1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 12, Number 2

[ Page 10247 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

K. Whittred: In the galleries today are constituents of mine, Mr. John Noonan

and his wife Stephanie. Also with them are guests from Glasgow, Scotland. Ann Foils is the

principal of St. Monica's Primary School, and Winifred Foils is the vice-principal of St.

Pius' Primary School. Would the House join me in welcoming these guests.

Hon. I. Waddell: As a fellow Glaswegian and Minister of Tourism, I'd like to

welcome the guests here from Glasgow.

I'd like to introduce two visitors from the lower mainland. Mr. Kehar Sekhon is from my

riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, and Mr. Gian Sihota is from Richmond. Would the House

please make them both welcome.

G. Wilson: We have in the gallery today my wife Judi Tyabji, who now has time to

spend in the summer sun, which is a reminder to all of us that there really is a summer

out there. With her is her mother Christine Quinter and our daughter Christina. Would the

House please make them all welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: It is my pleasure today to introduce to the House some good

friends -- friends, I'm sure, of all sides of the House. They are community activists,

people who contribute to our society and our communities in significant ways. Paula Carr

is executive director of community development for the Collingwood Neighborhood House in

my constituency; Joel Bronstein is executive director of Little Mountain Neighborhood

House; Gary Dobbin is executive director of Frog Hollow Neighborhood House; Sandra Menzer

is executive director of operations for Collingwood Neighborhood House; Steve Boyce is

executive director of Kiwassa Neighborhood House. I ask the House to make them welcome.

J. Doyle: I'm pleased today to have good friends in the gallery. Sometimes they

reside in Victoria; sometimes they reside in Kimberley and many other places in our

province. I'd like to welcome Sonny Nomland, along with Agnes and Bruce Nomland. They are

good friends of mine and good friends of the party and the government. Please welcome them

to the House.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the gallery today are some people from my riding and from

Maple Ridge. Dawn Renios and her beautiful baby daughter Athena are here. Athena had the

wisdom and good judgment -- there she is; she's gorgeous -- to be born in Surrey-Newton,

and I thank her for that. Joining them is a friend of theirs from Maple Ridge, Tricia

Spani. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: My assistant Blair Marshall has a couple of guests in the gallery

today. His partner Catherine van Mossel is from Victoria, and her niece Brooke van

Mossel-Forrester is from Ottawa. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have a special visitor from Malaysia,

where the Commonwealth Games will be later on this year and where they are launching a new

SkyTrain system. Rashidah Ramli, the newly appointed consul general of Malaysia, has

arrived in Vancouver to take up her duties. This is her first visit to Victoria. Would the

House please make her most welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'd like the House to please welcome Vanessa Geary and Tom Durning

from the Tenants Rights Action Coalition. They are strong advocates for tenants' rights

and housing issues in the lower mainland. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

EFFICACY OF PHOTO RADAR

G. Plant: Hon. Speaker, the official opposition has obtained the service

maintenance records for 29 photo radar vans. These records tell the truth about how

unreliable photo radar really is. Let me give one example. One van is shown to be

"giving all kinds of ghost readings when no vehicles are present." A ghost

reading means that the camera is taking a picture of nothing. My question is to the

Attorney General: why should drivers believe that photo radar vans are accurately taking

photos of their cars when the government's own records show that the vans are taking

pictures of nothing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The photo radar vans take pictures, and the pictures that are

accurate in terms of an infraction are the ones that are mailed out.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only photo radar pictures that go out are the ones of

vehicles that have an actual readable licence plate and where an infraction is involved.

The question comes back to the same one that was asked in the House the other day.

Photo radar is saving lives. Photo radar is resulting in speeds being reduced in the

province. Photo radar is resulting in claims being down. What is the problem with the

opposition in trying to understand that photo radar works?

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Here's a short list: it's too expensive, it doesn't work, it's unfair,

and it's a complete disaster. That's the problem with photo radar.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Plant: Let me give another example of the technology that . . . .

Apparently the best that the Minister of Employment and Investment can say about it is

that it's hit-or-miss. Well, here's part of the problem; here's a little bit more of the

problem. The records of those 29 photo radar vans reveal that the tuning forks that are

used to calibrate the radar units keep breaking. This means that the radar in those vans

is so inaccurate that the tuning forks that keep it adjusted are wearing out. Anyone on

the other side can answer this question, hon. Speaker: why should drivers believe that

photo radar pictures of their car are accurate when the service records show that the

radar units have to be calibrated and recalibrated over and over again?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, when photo radar was first announced, the

opposition said that it was a failure

[ Page 10248 ]

because it was a cash cow. The government said that it's not a cash cow, that it's

intended to save lives. Now, because it's not generating revenue, they're saying that it's

a disaster, because they think it should be a cash cow.

Photo radar vans are maintained on a regular basis. At the end of the day, the only

tickets that go out are the actual tickets that have valid photographs, where an

infraction has taken place. It comes down to the same point: photo radar saves lives. What

is it about saving lives that the opposition doesn't like?

[2:15]

R. Neufeld: Well, one thing that photo radar has demonstrated is that it's not

even a reliable cash cow for the government anymore. That's how unreliable it is.

The maintenance records reveal all sorts of reliability and accuracy problems in the

photo radar cameras. There are reports of ghost readings; there are reports of erroneous

speeds being recorded; there are reports of radar not reading correctly. That's only a

portion of the problems. Will the Attorney General agree today to table in the House all

the records for all the photo radar vans, before all records are subpoenaed by a court?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Whether or not records can be disclosed is a matter at the

disposal of the Minister of Employment and Investment. He's responsible for maintaining

the vans . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. It's a little hard to hear.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Whether or not records may be or ought to be disclosed pursuant

to a court order is obviously within the purview of the Ministry of Attorney General to

deal with.

Let me say this: I am somewhat shocked. I believe that the member for Peace River North

can be forgiven, but the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston is an officer of the court, a

member of the legal profession. Now here he is, standing in this august chamber, saying

that he has a problem with photo radar because it catches people that violate the law. I

am appalled.

The Speaker: The member for Peace River North, first supplementary.

R. Neufeld: Everyone knows that photo radar tickets can be successfully

challenged if there is any doubt about the accuracy of the radar, the camera or the

computer that compiles the information. Yet we have example after example of cameras

misfiring, clocks recording the wrong time, radar recording at low speeds but not at high

speeds. This is to the Attorney General again, hopefully: will the Attorney General admit

that these service records throw into doubt the reliability of the photo radar program?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, the only reason this Liberal opposition is now

opposing photo radar is because the Reform Party is opposing it. When that member sat over

there with the Reform Party, he stood up in this House time and time again and said:

"What are you doing to improve road safety in this province? There's been another

accident in the Peace, where someone was killed. What are you going to do to improve road

safety?" Well, photo radar is there, and it has resulted in speeds coming down; it

has resulted in accidents coming down; it has resulted in traffic deaths coming down.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They seem to think that it's funny that somehow lives have

been saved. There were 29 more people alive in this province because of photo radar last

year, and there will be another . . . . Deaths are down again so far this

year. What is it about the program, what is it about saving lives, that you lot don't

understand and don't like?

The Speaker: Second supplementary, member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: The Minister of Employment and Investment is so far out, it's

laughable. There is no photo radar in Peace River North. The reason why we have accidents

in the north is because of the condition of the highways that this government let happen

-- that's why. Absolutely terrible!

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. Can he tell us, as

obviously . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

R. Neufeld: . . . the Attorney General won't . . . ?

Will he table all the records for all the photo radar vans all across the province so that

the public can see how unreliable this system is?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members . . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member for Peace River North is clearly only

concerned about what goes on in the Peace country. We're concerned about traffic safety

throughout the province as a whole. That's why photo radar has resulted in accidents

coming down, and traffic deaths are down. That is one of the main reasons why we're able

to keep premiums in this province frozen.

But on the other issue he raises, this government has spent more money on the Peace

River area this year in terms of road rehabilitation than any other government. Is he

opposed to that as well?

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: He can't have it both ways.

MARKETING OF WILD COHO AND EFFECTS OF SALMON-FARMING OPERATIONS

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Premier is on record as

saying that he is prepared to take on any who challenge the Canadian right to catch and

market Canadian sockeye and coho. It has come to our attention that Keg Restaurants are

marketing American-caught Canadian sockeye and coho. Is the Premier prepared to take on

Keg Restaurants for marketing American-caught Canadian fish?

[ Page 10249 ]

Hon. G. Clark: No, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: It would seem that the mighty American government will certainly come

to heel, but not Keg Restaurants. That's interesting to note.

One of the reasons that Keg Restaurants is marketing American-caught coho and sockeye

is because they say that the quality of farm fish is so inferior that they don't wish to

market it in their restaurants. To the Minister of Environment: it has come to our

attention that the DFO withheld information with respect to disease transfer from farm

fish to wild stocks during the time the aquaculture review took place. It is my

understanding that this ministry now has a comprehensive report with respect to disease

transfer. Will the minister commit to tabling that report, with all of its documentation,

prior to this government lifting the moratorium on farm fish?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm not familiar with the specific study the member is making

reference to and that DFO may or may not have conducted. But let me begin by saying that

there clearly was a very significant environmental review instituted by this ministry that

led to 49 recommendations on the question of diseases and other issues related to farm

fish. This has been very seriously reviewed within government. We've been working with the

salmon farming industry to move forward on those recommendations, which reflect the need

to control not only disease, as the member makes reference to, but the very significant

impacts that waste can have as a result of farm locations, as well as issues related to

predator control and other matters that are of serious concern not only to the . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: . . . fish-farming industry but to

environmentalists and commercial-fishers around the province.

EFFICACY OF PHOTO RADAR

R. Thorpe: The government could have leased 29 photo radar vans. Instead, they

spent $30 million of taxpayers' money. Now we're stuck with 29 lemons. Will the minister

responsible tell us if his government was aware of those problems before they spent $30

million of taxpayers' money?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member wants to talk about 29 lemons; I want to talk

about the 29 lives that were saved last year. He seems more concerned with lemons than

saving people's lives.

We've instituted a series of measures throughout this province. One of those measures

is photo radar. The opposition complained when it first came down that it was a cash cow.

It wasn't a cash cow. We said that it's there to save lives. The opposition is now

complaining because it's not generating revenue. Well, that's also not the point; the

issue is saving lives. There may be issues around records . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . but at the end of the day, it comes down to

saving lives. That's what this government is setting out to do, that's what's happening

across this province, and that's what we're going to continue to do.

PROVINCIAL RESPONSE TO FEDERAL DECISION ON MMT

J. Smallwood: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Yesterday the

federal government announced that it was lifting the important ban on the petroleum

additive MMT despite evidence that MMT poses environmental health risks such as attention

deficit disorder in children and damage to human nervous systems. The federal government

has buckled under the manufacturer of MMT because of the North American Free Trade

Agreement. Can the minister tell the House what steps she has taken to ensure that the

environmental protection of B.C. is not compromised as a result of this federal

government's action and the lawsuit filed under NAFTA?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members, come to order. I will recognize the minister when

it's quiet.

Hon. C. McGregor: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Let me begin by saying that the

this government has supported since it was first considered some considerable years ago.

As the member rightly points out, there are significant environmental and health concerns

as a result of the MMT additive that is put in fuel products. This points to the fact that

our government was clearly right when it said that our sovereignty as a province and as a

nation is threatened by NAFTA. Clearly this is an example where a multinational

directly to them. In fact, it endangers our ability to protect the environment and the

health of British Columbians and Canadians.

The member asks what actions I've taken. I've written a letter today to the minister

responsible federally and asked her . . .

The Speaker: Minister, wind it up, please.

Hon. C. McGregor: . . . to immediately review what steps the federal

government can take in order to be able to put a ban on MMT back in place and to continue

efforts to put in place tests that will indicate what significant damage to the

environment and health . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: . . . may continue to accrue to Canadians as a

result of this decision.

Tabling Documents

G. Campbell: I am tabling today 19 draft chapters of the final Nisga'a agreement,

the last of which is dated July 19, 1998. I believe that the people of this province have

the right to know what's included in this document, and therefore I'm tabling it here.

Hon. D. Lovick: I wish to table the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs annual report

-- an old one -- for 1996-97.

G. Wilson: I rise to seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement by the

Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks.

[ Page 10250 ]

Interjections.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: First of all, I'd like to advise the House that we'll be sitting

tomorrow. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members,

we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

[2:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply; E. Walsh in the chair.

On vote 47: minister's office, $469,000 (continued).

S. Hawkins: Yesterday we were talking about the stress on different facilities

with respect to how they can provide services and whether they have room for admissions

and whether indeed they can provide safe services. We talked about the bed crunch and

emergency rooms. I guess what I'd like to do now . . . . I know I've made the

minister aware of some of this before, but I want the minister to respond to some of this.

In the last year or so, we've seen more and more front-line workers -- physicians, nurses

and others in health care -- become more vocal and more public about their concerns and

about providing safe patient care in their communities. We're finding that more and more

communities around the province are trying to get the government's and the minister's

attention to respond to the kinds of concerns they have.

I have a health care background; the minister knows that. As health care workers, we

don't want to frighten the public. When things start getting a little tense, we do pick up

the slack, and we try to do more and more. What I've heard in the last couple of years

when I've toured the province is that health care people are trying to do more and more

with less and less. But it's gotten to the point where front-line workers are telling the

government, health authorities, anyone who will listen -- reporters, papers, TV crews --

that they cannot provide safe care. They can't provide quality care, but now they're

concerned about providing care that's safe for patients. They feel that they are being put

in compromised positions and that patient safety is being compromised by the kinds of

restrictions that are being placed on hospitals and facilities due to budgetary

constraints.

What's interesting is that we have the minutes of the March 31 meeting of the medical

advisory committee of the Penticton Regional Hospital. I'll quote from the motion that was

passed that day: "The MAC wishes to inform the hospital administration" -- and

this is the very significant part -- "that we can no longer assure the community of

safe and effective acute medical care." That's frightening. That is in the minutes of

the meeting of the medical advisory committee, an executive committee of the hospital that

advises the hospital administration. They're making a very strong statement that they

cannot "assure the community of safe and effective acute medical care."

Following that meeting, we have minutes dated April 1 from a meeting at Kelowna General

Hospital. They are almost in the same vein. A motion was passed at that medical advisory

committee. The department of medicine expressed, through the MAC -- which, again, is the

medical advisory committee -- "that the hospital is in a critical state due to

inadequate funding to the point of unsafe patient care from support services and

inadequate nursing staffing." Again, we have a repeat of that. At the meeting of the

medical advisory committee on April 20 of this year, there were two statements made that

concerned me. The MAC expressed that "the hospital is in a critical state due to

inadequate funding to the point of unsafe patient care . . . . " We did

that one. The MAC put on record and advised the board: "Because of further

restrictions of acute-care facilities and services, the MAC wishes to advise KGH" --

which is Kelowna General Hospital -- "administration and the board that we can no

longer assure the community of safe and effective acute medical care."

That's a huge concern. I think the minister can agree that that is a huge concern. I

know the minister is aware of that. I know the minister knows that these motions have been

passed, because this has been raised in the Legislature before. I want to know what she

has done to respond to these concerns and what measures she's taken to help these

hospitals deal with those concerns.

Hon. P. Priddy: On both occasions with these two hospitals, we have had and

continue to have discussions with the board around safety issues in the hospital. I note

that neither of those health authorities has expressed those concerns at all to the

minister.

S. Hawkins: Well, I find it rather frightening -- and I think the minister

should as well -- that the health authorities didn't bring this forward to the ministry.

Did the minister just tell me that the health authorities did not bring those concerns

forward to the ministry?

Hon. P. Priddy: At least one board expressed concerns to us since then, but they

were not around an unsafe working environment.

S. Hawkins: I suggest that the minister go back to those boards -- she's had

this information almost as long as I've had it, because we've raised it in this House a

couple of times -- and ask them why this was not passed on to the ministry. I can tell you

that if I were in a position where I received this kind of information, I would be very

concerned. You've got front-line people in two major hospitals saying that they can't

provide safe care. Kelowna General Hospital is a regional hospital, and Penticton Regional

Hospital also provides very essential services for rural patients around that area. So I

have to wonder: what kinds of concerns, then, does the minister get from the health

authorities if she doesn't get concerns like this about safe patient care?

Hon. P. Priddy: We have had concerns expressed by boards around adequate

funding, certainly from Kelowna around funding for abortion services, and occasionally

around the working relationships among the health care professionals within their

facilities.

S. Hawkins: Would the minister not agree that important information like

front-line workers concerned about adequate staffing for providing safe and effective care

for patients ---- and their inability to do so -- would be a concern that perhaps the

minister should be made aware of through the health authorities?

Hon. P. Priddy: I expect the health authorities to bring to my attention or my

senior staff's attention issues that they consider to be issues. There's no question about

that. I assume

[ Page 10251 ]

that they make those decisions based on the context of all the things happening within

their health authority or within their hospital, not necessarily each and every time

individual staff come forward.

S. Hawkins: In the Kelowna case, the chairman of the medical advisory committee

resigned after 15 months. He cites -- and certainly the minister is aware of this --

overcrowding, long waits in emergency, ever-present pressure on beds with restricted

admission and critical care diversion, which we talked about yesterday. He says that

that's become the norm rather than the exception. He says that there are increasing

demands made on medical and critical care nursing staff, with resulting fatigue, burnout

and, more recently, the need for expanded dialysis capacity. He was working as chairman of

the medical advisory committee for 15 months with absolutely no resolution of these

issues, and he resigned. The medical executive committee passed the motions and were

trying to get the attention of the health authorities, and that was passed on to the

hospital administration. I wonder: does the minister think it's appropriate for the health

authorities, then, not to address concerns like this? If the minister knows that the

health authorities did address these concerns, can the minister tell me what the health

authorities did to address these concerns?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are two things around that. I expect the health

authorities to use their judgment and to exercise leadership when they have issues to deal

with. If they are unable to deal with those issues within the health authority, I expect

them to bring them forward to senior staff.

Without responding to anecdotal circumstances -- or letters, in this particular case --

I can say that in the case of Kelowna General, for the year in which the letter the member

refers to was written by the head of the medical advisory committee . . . .

During that year there were significant additional allocations for kidney dialysis and

renal dialysis, which is one of the things the member referred to, saying that there had

been no action in 15 months. In point of fact, there has indeed been.

Last year Kelowna General Hospital had a budget surplus of $181,000, so indeed there

have been dollars allocated. If the health authority and the hospital feel they need to be

added in different places within either the hospital or the health authority, they have

the right to do that. But compared to some others, they are in a position to make that

decision.

[2:45]

S. Hawkins: I don't think that answers my question at all. I think these

concerns -- albeit they're from last year -- continue, because the letters and the motions

I read from are from this budget year -- April 20.

Frankly, if you want to talk about the surplus, let's talk a little bit about the

surplus at Kelowna General Hospital. They did have a very efficient administration over

the last few years. Some of those administrators have gone on to work with the regional

health board, thank goodness. They saved almost $1 million for the future construction of

a parkade and some other things they thought they would need at the hospital. Guess what:

$900,000 of that was loaned to facilitate or to support the cancer centre, because the

government didn't come up with that money.

I understand that part of the money to balance the $2.2 million deficit of the health

authority this year is being taken out of the surplus that Kelowna General Hospital

accrued over the last few years. What I'm saying is that that money wasn't really there to

address the concerns that this physician, this medical advisory committee and these

front-line workers at this hospital are talking about. Again, I'm asking the minister. I

know that when the physician resigned, it was public; he did go on the air and talk about

it on a talk show in Kelowna. I was very concerned, because, again, it's unprecedented.

More and more front-line workers and health care workers are going public about the kind

of care they can provide for patients across the province. I know the minister has heard

it more than once -- that people are having to do more and more with less and less.

I can tell you, the letter I read to the minister yesterday was certainly evidence of

the kinds of care that patients are experiencing in hospitals and facilities across the

province. And it's not getting better; it's getting worse. The minister can stand there

and say that Maclean's magazine says that we're providing the best health care in

the country, but when you do a poll of patients and people in B.C., what you find is that

they think the quality of health care has deteriorated. Over 60 percent of them think it

has deteriorated under the NDP in the last five years, and over 40 percent blame the

provincial government. You've got to deal with the perceptions of people in the province.

That's what they're telling this minister and this government. I wonder if this government

is actually hearing.

When I point to letters, when I point to motions put on the record by front-line

workers who are saying that they are constrained by the kinds of restrictions this

ministry is putting on health care across the province, and they're talking to the health

authorities . . . . The minister says she has not gotten evidence of it, and

I'm concerned about that. Well, it's not happening just in Kelowna and Penticton, I can

tell you. We brought up examples of St. Paul's Hospital and Vancouver Hospital. When we

get to some of the other constituency issues, you'll certainly hear it from other places

in the province.

Let's talk about the Central Cariboo-Chilcotin health council and the Cariboo Memorial

Hospital. I know the minister knows this, because we raised this before as well. I want to

know -- once I lay out the issue here -- if there has been any resolution to it. Dr. Quigg

wrote a letter on February 25, several months ago, to the Central Cariboo-Chilcotin health

council, and he is very concerned about the emergency care. He's a full-time emergency

doctor at that hospital. He says:

"As the full-time emergency room physician, I firmly believe this has reached an

unacceptable level and is a disaster waiting to happen. Recently I have witnessed as many

as eight in-patients admitted to the emergency room. This occupies 80 percent -- eight of

ten -- acute care beds. The remaining two beds, the trauma room and so-called cardiac bed

are the only beds left to run the emergency department. This is like playing Russian

roulette; sooner or later a crisis will happen with no warning."

Basically, he says that there are four options that he gives the health board. He says:

" . . . these include: (

i) open more ward beds; (ii) admit to

ambulatory care with ward nurses being called for staffing; (iii) consider transferring

admitted patients to other facilities" -- and guess what the last option is -- " .

. . if none of the above, close the emergency room. Closing the emergency room would

be safer than having a false sense of security that emergency services can be provided

with a department of in-patients."

I think that's a pretty strong statement. The guy is working full time in emerg. He is

seeing what's happening and the deterioration in his emergency room. He's reaching out to

this health authority for help and basically saying: "Look, if you can't do any of

the above, then close the emergency room." It's

[ Page 10252 ]

better to do that than give patients a false sense of security that they're going to

get safe patient care.

This was in February. I believe I talked to Dr. Quigg in April or May, and he had not

heard from the health authority. I wonder if the minister can update us on this situation

and if the health authority has indeed dealt with this, or if the minister is even aware

of this situation.

Hon. P. Priddy: I am aware of the issue. I believe it was the member for Peace

River North that actually asked this question -- I think.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Was it you?

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. P. Priddy: Sorry, it's not Peace River North, but . . . .

Sorry, I can't remember your riding, hon. member.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Sorry, it was the member for Peace River South who asked that

question in the House. I have staff checking for the hon. member about what action has

been taken on that.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister advise us if they're actually tracking these kinds

of concerns around the province? Will the minister ask the health authorities to track

these kinds of concerns? We are hearing them. It seems to me that either the minister

isn't hearing them or the health authorities aren't advising the ministry. I would think

that in the minister's position, she would want to hear about these kinds of concerns. I

would want to hear about these kinds of concerns. As a health care person and as someone

who is very interested in the safety of patient care, I would want to know that what I was

doing -- the kind of health care that I was saying I was providing to patients -- was

actually happening out there. The minister and the government stand up and brag every day

about how great things are across B.C., and then we get letters and motions like this

across our desks. I think the minister should be very interested in what's happening out

there. If these kinds of situations are happening, I think the minister should be aware.

Can the minister tell us if the ministry is tracking these kinds of concerns? If they're

not, will they be going back to the health authorities and asking how many health

authorities have heard these kinds of concerns, so we can start dealing with them?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we are tracking them, as are the health authorities. In the

question that the member asked about the two areas earlier, there wasn't something to

track, because it had not been raised. I have the motion from the Kelowna General meeting;

I don't have the one from Penticton. Yes, we are tracking them as health authorities or

others report them to us. Of course, we track them because we want to know, and the health

authorities need to know in order to provide an integrated health service focusing not

just on one area but on ensuring that the whole system is integrated.

The other thing I want to note is that while we have not heard that concern from the

Kelowna health authority or from the Okanagan health authority, I would say that it is a

superb board and a superb health authority, with very skilled people who are doing a very

good job. Perhaps they have looked at this in context and have chosen not to speak with us

about it at this stage.

S. Hawkins: I didn't think that I was putting down the people in that health

authority. What I was asking the minister is: what kind of reporting to the minister were

the health authorities doing to make her aware of those kinds of concerns? You would think

that the ministry would have some kind of policy, because the ministry is responsible at

the end of the day for providing quality health care and, I would say, safe health care

across the province. If there were regions that were saying, "Now that we cannot

provide safe and effective health care in the community . . . " then I

would want to know if I was the top dog.

I was asking the minister: what kinds of things, then, is the minister expecting the

health authorities to report back on? Is it just on budgets and, at the end of the day,

the bottom line? Or is the ministry truly interested in finding out whether patients in

different areas across the province are actually happy with their health care and whether

the front-line workers are happy in providing that care or are very frightened about the

kind of care they're providing, because they think that patients, patient safety and

health care are being compromised?

Hon. P. Priddy: Of course, we're interested in having . . . . We

expect health authorities to report when they have concerns about the safety of the care

being provided in their health authority. We expect them to bring those issues forward,

and many have. No, we're not simply interested in the bottom line of how the dollars are

spent, although, quite frankly, we are very interested in ensuring that those dollars are

spent efficiently and efficaciously in terms of outcomes for patients.

You have to leave the health authorities with some ability to use their judgment. Do we

expect a health authority to forward every motion made at every advisory committee from

every union and staff group within that health authority? I think the health authority has

to look at that and make those determinations. Do I expect the health authority to go

through the minutes of every single committee and forward every single motion that says

that there is an issue? No, I do not. I expect the health authority to be able to deal

with many of those issues within the health authority. That's why they're there; that's

why they have that kind of leadership responsibility. I don't expect them to necessarily

report every motion.

At the medical advisory committee meeting the member spoke of, I think there were ten

motions passed by that committee -- each one moved by Dr. Hawkins, I believe, and seconded

by Dr. Randhawa and Dr. Golbey. Do I expect every motion to come forward? No, I do not. I

expect the health authority to use leadership on that and to deal with those issues on a

health authority basis, bringing them forward to the ministry when they need assistance to

do that.

S. Hawkins: I don't expect the health authorities to provide the minister with

every motion from every meeting. But when I read statements from Penticton Regional

Hospital and Kelowna General Hospital which say, "We can no longer assure the

community of safe and effective acute medical care," I think that's a red flag and a

cause for concern. Those are the kinds of concerns that, if I were the top person, I think

I would want to hear. I don't care who passes the motions.

I mean, you 've got two major hospitals in the same region -- not the same people --

passing these motions in the

[ Page 10253 ]

medical executive committees. Then you have the head of MAC, Dr. Andy Pattullo,

resigning and saying: "I'm resigning in frustration. For 15 months I've been dealing

with these issues, and nothing seems to be happening." No one's listening. There is

pressure on beds; there are wait-lists in emergencies; there's inadequate staffing. You

know what? Everybody seems to be worried about the bottom line instead of the patients.

Where do patients figure into this? I thought patients came first in the health care

system. That's what I'm asking the minister.

We are starting to see this more and more. It's not just those two hospitals.

"Yes, it's getting worse," confirms Pat Derksen, manager of patient care at

Royal Columbian's emergency department for the last ten years. Linda Bartz at Vancouver

Hospital says: "Aggravating the problem is the fact that emergency room patients are

sicker now, for a variety of reasons." She says: "We're finding that the number

of critical bypasses is going up. If we can't do resuscitation immediately, we close the

ward for a minimum of 20 minutes." There are all kinds of delays, all kinds of

emergency stuff. At St. Paul's Hospital the head of the department says: "I don't see

the problem getting any better without opening more hospital beds, and the government

can't afford it. The government is broke."

Those are the kinds of concerns we're hearing from facilities and front-line workers

across the province. What I'm asking the minister is: when she's hearing stuff like that,

instead of fiddling with the bottom line . . . . I'm wondering if they're

actually attacking the problem and if they're actually worried about the patient, who

should be at the centre of this whole equation. Talking about who passes a motion or where

it's passed . . . . I think the issue is whether we're providing safe and

effective health care for patients across the province.

Dr. Quigg at Cariboo says he doesn't think so. He thinks that if you can't guarantee

that patients are going to get a certain level of safe care, then close down the emergency

room. That's safer than giving them a false sense of security. What I asked the minister

about Cariboo Memorial Hospital was whether the health authority has dealt with his

concerns. A couple of months ago, when we asked the question and we talked to him, they

were apparently meeting to decide what they were going to do. Well, he wrote that letter

in February, and in April or May they were meeting to see what they were going to do.

I'm asking the minister in July, and I don't think I'm getting adequate answers to

those questions. What I'm getting from the minister is: "Well, maybe. I don't expect

the health authorities to send down every motion or every issue. They should be able to

deal with it." What I'm telling the minister is that they don't seem to be dealing

with it, because health care workers and front-line workers are going public with it. You

know what? That's unprecedented.

[3:00]

Most of us don't want to scare patients to the point where we're saying: "We

cannot provide safe and effective patient care in the community." I would hate to say

that, but that's what's happening around the province. Patients are frightened, and health

care workers are frightened. They feel that patient safety is being compromised, and they

feel they have to speak up. They wouldn't be speaking up if they could meet with the

health authorities and feel that there was a proper resolution to these issues. I think

that most of the time you would like to make patients feel like they're being admitted to

a facility and that they're safe and are going to get good-quality care.

That does not seem to be happening anymore. In fact, the three sessions that I have had

estimates with the minister, we've been raising that every session. It hasn't gotten

better; it's getting worse. I'm getting more and more examples every year, and it's

getting more frightening every year. I'm asking the minister to tell me what exactly she

has done to address these concerns, if she's done anything at all. It doesn't sound like

anything's been done. If nothing has been done, I don't think it's good enough to off-load

this onto the health authorities, because I think it's happening across the province. It's

probably an issue the minister should discuss with the health authorities and see if it

has been dealt with. If it hasn't, can the minister tell me how she is going to deal with

it?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm just trying to decide what the end question was. It was:

what is the minister going to do to address all of the issues that the member has raised?

I don't think that's necessarily possible to do, hon. Chair.

But to suggest that an increase in the budget every year for seven years, when I know

that the member knows that the opposition's position was that $6 billion was enough .

. . . We're now at almost $7.5 billion. The fact that this government has increased

the budget every year for the last seven years is hardly nothing. The fact that there's a

$228 million increase in the health care budget this year is not "nothing." The

fact that there's an $8.5 million increase in cardiac surgery, including dollars for

anaesthetists, is not "nothing." The fact that there are additional dollars for

the cancer agency to perform more procedures is not "nothing." The fact that

we've acknowledged that we're working with emergency departments in both St. Paul's and

Vancouver General to help resolve some of the issues they're facing is not

"nothing." So the answer seems to me that there are a number of things that are

being done.

I don't think this minister has ever stood up in the House and said that everything is

great and everything perfect across British Columbia. Health care workers are speaking out

in British Columbia, as they are in every province in this country. While it might be

unprecedented here, it would therefore be unprecedented in every other province as well.

The fact that health care workers are speaking out means that they are able to do that,

because they, firstly, have legitimate issues to raise and, secondly, know that they are

able to do that without any kind of recrimination -- as I've heard suggested in other

ministries -- around how staff feel about speaking out about concerns in their workplace.

But I would suggest that the list I've given the member -- and I could continue on that

list for some time -- is not "doing nothing."

S. Hawkins: Well, I still don't think the minister has addressed the specific

questions I asked. Let me make some lists, because I know that the spending of the Health

ministry has gone up $2 billion over the last five years. You know what? When you ask

people, "In the last five years, has the quality of health care gone up?" they

say no. In fact, I told the minister that in an Angus Reid survey done this summer, 60

percent said that they felt it had deteriorated. Over 40 percent felt it was the

provincial government's fault.

Let's talk about whether the NDP gets the best bang for the scarce health care buck. I

mean, we look at health care reform. They admitted last year that they wasted $40 million

in regionalization and New Directions. That's $40 million they admitted to; we know it was

a heck of a lot more. The health labour accord -- was that good value for scarce health

care dollars? I think not. We keep hearing about varied amounts of money that the

government actually saved from that. Well, we

[ Page 10254 ]

know they didn't save. There was a lot of money just sucked into regionalization or New

Directions -- now Better Teamwork, Better Care, whatever that means. We know, because the

minister admitted it the other day, that at least $6 million last year was spent on

severance.

The government might be spending more, but is it spending better? We don't know that.

In fact, last night I tried to get some information from a hospital bed study that was

done. I'm trying to find out if the ministry has acted on any of those recommendations, if

they're improving utilization and if they're actually finding out whether what they're

doing is helping patients. You know what? That information is really hard to find out.

So I don't know if spending more is spending better. When I talk to patients around the

province, they're telling me that they're not getting what they need. The waiting lists

are getting longer. The waiting lists for tests, for surgery and for treatments are

getting longer. Everybody is suffering somewhere in some region. Hospitals and front-line

workers are speaking up.

I have to wonder when this minister stands up and says that we're spending here and

we're spending there. Well, I can tell you that the government's advertising budget has

been going up every year. We talked a little bit about that. In fact, the auditor general

estimates that this government spends $2 million to $3 million a month -- about $25

million a year -- doing advertising. Why would you have to advertise that much? When

health care dollars are scarce . . . . The minister told us that $2.1 million

in her ministry is spent on health advertising. Frankly, I've seen some of the kinds of

advertising they're doing -- negative advertising, self-serving advertising -- and I don't

think it serves patients very well.

I'm disappointed in the minister's answers. There are some very serious concerns from

front-line workers. When they're saying that they cannot provide safe and effective care

in the community, I think the minister should be worried. It's not just in minutes; they

went public to say that. I think they went public because they think . . . .

In fact, I believe that the head of the MAC who resigned felt that all the concerns were

being swept under the rug and nothing was being dealt with. Instead of the minister

standing up and saying, "We're spending more, so everything's great . . . . "

I don't think it is. I don't think the minister can say that spending more is spending

better. Certainly the statistics out in the community don't show that. I've raised some

very serious concerns from front-line workers, and I want to know what she's going to do

to address those.

Hon. P. Priddy: The concerns from front-line workers raised by the member are

primarily -- although not solely -- ones raised by physicians. That doesn't make them less

legitimate; I'm just identifying that that is where the largest number come from. Last

night the member raised the fact that it is important to have a good working relationship

with the BCMA, in order to be able to resolve some of these issues. While I'm not going to

go through what was canvassed last evening, we did talk about some of the things -- both

how the member feels about that and the fact that this ministry is taking at least some

initiatives to do that, where possible -- and about where we can find common ground, given

that those are the people who are expressing the concerns the member has raised.

I think one of the things it is important to keep in context here is, as I mentioned a

moment ago, that this minister has never stood up and said it's great. What I've talked

about is what we're currently doing in this system. Can we spend our money better? I'm

absolutely certain that we can, and that's a large part of what's happening, not only

within our ministry but within the regions. It's an expectation of the regions that they

find innovative ways to spend dollars in a more efficacious and efficient way. I'm not

equating more with quality, although I am suggesting that if what we had done was reduce

the budget every year, then I expect we would have people saying that the only way to

improve quality is to spend more.

I cannot actually answer all of the questions that have been raised in the last five or

ten minutes, but I want to go back, for a moment, to Kelowna General Hospital and what has

been done there. If the issue that physicians there are raising is about not having enough

resources to provide safe and timely care and the other issues that are mentioned . .

. . We did provide additional dollars for Kelowna General to be able to do that. We

both adjusted their base and provided additional dollars -- about $500,000 last year alone

-- for the hospital to be able to improve the effectiveness and safety of their care.

Since the member refers to a letter that goes back to the last 15 months, that $500,000

for the hospital would have been included during that time. People have listened to

concerns that have come from the hospital and have responded by putting $500,000 more into

that hospital budget alone -- including money for dialysis, which is one of the things

that has been mentioned.

Another context to look at this in, as we look at the quality-quantity . . . I

don't want to call it a debate, but . . . . You need both. You need quality

outcomes, which is one of the reasons that we're saying to our health authorities that we

expect, in their reporting . . . . As I indicated yesterday, the first annual

report that I will table in my purview as minister will actually include markers,

benchmarks and indicators to support the issue of quality, which is outcome. In any of the

new work that we've done and are doing across the ministry, regardless of whether it's

around hospitals or other kinds of health care, we are very clear with people not just

about how we expect them to spend the dollars but about what we expect the outcome for

patients to be.

We are focusing on the quality issue, as I would hope every ministry is, both in this

government and across the country. I think it's only been in the last few years . . .

. I mean, I have, in my life before politics -- we've all had a life before

politics -- looked at issues of measurement, of outcomes for people -- not just where the

money is spent but whether the money is really doing what people have said it would do. I

think that's a new focus. I refer to the document called "Measuring Our

Success," which was tabled by me in another ministry. The provincial health officer,

John Millar, has moved, in his health goals, to looking at some of those things as well.

So yes, there is the issue of quality.

I don't equate quality and quantity solely, but there certainly is the issue of

resources. I would at least comment that we have been able to provide additional resources

over the last seven years, in the manner which I've spoken to -- certainly over the last

two years, with a 30 percent cutback from the federal government, $375 million that we

have not passed on to anybody and have not decreased the health care funding for. We have

managed to pick up that $375 million, on top of what's happening in health care here, and

continue to maintain that, as much as the federal government has said: "Don't worry;

it's not our responsibility anymore." I would suggest that in the last polling I saw .

. . . There certainly are people who believe part of it is the fault of the

provincial government, but there's a much larger percentage who

[ Page 10255 ]

believe it's the fault of the federal government, in terms of cutting back almost $400

million from the health budget of women, men and children in British Columbia.

[3:15]

S. Hawkins: I think it is very easy to start pointing fingers and blaming other

people. I am the first one to admit that I'm not happy with the federal transfer cuts

either, and I have said that in this House. But the government has priorities for

spending, and I would submit that in the last five to seven years under this NDP

government, their priorities have been misplaced. I've seen a lot of wasteful spending --

dollars that have gone into all kinds of pet projects that could have gone into health

care. If the minister wants, I'll start making a list, but I'm not about to get into that

debate right now. It's easy to start pointing fingers and saying that everybody else is to

blame. What I'm saying is that the ministry has to take responsibility.

Where there are areas of concern, I personally have not seen some of these issues

resolved. Frankly, the minister made a statement a short while ago saying that Kelowna

General Hospital had a $181,000 surplus last year. That's not my information. There was a

deficit of several hundred thousand that was covered off with an administrative reserve

fund. That's my information. The minister might want to correct or get that information

from her staff.

At this time, the Leader of the Opposition wants to address the issue of amalgamation.

G. Campbell: One of the issues that we know is a direct responsibility of the

provincial government, of the provincial Ministry of Health, is their amalgamation plan.

Their amalgamation plan has clearly brought turmoil to health care services in B.C.

Well-run charities that involved literally thousands of volunteers have been shunted

aside, and in their place has come big government. The government has trampled on the

rights of those charities and volunteers through their Health Authorities Amendment Act,

1997. But the tragic result of that act is that the value of volunteer activities in the

health care system has really been determined to be worthless by this government. They

have made an ongoing attack on volunteers in community after community across the

province.

The problem is that you can't, in fact, replace the value of a volunteer. The support

they give in their community and to the people that live in their community is, I believe,

priceless. You certainly can't replace the value of volunteers with government

bureaucrats. The Minister for Children and Families pointed out the other day that she had

recognized that and that in fact the government was going back to the drawing board with

regard to that particular initiative. I think it's critical that in health care we look

for the same kind of direction.

However, we know that in February 1999 the government is going to court to force the

amalgamation of Glacier View Lodge in the Comox Valley. The fate of a number of other

facilities, like the Arrowsmith Lodge in Parksville, hangs in the balance. So my question

to the minister is: how much money has the ministry spent thus far on the court case

against Glacier View Lodge, and what is the estimate for the legal bill on that case?

Hon. P. Priddy: I can't give the member the exact cost without checking, but my

understanding currently from my staff is that we've been in court for about two or three

hours with a lawyer from the Attorney General ministry. So it's whatever that cost might

be.

G. Campbell: Well, hon. Chair, I find it a little amazing that the minister

thinks the two to three hours in court are what you end up generating legal costs for.

We're talking about a health care system that's decided to focus resources on legal costs

for attacking a non-profit organization in the province of British Columbia. Surely the

Health minister knows what the costs of the legal bill have been to date and how much

background had to be gone into prior to doing that. That must be part of this initiative.

It's clearly a political initiative; it has nothing to do with providing patient care. It

has nothing to do with providing health care in British Columbia. It has nothing to do

with building communities. It's a politically motivated act, and surely the politician

responsible would know how much it costs and how much the estimated long-term costs are.

The government has said to this non-profit agency: "You're going to court in February

1999." Does the minister think that the lawyer wakes up on the morning of the court

date and says: "Oh, I'm going to go to court and argue this case"? Of course

there's work to be done, and of course there are costs. So again I ask the minister: what

are the estimated legal costs for this attack on the Glacier View Lodge?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things, I think. One of them is that Glacier View Lodge,

while we do have a difference and a challenge there, is the only one in the province where

this action is taking place. All of the other amalgamations have gone forth without this

happening. I don't believe that Arrowsmith is pending on this -- or at least, my staff

tell me it's not. So it is only Glacier View that has not been able to be resolved in a

different way.

With the greatest of respect, this is not an attack on volunteers, and it is not a

political agenda. It is a way of providing more integrated care in the community; it is

way of having people go into the health care system without having to go to eight or nine

or ten different places in order to have their health care needs met. While I do realize

that we have tried a number of solutions with Glacier View, we offered . . . .

What the people from Glacier View had originally asked for was the same arrangement

that we have with the Queen Alexandra unit here in Victoria. After some discussion, we

said that that would be fine, and we would agree to that. Then, I think, Glacier View

changed their mind and said that no, that's not the outcome that they wanted. So while it

is unfortunate that we haven't got a resolution on this particular one, it is the only one

in the health amalgamations throughout the entire province where we have found ourselves

in this position.

The judicial review -- not a court case, but a judicial review, which just reduces the

costs some -- is the one that is coming up. There has been no work done outside the

government; there's been no legal work done outside the government at all. In point of

fact, we have not done a significant amount of work preparing for a court case, because,

quite frankly, we have been optimistic up until now -- and I will still be -- that we will

get a solution without this going to a judicial review.

G. Campbell: Just so we're clear, hon. Chair, whether the job is done by legal

counsel in or out of government, my understanding is -- and the minister can correct me if

I'm wrong -- that we actually pay government lawyers, people who are in the employ of the

people of British Columbia. We

[ Page 10256 ]

must be paying something; there must be some costs involved in it. Maybe this isn't the

case. I certainly would have expected, when government lawyers are at work for any

ministry, that there is a billing procedure. There must be some sort of billing to the

Ministry of Health for the work that's taken place with regard to Glacier View Lodge.

It really doesn't matter whether the minister considers it an attack on volunteers or a

politically motivated attack -- or whether I do. I can guarantee the minister that

volunteers and the people at Glacier View Lodge consider it an attack on their rights. I

think that's critical. In fact, it's something that's taking place in other parts of the

province. Glacier View may well be the only one that is currently in court, but I know a

number of others are concerned about the actions that the government has taken.

Let me try and move on, because clearly the minister doesn't care about the costs of

this in terms of legal costs. I would prefer those costs to be going into health care; I'd

prefer those costs to be going into taking care of patients. Unfortunately, the minister

seems to think it's more appropriate for those tax dollars in the health system to go into

the courts. I totally disagree with that, and I'm sorry that that's the position the

government is taken.

Let me carry on, though. The Health ministry is trying to force Glacier View Lodge into

amalgamation. They are certainly forcing Glacier View Lodge and the society to invest a

substantial number of dollars which would otherwise be used for patient care and the lodge

in protecting what they believe to be their rights. In the Comox Valley community health

council, I understand that there is an affiliation agreement with St. Joseph's General

Hospital. The question that I have for the minister is: why is Glacier View Lodge being

forced into amalgamation when a much larger facility has an affiliation agreement with

that health council?

Hon. P. Priddy: The affiliation discussion has gone on for some time around

Glacier View Lodge, and I don't remember the last time that was on the table. The

situation is somewhat unusual in the Comox CHC, where there really are only St. Joseph's

and Glacier View. Because of the denominational agreement with St. Joseph's signed three

or four years ago, St. Joseph's does have the ability to have an affiliation agreement.

The best way to integrate service is -- and, I think, still remains -- an amalgamation of

those two.

If I go back to the opposition leader's earlier question about cost, yes, we do get

billed by the Attorney General. I don't have that with me. My staff person has asked to

have that submitted to us so we can give the information to you.

G. Campbell: My understanding, just for the minister's verification, is that the

Comox Valley community health council has a budget of approximately $35 million this year.

Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

G. Campbell: Of the budget of $35 million, my understanding is that the budget

of St. Joseph's Hospital, which has not been amalgamated -- it is run under an affiliation

agreement -- is approximately $27 million. Is it $27 million or $28 million?

Hon. P. Priddy: It's $26.9 million, actually.

G. Campbell: We have a community health council with a budget of $35 million,

St. Joseph's has a budget of $26.9 million, and I believe Glacier View Lodge has a budget

of roughly $6.2 million. Is it not true that if in fact Glacier View wasn't amalgamated,

there'd be literally nothing for the CHC to do, and they'd have a very, very small budget

to manage?

[3:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: It is true that it would be about that amount of money. The CHC

still has both the need and the responsibility to integrate the services that are there,

including home care, nursing support and the other health care services in their community

that need to be integrated.

G. Campbell: Does the ministry have any evidence that Glacier View Lodge is not

providing a cost-effective service to the people of the Comox Valley?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, we do not.

G. Campbell: In the Comox Valley, at least, which is just one health council, we

have a situation where there is one facility that is under an affiliation agreement -- St.

Joseph's, which is $27 million -- and we have one facility that we know provides excellent

service and has been built by volunteers over a number of years of commitment to service

to their community, with a budget of about $6.2 million. That leaves us with about $3.1

million in the total budget that we would really be worried about.

How, in this particular instance, does it make sense -- other than a kind of blind

commitment to amalgamation versus affiliation -- to require and demand that Glacier View

Lodge become amalgamated? Why wouldn't the minister say: "Right, let's put aside the

court cases, and let's put aside the ideology. Let's allow Glacier View to

affiliate"? We'll probably save some additional dollars by eliminating a bureaucracy

that's unnecessary, and we can get on with focusing our resources on patient care, not

just in the Comox Valley, but you could use it as a prototype for other parts of the

province as well.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the member is correct when he talks about the

fundamental importance of volunteers to any kind of system -- health care system or any

other kind of system. I don't see this. I mean, this is a government-funded facility,

albeit it does have volunteers involved, as many facilities do. I haven't seen in any

other facilities across the province that have been part of amalgamation -- at least, in

the regions that I've visited -- where volunteers have said that because this is now

amalgamated as opposed to a stand-alone, or amalgamated as opposed to an affiliation, they

will no longer support the people who live there or the people who go to that particular

hospital for care. Certainly in my experience, volunteers have maintained their

commitment. The volunteers are committed to the people, whether it happens to be an

amalgamated or a non-amalgamated facility.

You know, hon. Chair, we spoke the other night about whether regional appointments or

health authority appointments should be remunerated or not -- not to get back into that

particular discussion, because it was already canvassed. But volunteers continue to be

fundamental across our system. All of the people on health authorities are volunteers. So

in no way is this an attack on volunteers.

But as it relates to Glacier View, which is a government-funded facility, then

amalgamation with the other services still seems to be the best way to go in this

particular way. I am prepared to keep talking with Glacier View. I think people

[ Page 10257 ]

know that the local MLA has been very involved in this. I have talked with people from

there, and I will continue to do this until we've gotten to a place where there's clearly

no resolution.

G. Campbell: The minister has touched on a number of subjects which I'm sure

we'll get to eventually. Can the minister tell me how much the CHCs pay their CEO in that

particular area?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, I can't. We don't have that here. We can certainly find that

out for the member, but it would be within the HEABC guidelines.

G. Campbell: Will the minister confirm for me that if Glacier View Lodge or

Arrowsmith Lodge, or any of the many other lodges that are involved and have been

concerned about this, were run by religious denominations, they would not in fact have

their properties expropriated?

Hon. P. Priddy: The Leader of the Opposition would be correct. All of the

denominational hospitals or facilities in the province signed an agreement with the

government about four years ago. So the member would be correct in the conclusion he has

reached about that.

It's important to be very clear that Glacier View is the only facility that is in this

situation. In every single other place, this has been accomplished without this kind of

action.

G. Campbell: I think that one of the issues for the minister . . . .

There's a number of lodges that have concerns and problems, and there's a number of lodges

that didn't have, I suppose, the wherewithal or the resources to challenge the government.

It is no small thing to challenge a government, to take a government to court. I don't

think anyone should take any pride in the fact that a non-profit agency in a community has

been forced to take a government to court to try and protect what they think are their

rights in a facility that they've worked to put together.

The minister mentioned earlier that the government helps fund Glacier View Lodge -- and

I understand that -- to the tune of $6.2 million. But you know, when you look at this, the

government is partially funding the operating income and that's fine. But they partially

fund operating incomes for all sorts of people . . . .

Yes, hon. Chair?

The Chair: Thank you, member. Just take your seat for a moment, please. I'd ask

the members in the chamber to please keep their conversations in the hallway. The noise

level is rising, and I'm sure everyone is interested in listening to the question and the

answer in the debate at hand.

G. Campbell: To the minister again. In October of 1997, in reference to the

Glacier View Lodge case, during the court case Justice Fraser asked the government's

lawyer -- the government's lawyer -- if the government reimbursed her for her mileage

during the court case. She confirmed that in fact the government did. The judge asked the

lawyer if the government has the right, therefore, to take her car. The principle is the

same thing: we're paying for operations; therefore we should be able to expropriate.

That's effectively what is taking place. These are the judge's questions, not mine.

For instance, doctors currently have contractual arrangements with the government.

Those contractual arrangements . . . . Obviously the resources go to help pay

for their overhead, to pay for their offices. I wouldn't expect that the government is

talking about expropriating doctors' offices in the province.

My question to the minister is: on what basis can the minister justify the

expropriation of non-profit societies like Glacier View or Arrowsmith Lodge, which have

been providing service and whose assets were raised by the community?

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: The land originally . . . . When we talk about

assets, like assets that were put in place by money raised by the community, the land, I

believe, was land that was owned by Comox and was given to Glacier View for this purpose.

So it's not that people raised dollars for the land. My understanding is that the assets

and the dollars that were raised, in part, go into the capital of the building, as the

ministry also provided resources for capital in the building. So yes, those are existing

assets partly funded by the ministry and, you're right, partially raised by dollars in the

community, in the same way that hospitals have done. And hospitals are now part of the

amalgamation as well.

The assets that have gone into Glacier View are both government assets and certainly

some fundraising assets from the community. But I don't think that the community has

totally raised assets to buy the land, to completely build the building. They certainly

have with supports to that facility, as I say, as they do to any hospital in the province.

S. Hawkins: Just on a technical point again, it's very difficult to hear the

minister. I don't know if her mike is turned up or if she could just speak into her mike a

little bit more. It's not just me; other members on this side have raised this issue.

G. Campbell: I am a little bit incredulous to hear the minister's response. A

non-profit community goes out and goes to work, and they raise dollars. They go to their

local council and say: "We're going to go and put this together." And someone

says: "We are now giving you some land for this non-profit society." Then the

minister somehow says: "Oh, since it was a gift, we'll expropriate it." I can't

believe that. This minister has had some experience at the local level. She knows how much

work, how much time and how much effort goes in. Land that is given from the local

community belongs to the local community; it's not for the provincial government to

expropriate and take away. It's not for the minister to belittle the efforts that were put

in by those volunteers to bring that facility together and make it a successful care

facility. The minister herself has said that there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that

Glacier View Lodge is not providing top-quality service, that those volunteers in that

facility in that community are not providing top-quality service.

But instead of saying, "Congratulations. Good job. What can we do to help?"

the minister says: "Let's get these folks to court; let's expropriate their land and

get them to court as quickly as we can. Let's see how much we can take from that

community." That's totally unjustifiable. I would hope that the minister, instead of

saying "We're chatting," will make a commitment that they will set aside their

court case, they will work with the people of Glacier View, and they will come up with an

affiliation agreement that will work on behalf of the

[ Page 10258 ]

people of the Comox Valley and the people of Glacier View Lodge. That's what will

provide the best care for the people in that particular region of the province.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: I will make a commitment to the Leader of the Opposition that I

will go back, with my staff, to the people at Glacier View and to the local MLA and see if

there are any ways that we have not explored or any movements that have not been made to

be able to work this out. I am prepared to make that commitment.

[3:45]

G. Campbell: While we're discussing the local MLA, has the local MLA made the

minister aware of the petition that was gathered, which had over 6,000 signatures,

encouraging the ministry not to pursue this amalgamation with regard to Glacier View

Lodge?

Hon. P. Priddy: I heard a question about whether it was tabled in the House, and

I'm unaware of that. I am aware that information about that petition was made available,

and the previous minister was aware of it as well.

G. Campbell: The minister is aware of that? Thank you.

If I can just ask a couple more questions about this issue. Can the Minister of Health

inform us as to whether or not the government is currently pursuing private-public

partnerships with regard to intermediate care facilities?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, the government is.

G. Campbell: In view of the fact that we're trying to take over lodges like

Glacier View and Arrowsmith, I'm not quite sure how pursuing that is going to be the most

cost-effective way of dealing with things. I'm certainly in favour of pursuing

private-public partnerships, but when you look at Glacier View or Arrowsmith Lodge in

Parksville, since they are non-profits, they are not motivated by generating profit;

they're motivated by providing people with services. One would wonder why, on the one

hand, we're attacking a quality provider of health care in the Comox Valley, while at the

same time we're pursuing the public-private-partnership route.

In terms of dealing with this issue, I just wonder . . . . I understand,

first of all, that the Ministry of Health is a huge ministry. It is of vital importance to

all of us in British Columbia. I'm sure the minister has a great deal that comes across

her desk; certainly she should have in the last few months. But I wonder if the minister

is aware of the community response to this expropriation of Glacier View. Is she aware of

how -- forget the people who are just actively involved in the non-profit society --

people at large in the community are feeling about this? Is the minister aware of the fact

that people in that community feel that this will lead to a deterioration of their health

care service, that it adds to their concerns about the quality of health care that we're

having in the Comox Valley, which is reflected, I think, in concerns that people have

about health care across the province? Is the minister aware of those things?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are just a couple of things to be sure that I'm clear on,

although we'll view it from a different perspective. But at least I need to put mine on

the table as well. I do not view this as "an attack on volunteers." While the

member holds the right to have that opinion, I hold the right to have a different opinion,

which is that it's not an attack on volunteers.

Secondly, there is no indication anywhere in the province where amalgamation has taken

place, with many long term care facilities, that there is any kind of deterioration in

services.

Thirdly, I think it's extremely important to say that Arrowsmith is no part of this

decision. This is the only facility in the province where we have come to this particular

juncture. This does not have to do with Arrowsmith; it is no part of this deliberation;

it's no part of this action. This is the only facility in the province where we have

reached this particular juncture.

In terms of whether the community believes that it will . . . . I mean,

I've certainly heard about the petition, and the MLA has raised that issue, hon. member.

In terms of the additional information from the community, then I expect that what we have

is a responsibility to demonstrate that in parts of the province where amalgamation has

taken place, there has not been a deterioration in service.

G. Campbell: My understanding with regard to Arrowsmith is that the only reason

it's not in the same position is because the health council has backed off for the time

being. The health council will give notice when they feel like expropriating this land.

That is what I and the people at Arrowsmith Lodge have been told. Further, I think it's

important for the minister to know that again a non-profit agency in the province, which

has done nothing except serve their community, is forced by this government to hire a

lawyer to protect themselves from, effectively, an expropriation. Again, this is not about

what the minister thinks or doesn't think. Whether it's Glacier View or Arrowsmith .

. . There are literally dozens of articles in the community about the expropriation

of Glacier View. There are articles that point out that it's angered residents, articles

that point out that it's of concern to people who are involved in providing the service.

"Health Takeover Disturbing," as one of the editorials points out.

I think this would sum up -- if I can find it quickly -- the community's view of the

government's expropriation, of the government's attack on the volunteers of Glacier View

Lodge. This is what it is: "There is absolutely no purpose to the provincial

government's planned expropriation of the facility. It won't benefit the residents of the

lodge. It won't save taxpayers any money. And it will definitely create a climate not

conducive to providing good and cooperative health care services."

Why on earth would we put our heads down, put our fingers in our ears, cover our eyes

up and say: "We can't hear any of that"? Why wouldn't the government say:

"Right, here's a situation where in fact we should be looking for an affiliation

agreement with Glacier View Lodge. We should be looking at reinforcing the efforts of

those volunteers and the people in that facility"?

You know, the issue that I have for the minister is that she hasn't done anything

specific with regard to Glacier View. I wonder if she's done anything or if the ministry

has done anything to look at the cost-effectiveness of these non-profit societies

providing these services across the province. Is there anywhere, in any place that we see

non-profit societies, societies that are providing intermediate care doing a bad job, a

too-costly job, a job that is not effective for the people that are in their care?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not aware of a particular study that's been done as the

member frames the question. But, hon.

[ Page 10259 ]

Chair, as you look throughout the province at intermediate care run either by

non-profits or by for-profits, they all have the responsibility to meet the same kinds of

standards. Many of them, whether they're non-profit or profit, use volunteers to support

the people who are there. So I think to make that kind of comparison in a blanket kind of

way is probably not a possibility. We expect the same standards from both.

G. Campbell: In terms of cost-effectiveness, I would expect that you are getting

at least as good a response from the non-profits if not better. You know, what we're faced

with here is a situation where someone in Victoria decided that they were going to

amalgamate. "Come hell or high water, we're going to amalgamate. We don't care what's

happening on the ground. We don't care what's happening to patients. We're going to

amalgamate. We're going to have some plan that we've suddenly figured out is better for

everyone in the province." That's in spite of specific examples, like Glacier View,

where that is clearly not the case and where we're investing substantial dollars to try

and protect health services. People in Courtenay-Comox are not trying to do damage to the

health care system; they are trying to protect it. They are not frightened because they

think the health care system's going to get better; they're frightened because they feel

that it's going to get worse.

Again, I would ask the minister . . . . We have seen the government, at

least with regard to Children and Families, recognize that the amalgamation process that

was going on wouldn't work, would in fact be destructive. This amalgamation in this

particular situation is equally destructive. My question to the minister is: would she

disavow that now, stop the amalgamation and allow these non-profit societies to carry on

as they have in the past with affiliation agreements that work for the society, for the

patients and for the communities which have supplied years and years of support to those

societies? That's why they have confidence in them.

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things, just to be clear, and let me respond again to the

member's question. We have no reason to think Glacier View Lodge has not done an excellent

job in terms of supporting the people who live there, as do many facilities across the

province. Whether they happen to come under a non-profit or have been amalgamated, many of

those are providing excellent care, as does Glacier View, for the people who live there. I

think we need to be clear about that.

I have committed to the opposition leader that I will talk again with my staff, and we

will look again at whether there is a resolution to this, other than the particular

position that we're currently in. But I will not make a commitment today to stop the

amalgamation with no consultation with anyone. The health council wanted very much for us

to offer to them the same option that Queen Alexandra had, and we thought we had a

solution there. We worked to offer that option of the Queen Alexandra agreement to Glacier

View and to the health council, and in the end that was turned down. I have made the

commitment to continue to work to try and find a resolution to this.

G. Campbell: If I may, I will just turn my attention briefly to the Arrowsmith

Rest Home Society. The minister will know that in August of 1994 the Arrowsmith Rest Home

Society informed the Ministry of Health that the board had unanimously voted against

amalgamation for that particular facility. On July 15, 1997, the Arrowsmith society asked

the Central Vancouver Island regional health board for an affiliation or contract

agreement, instead of amalgamation. Will the minister confirm that she will allow that to

go ahead? Or will the cloud of expropriation, similar to what's taken place in Glacier

View, hang over Arrowsmith Lodge in Parksville?

[4:00]

Hon. P. Priddy: The Central Vancouver Island regional health board has not come

forward with a request for amalgamation of Arrowsmith. Were they to do so, I don't see

that as one that we would move on.

G. Campbell: Sorry, hon. Chair, I did not hear the end of the minister's answer.

Hon. P. Priddy: The end of my statement is that I would not anticipate

supporting that request if it came forward.

G. Campbell: Can the minister tell us why she would not direct the Central

Vancouver Island health region to enter into an affiliation agreement with Arrowsmith

Lodge, so that they can have a sense of comfort with regard to this? They, like Glacier

View Lodge, have had to hire a lawyer to protect themselves; they felt it was to protect

themselves. The minister is correct. As I understand it, they have had a temporary stay,

but it is temporary. All they have so far from the ministry is that they won't carry on

with expropriation or amalgamation without appropriate notice. That means they're sitting

there waiting for appropriate notice. Will the minister confirm that that is the case? Can

the minister explain why it is not appropriate to enter into an affiliation agreement with

Arrowsmith Lodge at this point?

Hon. P. Priddy: Perhaps the member can help me. I'm not sure if the letter -- I

assume he's referring to a letter -- came from the ministry or the health authority,

saying that we won't move forward with expropriation at this time.

G. Campbell: On November 28, 1997, the Arrowsmith society got the services of a

lawyer, Michael Holland. They received letters from the Ministry of Attorney General legal

services branch confirming that the Health minister will not order mandatory amalgamation

without appropriate notice. That's what the letters confirm. My question to the minister

is: isn't it time we stopped having lawyers from the government talk to lawyers for the

societies? Wouldn't it be better if the minister just said to all concerned: "We are

going to have an affiliation agreement with Arrowsmith Lodge. There is going to be no

amalgamation. Don't worry about it"?

Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you for the clarification in terms of where the letter

came from.

I need to say again that we have no intention -- and we can clarify that with

Arrowsmith, or the health authority can -- of moving forward with amalgamation. The health

authority will work out a contractual agreement with Arrowsmith that will meet their

needs.

C. Hansen: Last year when we were debating Bill 28, the Health Authorities

Amendment Act,

section 13 in there actually gave the minister the power to enter into

these forced amalgamations.

Glacier View Lodge is a subject that is dear to my heart. I grew up in the Comox

Valley, and for many years now I've been very familiar with the lodge, the excellent work

it has done and the excellent reputation that it has in the community for the service that

it provides.

[ Page 10260 ]

Last year when we were debating Bill 28, I did not have Glacier View Lodge on my mind.

As we know, it has become the most controversial implementation of this power that was

given to the minister via Bill 28 last year. When we were debating that section, I asked

the then Health minister when and how these powers would be used, and she made it very

clear that there were only two reasons that this power would be used to force an

amalgamation. One is public safety, and I trust that the minister is not implying that

there are any public safety issues involving Glacier View Lodge. The second is the issue

of public interest. I'm wondering if the minister can explain to this House what the

public interest issue is that is being addressed by this forced amalgamation.

Hon. P. Priddy: The public interest is in establishing a functioning, viable

community health council that is able to integrate services within their community.

C. Hansen: I'm not sure that that's a public interest reason that would wash in

the Comox Valley, but the Leader of the Opposition has canvassed that, so I won't try to

revisit that same area.

One of the issues that we did canvass during Bill 28 was the issue of expropriation.

I'll read, for the minister, exactly what I said in the House last year when that

section

was being considered. I said: "If we have, for example, a private nursing home that's

run either by a private corporation or by a not-for-profit society, does this particular

section give the minister the power to in effect expropriate those particular

facilities?" The minister responded by saying, unequivocally: "No, there will be

no expropriation."

If I can just read further on down, again, to quote the Minister of Health at the time:

"The clause does not in any way contemplate expropriation . . . . If in

some areas there was a reason -- for health and safety concerns, or in the public interest

-- that a society would be required to amalgamate . . . it would only be with

compensation. There would never be expropriation." Yet within months of this bill

being passed, which gave the minister that power, they walked into Glacier View and did

exactly what the minister said that they would not do. I'm wondering what happened between

the time that Bill 28 was considered in committee in this House and the time that notice

was served on Glacier View. What was it that changed that made the minister of the day go

against the very words that she spoke in this chamber?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm unable to comment on whatever happened between whatever

dates for anybody, hon. Chair. What I have said and what I said to the hon. Leader of the

Official Opposition is that I would look at the debate, I would look at the issues, and I

would go back and see if there's any kind of resolvable solution to this. That's what I

will do.

C. Hansen: I urge the minister to go back and review the Hansard on that

Bill 28 debate, because what the minister said at the time and what transpired only a

matter of months later are diametrically opposed, two opposite things. I would certainly

ask the minister to go back and live up to the words that were spoken by her predecessor

during the Bill 28 debate. With that, I'll pass it over to my colleague.

B. Barisoff: As I listen to the words of my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena,

I think of what the minister said, and I read an

article that says . . . . I

have a long term care home in my riding that is under exactly the same kind of pressure.

When you see headlines like "Society Vows to Continue Sunnybank Retirement Home

Battle," you know that something's wrong -- that it is an expropriation.

I want to ask the minister exactly what the status is of Sunnybank Home in Oliver.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure about how to define "status," but they

are in the same position as many -- I'm not sure if it's intermediate or long term care --

facilities where they will work out some kind of arrangement with our health authority.

There's no move towards amalgamation, nor is there intended to be. I'm not sure about how

status applies, but if the question is, "Is there some thought about

amalgamation?" there is not.

B. Barisoff: I have another couple of comments here. A comment that was made by

one of the members of the CHC to the society was that the old-timers' group is defunct,

gone. It was the old-timers of that community who built Sunnybank. They were the ones who

spent the time getting out there, acquired the land and basically put the whole thing

forward. When you read quotes like that, you begin to wonder why there's such a reaction

from the volunteers in the community.

You mentioned that this hasn't had an effect on volunteers. Well, when you make a

comment like that . . . . These are the old-timers who built Sunnybank. These

are the old-timers who continue to be part of the hospital auxiliary society, who

contribute thousands and thousands of dollars to both Sunnybank and to the hospital every

year. It has an effect.

I had people calling me, after it got started with Bill 28, saying that they weren't

prepared to get involved anymore, that if this was going to be the attitude of the

government -- that it was going to simply be expropriation without compensation -- they

weren't going be prepared to put those kinds of hours in. When you get statements like

that -- that the old-timers' group is defunct, gone -- I just can't buy that. That's part

of what's taking place there and why we're getting such a reaction to things, such as from

the volunteers in our communities. I would ask the minister whether there's something that

can be done to alleviate the fears of some of the so-called old-timers, who actually put

their hearts and souls into building these senior citizens homes. In this particular case,

I know they spent a lot of time on that Sunnybank board, and they ran an excellent

facility.

Hon. P. Priddy: I will direct the health authority -- or we will do it in the

ministry -- to send a letter of clarification to the people there. They are not at risk,

as somehow they believe they may be.

I. Chong: I am also pleased to be able to participate in this part of the Health

ministry debate, and would like to reiterate some of the comments of the Leader of the

Official Opposition regarding the two not-for-profit societies dealing with Glacier View

Lodge and Arrowsmith Lodge rest home. As the Leader of the Official Opposition has stated,

there was in fact an asset grab, and as the member for Vancouver-Quilchena indicated,

there was expropriation without compensation.

It's extremely disturbing that these things are happening and that somehow the minister

is trying to assure us that it is not happening. Some of these particular facilities --

most of them -- were acquired not with public dollars but by private interests, by way of

donation or fundraising through the community. In particular, I believe Arrowsmith Lodge

in Parks-

[ Page 10261 ]

ville is a $2.77 million asset with about five acres. I'm not sure of the value of

Glacier View; I think it's $10-$12 million, but I could be wrong there. I think those two

were acquired in the past by the communities.

[4:15]

What I would like to raise is the point that the member for Okanagan-Boundary also

raised. That is about the volunteerism and the fact that these people who have offered

their services no longer do so, and they feel that there is an attack on volunteerism. I

heard the minister's comment earlier, that there is no attack on volunteerism. But if that

is true, then why is it that when there is a forced amalgamation, it requires that the

board or society that was established -- a volunteer board -- must cease to exist, must

now be required to basically give up their opportunity to run a facility? I would submit

that it is an attack on volunteerism. When this occurs, some would say we are violating

their rights and freedoms, because the not-for-profit society directors no longer have the

right to form, to assemble and essentially to volunteer in this fashion and donate their

time. It does violate their freedom of association, hon. Chair. I would like the minister

to explain how these people -- who were once volunteers and are now, by a forced

amalgamation, required to step down -- are not having their rights violated in that sense.

Can the minister share with us how they are allowed to continue to offer themselves as

volunteers on a board -- how that can possibly take place -- when they are required to

step down?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think it's important to remember the people who stay in place.

I gather that the argument about freedom of association is that somehow, if you're not the

volunteer that runs it anymore, it's a violation of the Charter of Rights or something. It

seems to me that that's a bit of a reach, and I guess we'll have to find that out if it

continues to be challenged. But there are many volunteers who have stayed in place in the

long term care or intermediate care facilities that have amalgamated. The foundations,

comprised of all volunteers, have stayed in place; the community advisory committees, all

volunteers, have stayed in place. At Glacier View Lodge certainly, the offer was made for

that group to be an advisory committee. That could have been in place, but it did not meet

the needs of the people who were offered that.

Again, hon. Chair, I do wish to say that this is not about Arrowsmith. This is about

Glacier View Lodge. It is the only extended or intermediate care facility in the province

where we are at this juncture. This is not about Arrowsmith or any other facility in the

province.

I. Chong: I would only state that if that statement the minister made is in fact

correct, then there are a number of communities around this province that would beg to

differ. As I understand it, there are a number of communities that are waiting for the

decision on Glacier View to be determined. I understand that it has been held over until

the end of February of next year, after which time they will take a look at what other

legal action they can pursue. I know that Glacier View is currently in a kind of limbo,

because it is before the court.

In terms of the Arrowsmith Rest Home Society, I understand that in October 1997 a

statement of claim was in fact put forward and that some of the arguments were also

presented on the same premise as the Glacier View Lodge Society . . . . In

fact, the plaintiff, being the Arrowsmith Rest Home Society, was concerned that its rights

and freedoms had been violated. All the moneys that had been raised, $2.7 million worth,

to acquire Arrowsmith lodge, land and buildings came from private donations, except for a

gazebo and an administrative annex, which came from a government grant. Substantially,

most of this facility is, for all intents and purposes, a private facility, for which this

government is requesting an amalgamation or a takeover to occur.

As the member for Vancouver-Quilchena indicated, that would violate what last year's

Minister of Health had stated: that there would be no expropriation without compensation.

Clearly that would be what would be occurring here. This is an expropriation without

compensation, because there is no obligation to pay for the facility from the government's

coffers, because the government never paid for this. So we do have a problem in this area.

As I understand it, the Arrowsmith Rest Home Society may be looking at the Glacier View

case before it proceeds further.

Hon. Chair, I'll leave that alone for a moment, because I do want to deal specifically

with one facility in the constituency that I represent. I know that the Minister of Health

is aware of that particular facility; she's already referenced it in her comments to the

Leader of the Official Opposition -- that is, Queen Alexandra Hospital. As we know, last

year I certainly came out in opposition to what was happening there. Therein lies a

classic example of why there is a foundation and why there is a society. Certainly there

are volunteers on the foundation that still exist, and that occurred because the directors

tried to anticipate what was going to happen and purposely divided this into a foundation

and a society, which is what a number of organizations are looking at -- the foundation to

hold the assets, and the society to run the programs and the facilities -- the purpose of

which, I understand, is to protect the assets. Surely this is not the kind of activity we

wish non-profit societies to engage in: having to set up a foundation to protect their

assets and to acquire legal counsel to do this. That's a waste of their precious donated

dollars.

In this particular case of Queen Alexandra, I know that an agreement was reached. I

think Miriam Gropper was the person in charge of drafting an agreement, which essentially

laid out exactly what the directors of the foundation had indicated: they did not want to

turn over the assets to the government. I would like to ask the minister at this point

where we are with that agreement. Is that agreement now signed and in fact in effect? Or

is there still some delay with that agreement? At this point I have not heard whether that

agreement has had the final signatures.

Hon. P. Priddy: We believe it is, but I want to check for a status update. If

the member could just wait for a moment, we're just checking.

I. Chong: I'll wait for the minister's staff to look into that.

In the meantime, I would like to pursue another comment that the minister made earlier

regarding the fact that there has to be accountability. Certainly on this side of the

House, we've always stated that there has to be accountability to the public, because it

is their dollars. The minister stated earlier that because government provides funds to

some of these not-for-profit societies, surely they must be accountable.

I would just like to advise the minister that this past year, the Queen Alexandra

Foundation provided $1.7 million to the capital health region -- $700,000 to renovate

their west end and $1 million to provide programs that the government wouldn't or couldn't

fund. Those had to do with orthotics, some seating and some other programs. There's a

two-way street here. In fact, the government does provide funding. But some of these

foundations also provide funding, yet they're

[ Page 10262 ]

not asking this government to be accountable for their actions. They're basically

stating that they're turning over money for programs as well, funding that they've raised

in the community.

While we're waiting for that answer -- I don't know if that's still forthcoming -- I

would like to ask the minister: if we are still not dealing with expropriation, then are

all donations and bequests given to some of these societies definitely clear and free from

expropriation to the government revenues? When somebody is donating moneys to a society

which has now gone through a fourth amalgamation, would those funds still remain intact

for the society's use? Or would the government or the community health council, or whoever

is in charge now, have the ability to direct where those funds are to be spent?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry, member. People were just checking out some things.

Are you asking about the foundation funds? Maybe you could just repeat the question for

us.

I. Chong: In some cases, they're not foundations that are set up, I suppose;

they're societies. People would be bequesting in their wills a lump sum to a society,

which has a facility that has now been taken over by the government or by the health

council. People are wondering whether or not those funds are segregated from the normal

operating funds and whether there is community involvement in the disposition of funds in

whichever manner they wish. Or do they become funds that are in the general pot, which

that facility is running?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things. Obviously the foundations which are still in

existence will . . . . People will either leave their money to the larger

Hospital Foundation of B.C. or to a foundation for a particular facility. That money is

spent in the way that has been designated by the person who has made that kind of bequest.

In a case where there is not a foundation . . . . Normally what happens is

that people, when they make a bequest like that, would never bequest it for operating

funds. It's usually for a piece of equipment or something special; it's not just to

whatever facility. They generally -- and are advised to -- specify a purpose. So in the

case of QA, for instance . . . . Mind you, they have a foundation in place, so

then the foundation would simply deal with that. In a case where there was no foundation

in place, it would go with that designation to the CHC or whatever the health authority

was, and they would then ensure that the dollars were spent in the way that was designated

by the bequester.

I. Chong: I am aware that QA has a foundation. The reason why it was set up was,

as I said, to protect its assets. The difficulty with this is that where there are

organizations without foundations, there is confusion; if there is not confusion with

those of us who are involved, there is confusion in the public and also for those who are

seeking legal advice when they are drafting their wills. In fact, maybe that is one of the

reasons why these societies and charities are receiving less in donations.

[4:30]

The minister may disagree, and she is welcome to do so, but I have to express that

there have been instances, even in the constituency that I represent, where people have

wanted to donate to Queen Alexandra Hospital or the foundation and they have in fact held

back. Some have contacted the foundation and have changed their wills, where they have

legacies or bequests, because they were concerned that these would end up in the

government's hands, and that was not what they wanted.

Also, there are people who do draft their wills, where they do leave funds -- $5,000,

$10,000, $15,000 -- with no specific arrangement to go to purchasing equipment. They do

leave it to the lodge or society; that is just the way some people arrange their financial

affairs. Those are the concerns that we on this side of the House have -- that those

charities are receiving fewer funds because of the uncertainty out there.

I do want to point out one bequest in particular that I've heard about, and the

minister can look into this if she is able to. It deals with the Alberni-Clayoquot

Continuing Care Society. There is, as I understand it, $1 million currently in limbo

because the government is wanting to get control of this money, and until such time as

there is certainty as to where that money can go, the bequest has not been dealt with. I

think it's incumbent on the minister to make sure that all these societies, and everybody

who needs to be aware, are made aware, so that we don't have these funds in limbo when

they could be there to serve the people, as the intended purpose was.

I would also like to ask the minister if, in the Queen Alexandra situation, she is

still looking for the answer about the agreement and whether she can advise as to the cost

involved in getting this agreement in place. As I said, I understand that there was an

outside consultant involved -- Miriam Gropper -- and I have not been able to find out the

dollars expended for that.

Hon. P. Priddy: We're trying to see if there is a response to the last part of

the member's question.

The Queen Alexandra agreement is still not signed, but my understanding is that the

negotiations are proceeding in an amicable way and that the capital health region lawyers

have recently sent documentation through to Queen Alexandra, who are examining that

documentation. So we think it's quite close, and there hasn't been a great amount of

dispute that I am aware of, except perhaps for one area. The documentation, then, from the

capital health region lawyers is being reviewed by QA; they've received it. I would hope

that we would have an agreement very, very soon.

In terms of some of the other issues that you've raised, hon. member, one of them is .

. . . I think it may be a fair comment that people who are thinking about bequests

or planned giving, or whatever the programs are, may not be clear on what the implications

are because of all the discussion there has been about this. Actually, I just talked with

staff about whether there's something that we can do or that we can get the Health

Employers Association of B.C. to do. We will undertake to at least get letters out to all

of the health authorities, which would include the individual ones, to make sure that the

issue is as clear as we can make it. So they would have a letter from government to show

in answer to people who are asking questions about planned giving or to people whose

lawyers or accountants may be asking the questions on their behalf. It is important to

note that the amalgamations do include trust agreements -- although QA in itself isn't an

amalgamation; I understand that -- for society funds and for covenants on land, which

require that it continue to be used for the original purpose.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's efforts in that area. We are all

concerned, for those who wish to continue planned

[ Page 10263 ]

giving, that that interruption not occur -- that there is in fact a level of

consistency and dependability that the community is willing to participate in.

I didn't hear an answer to the last part of my question, though. Can the minister

advise me or commit to providing me the costs in terms of the agreement with QA? And if

it's not yet finalized, what further costs may we be looking at?

Hon. P. Priddy: My staff is getting that information, and we will provide it to

you.

S. Hawkins: Just some points for the record. The denominational facilities

affiliated with the regional health boards worked out an agreement where they could do

that. The ones that didn't affiliate had to take some very extraordinary measures to not

be at risk, as the minister put it, of expropriation. It was interesting that in her

comments with respect to the member for Okanagan-Boundary -- who brought up the Sunnybank

home, in his riding -- the minister used the words: "No, they're not at risk of

expropriation." When you're at risk of something, you're usually at risk of something

not very nice. Maybe the minister is finally beginning to hear some of the societies and

non-profits out there, who feel very threatened by this kind of government action, this

kind of expropriation, this kind of action against non-profits and volunteers. It's

interesting that we're finally starting to hear, I think, some terminology from the

minister that does express the kind of feelings that people in these non-profit societies

have. They definitely feel at risk of that kind of action from the government.

Frankly, for Queen Alexandra, the reason that the government couldn't amalgamate them

was because this government couldn't get at their assets. They had to take some very

extraordinary measures too, and they transferred title to their foundation. It was legally

transferred, and the government had no way of getting at the title. After a protracted

period of time and, as the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head points out, at a cost to

taxpayers and with the use of scarce health care dollars, we are going to get an agreement

for affiliation. Did we really have to go through that?

As far as Arrowsmith Lodge is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition brought up that

facility, and the minister was wondering where it said, in a letter, that they still had

this cloud of expropriation over their head. Well, there is a letter, written . . . .

Again, this is a lodge, a non-profit society, which had to get legal counsel and go

through legal avenues to protect themselves from this government. We know that non-profits

don't have a lot of dollars. They run off of donations, and they know how precious those

donations are. I would put it to the minister that they spend those dollars very, very

carefully, because they know that if they don't, they won't get any more. So we know that

they run fairly efficiently, and they do try and get the best use of the buck that's

donated to them.

There's a letter dated February 12, 1998, and it's from the Ministry of Attorney

General legal services branch. Harvey Groberman, barrister and solicitor, writes this to

Arrowsmith's counsel. I'll quote from the letter:

"With respect to your indication that Arrowsmith may, at some point, be faced with

bringing an application for a constitutional exemption order, I do [not] understand your

position. It continues to be my view that any application is premature, given the contents

of my letters of November 28, December 8 and December 9, 1997. I confirm that to the best

of my knowledge, information and belief, the government is not considering making an

amalgamation order with respect to Arrowsmith. Further, the government has committed to

providing you at least 30 days' notice should that situation change."

So that is where the cloud of expropriation still hangs over this non-profit's head.

They've been told: "At this time, government isn't considering expropriating you.

But, hey, you know what? We're going to give you 30 days' notice in case we change our

mind."

What we're asking the minister is to consider -- I'm sure she's heard from the other

members on the opposition side here -- what it's doing to volunteers, what it's doing for

morale and what it's doing to the community when we have situations like this. There

really was no need for that.

Arrowsmith Lodge was set up in 1970 as a private non-profit. They got no government

funding until 1979, and the government funding they did get was to help with operating.

They've built all of that and ran it for nine years with no government funding. Now they

have this cloud of expropriation over their head. The government has tried to fire the

society and force amalgamation. They had to hire legal counsel. Some of the non-profits

are fortunate that some of the lawyers are taking their cases on a pro bono basis, but

some of the non-profits don't have that option. Frankly, I think the government knows and

the minister knows that the government has a lot more resources than the non-profits do.

It's interesting how far the government will go to intimidate and force these societies

to amalgamate. Last year the government fired a lot of these societies and just took them

over anyway. The fight was gone from a lot of these volunteers; the minister knows that.

There were societies fired across the province. Frankly, when she says there are

volunteers still set up in some of these facilities, I would tell you that a lot of the

volunteers who had put in their hearts and souls and built those facilities are no longer

engaged in volunteer work at those facilities. The fight is gone; they feel spent, thanks

to a government that seems to have a very targeted attack on volunteers across this

province.

I should point out to the minister, too, for the record, that Arrowsmith Lodge sits on

a very beautiful acreage in Parksville, and it's worth millions of dollars. Again, across

the province there's this suspicion that the ministry is expropriating for those millions

of dollars' worth of assets, and that is wrong. We've tried to point it out, and we hope

that this minister is listening. At least for the societies that are left still hanging on

by their fingernails -- trying to get this government's attention in leaving them alone

and letting them function and provide the service on a volunteer basis that they did, with

the dollars that they have been spending on their facilities for the last umpteen years

they've served the communities -- let them continue doing that.

I've got a couple of other societies that I'm interested to know the status of. One of

them is the Prince George Regional Community Care Society. They provide long-term care and

housing services for seniors. I know they were fighting amalgamation back in February. I

want to know what their status is at this point.

Hon. P. Priddy: We need to check what the arrangement is, but there has been an

arrangement made and concluded with the regional health authority by the Prince George

Regional Community Care Society. We can check for you and see what kind.

S. Hawkins: The second one I have questions about is the Fraser Cheam Home

Support Society in the Fraser Valley. Again, the Fraser Valley regional health board was

demanding that the home support services there be amalgamated. I wonder if the minister

can bring us up to date on the status of that one.

[ Page 10264 ]

[4:45]

Hon. P. Priddy: I know that there are discussions ongoing with the Fraser Valley

health authority around this. We've certainly received no request for a forced

amalgamation. If we were to receive one, we would not go ahead with it.

S. Hawkins: I wonder, then, if the minister will commit to getting the

information I just asked for and to letting us know what other societies are opposing

amalgamation, if there is a list, and how many facilities in the province are not

amalgamated or affiliated. If the minister would commit to that, we'll go on to another

topic.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we'll get that for the member.

S. Hawkins: Thank you. We'll look forward to that information.

At this point we'd like to move on to rural health issues, and specifically I think

we'll start with the rural doctor crisis and the northern physicians' group that had

withdrawn services. I think the member for Prince George-Omineca will start that off.

The Chair: Minister?

Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you, hon. Chair, for allowing the interruption. I wonder

if we can just take a minute to switch staff.

Hon. Chair, I do have staff here now, so perhaps the member can continue.

P. Nettleton: With reference to the whole question of the withdrawal of services

by the northern rural doctors, it is an issue which I know the minister is very familiar

with. I've had the opportunity, over the course of the past few weeks and months, to

discuss this in some detail with the ministerial staff as well as with the minister

herself. As I recall, we also had an opportunity, coming back from a press conference in

Prince George some time ago, to chat informally about this whole discussion.

I believe we share a concern that this issue be resolved once and for all. It's my

understanding that the latest deadline with reference to finalizing an agreement with the

physicians in the five communities affected -- namely, Vanderhoof, Fort St. James,

Mackenzie, Fraser Lake . . . . In fact, that was to finalized by July 6. That

deadline, of course, has come and gone, as have other deadlines prior to the most recent

one. The minister may want to correct me on that. In any event, I will refer, by way of

introduction . . . . I'm just going to make a few introductory comments with

reference to this whole issue and then sit down and let the minister respond.

The headline in today's Prince George Citizen is: "Rural Doctors' Feud

Rekindled." It's a somewhat alarmist headline, but the

article makes reference to a

number of issues which have yet to be resolved. It makes the point that five weeks after

the northern interior rural doctors returned to work in hospitals as a good-faith gesture,

they have yet to come to a final contract agreement with the provincial government. As I

say, it outlines some of the outstanding issues with reference to this dispute. I'd just

like the minister to comment, then, on what appears to be an ongoing issue with reference

to the deadline of July 6 -- or if there's some other deadline . . . . I'm

just wondering if there's some end in sight for the residents of the five communities. It

has dragged on for months now and appears to be a non-ending dispute.

Hon. P. Priddy: I too had hoped that this would be resolved by now. I don't have

a particular date, because I thin