from Justice Macaulay. It says over on page 30: "In my view, the minister

has not delegated any of his duties."

The justice

goes on to say that the reason why there needs to be…. "While

section 8

specifically limits closed meetings to circumstances where the board considers

it desirable to avoid disclosure of information 'to protect the interests of a

person or the public interest….'" That statement shows, in my view, a

cynical favouring of the interest of the bureaucracy over that of the public as

well as a stunning disregard for the legislative intent behind

section 8.

"Mr.

Bruce" — I'm sorry; Mr. Bruce, I think, is counsel for the health

authorities — "proffered his opinion mainly on the question of public

consultation, an issue not addressed by

section 8, I note that he referred

expressly to the presence of the public in the passage quoted."

[1510]

This whole

decision is rife with the fact that (1) the Ministry of Health Services, and

therefore the provincial government, cannot shirk its responsibility as being

the authority, both politically and legally, for health services — it is their

responsibility and their responsibility alone — and (2) that there has to be

public disclosure of these matters.

How would

the minister respond to what the Minister of State for Mental Health told my

colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me to do — that he's not going

to answer the questions and that we should go to the health authorities? The

health authorities aren't here. They're not legally or politically responsible,

according to this court decision, and they're under questionable disregard of

the law for lack of public meetings.

Hon. C.

Hansen: First of all, I think we just have to go back a couple of years. The

legislative requirement for public meetings by health authorities is something

that was in place going back probably to when this member was Health minister in

the province. That hasn't changed.

If you look

at what we inherited when we formed government, it was a very mixed approach

across the

[ Page 6899 ]

province when it came to public meetings. Some health authorities did them

regularly. Some did them very, very infrequently.

I think the

issue is that it was never tested before the courts. It's now been before the

courts. We have a decision that we can certainly take some guidance from. As I

mentioned earlier, we are certainly reviewing that court decision, as is the

Ministry of Attorney General, to determine what course of action we should take

in the future to make sure that our health authorities are, in fact, in

compliance with that legislative requirement.

I guess the

other thing is the amount of detail. We could go into the detail of how each of

the health authorities is spending its respective funds. We have health

authorities that have budgets in excess of a billion dollars each. We have to

rely on their professionalism and their expertise to make sure that the health

care delivery system is structured in a way that meets those concerns.

Actually, I

could refer the member back to Hansard on May 27, 1997, when she herself

said in this House that the health authorities will decide what their priorities

are. I think that relationship between the health authorities and the ministry

has not changed. We still rely on the health authorities to ensure that there is

proper delivery at the health authority level.

I may not

have all of the answers for every minute detail about how the health authorities

are meeting that challenge, but I can certainly try my best to get answers for

her to any of her questions. If they're not something we can readily answer with

the information we have at our fingertips, I would certainly undertake to get

that information for her.

MacPhail: Isn't it interesting what a difference a legal decision makes. All

of a sudden now the minister is standing up and saying: "Well, nothing's

changed since the 1990s." In fact, when he's on the defence from a court

decision, he says: "Everything's happening exactly the same as it did in

the 1990s." What the hell was the big announcement about, about how they

were going to do things differently and about how awful it was in the 1990s —

how awful, how chaotic it was and expensive? Now, when faced with a court

decision that claims his government isn't being responsible, he says: "Oh,

we're not doing anything differently."

I don't

know why the minister keeps insisting on quoting back from a time when I was in

government. I've lost a lot of my big memory, but I haven't lost one iota of the

excruciating detail of my responsibility. Let me tell the minister that every

single health council, every single regional health board, held open, public

meetings regularly — painfully so, I might add. They would go on for hours.

They were held regularly. They heard delegation after delegation until there

were no more delegations to be heard. In fact, it was his members in opposition

that claimed that was a waste of time. That's what I remember.

The

difference between 1997 and 2003, six years, is this: at no time did the then

government ever claim they were no longer responsible for health care in this

province. What this government has done until now, caught out by a decision, is

to say: "Oh, that's the health authorities' problem." In fact, as we

ask for detail after detail about mental health, we can't get any details about

mental health because that's the regional health authorities' issue. That's what

we're told. That's just one example.

Is the

government examining whether to appeal this decision?

Hon. C.

Hansen: As I mentioned earlier, this court ruling is being reviewed both by

my ministry and by the Ministry of Attorney General, and no decisions have been

made.

[1515]

MacPhail: But the minister's not ruling out an appeal?

Hon. C.

Hansen: At this stage we certainly have no intention to appeal, and so far

no one has come forward to me with any reasons why we should.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, we were on Fraser health authority when we left last

time. Since then there has been a very tragic event, and I know everyone joins

in sending condolences to the family of the Herons — both the in-laws and the

immediate family — for the murder of two people in Mission Hospital.

I do not

want to explore the particulars of that incident — not at all. I think it is a

matter that is too fresh and too grievous and too tragic for it to be used in

any way in a forum that is a partisan debate.

What I do

have is all of the articles at the very beginning related to that event, but

only to bring attention to this — it was actually my first item under the

Fraser health authority prior to us leaving — and that is the whole issue of

hospital security and privatization of services. So I'm going to proceed on that

basis. But it's about the Fraser health authority and the privatization or

contracting-out of security, and in no way am I relating this to the Mission

Hospital incident.

It's been

my understanding that health authorities around the province for the last six or

seven years have had a mix of publicly delivered security and privately

delivered security, but that there is a change afoot in the Fraser health

authority, that there is going to be a substantial expansion of privately

delivered hospital security, that the recommended company to take up the

expanded privatization of security is a company called Intercon Security Ltd.

and that they are on the verge of getting a five-year contract.

Perhaps the

minister could use this as an example of explaining to me how decisions are made

around private delivery of security services in a hospital. What are the

qualifications necessary?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think the most important point is that when we ensure there are

proper security services at any of our facilities, we have to put the interests

of the individual patients and the staff first. There is noth-

[ Page 6900 ]

ing that says an in-house security staff provides a better service in that

regard than contracted services. Certainly, when the Fraser health authority

went out with their RFP, they set out in that RFP the experience and security

benchmarks that would have to be met. In no way does the contracting-out process

lead to any compromise or reduction in the quality or effectiveness of security

that our patients and our health care professionals rely on.

MacPhail: Well, I'm asking for the details behind that assertion. This is

the time to actually provide the details. Does a security company have to have

previous health institution experience?

[1520]

It would be

my view that there's a difference between providing security at a data centre

and a hospital — that there are many, many different concerns. I can think of

the vast number of people entering and leaving the institution on a regular

basis, the arrival of people with mental health disorders who may need to be

treated differently than those without mental health disorders, people who are

highly medicated, people who should be medicated and aren't, families who are

frantic with the urgency of the situation and crime victims coming to the

hospital. What are the standards that are set for security at hospitals?

I would

also think just this, Mr. Chair. My other area of concern is that people, by

virtue of being admitted into a hospital and being in a bed, are in a vulnerable

position themselves.

Hon. C.

Hansen: As I think the member indicated, over the last number of years we've

had a mix of both in-house employed security staff and contracted security staff

at our facilities. Just within the Fraser health authority alone, they have

private security at Hope, at Chilliwack and at Mission. There are other, much

larger hospitals in B.C. that use private security service, including the

Children's and Women's Hospital, Richmond General and Kelowna General.

Companies

that provide private security are required to have comparable training to

in-house security staff used at other facilities. I think what's important from

that is not whether it is an in-house service or whether it is a contracted

service. What is important is the training each of those security officers

undertakes to make sure they are sensitive to the unique needs of our hospital

system. That is true whether it's an in-house service or a contracted-out

service.

MacPhail: What is that training? First of all, has the contract in Fraser

health authority been awarded to Intercon security? What's the value of the

contract? What's the nature of the training?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The Fraser health authority is in the final stages of that

particular process of securing a security supplier. That has not yet been

finalized, although my understanding is they're fairly close to it.

MacPhail: Did the RFP require a certain wage level for either management of

the services or the employees themselves?

Hon. C.

Hansen: It would be highly unusual for us to dictate a wage structure to a

contractor when we go out for an RFP.

MacPhail: It wouldn't be highly unusual to dictate a proportion of

administrative costs. That's what I was driving at. What would management be

paid versus what the people on the ground would be paid?

Will the

contract provide the training the current staff now have in non-violent crisis

intervention? That's a standard requirement of Workers Compensation Board and

health care facilities prior to this contract.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The RFP and the final contract which would be signed would specify

that the training would have to be comparable to the type of training that is in

place for in-house security staff currently.

[1525]

MacPhail: I asked a specific question about non-violent crisis intervention

training. Is that required? The reason why I'm asking these questions is that if

a company has no previous experience in health care institutional security, they

may not have experience in non-violent crisis intervention. There are different

types of security. So that's why I ask about that specifically.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think the same would be true of an in-house program where

individuals may be hired to provide an in-house security service. They, too,

would have to go through the kind of training that would be necessary to meet

those kinds of circumstances that might be unique to hospitals. What I've said

is that the training that would be required for these contractors would have to

be comparable to the kind of training that would be provided to security staff

working in an in-house environment.

MacPhail: Okay. I'll take that.

I asked

specifically about the non-violent crisis intervention training, so I assume —

given the minister's comments and the fact that all health authorities do now

directly provide that training — that when this service is contracted out, the

training will be expected to be provided by the new security company.

Who does

the training? When a new company comes in, who does the training of the new

guards?

Hon. C.

Hansen: It is my understanding that there is a requirement — spelled out

in the RFP and the contract — that there has to be comparable training and

that the supplier would have to ensure that those particular terms are met. But

there is not a requirement, necessarily, that it be done in-house.

MacPhail: What happens when a new security company comes in? What's the

training for staff other

[ Page 6901 ]

than the security guards in terms of contacting the security company? What

procedures are in place for that?

[1530]

Hon. C.

Hansen: That turned out to be a bit more complex than I would have

originally thought.

Basically,

within the security staff in the hospital, they would have supervisors who would

be responsible for making sure there is an ongoing relationship with the

hospital generally and with the other supervisory staff in the hospital. When it

came to emergency situations that had to develop, then obviously there would be

an interaction to make sure those needs get met on the urgent basis that may be

required, depending on the particular situation.

MacPhail: Is there any review given to the concerns raised by the BCNU last

week? I was busy with other things, but I think the B.C. Nurses Union raised

some general security issues. What review, if any, is being conducted as a

result of those concerns raised? That's why I asked the question.

I was just

thinking about this. In our general lives, we have to come into contact with

security systems even outside of our health care. But there is always a

transition period when there is a new security system put in place, whether it

be at your house or your strata council or your kid's school. One has to learn

new systems. What happens for that transition period? What, if anything, is the

ministry doing to ensure a safe and secure transition?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I know the member indicated that she didn't want to get into the

specific incident that happened, and I think the BCNU's response was with regard

to that specific incident. That is going to become the subject of a coroner's

investigation, I believe, and clearly those issues will be looked at as part of

that investigation. We want to make sure we learn from that.

But I think

it's fair to say, if I can speak generally about the level of security we have

at different facilities, that if someone is at one of those hospitals that I

mentioned earlier, where there are currently and have been for some time private

security firms, they should feel no less safe in those facilities than they

should feel in a facility where there is a security service that is provided

in-house. The fact that there are some contracted-out models and that there are

some in-house models is not a factor when it comes to making sure patients and

health care providers are safe when they're in those facilities.

MacPhail: I apologize. I didn't realize that the BCNU's concerns were

related specifically to that hospital.

I only

leave the minister with this. While there is a mix now of publicly delivered

security services and privately delivered services, my question is about change

and how, when there is change — particularly in the area of security services,

where notification procedures and alert procedures vary from company to company

— the overlap, the transition, is extremely important for the staff of the

hospital, the patients in the hospital and the training model as well. I'm not

in any way discussing this in the context of whether it's public or private.

It's about the change and not falling through the cracks.

Did the

minister give me what the surplus or deficit is of the Fraser health authority

at the end of fiscal '02-03?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Their projected surplus as of March 31 is $25.083 million on a base

budget of $1.3 billion.

MacPhail: Let me just put the minister on notice that I'll be asking a

series of questions about contracting-out as a result of the proposed settlement

not being ratified by health care workers. But I'll do that generally and

outside of Fraser health authority.

In terms of

the targets for the Fraser health authority…. I think Riverview Hospital has

got its own board and reports to the PHSA, but because the Fraser health

authority encompasses geographically the same area as Riverview Hospital, they

have a higher target — I assume that's the reason — for residents moving

from Riverview into selected locations in the communities of the Fraser health

authority. That means we're now two months into this fiscal year, where that

Fraser health authority is going to have to produce 114 units for Riverview

residents. What's the status of that?

[1535]

Hon. C.

Hansen: When we were discussing the performance agreements for other health

authorities, the member may recall that there were several health authorities

that had targets to achieve in the '02-03 year. In the case of Fraser, they had

to make progress last year towards achieving their target this year of 114 beds.

My understanding is that they are on target, and they expect to be able to meet

that objective. Actually, this was just handed to me, and it's…. The

allocation of the 114 units in '03-04 is shared with the Vancouver coastal

health authority, so it's not specific to Fraser health authority.

MacPhail: When they're well on target, like where…. Let's see. We've got

ten months left. Are places being built? Are they subsidized units? It will be

very interesting to see how those 114 units are produced, given — I would

assume, and experience tells us this to be true — that the vast majority of

people who leave Riverview want to stay in the lower mainland. So how is that

target being met by the shared responsibility between the Vancouver coastal

authority and the Fraser health authority?

Hon. C.

Hansen: My understanding is that they're now in the final stages of working

out their operational agreements between the health authorities with regard to

where these beds would be allocated. I am told that

[ Page 6902 ]

in the case of Fraser, they are in the process of developing new facilities

and that those facilities will be operational and able to accommodate those

requirements within this fiscal year.

MacPhail: Are they group homes, or are they mini-institutions? Are they

subsidized housing with support?

[1540]

Hon. C.

Hansen: They will be achieving their targets through a mix of community beds

as well as facilities along the Connolly Lodge model that was recently opened at

Riverview, which will ensure they meet their targets.

MacPhail: I'm moving to the interior health authority now. The last four

times I have been into the geographic area covered by the interior health

authority there has been a discussion, both in the media but also with people

I've been meeting at community meetings, about the low morale.

It started,

I think, when there was what some might have determined — this was about a

year ago, not quite a year ago — a communications gag put on interior health

authority employees so that they were not allowed to speak to the media, and

that ran through the system. There have also been surveys done — granted, it's

been done through the unions, the union representatives — about low morale at

the interior health authority.

The other

issue that I heard from the interior health authority was that casual employees

were no longer able to access the benefits or that the benefits which would have

allowed them to access psychological support services had been eliminated for

casual employees.

Let's start

in reverse order. Have the benefits for casual employees that would allow them

to access up to ten visits a year to a psychologist or a therapist on a family

basis been eliminated?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'm told that those provisions would be set out as part of the

collective agreements and that those provisions within the collective agreements

would be followed.

MacPhail: As the minister may know, and we're going to get to this in a

minute, there were lots of segments of the collective agreement that were made

null and void by Bill 29. I was told that as of November of this past year,

casual employees, including nurses who sometimes work more hours than regular

ones but who are classified as casual, no longer have access to employee

assistance. Employee assistance is the term I'm using. Is that true?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think the member's very much aware of the changes that were made

as a result of Bill 29 from a year ago. It's my understanding that there is

nothing in those changes that would affect these types of benefits for casual

employees.

MacPhail: Well, maybe I'll have to ask a question in question period after

we hear back from the employees who brought this to our attention, then, if the

minister…. I'm not in any way suggesting the minister is misleading the House.

He may be giving the information that he has available, but it was pretty much a

given, when I was up there last December, that those benefits had been cut.

Here's why they were concerned. It was because there is, as you know, stress in

change, stress in a shifting workload, and the casual workers — particularly

the casual nurses — no longer had access to any sort of employee assistance

benefits and therefore were quite troubled by that.

What is the

status, then, of the interior health authority in terms of employee relations?

Can the minister describe for us what labour relations are in place,

particularly in the interior health authority where matters such as what

employees would call a communications gag are on and there is also low morale?

[1545]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I would like to address this issue that she raises about

instructions to the staff regarding their relationship with the media. There is

no gag order, and there never was one. What happened at a facility in Salmon

Arm, I believe it was, was that some of the front-line staff made a decision to

go directly to the media rather than talking to their own supervisors about a

concern they had around patient care. The message that was sent out to all

employees is that they had a professional obligation to make sure that issues

around patient care were, in fact, discussed with their supervisors before they

talked to media. I think that's a fair request, and I certainly stand by the

instructions that went out from the interior health authority in that regard.

On the

other area with regard to just general morale issues, I think we have been

through some change. As I have travelled through the interior health authority

myself over this last two years, I get great feedback from front-line staff, who

tell me the changes that were being made are long overdue and that, in some

cases, they're getting more job satisfaction because they can focus more on the

areas of specialty they were trained for.

I also

appreciate the fact that some staff may be troubled by those changes, because I

think it's part of human nature to be anxious about change. But as we know, in

the health care system, change is absolutely essential if we're going to

restructure the system in a way that's truly sustainable and does a better job

in the future of meeting patient needs.

MacPhail: Actually, I understand. I know the incident the minister is

talking about — about a gag. That was in April of this year, but that's only

the latest incident. I actually first heard about the gag…. I'm just raising

the issue. I have no idea whether it's accurate or

[ Page 6903 ]

not, but I first heard about the media gag order in November of 2002 from the

interior health authority, and it was while I was visiting the Royal Inland

Hospital in Kamloops. The latest incident that the minister rightfully describes

as the Salmon Arm matter in April was just the latest incident.

Is there

any ranking of best practices amongst the health authorities? The reason why I

ask this is that there are certain areas, it seems to me — just anecdotally

— where there are troubled practices and best practices. For instance, I would

say that in the interior health authority, there are troubled labour relations

practices. In the northern health authority, the physician relationship,

physician–health authority, seems troubled. By virtue of other areas not being

mentioned, they have better practices. What best practices are shared amongst

health authorities on matters…? Let's start with matters of personnel.

Hon. C.

Hansen: First of all, I think some of her information may be a little bit

out of date when she talks about relationships with physicians in the northern

health authority. I would say that today, we have probably the best working

relationship between the health authorities and the ministry and our northern

doctors that we've ever had in the last five or six years. It's not to say there

are not still some challenges and some issues we have to resolve, but I'm

getting great feedback from doctors across the north with regard to the new

rural subsidiary agreement we announced in February.

When it

comes to employee relations generally, there is a council of VPs of human

resources that gets together on a regular basis. I think this is one of the

advantages of having the six health authorities — that those officials that

have responsibility for different aspects can actually meet on a regular basis

and learn from one another's experiences and innovations. There is also a

leadership council that meets on a regular basis, including senior ministry

staff and the CEOs of the health authorities.

[1550]

The work of

the HEABC has changed fairly significantly over the last little while because of

the fact that there are now just six of the health authorities they have to

relate to.

I know when

we had our discussion two weeks ago with regard to nursing, I talked about the

council of senior nurses in the province that meets on a regular basis. I think

we talked then about the work that's being done around the recommendations of

the CNAC, the Canadian Nursing Advisory Committee.

I think

there's a lot that's happening at different levels, including the ongoing

relationship between shop stewards and supervisors and managers at the local

level. I know we canvassed some of that previously, but there's certainly a lot

of work that's being done to try to make sure that human resources, in a very

large and complex health care organization, are managed and that we can ensure

that the issues that are of concern to staff get brought to the forefront.

MacPhail: What role does the Health Employers Association of B.C. play in

all of that?

Hon. C.

Hansen: As the member knows, the HEABC is there to provide collective

bargaining services to a range of health employers, which includes the six

health authorities. They are obviously by far the largest employers within the

health sector.

They have

ongoing training that is provided both provincially and regionally to VPs of

human resources and other managers who have human resource responsibilities

throughout the province. They monitor for best practices around the province so

that we can certainly learn from experiences in one region and apply those to

others to ensure that those get met. In addition to that, HEABC serves on the

OHSAH board with regard to occupational health and safety. That's just a few of

the areas they're involved with.

MacPhail: I heard something last week. Is Gary Moser, the head of HEABC,

retiring?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Yes, that's correct.

MacPhail: I want to just take a very brief moment to go on record about Mr.

Moser and to wish him a happy retirement. I assumed he was younger than me, so

I'm upset he's retiring.

He and I

started out together. He was my nemesis, and I'm hoping he'll say the same

thing. We were together when I was a rep at the B.C. Government Employees Union

and he was with a group that was then called GERB, Government Employee Relations

Bureau. He was an extremely tough nemesis. The problem was that he was also

fair, which made us upset as well. Also, he had an ability to negotiate and

couldn't be bamboozled, which made us even more furious.

We will

miss Mr. Moser. I hope I'm not ruining his retirement by praising him — but

I'm damning you with faint praise, Gary, I want you to know — and I do wish

him all the best in his retirement.

Will the

HEABC continue to play a strong role in assisting…? Well, let me ask this

question: what role does the HEABC play in these coming days after the collapse

of the recent round of collective bargaining that led to a rejection vote by the

health care workers?

[1555]

Hon.

C. Hansen: I think the HEABC has an ongoing responsibility around assisting

with the evolution of collective agreements and the management of collective

agreements and providing advice to the 400-some-odd different employers that

bargain under that umbrella. That work goes on. I think the agreement that went

out for ratification by the health facilities sector unions was a proposal that

was brought to us initially by the unions. They then took it out for

ratification. My understanding is that the unions recommended acceptance of it.

Their membership voted it down by 59 percent. So from our perspective, we have

some responsi-

[ Page 6904 ]

bilities to get costs under control in the health sector, and we're back to

plan A. We have to move on.

So there is

certainly nothing now…. Now that the union membership themselves have rejected

that, the HEABC goes on with its normal business, preparing for the next round

of collective bargaining and dealing with some of the collective bargaining

interpretation issues that are before them on an ongoing basis.

MacPhail: Yes. I didn't mean to leap forward. I actually have a couple of

questions about that. The minister is merely replying to my questions, but I

didn't mean to leap forward out of order. I just wanted to know about the

overall policy of the interior health authority. I have one other area to

explore on the interior health authority, and then we'll return to that issue of

collective bargaining.

The

interior health authority has a consultant, as I understand it, that's looking

at surgical services. The consultant will report on where best to spend funds on

surgical operations. What's the status of that, please?

Hon. C.

Hansen: This actually goes back to a discussion that we had, I think, two

weeks ago around the whole surgical review for the province that is being led by

the PHSA. But each of the health authorities is involved in that, and the

interior health authority is in fact probably further ahead than some of the

other regional-based health authorities on moving forward with that surgical

review.

The way

it's described to me here is: "The review will examine the effectiveness of

the present system, develop an integrated system of surgical services across the

interior health authority, review the level of self-sufficiency in hospitals and

develop a physician supply plan." So each of the health authorities, I'm

sure, is taking a different approach to how to achieve that end objective. Some

are using the services of outside consultants, and some of them may be

developing that with their own in-house staff.

MacPhail: And is it completed?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Not yet.

MacPhail: And the time frame? The minister says it's being done under the

auspices of the PHSA, so will that study be shared with other health

authorities?

Hon. C.

Hansen: There are in fact six processes underway here. Each of the five

regional health authorities has its own independent surgical reviews that it's

undertaking. They're obviously talking to each other, and the different

executive members — team members — are comparing notes as they move forward

on that. The PHSA is looking at the entire province to make sure that is

consistent and integrated across British Columbia and that we can meet those

challenges across health authority boundaries. The goal is to have the PHSA's

surgical review completed by the end of this fiscal year.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

MacPhail: I'm moving to the northern health authority now. It was the

northern health authority that got coverage…. It was the first time I noticed

about their closed meetings.

When the

minister says that all health authorities have had open meetings, the northern

health authority did all of its business behind closed doors except to allow for

public delegations to come and present. But there was no business conducted in

the open — none of it. Has the northern health authority changed that?

[1600]

Hon. C.

Hansen: Every board meeting held in the northern health authority has had a

public component. There have been meetings held in May, June, September and

November. There was a board meeting with a public component in Prince George in

January of 2003, and there is one taking place in Dawson Creek today, May 26.

As I

mentioned earlier, we are certainly reviewing the judge's ruling with regard to

the

interpretation as to what's required. We will certainly be learning from

that.

MacPhail: But Mr. Chair, come on. The minister has to be a little bit more

forthright than that. The public component of the northern health authority's

meetings has been to finish all of their business in camera and then open up the

door and say: "Hey, public, if you want to make a presentation to us, come

on in and you can make a presentation, and we'll listen." That's the public

component of the meeting. Virtually everything else is decided behind closed

doors, in camera. That's what the court case was about.

It's

disingenuous — I will say nicely — of the minister to somehow suggest

there's a public component to the meeting, and therefore any requests for open

meetings are not needed. I think what the public wants is to observe the

business being conducted by the health authority. Has the NHA…? Well, it's in

Dawson Creek now, so will it have its business meeting in public?

Hon. C.

Hansen: As I indicated earlier, the court ruling is one that we are

reviewing and trying to make sure we have an

interpretation of that provision in

the Health Professions Act that reflects the advice that has come from the

justice. We wish to make sure that happens. I can't tell you exactly today

whether or not that has led to changes in tonight's meeting. That ruling

obviously was very current.

Health is a

very large and complex structure in this province. We have to make sure that

there is an opportunity for appropriate business to be conducted in public and

appropriate business to be conducted in camera. As I mentioned, we will be

reviewing the judge's decision to make sure our

interpretation of the act

properly reflects the advice that comes from that ruling.

MacPhail: What's the review mechanism for determining whether the geographic

size of a health authority is appropriate?

[ Page 6905 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: In the fall of 2001 we set out with a fairly extensive review both

of where population-based centres were and what was an appropriate critical mass

to constitute a health authority. In the past we had some health authorities

that had as few, I believe, as 3,000 people in them, which didn't really provide

for effective oversight and governance.

In the case

of the north, we looked at both the geographic expanse as well as the population

density. One of the solutions to try to get the best of both worlds in there was

to structure the health service delivery areas. Each of these very large regions

is also broken down into regional components to make sure that we don't lose

sight of the regional interests as well.

MacPhail: Is there any review of that, or is it now carved in stone?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We actually undertook review. There have been some slight amendments

to boundaries since they were first announced, particularly around the area in

Bella Coola and Bella Bella, which had originally been in the interior health

authority. We started looking at referral patterns specifically and geography.

It made more sense for that to be tied in with Vancouver coastal, which was

where that move was made.

[1605]

We're

certainly open to suggestions from individuals around the province as to how we

can make sure that those health authority boundaries best meet regional needs.

To date, there are no changes that are under active consideration But certainly,

if there were issues to be brought forward, I would give it my full attention.

MacPhail: The last general question on health authorities: what's the status

of the aboriginal health councils?

Hon. C.

Hansen: This is one that I may need to get some specific advice on, which I

don't have right here in the chamber with me. If the member would like to go on

to another question, I'll be pleased to come back to it as soon as I get that

information.

MacPhail: Yes. Well, let's turn, then, to the government's recent proposal

with the health care workers unions — and it's not just the HEU; there are

other unions at the table as well — and the rejection of that proposal by

those members. I had looked at that closely. I only talked to a couple of

members, working people, who actually participated in that vote, so it was

mostly through the media that I followed that. I think, certainly from the media

commentary, there's general consensus emerging that one of the reasons the

government's recent proposal was rejected by health care workers was that there

wasn't enough trust the government would keep the word and hold to any

agreement. I actually think that's probably a safe assumption, given the fact

that the executives of the unions negotiating with the government recommended

acceptance and the members rejected that recommendation.

Some also

said that health care worker layoffs were inevitable even if the now-dead deal

had passed. Here's why. The proposal said — and I'm quoting from the proposal

or, at least, how it was reported in the paper — "the number of FTEs

reduced as a direct result of contracting-out of services or programs shall be

limited to 3,500 FTEs." Bill 29, which we've talked about here and we

assume the public remembers, was introduced at the end of January of 2002. It's

called the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. It, as

legislation, expressly prohibits any such agreements which limit

contracting-out.

Section 6

of Bill 29, the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, says —

this is legislation, Mr. Chair: "A collective agreement between Health

Employers Association of B.C. and a trade union representing employees in the

health sector must not contain a provision that in any manner restricts, limits

or regulates the right of a health sector employer to contract outside of the

collective agreement for the provision of non-clinical services." That's

the legislation; that's the law.

[1610]

I asked

earlier what role HEABC plays with the government, and it still has its current

role. It's not like HEABC is gone. The legislation exists, HEABC exists, and the

legislation specifically says there can't be any agreement that in any way

interferes with the government contracting out. So the now-dead deal that was

put to the health care workers membership for ratification would have been void

anyway, in my mind. It could have been ratified, and any health authority could

have said: "Well, sorry, we have to live by the law of the land, which

doesn't allow such deals to be made."

I'm

wondering whether the minister or his advisers at the cabinet table or his staff

have had a chance to discuss the conflict between the actual act, which

prohibited such an agreement, and the actual agreement that was presented,

because that would have an effect on trust.

Hon. C.

Hansen: One thing I want to put on the record right off the top. The member,

in posing the question, referred on two occasions to the government's recent

proposal. This was not initiated by government. It was actually initiated by the

unions. They came to government asking for us to consider that proposal. It did

wind up with an agreement that was supported by both parties at the end of the

day, but it was certainly not something that government initiated.

The

section

6 that she refers to in Bill 29 was looked at very carefully by lawyers prior to

that interim agreement being concluded. It was felt that the agreement was not

inconsistent with the wording of

section 29, and therefore it was appropriate

for the government to proceed on that basis.

MacPhail: How could it not be inconsistent? There was a limitation on

contracting-out, and I find that in-

[ Page 6906 ]

teresting. I wasn't trying to target the government at all in terms of the

government proposal. Yes, the union, as I understand it, initiated talks to get

back so that the contracting-out could be eliminated — absolutely. But I

wasn't in any way trying to say: "Oh, it was the government that wanted

this." I find it curious that the minister immediately leaps to that in

times when there is going to be such turmoil.

How is it

that a proposal — whoever initiated it — that limits contracting-out isn't

in violation of

section 6(2), which says: "A collective agreement between

HEABC and a trade union representing employees in the health sector must not

contain a provision that in any manner restricts, limits or regulates the right

of a health sector employer to contract outside of the collective agreement for

the position of non-clinical services"?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I don't want to avoid the member's question, but I do want to make

sure she understands that Bill 29 is not my legislation and that when the unions

came forward to talk to government, those discussions took place with the Deputy

Minister of Labour. We certainly were obviously vitally interested in it because

it could have profoundly affected the way in which support services would be

provided in the health sector.

[1615]

But as I

understand it, I think the member in quoting that particular

section referred to

changes to a collective agreement. My understanding is that the legal advice we

got was that these were not changes to a collective agreement but were rather

around an agreement that was separate from the collective agreement. I'm not a

lawyer. I can't pretend to understand all of those unique features, but the

advice that we got from lawyers at the time was that the way this particular

agreement was structured would not be inconsistent with that clause.

MacPhail: Well, I appreciate the minister wanting to say that it's somebody

else's responsibility, but the fact of the matter is that the deal went down the

tubes. It would have saved $500 million over the course of the agreement to the

health care system. Theoretically, the minister should be interested in that in

terms of allocating of funds for patient care. I'm sure the minister, as the

person responsible for that money, should have been intimately and integrally

involved in the outcome of that.

Well, what

I understand is that the people who were asked to vote in support of this

agreement outside of the collective agreement looked at Bill 29 and said:

"We don't have any protection." Even their own union leadership, with

the best of intentions, couldn't convince them of that. I guess it's a situation

where legislation that's draconian and seems to override everything else can't

be dismissed. It can't be dismissed by the people whose trust with the

government has been broken.

Can the

minister tell us, then, what measures he's taking either to get the parties back

to the table or to deal with the lack of access to the $500 million in savings

that the proposal, if accepted, would have generated?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I know I was asked during that ratification process what would

happen if it was rejected, and I said: "Well, we go back to plan A."

You know, it was not part of our agenda to start down the road of

contracting-out as a way to somehow get the unions to come to the table. That

came out of the blue, and that was their initiative. Our agenda is to make sure

that we get the most cost-effective delivery of support services in the health

sector.

So, to

answer to the member's question — what measures am I taking to get the parties

back together? — the answer is: none. There was an opportunity there, and they

voted it down. We've now got to go back to our initiatives around

contracting-out.

I'll tell

you, when I heard that the ratification had been voted down by a 57 percent

vote, I was really of two minds on that. On one hand, I do sympathize with the

families who wind up being displaced as a result of contracting-out initiatives.

I know that is really difficult, and I've talked to some of those families. On

the other hand, we need to make sure we get costs under control in the health

sector, and we need flexibility to deal with not just the budget pressures of

next year and the year after but the budget pressures of five years and ten

years from now.

I believe

the direction we were heading in, to look to outside suppliers of those support

services, was the right way to go to make sure that we met our cost objectives

and we had flexibility there for the future.

MacPhail: So there's no alternative. The government's not going to try to

get people back to the table. Well, aren't negotiations going to have to start

at the end of this year anyway? The contract expires the spring of 2004, so

perhaps the minister could outline what's going to happen from now until the

expiry of the collective agreement in terms of contracting-out of services. Are

the health authorities ready to go — that there's going to be contracting…?

Are the RFPs in the pipe? What's happening?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The various health authorities have been looking at initiatives for

contracting-out. While there was this discussion and ratification process

underway, we asked them to hold off. We've asked them to get on with the job and

make sure they achieve the cost savings that are necessary using the tools given

to them in Bill 29.

Yes, we are

going into contract negotiations. My understanding is that those negotiations

will be underway, I believe, in early October. It will, hopefully, lead to a

successful collective agreement that will take effect on April 1 of next year.

It's our hope that it can be negotiated through mutual agreement, but the bottom

line is: we've got some big cost pressures in British Columbia in the health

care sector. We have the cost of support services in this province, which is 30

percent

[ Page 6907 ]

higher than the national average when it comes to the wages and about 20

percent higher than the next most generous province.

[1620]

That's just

the wages. If you start looking at the structure that's in place around

benefits…. I know when I've talked to people who are working in resource

industries in this province, who are in unionized environments, and you start

talking about a maximum of nine weeks' vacation a year and some of the other

benefits that are there…. You know, their first reaction is disbelief. Their

second reaction is anger, because that's their tax dollars. It's their tax

dollars that are being turned away from meeting some of our patient care needs

to paying salaries and benefit costs that are considerably higher in the support

sector in this province than in any other province in Canada.

MacPhail: You know, I actually thought that perhaps the minister would have

been a little more calm in his rhetoric. We had a discussion around the rhetoric

he's putting forward right now, where he was forced to admit that much of that

differential is as a result of pay equity coming forward for women in the

system. Yet he still stands up, knowing that the system now is in a very fragile

state.

It isn't

just people in the union that I'm hearing from. It's managers in the system who

are very concerned about the coming months. I'd even…. Well, no. I'll get

people in trouble if I say exactly how high those people go. Yet the minister

stands up, and he wants to say that the union is the problem. He stands up right

now — just like his boss, the Premier, likes to do — to take a big stick and

poke them in the eye. I'm not quite sure why. I really am not quite sure why he

has to stand up there with the rhetoric when he's actually facing a potentially

very unstable and fragile time in the delivery of patient care in British

Columbia.

He may

think it's to his advantage to stand up and spout the Liberal rhetoric that

people are angry at those LPNs who are getting that money; people are angry at

those housekeepers who are washing that dirty linen in their hospitals; people

can't stand those dietary aides, and they're angry. Well, I don't hear that. I'm

not sure where the minister hears that at all. I didn't hear it when I was in

government, and I don't hear it now.

What I do

hear is that people are concerned about whether our health care system is

sustainable. Yes, I do hear that — not that it isn't sustainable but whether

it is sustainable or not. Here's a government that's getting a billion bucks

over the next three years from the federal government — a gift from them —

and they're still wanting to attack the little guy and gal who are delivering

the services that many of us simply wouldn't deliver.

So here we

are in a situation where it's brinksmanship once again. The minister stands up

and attacks them, when I merely asked him for an opportunity about what plans he

would have to avoid the conflict. Of course, October is — what? June, July,

August, September — four and a half months away, when the parties will be at

the bargaining table with perhaps, depending on what happens in the ensuing four

months, as rigid a position on either side as we've ever seen. There's no

leadership coming from this government on this matter. The minister wants to

characterize it that somehow…. I guess maybe he thinks he can humiliate the

union by saying it was they who reached out to the government and saying:

"It wasn't our idea. We're the big tough guys. We're going to carry

on."

Well, the

fact is that at least three of the health authorities are in a surplus situation

right now — a surplus situation. This government is getting $1.3 billion from

the federal government for health care alone over the next three years. He wants

to say that because health care workers rejected a $500 million wage cut, we're

going to march on.

Is there

nothing in between — nothing?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member may know that part of the federal-provincial discussions

around allocation of the additional health dollars were specifically aimed at

making sure that what happened with this money was not what happened in the late

1990s, and that's that the increased federal transfers got eaten up in

making…. They went straight into higher wages and collective agreements rather

than into making sure that patient care issues got addressed.

[1625]

As the

member mentioned, money is coming to British Columbia. It's actually $1.3

billion over three years, and we have to put that in perspective. It helps, yes,

but it doesn't come close to meeting the cost pressures we already have in the

health care sector. It's not a case of saying we've got all this extra money

that's coming from the federal government, so let's use it all to make sure our

health care workers continue to be paid considerably higher than in other

jurisdictions in Canada. That money is going to get allocated to making sure

patients get better access to care.

Actually,

I'll take advantage of this opportunity. When we were speaking two weeks ago, I

made reference to the $130 million of additional CHST money that's coming to

British Columbia. That will actually fund the health care system in this next

year for 92 hours, just to put in perspective how long the new money will last.

I do want to make it clear that there are requirements around the $130 million

and the additional CHST money in the subsequent years that we've agreed to.

The

Ministry of Health Services includes in its service plan clear performance

goals, indicators and measurement criteria for the results it plans to achieve

with this fund over the next three years. The intent is to ensure protection for

British Columbians against catastrophic drug costs through Fair Pharmacare and

the following performance measures that were included in the service plan. Those

are in the service plan, if anyone wants to refer to those.

MacPhail: My point in raising the federal dollars was this. The minister

insists on continuing to poke a finger in the eye of health care workers now,

saying it's

[ Page 6908 ]

plan A, come hell or high water, when indeed…. And he uses that on the

basis of how outrageously paid they are, again quoting statistics that have

already been challenged earlier in the debate, and he uses that on the basis

that the system isn't sustainable.

Well, where

is the proof that it isn't sustainable when there's $1.3 billion coming to deal

with the cost pressures? I'm not talking about wage increases. I'm talking about

cost pressures that this ministry faces and the fact that three out of the six

— maybe it's four out of the six — are either in balance or….

Interjection.

MacPhail: Six are in balance?

Or in

surplus. I'm not suggesting that the $1.3 billion, which no previous government

over the last decade ever got…. How is it that with that money to deal with

cost pressures and the health authorities in balance, there's no avenue

whatsoever to go back and try to resolve the concerns of the members who

rejected this settlement?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'll tell you, I am very proud of the fact that for the first time

in many, many years, the Ministry of Health Services has come in on budget. I'm

also very proud that for the first time since regionalization was introduced,

all of the health authorities have come in on budget and with slight surpluses.

To put it in perspective, we're talking about a budget of about $6 billion for

the regional health sector, and the amount that's in surplus is really a very

small percentage.

The other

thing is that those health authorities can carry those surpluses forward and

make sure they get spent on patient care next year. We're not in this business

to try to manage a budget from month to month or from year to year. We're going

through this restructuring to make sure we meet the challenges of five, ten and

15 years from now.

The health

authorities are actually facing their biggest cost pressures and biggest

challenges not in this current year but in the next year out. The fact that

there are some small surpluses next year just helped to position and fund the

transition costs necessary to make sure that we can deliver better patient care

in spite of those cost pressures that are going to be there in the out years.

MacPhail: We'll see how the minister's rhetoric on behalf of his boss helps

in smoothing the way over the coming months. I would predict, actually, that the

system will be in a state of disarray, a little bit of shock and some anger,

given the minister's comments and the fact that he shows no willingness

whatsoever — whatsoever — to find any other path than confrontation.

[1630]

Given the

fact that he's getting a whole giant wad of gift money from the federal

government not to deal with wages — I'm not even suggesting that; the minister

has already asked for $500 million back from these very employees — but to

deal with the cost pressures that he has in terms of patient care. Even given

that, he is unwilling to show any sort of conciliatory moves in terms of what

happens between now and when formal collective bargaining comes into play. I

hope this isn't true, but I expect that the minister will see his intransigence

and his resort to rhetoric will actually lead to poorer patient care for some

months.

The

minister likes to make great hay of how little money he's getting from the

federal government. We should have been so lucky, in the 1990s, to get so little

money from the federal government. Instead of getting little money from the

federal government, it was cut year after year after year. Billions of dollars

of transfer payments — billions, throughout the 1990s — were cut out of the

health transfer payments to British Columbia.

Now the

minister has a whole whack of money, $1.3 billion, coming from the federal

government. I'm interested in the accountability measures that are being

established for the spending of this money. There was quite a negative

article

— I have no idea whether it was true or not — in the Globe and Mail

during the week that we were in our constituencies about British Columbia's

position on accountability measures through the Canadian Institute for Health

Information. Could the minister clarify what British Columbia's position is on

accountability measures for this new federal money coming to British Columbia?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I will come back to the member's specific question about the

accountability measures, but I did want to respond to her question about

aboriginal health councils. I do now have that information.

The

aboriginal health councils were disbanded. The reason is that they were not

aligned with the new health authorities. A lot of the relationship between the

aboriginal health councils was working directly with the Ministry of Health

Services. As we've made the shift from being a rowing ministry to a steering

ministry, the rowing being done by the health authorities, it was more

appropriate that the health authorities themselves develop their individual

aboriginal health strategies.

All of the

dollars that had previously flowed through the aboriginal health councils were

transferred to the individual health authorities to facilitate that. They have

worked with aboriginal stakeholders to develop the provincial aboriginal health

services strategy. There's a steering committee in place to achieve that,

including the First Nations Summit, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Métis

Provincial Council and United Native Nations. The health authorities have all

now completed at least their first cut of an aboriginal health plan. Those

continue to be worked on.

MacPhail: Yes, I know all of that, but during estimates of last year we were

told that those would be in place by September of 2002. What's happening?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The health authorities were given a deadline of last September to

have those aboriginal health plans developed. They did that; they met that

target. Most of them continue to work on that in terms of implementation and

reshaping, as they go out with consultations with

[ Page 6909 ]

various first nations communities. I believe that all of those aboriginal

health plans are, in fact, posted on their respective websites. I'm not sure if

that's true of every single one of the health authorities, but certainly I'm

aware of several examples where that's the case.

[1635]

MacPhail: What's the new deadline?

Hon. C.

Hansen: This is ongoing work. Achieving better health outcomes is not

something that happens by a deadline. The deadline that was in place last

September was to complete the aboriginal health plans. Each of the health

authorities has done that. They are now working with their first nations

communities either to reshape them or to implement them.

MacPhail: Sorry. I'm not going to let this go. We were told during estimates

last year that the deadline for completing the health plans was moved from June

2002 to September 2002. Then when that was moved, the authorities would actually

have them implemented, on the ground, with aboriginal health professionals

working to implement the new program because, in the course of this change, the

government also shut down $10 million worth of aboriginal health programs —

shut them down. I was reassured that: "Oh, don't worry. That $10 million

doesn't mean a thing. We're shutting down the aboriginal health funding, but

we're going to have our health plans in place by 2002, and the programs will be

up and running after that." Are we still muddling along?

Hon. C.

Hansen: All of the health authorities met their deadline of having an

aboriginal health plan in place by September 2002. We made it quite clear that

these were not locked in stone. These were not documents that would not have to

grow and change. As I say, there are discussions that are ongoing with first

nations communities for the development of the provincial aboriginal health

strategy as well as the evolution of the aboriginal health plans with each of

the health authorities.

That work

is ongoing. This is not something that's going to get locked into some new stone

that cannot be changed. We want to work with first nations communities. We want

to make sure that we can be adaptable and flexible to meet their concerns, and

that's exactly what is happening at the local health authority level.

With regard

to the $10 million that had previously flowed through the aboriginal health

councils, that money was transferred to the health authorities, and they have

responsibility to ensure that it is used to meet some of their goals and

objectives with regard to aboriginal health.

MacPhail: I asked you a question about accountability.

Hon. C.

Hansen: As I mentioned before when we were talking about the federal dollars

around the health reform fund, there is still work that is being done to

determine exactly what those accountabilities are, but I can give you a bit of a

progress report on it.

The health

reform fund provides $780 million over three years to enhance primary care,

enhance home care and catastrophic drug coverage. Once the objectives of the

health reform are achieved, B.C. may use the fund for other priority areas of

its health system. B.C. believes the cost of federal expectations may exceed the

federal funding provided, so the province is using the CHST supplement as well

to fund the residual costs of the catastrophic drug coverage.

Just to

give you a bit of a progress report around some of the accountability measures

that we have already put into our service plan in anticipation of what may flow

from those discussions on the federal level, the existing service plans contain

numerous performance measures that support the federal health reform agenda,

including the following: increasing the percentage of home and community care

clients with high care needs living in their own homes, increasing the

percentage of the population appropriately insured for eligible prescription

drug costs, increasing the percentage of mental health clients receiving

community services after hospital discharge and improved accountability of

community mental health services measured by a reduction in

alternative-level-care bed-days.

anticipate that there may be more that come out of those discussions. Our

expectation is that that final package of accountabilities will be presented to

the federal-provincial-territorial health ministers conference in September.

[1640]

MacPhail: I am reading directly out of the federal budget of 2003. It's the

document from the budget. It's called Investing in Canada's Health Care

System . I'm referring to page 14, which says:

"Canadian

Institute for Health Information and Statistics Canada.

"The

availability of accurate and timely info rmation on trends in

health status and health system performance is a crucial tool to inform

responsive, patient-centred health policy decisions. CIHI and Statistics

Canada have gained an international reputation for their work in expanding the

basic information necessary to understand and address emerging health issues.

Budget 2001 provided $95 million to support CIHI's work over four years, to be

used in partnership with Statistics Canada."

It then

goes on to talk about a health council.

"Canadians

have made it clear that they want to see how their tax dollars are spent for

health care and what results are achieved. Under the February 2003 accord on

health care renewal, first ministers agreed to establish a health council to

monitor and make annual public reports on the implementation of accord

priorities."

What

position is the B.C. provincial government taking on the establishment of the

health council and funding for CIHI?

Hon. C.

Hansen: At the first ministers' conference that took place in February,

there was agreement

[ Page 6910 ]

around the establishment of the health council. We certainly support that 100

percent. We have also supported and encouraged the work of CIHI. I think they do

excellent work, and I certainly rely on it regularly.

Just as an

example, we've also commissioned CIHI to do some evaluation on behalf of our own

provincial ministry to the tune of an additional $500,000 over and above what

our share of CIHI expenditures would be.

MacPhail: The report in the paper — I don't know whether the minister saw

it, but I'm sure his staff did — was that the British Columbia government was

working with Alberta to oppose the establishment of a health council that would

keep its own statistics. So is the British Columbia government signing on with

the proposal put forward by the federal government about the establishment of a

health council that will actually monitor and make annual public reports on the

implementation of the accord priorities?

Hon. C.

Hansen: As the member read out, that is exactly what we support. It was an

agreement by first ministers, and we are now tasked with implementing that

agreement. British Columbia supports 100 percent the establishment of the health

council, as the member just described.

MacPhail: The next item on the accountability measures is around

pharmaceuticals management. I'm reading out of the federal document:

"Access to safe, effective, new human drugs requires timely, efficient and

scientifically rigorous review in all phases of the product cycle, including

reviews and approvals by Health Canada and ongoing surveillance of safety and

therapeutic effectiveness once a drug is on the market. Federal, provincial and

territorial governments also require evidence on the cost effectiveness of drugs

in order to make sound listing decisions for public drug plan formularies."

The

minister earlier referred to the sharing of initiatives amongst provinces.

What's the time line for having that established? After he gave me that

information, I went and did the research across Canada to see how that's

proceeding, and you certainly couldn't tell from other provinces that that was

anywhere near ready to go in terms of initiatives such as our therapeutics

initiative. Perhaps the minister could give me more detail on how this

pharmaceuticals management is going to work.

[1645]

Hon. C.

Hansen: The common drug review, as it's referred to, is a great initiative

because it will, I think, save costs on the part of provinces and territories

that were duplicating each other's work but will also lead to more timely

approval of new medications that are there to benefit patients. The common drug

review is now operational. As new drugs get notice of compliance from Health

Canada, those are going out for reviews in accordance with that common drug

review.

One of the

challenges we have is they have not yet established the panel of experts that

will be evaluating the findings that then come back. So what's happening on an

interim basis is that those findings are going back to each of their respective

jurisdictions for review at the provincial and territorial level. My

understanding is that there are meetings of deputy ministers that will be

happening in the very near future to try to finalize the structure of that panel

of experts so that we can get to that next stage of the common drug review.

The

Chair: Members, pursuant to an order of the House earlier this day, it is

now 4:45, and the committee must report out.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion

approved on the following division:

[1650]

YEAS — 62

Falcon

Coell

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Campbell

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 3

Nettleton

MacPhail

Kwan

The

committee rose at 4:55 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee

of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A for the estimates of the

Ministry of Health Services. In this House I call second reading

[ Page 6911 ]

debate on Bill 40, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C.

Hansen: There's a group of students from St. George's School in the gallery

today from the great riding of Vancouver-Quilchena. They're here with their

teacher Ms. Doyle and several parents that have come along. I hope the House

will make them very welcome.

Second Reading of Bills

UTILITIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

(continued)

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I now move second reading of Bill 40.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole to

be considered at the next sitting of the House.

Mr.

Speaker: Hold it. No, we're still at second reading. Have we finished the

debate on Bill 40?

Government

House Leader?

Hon. G.

Collins: It's on a point of order. I am just advised that the Leader of the

Opposition was partway through her second reading speech on Bill 40, so perhaps

the House could give her a few moments to return to the chamber to complete it

if she wishes.

Mr.

Speaker: Certainly. The House will take a short recess.

The House

recessed from 4:57 p.m. to 5:01 p.m.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

MacPhail: I adjourned debate on this when we last concluded our week about

ten days ago, before we went to the ridings.

This is a

very interesting piece of legislation in how it revamps the B.C. Utilities

Commission along the lines that the minister would like to claim gives greater

authority to the B.C. Utilities Commission. One of the reasons why this

government likes to claim that it's re-regulating — that's the term it is

using — the B.C. Utilities Commission is because it is desperate for cash. It

wants to jack up hydro rates, and it wants to do it under the guise of the B.C.

Utilities Commission.

This

Minister of Energy will stand up and slam that decade of decline of the 1990s

when, lo and behold, hydro rates were frozen. Companies in this province

actually got some breaks on hydro rates over and above that. If the mining

industry was in trouble, it actually got some breaks over and above the frozen

rates. They had to guarantee that they would use those lower rates to stimulate

the economy — not ship the money offshore, but actually create jobs — and

that happened. It happened at Highland Valley — unlike this government, who is

doing the square root of nothing for the mining industry. It likes to stand up

and say it's doing a lot for the mining industry, but it's doing nothing —

absolutely nothing. In fact, the mining industry associations around the world

have put British Columbia on the doomsday list because of this government's

ineptness.

In the

past, in the 1990s pulp mills got breaks on hydro rates, even below the rates

being frozen, because it's a publicly owned asset of British Columbians and the

government of the day thought that maybe the natural advantage — the B.C.

advantage — of hydro should go to business. Certainly with the increased

export market and the higher offshore market rates for hydro, we thought in

those days of the 1990s that those benefits should be returned to the people of

British Columbia in maintaining a steady, frozen, domestic hydro rate. But this

government says we were interfering with the B.C. Utilities Commission. Of

course the reason why they say that is because now, under the guise of

re-regulating the B.C. Utilities Commission, they want to jack up hydro rates

because of their own incompetence.

[1705]

You know, I

was just cut off from debating 40 percent of the health budget by this

government. Maybe if we actually had some legitimate debate around 40 percent of

the budget, the health budget, we wouldn't have to ram through this legislation

so this government can jack up hydro rates. Perhaps we actually could have found

health care solutions that dealt with 40 percent of the budget, and we wouldn't

be here in a situation of this government shutting down debate, closing off

debate, with their immoral majority, and now ramming through this legislation.

Because we

couldn't find those solutions under the Health estimates debate, we now have to

ram through a bill so that the Liberal MLAs can jack up hydro rates. Oh, dare

not let legitimate debate carry on in this chamber. Forty percent of the budget,

the health care budget — why would we want to debate that? Why would we want

to do that? Oh no, let's ram it through, under no scrutiny, so we can now ram

this legislation through.

Well, what

does this do? Yeah, it's legitimate second reading; it's talking about how

taxpayers benefit or are hurt by this government. That's what this bill is all

about. You can't isolate that debate from the overall budget debate of which

health care is 40 percent. If the health care budget could actually have some

sense brought to it, perhaps you wouldn't need to jack up

[ Page 6912 ]

hydro rates to hurt every little company, every big company in this province

and — oh, by the way — everybody who actually gets an electricity bill from

B.C. Hydro.

This

government — I guarantee it — is going to force higher rates through B.C.

Utilities Commission. That's what it's going to do, and it's doing it in a very

devious way. Let's go through that devious way. First of all, BCUC will be

forcing through higher rates both from the new B.C. Hydro Transmission

Corporation and from B.C. Hydro. There will be two opportunities now that the

Utilities Commission can raise rates for ratepayers.

The pulp

mills on Vancouver Island can get done over twice — one through B.C. Hydro and

one through the B.C. Hydro Transmission Corporation now. Isn't that good news

for all those pulp mills, sawmills, that are struggling like crazy now? Good

news. Those sawmills that were just closed down by Doman Industries in the

Minister of Labour's riding…. Isn't this good news for him — higher hydro

rates, not once but twice? God, these guys are good economic managers. They

really know how to increase the costs of industry in this province.

Bill 40 is

a shining example of that. Forest industry on its knees. Let's jack up their

hydro rates. Mining industry on its knees. Let's jack up their hydro rates. The

B.C. advantage that we had throughout the 1990s — which more than made up for

the lower taxes in Alberta for industry, by industry's own admission — will

now be gone. Just when our economy is going in the tank, let's put more pressure

on business. Let's make sure they're really hurting. That's what this bill does.

This bill is all about just increasing the cash flow from ordinary British

Columbians using hydro and from industry in this province into the pathetic

empty purse of this government.

[1710]

So that's

one way they're doing it. They're also going to force higher rates when the

government opens up every stream and pristine lake to power development —

which it's doing now — and then it will blame the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission of the United States for forcing the dismantling of Hydro. That's

what it's doing — on that basis, under the guise of: "Oh, the United

States is making us do this. We have to open up our pricing system to FERC. Oh,

I'm sorry, British Columbia industry, you're going to have to pay more for

that." They're doing it all under the guise of this bill and the previous

bill in setting up the B.C. Transmission Corporation. It's all under the guise

to cover what they're really doing, which is squandering our natural legacy and

our economic advantage here in British Columbia.

I really

worry about the effect that this is going to have on our economy, and, boy, our

economy's in trouble. I don't know whether any of you noticed last