Hansard — Monday, March 31, 2008 a.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Tabling Documents		10613
	Office of the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, annual report, 2007
	Office of the Auditor General, report No. 7, Improving Financial Reporting for British Columbians: Report on the 2006/07 Public Accounts
	Office of the Auditor General, report No. 8, Managing Access to the Corrections Case Management System
	British Columbia Electoral Boundaries Commission, Amendments to the Preliminary Report

Private Members' Statements		10613
	Workplace bullying
	L. Mayencourt
	N. Simons
	Protecting our children
	M. Karagianis
	L. Mayencourt
	Managing the Flathead Valley
	B. Bennett
	N. Macdonald
	Transportation
	J. Brar
	M. Polak

Motions on Notice		10621
	Patient-centred health care funding (Motion 46)
	R. Hawes
	A. Dix
	M. Polak
	G. Gentner
	J. Yap
	M. Sather
	J. Rustad
	N. Macdonald
	B. Bennett
	C. Wyse
	J. McIntyre

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the 2007 annual report of the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner; Auditor General report No. 7, Improving Financial Reporting for British Columbians: Report on the 2006/07 Public Accounts; Auditor General report No. 8, Managing Access to the Corrections Case Management System; and British Columbia Electoral Boundaries Commission, Amendments to the Preliminary Report. It's the published version. This document is the same as that previously circulated on February 14. There are some formatting and grammatical corrections, but there is no substantive change.

L. Mayencourt: People are drawn to British Columbia from across Canada and indeed the world. They come to enjoy our quality of life and the beautiful environment. We want these people to continue to come to British Columbia, because business here is booming and there's a growing need for skilled workers.

Finding and keeping good people is becoming more and more of a challenge for British Columbia employers. For sustainable growth and success, B.C. must be a great place to work as well as to live and play. That means that people on the job need to be treated with respect and consideration. That means there has to be something done about the problem of workplace bullying.

When people hear the term "bullying," they think of this being a problem that children alone would face — that adults should be able to take care of things or just let it pass. But workplace bullying has other names. It's also called personal harassment, worker abuse and psychological violence. This gives us a better understanding of how serious the problem is.

When we speak of workplace bullying, we must remember that we are talking about people who are being abused on the job. This is bad for workers, it's bad for business, and it's just plain wrong.

In British Columbia we are learning the importance of doing the right things, of treating people with respect. That's why we're leading the way in Canada with initiatives like the Safe Schools Act. Through this legislation, we've made schools safer for our children. Now we need to do the same for people in our workplaces.

I'd like to take a moment to describe what workplace bullying looks like, because not everyone has seen it and not everyone recognizes the symptoms. The basic dynamic is that someone with power is misusing that power to treat someone else badly.

This mistreatment can include public humiliation, nitpicking, criticism, yelling at them, throwing temper tantrums, making threats, picking on one person while treating another as a favourite, withholding privileges and resources, denying promotions, suppressing wages, breaking promises, making people work overtime, even deliberately sabotaging their work and career. When groups get involved, there can be hate campaigns, backstabbing, betrayals, vicious gossip, character assassination and deeply wounding social ostracism for the person targeted.

These ugly scenarios are being played out every day in more offices than we care to imagine. It seems to be happening more and more in different settings and to all kinds of workers. We are coming to learn about what effect this has on the people who are targeted for bullying.

Typically, when the abuse is persistent, they lose their jobs. That's not the bully that's losing their job; it's the target. And that's wrong. They are often fired, or they resign. They might even retire early or go on a disability leave.

Sometimes these people have to completely change their careers, not just their jobs, to get back on track. It can take years. Sometimes they never stabilize their lives again. Then there are the health concerns. After years of stress on the job, people develop chronic or even life-threatening illness, and their personal relationships can be destroyed by all of this.

What of the cost to business? When there is abuse in a workplace, the business environment becomes poisonous. It's not just unhealthy for the targeted worker. This kind of behaviour damages productivity in the entire office. People don't know how to fix the problem. They lose motivation and creativity, and they come to hate their jobs.

If they stay, they're just going through the motions. If they can leave, they do. Then the business has added costs for recruiting, hiring and training new workers, who also may not stick around if the problems aren't fixed.

Businesses can be wrecked by worker abuse, and families can be broken apart. There is no real remedy for it in British Columbia, no way to address problems and no mechanisms of accountability to keep them from happening — yet.

We are not alone in recognizing this problem. There is a growing body of legislation on this internationally, which indicates ways we might address it. The first was in Sweden in 1994 where they incorporated protection for workers against bullying in their occupational safety and health regulations. Then in 1997 Great Britain followed with the Protection from Harassment Act.

In 2004 Quebec became the first jurisdiction in North America to have a law against personal harassment in the workplace. It's part of the labour standards there. In 2005 South Australia enacted work-safe laws to assign workplace services personnel to investigate harassment complaints. Last October Saskatchewan passed Bill 66 to include provisions for dealing with bullying in their occupational health and safety legislation.

This is another opportunity for British Columbia to look at what has been done internationally, in Quebec and in Saskatchewan, and then to create a uniquely made-in-British Columbia solution.

N. Simons: Thanks to the member for Vancouver-Burrard for those comments and for the short history lesson on workplace bullying and the legislation that is beginning to emerge in North America on this topic of importance.

I believe that legislation clearly needs to be in place in order to protect those who are victims of bullying. That would certainly go a long way to reducing the amount of bullying that takes place in office places, in workplaces. I think Quebec's standard — which prevents harassment, essentially, since 2004 — is an important first step.

What we need to remember is that with this legislation, we also need to make sure that the enforcement is there and that enough people are on the ground to enforce the legislation that exists. I think we do sometimes tend to focus on law, as if it's the solution to the particular issue. While it's part of the solution, we need to look at the underlying causes of bullying and the factors that lead a person to be a bully.

We can pretend it doesn't exist, and we can deal with those that do exist, but I think we also need to focus on why people become bullies. If you look at the characteristics of bullies, the profiles of bullies, they're often people who are very insecure and need to use force or threats of intimidation and demeaning language to make themselves feel better.

As the member opposite well knows, those are the same characteristics we see in children who end up being bullies. They're often the ones who need the most care and who need attention paid to them because for some reason or other, they have not yet learned the importance of empathy. Empathy in our schools is obviously hugely important for the quality of the students' lives but also to ensure that they can learn in schools.

The same thing can be said for workplace bullying. The productivity of workers who are being bullied is significantly diminished, as is the morale of the entire office in many cases. One word that the member didn't mention, as another for workplace bullying, is mobbing. That's when the entire office sort of turns against a worker. For some reason, they're not able to communicate concerns and deal with them in a way that we as a community feel would be the right way of dealing with things.

Bullying is just so beyond what is socially acceptable now that we should expect all workplaces to have policies in place that are enforced to prevent bullying from taking place. Now, prevention would go a long way to reduce bullying. The option the member opposite suggests…. That's legislation. It would be an interesting angle to pursue — whether this would be a solution to some of the problems we currently face.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard has raised an important issue, one that I'm glad to see organizations across British Columbia are starting to pay attention to. I know that CUPE has a new website that deals specifically with workplace bullying, and I think that bringing this issue into the public debate is an important step towards eradicating the problem. I thank the member for bringing up this issue.

L. Mayencourt: As the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has said, this is a growing issue and something that there's a great awareness of. He is very correct that there are labour leaders who are looking at this particular issue. I commend those that are working on this. I think this is a really important thing for us to be doing for workers, but the people that we also need at the table are the employers. We need to have them there because they're part of the path to solving this problem.

As I've indicated and as many studies have shown, people's happiness level — their ability to feel good in the workplace — directly contributes to their productivity. It makes a difference to an employee that feels valued enough to be protected. That really pays off in spades for the employer. You can have increased productivity, better job satisfaction. The workplaces will be healthier, more interesting and more productive to work in. We can also work on creating an international reputation for how we protect and respect our workers here in this province in all sectors of the economy.

This is a goal that we can all share on both sides of this House — from business to labour, from men to women. I think it's important that we move forward on this.

In May I am chairing a committee of concerned professionals from different community organizations in the lower mainland. We're organizing this symposium that will happen in Vancouver in May, and we will be talking about the topic of workplace bullying and workplace health. The purpose of this event is to bring people together from all points of view and venues — public, private, not-for-profit, unions, human resource specialists, professional associations and health care professionals.

We will talk to each other and learn how we can collaborate to create and sustain respectful workplaces. With their input, we can move forward to effective action.

I've had the opportunity to be in this House for a fair bit of time, and I know that these kinds of problems need to be solved both by the people that are affected by them — the target — and the perpetrator — the bully. I'm committed to helping those people come together in a way that leads to real solutions; that leads

to better office politics, if you will; and that leads to greater productivity, greater happiness and a greater sense of safety and belonging for every employee in British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: I think it goes without saying that safety and security are the number one priority for most people in this province, especially for parents and specifically when it concerns their children. I think all of us would agree that safety for children and protecting our children is one of the foremost thoughts that all of us have when we consider how government regulates and participates in protecting children under its responsibility.

I'm here today to talk about a place where child safety has actually been severely compromised in this province and where we could actually take significant steps to change that. I'm talking about the use of 15-passenger vans.

I have here some facts that have been compiled, which are actually quite shocking and quite disturbing. The U.S. national highway traffic safety association has issued many safety warnings with regard to the use of 15-passenger vehicles, and we here in the province of British Columbia are in a position where we could actually show significant leadership not only across the province but across the country by listening to the warnings that are out there.

The U.S. federal law now prohibits the sale of 15-passenger vans to transport high school–age and younger students. In fact, the crux of my discussion today is the use of these 15-passenger vans for school use.

We have some data here that shows that between 1990 and 2002, there were 1,576 crashes of 15-passenger vans in the U.S. that resulted in 1,111 fatalities to occupants in those vans. And 349 of those were rollovers of those vans resulting in fatalities. In 2005 the national highway traffic administration act reissued a consumer advocacy warning against the use of these 15-passenger vans, and that was for the third time in four years.

Some facts here about rollovers of these vans. When the 15-passenger vans are fully loaded, they are difficult to manoeuvre. Because the rear of these vans extends four to five feet beyond the rear wheels, loading up of more than five persons in these vans actually makes them unstable in any kind of emergency manoeuvres. Often this causes these vans to fishtail, and because they're top-heavy and overloaded in the rear, they are prone to roll over, often resulting in these devastating crashes and these high rates of fatalities.

It would seem to me that as we sit here in the province of British Columbia today, it is incumbent upon us to pay really close attention to all of this information that's come in and to the growing concern of parents across this province with regard to these 15-passenger vehicles. In the U.S. today 19 states have laws that prohibit using these vehicles for carrying children to and from school. Nineteen states have prohibited using these vans for any school-related activities at all.

Let's turn to look at what our practice is here in British Columbia. In fact, we are not paying any attention to the reality and the call for action around the safety standards of these 15-passenger vans, and we continue to use them in British Columbia. Without any kind of provincial regulations, school districts continue to use these vans, and for several reasons.

I'd like to address those here. First and foremost, because government funding has slowly been whittled away from these schools…. Changing practices on how funding has been given to school districts across this province have put them in a position where they are looking for the cheapest, most affordable way to transport young people to sports events and other events throughout the province. What is happening now is that there is a growing concern, because of the crashes that are occurring not only in the U.S. but here in Canada, around the use of this.

When we look at our current practice, why are we allowing our school districts to continue using these unsafe vehicles with absolutely appalling statistics attached to them? Why are we not taking any clear steps to regulate and ban these vehicles?

I'd have to say to you, Madam Speaker, that it's because the government, at this point, is really stuck on funding formulas that are inadequate for supplying the resources to school districts that would allow them to go back to using highly regulated yellow school buses and get away from these unsafe vehicles.

We should learn a very clear lesson right now from what happened in New Brunswick. In January of this year a terrible crash took place in Bathurst, New Brunswick, that killed eight of 12 young people riding in one of these 15-passenger vehicles.

What did New Brunswick do? Did they sit on their laurels and say, "We're going to do a study," as our minister has said, or "I'm going to do some homework on this," as our Minister of Education has said? No. In fact, the very next day New Brunswick banned this type of van from use in any kind of high school activities. Within 24 hours they took very immediate steps. They did the right thing and showed very clear leadership on this and banned the use of these vehicles to transport any students to or from school. I would say that there is a very clear lesson for us to learn here.

The Minister of Education has said that we're going to study this, but in fact I would have to say, at this point, that we should be compelled to ban these vehicles for use in schools rather than experience the kind of fatalities that occurred in Bathurst, New Brunswick, before we take those steps. I fear it would take even more than a tragedy of that sort for us to get away from the dependency on the cheaper kind of transportation, on these 15-passenger vans.

I'm here today to call for a ban on these vehicles, and I'd be very fascinated to hear from the government what their rationale is going to be for not banning these vehicles — given the statistics, given the experience of other provinces, why we are not showing more leadership. Two provinces in Canada have now banned these.

Nova Scotia has also banned the use of these 15-passenger vehicles for use in any kind of school-related activities. I'll be interested to hear what the government's rationale is on this.

L. Mayencourt: I am pleased to stand and respond to the member's statement just given a few moments ago. I want to start by saying that the member's comment that government, school districts, school trustees and moms and dads around the province are looking for a cheap way to transport students is absolutely shameful when the fact is that we've put more into education in British Columbia than any government in the history of British Columbia. That includes the ten years that that member's party was in power.

Right now the Minister of Education is continuing to meet with members of the B.C. School Trustees Association to find ways to apply consistent standards throughout the school districts with regard to this type of vehicle use. Transport Canada is the regulatory body for all public transportation, including transporting students. That said, all 15-passenger vans used to transport students in British Columbia are required to have a school bus permit issued by ICBC and are inspected annually by the Ministry of Transportation.

The member made the comment that there are no regulations around this. I bring to the member's attention the Motor Vehicle Act. I bring to the member's attention the Motor Vehicle Act regulations, which specifically spell out the safety concerns and safety issues that need to be addressed. Those are supplemented by those comments from the Ministry of Education.

It's important to note that most districts…. Many of these districts do not use these vans. They simply do not use them at all and never have. Those that have, many of them, have actually stopped using these vans because of the very concerns that are raised by the member.

The School Act is very, very clear, and that member's party supported the School Act in all the years past that I know of. It says that the decision on transportation is not the decision of the provincial government, is not the decision of school district staff. It is a decision that is delegated to the school trustees in British Columbia.

To suggest that elected school trustees have an idea that they can save money by going to a 15-passenger van is ludicrous. If people do not have the opportunity to travel within the school district in some way, shape or form, those kids will be riding in someone's car. So it's important that we understand that this is not something that is applied to in most districts.

It's also important to say that this government has been very, very serious. Ever since the tragedy of last year where some workers were killed, we have done everything we can. The Minister of Transportation has gone out and made sure that every vehicle is inspected. The Minister of Education has gone out and talked to school trustees, parents and administrators and school districts and said: "Look, these are the risks. These are the things that you must address." We're working with school districts and trustees and parents to ensure the safety of our children all across British Columbia in every aspect of their education.

M. Karagianis: I am glad to hear that in the remarks by the member from the other side of the House, there was an agreement about my comments on the use of these vans by trustees. In 1984 the presiding coroner here, after a huge accident at Mount Washington, said: "It appears to be a moral imperative for these issues of public safety to be addressed by the highest and most responsible level of government."

I think those words are actually very true today, as true today as they were in 1984. The Canada Safety Council believes that schools nationwide should ban the use of these vans for transporting students. They have said: "These vans are not appropriate pupil transportation." That's Raynald Marchand, general manager of programs for the Canada Safety Council in January 2008 after the Bathurst crash.

SFU associate vice-president Nello Angerilli said: "They are too dangerous. Safety is of paramount importance."

Ray LeMoigne, Nechako Lakes superintendent, said: "Our district and board are strongly opposed to the use of passenger vans to transport our students."

Jordan Tinney, superintendent of the Comox Valley, said: "There is no way we can put a price on student safety. If one student is killed, it's one too many."

I would say that we are at a point here where this government can show some leadership. This province could take the steps that 19 states and two provinces have already taken.

The member from the government side of the House mentioned the farmworkers, and that is another issue that is also part of this. Today I'm here talking about schools and school use, because that is something that this Minister of Education could clearly take some leadership on. Certainly, it's our concern that these vans are being used for farmworkers as well.

Today I am here calling on the government to ban the use of 15-passenger vans for all school use in British Columbia. Follow the lead of 19 states and two other provinces here in British Columbia. Don't wait for a fatality like that which happened in Bathurst, New Brunswick, to lead the way. We can show leadership right now by banning the use of these vans. In fact, I would say that the use of these vans for any purpose — whether it's transporting children to and from school activities, whether it's transporting farmworkers — is inappropriate.

How many warnings do we need from safety councils, from the U.S., from other states, from other provinces? Why do they all have to show leadership before we will take any action? If it takes a tragedy, if it takes the death of children or more farmworkers in an accident before we take leadership, that is irresponsible.

Today I am calling on the government to ban the use of these vehicles. Do it for schools. Actually think about doing it for all use here in British Columbia. Show leadership and protect our children.

B. Bennett: The eastern half of my riding, next to Alberta, consists of two river valleys, the Elk River drainage and the Flathead River drainage. The Elk River drainage starts high in the mountains to the north. It separates Kananaskis in Alberta from our Elk Lakes Provincial Park. The valley is still high elevation at Elkford but decreases in elevation as it meanders south to Sparwood and then swings west through Fernie. Legendary trout rivers such as the Wigwam and the Fording feed into the Elk River, which flows into the mighty Kootenay before it arrives at Libby, Montana, where there is a dam that creates Lake Koocanusa.

The Elk Valley has supported both logging and coalmining for over a century, and today thousands of British Columbia families depend on mining and forestry from the Elk Valley. The Elk River drainage is prima facie evidence that a major industrial activity can coexist with a clean and vibrant natural environment. Ask the thousands of people from around the world where the best cutthroat trout fishing is, and they'll tell you it's the Elk, the Fording and the Wigwam rivers. Ask any hunter in the Elk Valley, and they'll tell you about huge populations of grizzly, elk, deer and sheep on reclaimed mine properties.

The Flathead River drainage is south of the Elk River drainage, and it forms the western boundary of Glacier National Park, which our U.S. neighbours refer to as the crown jewel of their U.S. national park system. This is an iconic river for the folks in Montana, and we in B.C. must respect that fact.

However, Montana politicians must also respect that the Canadian Flathead is B.C.'s jurisdiction and that within Canada's acknowledged international obligation to steward waterways upstream from the U.S., we will manage the Canadian Flathead in accordance with the responsible British Columbia standards and practices. It doesn't advance Canada-U.S. relations or the debate for Montana politicians to consistently make disrespectful public comments about British Columbia laws, regulations and processes.

Now, an important distinction between the two valleys is the absence of permanent human habitation in the Flathead. Another distinction: the Flathead, unlike the Elk Valley, contains only one major industrial activity, and that's forestry. Although, like the Elk Valley, there is also mining exploration, guide-outfitting, trapping, hunting, angling, camping and recreation in the Flathead.

For the past 50 years logging has been the primary resource extraction activity in the Flathead. The Flathead actually saw B.C.'s first pine beetle epidemic way back in the 1970s. The wise stewards of the day had a very large portion of the Flathead Valley clearcut to stop the epidemic in its tracks.

A few of my constituents and many Americans would like to see logging, hunting, guide-outfitting, trapping and motorized recreation removed forever from the Flathead by the creation of a federal park. If logging was stopped in the Flathead, the major employer in the region, Tembec, would probably go out of business, and for certain, their Elko mill would shut down, throwing hundreds of East Kootenay families out of work.

But the majority of my constituents support the current activities in the Flathead, and they do not wish to end logging, hunting, guide-outfitting, trapping and motorized recreation there. It is, I would suggest, a logical inconsistency that the proponents of a federal park argue that we must stop doing what we've been doing for the past 50 years so that we can preserve the result of that past 50 years' management.

Placing a federal park over the Flathead Valley would prevent local people from enjoying this beautiful area the way they have for generations, and it would kill the jobs generated from the Flathead. Certainly, species like moose, elk, whitetail and mule deer, and black bears all profit from the habitat created by logging. This is, of course, not true of all species. But overall, the Canadian Flathead has flourished under the current management model.

Some people suggest that a federal park would be a great economic driver for the area, but how can they argue that there are too many people in the Flathead and then argue that a federal park should be created that will attract thousands of tourists who will crawl all over the Flathead? As for the huge economic park spinoff, just ask people in Golden, who are ten minutes away from Yoho. They will tell you that the benefits are actually quite minimal.

There's one more thing. Although I do support the tourism industry — and I'm an old tourism operator myself — not all rural British Columbians aspire to work in the service sector. They prefer logging, mining and construction. Thank goodness for the rest of us that they do, because B.C.'s wealth still comes from the ground, despite our postmodern penchant to pretend otherwise.

Over the past five years, with the world price of coal rising and natural gas reserves dwindling, the Flathead has seen a renewed interest in exploration for both commodities. It's believed that there are trillions of cubic feet of clean, pure natural gas trapped in Flathead coal seams. And of course, there's lots of coal in the Flathead.

Unfortunately, the debate about managing the Flathead isn't about management models. It's more like a school yard fracas, where name-calling is the order of the day. The proponents of a federal park trot out the absolute worst horror stories from the U.S. they can find about coalbed gas, often from 20 years ago, when the industry was unregulated.

Our friends in Montana reverse the Sam Slick stereotype that some Canadians love to use against Americans, and they try to paint British Columbians as neanderthals eager to mine the heck out of every square inch. Both stereotypes, I would suggest, are simple-minded. Of course, the provincial opposition is only too happy to hop aboard the bandwagon of simple-mindedness, thereby further reducing the chances of

Last year a local environmentalist in Fernie, after saying the province had no environmental conscience, claimed on CBC radio that he "could sit on top of one of those great Rocky Mountain peaks in the Flathead and not see anywhere where the humans are, where the humans have done whatever humans do." Only if he sat there with his eyes closed could he say that with a straight face, because there is evidence of humans in all parts of the Flathead, or most parts of the Flathead.

Today the Flathead, with all that activity over the decades, has the highest concentrations of grizzlies in inland North America and a diversity of life that's all the more remarkable because of how far south in Canada it's located, which brings me to the crux of the matter. What management model will work best to ensure that future generations have the same opportunity to hike, hunt, fish, trap, guide and recreate in the beautiful Flathead Valley and see the same vibrant diversity of flora and fauna that exists there today?

N. Macdonald: Two summers ago was the last time that I was in the Flathead. I had the opportunity to camp with the MLA for Nelson-Creston. If it's entertaining in the House to hear him speak, around a campfire, in particular, it's a great experience.

It is a spectacular wilderness. When we're talking about wilderness in the Kootenays, it often includes forestry. That's an activity that shapes the land. It's not appropriate everywhere, and we have set up places where we make sure that the land is not changed by forestry, but certainly, where forestry takes place, you still have what you would call a true wilderness. You have wildlife that is exceptional.

This is — as the member, I think, alluded to — one of the largest valleys that is largely undeveloped in southern British Columbia. It is an exceptional wilderness, and it is beloved of many people. The member referred to the Montanans and how they feel about it. It's clear they have strong feelings about that watershed that we need to respect, but I think the main point is that for people in the area, there is a tremendous love of the area too.

The things I have heard from locals are that there is not only an interest in making sure it stays a place that is largely wilderness but that it also stays a place that is available to locals — that it remains there for the people who currently go there for hunting and fishing, for responsible recreational use and for camping.

There are quotes from people that have been involved in the protection and the stewardship of that area for a long time, talking about the need to make sure that the things we value now are available for their children and for generations to come. It's absolutely possible to do that.

I think there are a couple of principles that we need to be clear on here. One is that local people always have to be involved in decision-making in their area. What I would say is that for the Kootenays…. I know that in our area we will be able to balance the many pressures on lands in a way that is responsible. I firmly believe that, and I don't think that is a position that the member would ever argue with.

It is clear from the Fernie Rod and Gun Club, from Wildsight, which is the local environmental group, and from local government that there are concerns about what is going to take place in the Flathead if the government does not make sure that things are done properly.

There are concerns around coalbed methane. We've been told that there's a two-year moratorium on that. Maybe the member can speak more about that. I think that until it is a proven technology, until we are absolutely certain it is not going to impact that area, it's responsible to make sure that we don't put it in place.

For that matter, I think that's the same standard we would put in place for the Elk Valley. I think that you would want to be very careful with anything like that where the public is not completely comfortable with it.

The other point I would make is that the Cline mine has been contentious for a long time. The member would know that there are a number of issues around the Cline mine that people in the area have concerns about. That project is something the government should simply be clear on that it shouldn't proceed.

The position I have heard locals talk about — this is a longstanding position and goes back, as far back as the '70s and '80s, to efforts to make sure that mining doesn't take place — is that it is an area which needs protection, but the protection should be such that it would allow the activity that has taken place to date to continue.

What I would say again is that in the Kootenays people understand the land and value the land and that we are good stewards of the land. We want to be included on decisions — whether it is with the Flathead, whether it's with Jumbo, whether it's with private power or whether it's with forestry. Those decisions we want a say in. When we're cut out — that is when poor decisions are made and when compromises are made that should not be made.

With that, I thank the member for bringing this important issue to the House, and I look forward to his further comments.

B. Bennett: My thanks to the member for his comments. I agree wholeheartedly that the people of the region should have a say in how the Flathead is managed. In fact, in the year 2000 the then government of the day decided that it was going to implement a secret management plan for the Flathead. They failed to talk to the people who live in the area. They held secret meetings with the environmentalists and announced that they were going to create something without actually talking to the people who live there.

When I was first elected in 2001, one of the reasons I got elected was because I promised that we would undo that secret deal and that we would have a full public land use planning process, which is what we did. Through that, we created the southern Rocky Mountain management plan, which continues today to

be a very grass-roots, democratic exercise, with people from the valley meeting on a regular basis to decide what happens in the Elk drainage and in the Flathead.

The southern Rocky Mountain management plan that was created currently allows mining and allows oil and gas exploration in the Flathead, as did the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan, which is still in effect and which was created by the New Democrats. But aside from the politics, the question really is: can the Flathead retain its ecological integrity and diversity with coalmining and/or coalbed gas development added to the activities that already happen there today?

In my opinion as a local MLA, the majority of my constituents would prefer that coalmining not take place in the Flathead Valley, and I support my constituents in that view. The Elk Valley — including the Dominion coal block, the north piece — has enough coal to sustain our southeast coast industry for the next hundred years. My constituents believe that coalmining should therefore be constrained to the Elk Valley.

There is, as the member opposite said, a proposed coalmining project in the Flathead. It has been in the preapplication process for the last couple of years. I'm not sure where it's going, but I can tell you one thing, Madam Speaker. Opponents to that project want us to make a simple, unilateral political decision — to just scrap the due process, and to heck with the proponent's rights, and to the heck with the reputation of B.C. to investors from around the world.

We have a vehicle, through the southern Rocky Mountain management plan advisory committee, which is made up of local people, to actually take on this issue and decide whether they want to make a recommendation to government that the terms of the southern Rocky Mountain management plan should be changed to remove mining as one of the acceptable uses of the Flathead. My hope is that that committee of local people will take on that difficult task and make a recommendation to government.

As for coalbed gas exploration and development, I recently asked our government to not include the Flathead in the coalbed gas tenure that was being advertised. If BP obtains the tenure in the Elk Valley, it will have the opportunity to prove to the public how well it operates before it applies to explore in the Flathead.

Over the next few years — and I'm not sure that it will be two years, as the member suggested — that company will have its opportunity to prove itself, and the southern Rocky Mountain management advisory committee will have the opportunity to decide what recommendations they want to make to government. Bottom line is that we need to protect this area for future generations, but I don't think we need to create a federal park there to do that.

J. Brar: I rise to make a statement regarding Surrey transportation, a very important and urgently needed service that has been ignored by the B.C. Liberals during the last seven years. The total population of Surrey in 1960 was just over 50,000 people. Since that time, Surrey has experienced significant growth in the community. In fact, Surrey is now the fastest-growing community in the province. Surrey welcomes close to 1,000 newcomers every month. Surrey's current population, as a result, is over 400,000 residents in the city.

When Vancouver was the same size as Surrey, there were 400 buses on the road in Vancouver. Compared to that, Surrey has just 83 buses to serve the people of this city. That tells you the gap in the services we have in the city of Surrey. It is no wonder why three-quarters of the cars on the road are single-occupancy vehicles. As Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts explains in the Surrey Leader newspaper: "Surrey has been lacking transportation choices for many years, and we are seeing the repercussions with the number of cars on the road."

Every day hundreds of thousands of people in B.C. find themselves stuck in traffic. The situation in the city of Surrey has gone from bad to worse under the B.C. Liberals. Surrey residents were surprised to note that after seven years of higher fares and reduced services B.C. Liberals have come up with a $14 billion unfunded wish list, not a transit plan.

The Gateway project fails to address the top priority: the critical need for an immediate expansion of transit in Surrey. Under the Gateway program, cars will not be driving across any new bridge across the Fraser River until 2015. Riders won't be able to board the first train to Guildford until 2020. The future plan, as explained by the Minister of Transportation, for the expansion of SkyTrain includes expanding the train from King George Highway to 64th Avenue and extending the Expo line from Guildford to Willowbrook mall along the Fraser Highway, but that won't happen until 2031.

The people of Surrey deserve better. They deserve solutions that will actually help people get to work and go about their day-to-day lives, and they deserve those solutions now, not years and years from now. The people of Surrey can't wait until 2031, as Dianne Watts, the city mayor, explains. "Right now we are probably about 300 buses short in the city. We will get what we need today in 2031, when I am 72 years old and I will not be able to get on a bus."

That is like Surrey Memorial Hospital. We have seen delay after delay in building the capacity. You know, this is happening all over again — the same thing — when we talk about public transit as well. The B.C. Liberals have done nothing to address traffic congestion for seven years in Surrey. Now they expect communities like Surrey to wait until 2020 and 2031 before anything can be done. We need action now to expand transit and reduce congestion, for working families to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It's clear that B.C. Liberals have the wrong priorities. Our first priority needs to be serious investment in

transit. If the B.C. Liberals were serious about addressing congestion, they would be making a serious investment in transit so that communities who have waited so long for transportation options don't need to continue waiting.

The people of Surrey need affordable, convenient transit solutions to help reduce traffic congestion and fight climate change. Transit costs too much, and fares keep going up and up under the B.C. Liberals. But the B.C. Liberals' $14 billion transit wish list does not have a single cent to help make transit more affordable.

The transit fare hikes that took effect at the beginning of this year particularly hurt communities like Surrey very hard. Surrey transit users now pay $10 for a three-zone round trip to travel to Vancouver from Surrey, and that is a huge cost for a working family. That's a shame, when it comes to the B.C. Liberals' policy.

As a result, Surrey NDP MLAs have launched a campaign for affordable transit fares at SkyTrain stations, gathering signatures on a petition that calls on the B.C. Liberal government to roll back recent fare increases. It has been very well received by the people, and it's now time for the Liberals to act on those petitions.

The B.C. Liberals' recent budget gave a $327 million subsidy to big oil and gas companies but zero to reduce traffic congestion. People in Surrey and other parts of Metro Vancouver pay the highest transit fares in the country. If the B.C. Liberal government was serious about reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, the government would expand transit options and make fares more affordable.

The combination of a new gas tax and excessive transit fares makes it very expensive for people to travel or go to school. It has specifically hit the people of Surrey very hard. Gas prices are going up. Transit fares are the highest in the country. Meanwhile the big companies are getting huge breaks from the B.C. Liberal government.

The other question I have…. The entire plan for transit improvement in the province will cost $14 billion for the people of British Columbia, including $11 million of new funding, with the province coming up with $4.7 billion.

M. Polak: I have to say that one of the things I am the most proud of that our government is doing is what we're doing for south of the Fraser. It means more buses more often. It means more SkyTrain more often. It's the kind of thing we've been waiting for since 1986, when the last major road improvement project in the lower mainland, the Alex Fraser Bridge, was constructed. Since then, we have seen the absolute neglect of the infrastructure south of the Fraser, such that now our government has to come in and start almost from scratch in repairing old roads, in putting in place the infrastructure that should have been there ten years ago.

What is the most disturbing of all is to hear that the opposition wants to have it both ways. Day after day in this House we hear the opposition rail about how the Transportation Minister is ramming through his plan for Gateway. "He hasn't consulted enough," and "He should slow down and talk to more people," and "He should have more studies."

Then today, all of a sudden out of the blue, we hear: "You know what? It's not going to be there fast enough, that bridge. My goodness, what have you B.C. Liberals been doing? How come the Port Mann Bridge isn't there yet? It's not going to be there till 2013."

Madam Speaker, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you want to have transit south of the Fraser and not want to push ahead, steady as you go, for the completion of the Port Mann Bridge as soon as is possible. You cannot say that you want to have SkyTrain and effective rail transportation and rapid rail transportation out to the south of the Fraser without building those infrastructure improvements that are going to allow for us to have rapid bus service out to Langley, something that will get someone from my community down to Coquitlam in about 25 minutes.

If I want to do that today in my car — and it's not just rush hour; it's almost any time of day — that trip can take me an hour and a half from the 200th Street exit. It's unacceptable, and it has been unacceptable for years.

It's about time that the opposition decided whether they support getting on with Gateway, which is what I hear today, or whether they want us to slow down, have some more studies and wait to see if maybe people might agree that it's time to serve the south of the Fraser the way that the population deserves to be served south of the Fraser.

I want to talk a little bit about the costs. My daughter is 20 years old. She rides the bus virtually every day. She doesn't even want a car, doesn't want to drive, because she likes using transit. She enjoys it. It can be bothersome sometimes, but it's her preference.

When you want to talk about fares…. I'm really proud that in communities south of the Fraser in the lower mainland we have some of the lowest transit fares available anywhere in Canada. Of course, the opposition likes to talk about the highest possible calculation of those costs, so I thought it might be wise to actually take a look at what the transit schedule for fares is. You'd be surprised to note, after listening to the speech from the opposing side, that if you buy a day pass and you want to travel all day on the system in all three zones, it will cost you $9 as an adult, one of the lowest in Canada. If you are a senior or if you are a student, that will only cost you $7.

You can get all the way from my community in Langley and back from downtown Vancouver for $9. I defy anyone to find a way to do that with an automobile and find a lower cost. In fact, I defy you to find an equal distance in Canada that you can travel for that low a fare.

That doesn't even include the additional discounts. When you talk about post–6:30 p.m. travel for an adult, for all three zones it's $2.50. For a concession fair — a senior or a student — it's only $1.75.

Given that the opposition member is so concerned about how on earth we're going to fund all these massive improvements that are going to better the lives for those of us south of the Fraser, I suppose he'd have to explain how he's going to afford to artificially lower what are some of the lowest rates here in the lower mainland for transit and, at the same time, afford to invest in speeding up a project that some of his colleagues think we should be slowing down.

All in all, what we have is an absolutely inconsistent message from the opposition about what they have in the way of support for those of us who live south of the Fraser and desperately need the improvements that we've been waiting for, for well over a decade. It's time that they sit down together and figure out whether they want to slow this down or speed it up, because all I'm hearing today is: "Where is that bridge you promised us?" I'm telling you that we're going to build it.

J. Brar: What I get from this is that the member for Langley…. There are three things I want to say. It's okay with her that the transit fares are going up. That's acceptable to this member. It's not acceptable to me. It's okay, for this member, to wait until 2031, but the people of Surrey cannot wait until 2031.

When I first ran in the by-election, there was a debate on the Gateway plan. This member at that time said they were going to twin the Port Mann Bridge. They were going to bring in the plan pretty soon. We had a debate at that time, and I said that the people of Surrey wanted, first, improvement for Surrey Memorial Hospital, but this member said they wanted the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. At the end of the day, the people of Surrey sent a strong message that health care was the important issue. That was the important issue at that time, and that's the important issue today.

The second thing I said at that time: "Bring us, show us the workable business plan on the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, on the Gateway plan." This member did not have that plan on that day, and this member does not have that plan even today.

What we need in Surrey…. We are behind 300 buses. Just think about that. When Vancouver was the same size as Surrey is today, there were 400 buses in Vancouver. Surrey has just 80 buses. We are behind more than 300 buses, and that's where we need to start today.

The people of Surrey, particularly working families, cannot pay $10 for a round trip to Vancouver. This member may support that. I cannot support that. We will continue fighting for that. The people of Surrey are coming in big lines to sign petitions, which we are doing in Surrey.

It's very surprising for the member on the other side to stand up and start blaming the last century. The people of Surrey, the people of British Columbia are going to ask you about your record for the last seven years. What have you done in the last seven years? That's the question you're going to face.

It has been seven years. The people of Surrey have seen delays after delays from this minister when it comes to health care, building the hospital. It's been seven years that the people of Surrey have been waiting for more buses, and they failed to add even one bus in the city of Surrey. The people of Surrey will teach you a lesson in the next election.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 46 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

It's a real pleasure to stand up today and support the concept that we move towards a patient-centred funding model for British Columbia's health care system. As we all know, costs have been rising in health care at an unsustainable rate.

Today we fund our health care system with what would be called a block funding model. That means that there is money allocated to each of the health authorities that is not necessarily based on the services they provide. Rather, a lump of money is given to each based on the amount of money that the government is able to budget, which again, as we all know, has been increasing at a rate that is simply not sustainable. The time comes for us to consider some alternatives.

Now, that is not to say that the block funding model that is in place today would be abandoned or should be abandoned but rather that there should be an augmentation looked at whereby there would be some funding provided to health authorities for activity-based performance. In other words, if a health authority increases the number of any particular procedure that it might undertake, there would be additional funds.

In today's model what can happen is that when health authorities are squeezed in their budget, they can remove some services so that they can fit within their budget framework. At times some of the health authorities will not offer a service that is offered in an adjacent health authority. Patients, to receive whatever service that happens to be, will have to move to another health authority, and the funding for the service that they then receive would come from the budget of the adjacent health authority. If you think about it, that actually is a disincentive for a health authority to develop new services. If they're available somewhere else in the province,

If we move to a formula where the funding follows the patient, there are great incentives for health authorities to expand their range of services and in fact to increase the number of…. I'll use hip surgery, for example. If a health authority were to increase the number of hip operations it does substantively and was being paid extra money for each of those additional services, it would be my guess, certainly — and I know the government feels this — that it is very likely we would see some increase in activity, because funding does drive, then, that extra activity. As long as funding is following it, I would suggest that that is going to happen.

Today there is a pilot project underway between the Fraser Health Authority and Coastal Health Authority that is going to look at how this can work. There's a great deal of work being done between the two health authorities to figure out how exactly the funding would flow with this. I know that the ministry is actively involved in putting together a pilot project. This is the way funding is being done in other parts of the world.

If you take a look at where we are today in British Columbia, it is time for us to start thinking a little bit outside of the box. I know that in the Conversation on Health, which was held throughout last year, there was a tremendous amount of input from people that talked about things like funding following patients.

I know that the NDP here are going to be screaming that this is a terrible thing and that we should just fund more and more and more ever-increasing amounts without targeting where the funding is going, without looking at things like patient-centred health care. I know that they really embrace a traditional model, which really is and has shown itself to be unsustainable, if you look at the rate of increase in the spending.

What I keep hearing from members opposite, even in the last few minutes, is that we as a government should spend more and more on everything. In fact, the surpluses we've enjoyed through the good, hard work of this government over the past seven years they have spent probably six or eight times over with the many, many suggestions that just keep coming forward saying to spend money on this and spend money on that — a billion here or $600 million there. When you add it all together, they have absolutely no target, and frankly, they have no plan.

We are looking at ways to think outside of the box, ways that we can make sure that health care, particularly, is sustainable for our children and our grandchildren far into the future.

This is one of the models that we are looking at. We are looking at ways that we can increase service to people where they live. It only makes sense that funding should follow the patient. It certainly makes sense to me, if you live in Surrey, in the Fraser Health Authority, and you have to go to Vancouver for a service, that Vancouver should receive payment for the service that they supply. It only makes some sense.

This is a concept that is going to be an ancillary or an augmentation to the current block funding model that I believe is going to produce a significant amount of new services and increased services for people where they live. I think that's really, really an important thing.

As I say, carrying on with what we've been doing that has shown itself over the past several decades to be increasingly unsustainable is not the way that we should be going. We need to look for better results for the huge amount of tax dollars that we're paying into health care, and we need to be thinking about preserving health care so that our kids and our grandchildren will enjoy the same services that we enjoyed in the past. The only way we can do that is to make sure that the money is spent where it should be spent.

I feel very comfortable looking at having…. You can call it a pay-for-performance, or you can call it an activity-based funding model in health care. I think that is the way of the future, and the rest of the world has already taken a good look, and much of it has seemed to be very, very workable. As long as we proceed with caution, which is what we are doing with pilot projects, this is something that is going to work for all of us.

A. Dix: I must say, hon. Speaker, that I know you are disappointed that the member from Mission gave a speech this morning about health care, because we were all set to hear from him about IPPs. That's what had been set on the agenda. He was going to talk about IPPs, the government's schemes around IPPs. That's what was going to come to us today, and suddenly something like magic last week changed.

What changed like magic is that people in the member's area rejected an inappropriate project — and there are many across British Columbia — rejected the government's schemes around IPPs, and magically, it disappeared. It wasn't magically delicious. It was magically bad, and it disappeared from the debate today.

So what do we have here before us today? I'm hopeful — this fills me with optimism — that this ill-thought-out scheme that's being put forward in the motion…. It's a little hard from the member's speech to discover what it is.

The minister says he supports this model for health authorities across British Columbia. That's what the motion says. Now he's saying: "Well, we've got a couple of pilot projects." But this idea, this scheme, which is what we call accountant-centred health care…. It will make work for accountants, will increase the amount of our health care dollars that aren't going to doctors and nurses but going to accountants. This scheme which, of course…. You know, let's be fair. Let's give the authors of the scheme in the United States and Canada their due.

In the United States, of course, this kind of scheme started in about 1983. It was used for the Medicare program and the Medicaid program in the United States. What it has led to in the United States is three important things — three important lessons that the evidence shows it has led to in the United States.

First, dramatic increases in administration costs, as I said. That appears to be what the government wants in health care — more money for accountants and administration. That's the first thing it's done.

The second thing it's done in the United States is that it has dramatically increased the amount of fraud in the system. That is in the United States, which I know is the model that is preferred on the other side of the House. It's a significant problem there.

But the third thing is…. I just want to read you a quote from an important RAND study on this. What it has meant is that hospitals have been given market incentives to be encouraged to select the most profitable illnesses, as opposed to dealing with patients and the sickest patients. It has, in fact, offered incentives to reduce expenditures for the sickest patients and for hospitals to market themselves to the most profitable. I think that this direction that the government is taking our health care system is the wrong direction.

The member talked about the government's record on health care. Let's talk about that for a moment. One of the government's pilot project schemes, which the government has already declared a success in terms of…. Now, there are many names. The member mentioned some of them. There's activity-based funding, and the one they focused on here is something called patient-centred funding. It sounds really good.

One of the schemes they brought forward is that they gave health authorities a significant chunk of money to improve emergency rooms. They gave them money, focused resources to deal with problems in emergency rooms and — guess what — things got better. It wasn't the model and certainly wasn't an incentive-based program. They gave them the money in the last six months of the fiscal year. They had to spend it. There was no incentive scheme there. Naturally, they applied resources to a problem, and it got better.

But what have they been doing over the last seven years? Not applying resources to the problem. The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge has spoken eloquently about that in this House. They certainly haven't applied the problem in Surrey.

What we've seen under this government is British Columbia…. Let's make a fair comparison. Isn't it fair to compare British Columbia with other provinces? Isn't that a fair comparison? They've gone from second place in per-capita health spending to seventh place. Second place to seventh place, and now their responses to that situation are accounting schemes.

Guess what. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know you don't do as well in seventh place as you do in second place, and those are the circumstances. That's what's happened on behalf of this government.

Now, who is proposing…? Who's in favour of this initiative? I mean, in the United States it came from the Reagan administration, which wanted to cut the spending to the Medicare and Medicaid programs, particularly for the most vulnerable patients. That was the intent of the model in the United States. It didn't succeed in that regard, because it's an inefficient model, but that was the intent.

Who were the authors of this here in Canada? Who are those authors? Who are the people speaking out for this initiative? Who is the person who is credited by as distinguished a source as Sen. Michael Kirby as being the author of this idea in Canada? Well, it's Dr. Les Vertesi.

Now, who's Dr. Les Vertesi? He's a very distinguished doctor, a hard-working doctor. He's also the Premier's brother-in-law. He also accompanied the Premier on his trip to Europe.

The other advocates for the scheme? The first meeting of the Conversation on Health…. We had a significant meeting in Vancouver. The Premier was there. I was there way at the back. The Premier was there; the Premier spoke. Who was his first speaker at that event? Who was the person who was defining the government's position? It was Dr. Brian Day. These are the people advocating.

What did Dr. Day and the Premier present to us that day in his presentation? Dr. Day put up a slide that exemplified where the government is going on health care. On one side of that slide was the Canada Health Act, our public health care system, and on the other side of that slide, a reference to George Orwell's 1984.

Now, a term of abuse is a term of abuse, but that reflects where the government's going. Not surprisingly, not shockingly, the ideas that the Premier put forward, which he spent $7 million advertising to us in advance of the Conversation on Health, are now coming back as the conclusions of the Conversation on Health.

Now, maybe Dr. Day, Dr. Vertesi and the Premier like the idea. Maybe some of the members of the back bench of the Liberal caucus like this idea because it's a good thing to talk about instead of talking about IPPs this week, which seems to be their main motivating factor here. But I'm telling you, I reviewed all of the results of the Conversation on Health. I can tell you that British Columbians weren't raising this idea. British Columbians were saying: "We want a public health system that works and provides better service for us. We don't want seventh place. We want to be number one." That's what British Columbians were saying.

I could talk for hours about this issue and about positive alternatives that we'll be bringing forward to the health care system. I'm hopeful. I understand the Minister of Health may have some legislation for us where we can have a full debate. We don't have this opportunity in private members' hour, because we like to give a wide variety of members an opportunity to speak.

I won't go on at length, so let me summarize. This scheme, which the member says he supports in the motion…. He actually says he's not sure about it, that we've just got a couple of pilot projects. Anyway, he says he supports it in the motion as envisaged by the Premier, Dr. Vertesi and Dr. Day. It's based on the U.S. model. It has not worked in the United States. It's led to an increase in fraud, an increase in administrative costs and bad news for those who are the most vulnerable in the health care system in the United States.

It would weaken, not strengthen, the Canadian health care system. In addition, it would leave our system a volume-based system. This isn't patient-centred. It's

accountant-centred. It's volume-centred. It's not centred on the patient. It would leave our system open to volume-based abuse. It is not the right funding model for us. If you look at the facts, it's why it was rejected by the Romanow report, a national commission on health care. It's why it was rejected by people during the Conversation on Health in spite of all the efforts by the government to introduce it.

The irony is that the total share of health care spending on hospitals has declined in the last two decades from 40.8 percent to 30 percent. What's rising in health care is the cost of private care, the cost of prescription drugs — which, alas, in Canada are too much private and have become more private under this government. That's the reality.

The minister across shakes his head. From 9.5 percent to 17.5 percent on prescription drug costs. The minister shakes his head. Those are the facts, and it's a sad thing.

A. Dix: Well, yes, I'm in favour. The minister asks if I'm in favour of a private health care system. I'm not. I'm in favour of public health care in British Columbia.

We need to give our doctors, nurses and health care workers the means to address the issues before them of wait-lists, emergency room congestion, lack of services outside of hospital — all of the cuts in the scope of medicare that this government has made. We have got to address those issues.

We have got to reverse a trend that has seen us going from second to seventh in Canada, and we have to today in this House reject this poorly conceived, ill-thought-out motion, which is merely an excuse for the government to avoid another failure in public policy — its failure on the IPP issue.

M. Polak: You know, it's fascinating to me that really the only people who seem to prefer to talk about the U.S. medical system are the opposition. It's their preferred model to argue against. What they're really arguing for is something that was absolutely rejected by everybody, virtually, in the Conversation on Health, and that is the maintenance of the status quo.

Once again, we see the opposition trying to play both sides of the fence. They will get up day after day, and they will point out the challenges that we face in the health care system. They'll say: "It's not good enough." Then, when you want to talk about changing it, when you want to talk about trying something new, you hear: "Oh, my goodness. Don't touch the status quo. We like the status quo."

Well, what do they like about it? Well, they like the fact…. I don't know. I haven't heard much lately. It's the same, I guess, as what they've always done, so it must be good.

Maybe there's another reason they like it, though. We hear that the opposition critic likes to talk about how trying new funding models is going to result in increased money for accountants. It's going to see us have accountant after accountant employed in the system and increasing the number of accountants.

There is only one thing that a change in the financing to health care is going to change. It's going to improve not the accountants but the accountability in the system. If the opposition critic wants to challenge that point, then I would challenge him to be able to get up and give an accounting of what it costs in Fraser Health for the types of surgeries that they provide, each by each. You know what? Fraser Health can't tell you. He can't tell you.

The challenge we face right now is vast. The funding of the health care system is only one component. We hear right now that we're spending 43 percent of our budget on health care. Yet the solution that the opposition comes forward with is to spend more money on it. They don't offer any different ways to spend that money.

Here today we have a chance to explore one of the very items that we heard repeatedly in the Conversation on Health, and that was to take a look at other jurisdictions around the world and learn from them. This isn't about going to a U.S. model. In fact, as we've looked around the world at the different models, the U.S. model stands out, really, for its lack of innovation in terms of different ways of providing health care to patients.

What we have seen, in various arrays of success and in various attempts at changing the system, is that what seems to work best is when you focus your funding on a combination of a base of support for programming, a base of support for hospitals and other institutions that need to have those functioning systems — those operational systems like the purchasing of linens and everything down to toilet paper and paper for the office — but, at the same time, are able to provide incentives and accountability around individual services that they are offering.

Under the current system there is absolutely no incentive for some centre of excellence or some spot in a hinterland of the province to open up to provide specialized services that right now people in the north and rural part of B.C. have to travel down south for. There's no incentive to do that, because you're on a block level, and anything that you would do additionally is just going to take from that.

One of the opportunities that this gives us, as we explore the pilot in Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health, is to determine how best we can provide those incentives so that across British Columbia there's an incentive for those health institutions to provide services where otherwise they would say: "No, it's not worth it for us to do a few of these. It's better for us to send them down to Vancouver Coastal or to Fraser Health." That's what happens now, and it's happened for years.

Really, when it comes down to it, this is a discussion about change. There is no question that on both sides of this House what is of primary importance to us in the health care system is providing a system that is accessible to everyone — that everyone gets provided with their necessary health care regardless of their socioeconomic status, regardless of where they live, regardless of who they are. We all support that. That's a public health care system.

To go on and use rhetoric such as "U.S. health care system" and scare people into thinking that change is going to be bad is to forget that the status quo is not good enough. We owe British Columbians more, and as a result of the Conversation on Health and listening to British Columbians, we're going to give them more and better health care service. At the same time we're going to be able to treat the resources with the respect that we need to in order to be able to spread them as widely as possible and provide for all the needs of British Columbia in the health care system.

G. Gentner: The B.C. government's plan to adopt a so-called patient-centred funding model will put health care services at risk for many British Columbians. The model adopted by Britain has been a dismal failure. That experience with this funding scheme, where public hospitals are forced to compete for patients with each other and with for-profit clinics, has led to service cuts and huge administrative cuts.

At the same time, it has created a new market for private clinics to profit from public health dollars by cherry-picking those patients who require lower-cost procedures. This motion is the springboard for a free market–based health care system. This motion mocks the whole integrity of the Premier's so-called Conversation on Health.

The Conversation on Health has to be seen as a ruse now, a device to create a road show of consultation. But now we know how devious and desperate this government truly is. These Liberals are tricksters.

To have gone through the exercise, an extensive exercise at that, to tell British Columbians that you would listen, and now we have this motion to continue along the road of privatization…. This government will stop at nothing. The ideology here is devious and deceitful, because it is driven for profit, even though British Columbians…

Deputy Speaker: Member, Member. You need to be very careful of your language and use parliamentary language at all times.

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I am referring to an ideology that is devious. I do not wish to impede any member across.

But it is devious, nevertheless, and British Columbians have had enough. This government has reached a new low. It is callous, and it is mean. The health conversation did not call for a market-based approach to health funding.

British Columbians have had it with the corporate-driven agenda that dictates the need to put profit ahead of people. British Columbians want this government to implement proven public solutions that will increase access and strengthen services for all British Columbians, regardless of barriers, regardless of illnesses and regardless of income.

In the U.K. this has left many public hospitals unable to sustain more complex procedures and programs for patients with chronic conditions. New Zealand has tried it. They tried going down this road, and they've turned around.

The motion is a declaration that patients are a commodity that can be shopped around like a thing on eBay or BuySell. That's right — a product up for grabs, and may the best price offered take it, by a clearinghouse or privatized clinics.

How many patients, who have become chronic through no fault of their own, will now be deemed: "Take it away. They're free or OBO — the best offer"? The private sector will take the cream, skim the top — patients that are easy, cheap and profitable — while the strapped-for-funding public hospital system will continue to declare hospitals as code orange.

Patients are people. They are human beings. They are not commodities, and they have dignity and should be treated and respected as such. They are not pieces of merchandise bartered around at a medical exchange trading room. I do not support this callous attempt to undermine our health system.

First of all, I would like to address a couple of points made by the previous speaker, the member for Delta North. Quite frankly, as was mentioned by my colleague the member for Langley, once again he is focusing on, really, fearmongering — rhetoric that is just plain and simple trying to scare people and to divert attention from the real issue here.

The real issue here is a sincere attempt to look at ways that we can be innovative, that we can help our system be more sustainable. We know that we have a great health care system, a health care system that our government has been making significant increasing investments in since 2001. As we heard, the health care system now takes up 43 percent of our total budget and is rising at a rate that is faster than any other sector of government endeavour and than the growth rate of our economy.

The previous speaker, the member for Delta North, talks about this as mocking the integrity of the Conversation on Health. Having a more patient-centred approach is what we're talking about here. We're not talking about a market-based approach. We're talking about finding ways to make our system more accountable and more sustainable by introducing some measure of focus on a patient-centred approach. Patients can go to where they can get the procedure taken care of so that they can get better in the public system.

There are five principles we all know about that characterize our Canada Health Act. These are, very quickly: comprehensive, the system has to be comprehensive; it has to be publicly administered; it has to be portable, as portability is a key component of the Canada Health Act; it has to be universal; and it has to be accessible. These are the five principles that we all believe in and that we are maintaining with our great health care system, which we are investing in.

We've said before and we'll say again that we believe there should be a sixth principle, of sustainability. The

old NDP way of putting more money into it without any accountability or without trying to achieve better results or innovation — just putting more money, spend more, spend more — is just not on. It will not be sustainable for today or into the future.

I'd like to close by saying that it's not our government side that seems desperate. The previous speaker, the member for Delta North, talks about desperation. Well, it sure sounds like the shoe is on the other foot. We have an opposition that is trying so hard to find issues that would help define them.

We're seeing that all they have to offer is just more of the same and old solutions that we can see clearly are just not working, whereas our side is looking for ways to bring innovation and to try to find a way to make our health care system, a great system, more sustainable by taking a patient-centred approach. I support this motion and this approach.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to speak to the motion from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission on patient-based funding. Well, let's be clear for health care. This is about increasing privatization in our health care system, pure and simple.

As the opposition critic mentioned earlier, this comes from one of the prophets of this government, Dr. Brian Day, often known as Dr. Profit. He's a big proponent of patient-based funding. If you read some of the recommendations he makes…. "Eliminate global budgets." Well, this government doesn't dare eliminate global budgets right now. They don't dare go that far. They've got a little problem because when they had the conversation on health care, the people in British Columbia said: "We support the public health care system. We don't want privatization." But this government is determined to bring it in.

What else does Dr. Day have to say? "Increase privatization and contracting-out." We've seen a lot of that with this government. Dr. Day says that the experience of contracting-out has been shown to reduce costs and lead to savings. We sure haven't seen that with the food services in my hospital. It isn't costing any less. The service is worse. We see the services decline in seniors care with privatization and contracting-out; same thing with cleaning services.

He also says that we want to introduce competition. Well, that's what this is about. The member for Prince George North said that we want to bring entrepreneurial spirit in. Entrepreneurialism is a great thing for business, but it's not a great thing for a public health care system. That's not what we're advocating at all.

Dr. Day said: "Reduce the influence of the public sector health care unions." Well, that's something that goes on. It's pretty popular with this government as well, and we've seen that with the privatization in things like seniors care.

Dr. Day said: "Accept economic reality and introduce user fees." More privatization that this government is following from their guru, Dr. Profit. Of course, "Repeal the Canada Health Act" — that's high on his list — "and depoliticize the debate," not by having the public make the decisions around health care through their elected officials but by having it done by a select group of — what did he say? "A small or even a single-person task force would take care of the job."

We've heard quite a bit from speakers opposite about how the health care system in British Columbia is unsustainable. We're always hearing that, and that's their wedge that they try to use to get more privatization into the health care system. Competition — we always hear that that's supposed to reduce costs. If that were the case, then countries with parallel, quasi-private systems of finance like Australia and those with parallel public and private systems like France and Germany or market-based systems like the United States should have far lower health care costs. But that's not the case.

Health care spending as a percent of GDP, which is an appropriate measure to use, is 9.8 percent in Canada; 9.5 percent in Australia, almost identical; 11.1 percent in France; 10.7 percent in Germany; and 15.3 percent in the United States. So our health care costs are not unsustainable, contrary to what this government is trying to do.

They're always trying to run down the public system to bring in privatization. They did the same thing with B.C. Hydro — run B.C. Hydro down so that they can bring in independent power producers, which we were supposed to talk about today. But somehow or other, the government lost their appetite for that discussion along the way, although I know the member from North Vancouver–Garibaldi is keen on discussing it. I'd love to discuss it with her, and I hope we get that opportunity. I'm sure that's going to happen.

It's clear that this is another privatization move by this government. It's not good for public health care, it's not good for patients, and we're not in favour of it.

J. Rustad: I am pleased to rise today to support the motion: "Be it resolved that this House supports a patient-centred funding model for British Columbia's health care system."

I want to start by reading another quote: "I think it's quite reasonable to expect that if the service is provided in Vancouver at Children's Hospital or at a cancer clinic, the funding actually flows to that health authority." What a concept, eh? Continuing on with the quote here: "I think that it's a good step to look at that kind of direction." That was the Leader of the Opposition on Voice of B.C., February 14, 2008.

Today we have heard a ton of rhetoric coming from this opposition that they are opposed to the idea of having patient-centred funding, a concept that perhaps we should put the patient at the centre of our health care system. The Leader of the Opposition seems to agree with that, and every one of them, including the Health critic, seemed to stand up and say that it's not a good idea.

It's just another example of how this opposition can't be taken for their word on anything, whether it's the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, whether it is any type of project that comes forward. Clearly, the opposition

Before I go on talking about patient-centred funding, particularly from a northern perspective, I also want to bring up a quote here by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who said that he wanted to be number one in spending. They wanted to be the highest spender in Canada, and they all applauded this idea of being the highest spender in Canada.

There is no amount of money that will ultimately meet the demand coming. The issue is: what would they do in order to achieve that? Would they crank up taxes? Would they cut programs in other things? Would they cancel education, for example? I mean, how on earth are you going to get to that?

Right now we spend 43 percent of the funding in this province on health care, and that's expected to rise at 6 percent per year, with our own ability to pay only rising at 2 percent. Two-thirds of all new funding is going to health care spending. That is a phenomenal commitment from this government and from any government.

Yet that member over there feels we need to be number one in spending and, quite frankly, with no accountability. That's what the NDP stand for. They stand for no accountability, whether it's in education — they're against standardized testing; they don't want to know how students are doing — or whether it's in health care. They want to just throw money at the system. They are not happy about the idea of having funding transfer with patients.

I want to speak about that now from a northern perspective. In northern B.C., in my community of Prince George and in my riding of Prince George–Omineca, there is funding that goes to the health authorities in terms of the overall pocket, to manage dealing with the issues of patients. In 2001 we used to send 17 percent of our patients to the lower mainland. We did that because there was a challenge in providing services, and sometimes they have to do that.

We don't always have all the right services in, for example, cancer care. Cancer care was offered in the lower mainland. We are now going to be building a cancer clinic in the north, which is a great thing. We're not going to be transferring as many patients. That's decreased now to about 14 percent.

However, the other health authorities in the lower mainland have additional funding in place so that they can take the patients from the north, so that they can take those patients that come in. In other words, if the north had the opportunity to be able to provide those services, the funding that would stay with those patients would be able to stay in the health authority. Instead of having this guessing game that maybe there will be ten patients tomorrow and 20 patients the next day going to the lower mainland, or maybe one patient this month or whatever that number may be and trying to have the funding, funding would actually be with the patients that receive the services.

I can hardly understand why the opposition would be opposed to something as fundamental as keeping patients at the centre of what we are doing with health care, yet time and time again here all the speakers that have shown up…. With the exception of the Leader of the Opposition, who quite frankly has come out and said, "You know, maybe that's a good idea," every other member of the opposition seems to think that it isn't.

We have some challenges with the health care system. There's no question there. Every jurisdiction has some challenges with the health care system. We have made it a priority. We're putting two-thirds of all new funding to that. The Conference Board of Canada says that we have the best health care system in the country. We have the best outcomes for cancer patients. Clearly, we are doing some good things in this province.

We believe that if we are going to keep that sustainable, we need to be looking at some new ideas. We can't just stay with the old type of thinking and throw more money at it, as the opposition critic for Health has suggested. What we need to do is to come up with plans and ideas that are going to be able to move our health care system forward in a sustainable way to meet the growing demands that we have in our health care system so that patients will always come first, so that patients will be at the centre. That is what health care is all about.

N. Macdonald: It's a pleasure to stand up and speak on a surprise topic, because of course, originally, we were supposed to be talking about the disastrous B.C. energy plan. That was the plan here. We were supposed to be talking about that.

I'll just remind members that Mark Hume from the Globe and Mail described the B.C. energy plan of this B.C. Liberal government as the worst public policy decision in the history of this province. That's a conclusion that more and more British Columbians are reaching. I can certainly see why the member for Maple Ridge–Mission decided to pull that one and throw something else at us here. Hey, it would have been nice of the Minister of Environment to give a heads-up to his fellow member there and let him know that a defeat was in the making and that the Minister of Environment was going to pull the plug. That would have been a kind thing for him to do for his fellow member.

I think I should remind the House that a defeat for B.C. Liberal policy is almost always a victory for people. What we're talking about today and what has been put forward is something that, again, is very benignly called patient-centred care, which can really mean a number of things. The place that I would naturally go, from my experience here, is that if this B.C. Liberal government is putting something forward that has to do with health care, it is serving the corporate interest. It has very little to do with the interests of the public and the interests of British Columbians.

That is what we see again and again. I think what ordinary citizens and ordinary British Columbians

understand is that what is said in this House and the language that is used to describe it very often has little correlation with what action comes and flows from government. You see that very clearly with private power. All of that language that was used…. Upon close examination, as you actually see things flow into place, you see that all of that language was set up to misrepresent the truth and the reality that British Columbians are going to face.

If you are talking about a funding formula — and it's not at all clear as to what the government is talking about here — that moves and brings money from one place to the next with the patient, that is a complicated thing that really needs to be thought through. It needs to involve communities, and it needs to involve true discussion about what is going to take place. If it is actually for the public good, it really needs to be thought through.

The fact is that the funding formula changes this government introduced around education had dramatic impacts for rural British Columbia. They caused small schools to close, and that was predictable. Small rural communities said that that was what was going to happen, and it did, because the government did not care about rural British Columbia.

The fact is that you need hospitals in rural communities that are going to, at times, be underutilized. You do not have the economies of scale in small communities. But you need those hospitals because you still want people to be able to die in their communities, at home, surrounded by friends and family, so the facility has to be there.

There will not be the economy of scale. I understand that. But the Social Credit and the NDP believed in supporting communities and recognizing the value that rural British Columbia brings to all of this province. It's where the wealth is developed in so many ways in this province.

You need those hospitals there. The emergency department at Golden hospital will sit empty much of the time. But when there is an accident on the Trans-Canada Highway — and that is not unusual — it needs to be there. When there was a plane crash and a three-year-old needed to be taken to a facility, it was 20 minutes away for that three-year-old to be stabilized and looked after. That is what you have again and again.

You need to think through these ideas, and you need to include people. Unlike so many previous B.C. Liberal initiatives, it has to take the needs of rural British Columbians into consideration.

With that, I look forward to a piece of legislation that will clearly define what the government is talking about. At that point we will again look at the realities and how they contrast so often with the statements around these sorts of policies.

B. Bennett: I didn't expect to speak to this motion this morning. I was asked to speak, so I've been listening intently to all of the speakers from both sides of the House.

The first thing that occurs to me is that I think the roles have reversed in this province between political parties. There was a time when the New Democrats liked to think of themselves as a party that came forward with new, innovative ideas. What I hear this morning is a party that really sounds quite conservative and reactionary. What I hear from the government side is a party that's willing to consider new, innovative ideas to improve health care services for British Columbia.

I can't explain the reversal on the part of the opposition as to why they are so conservative and reactionary, but nonetheless, that's certainly what I hear. I heard one member — it doesn't matter which member — from the opposition essentially disagree that there was a challenge of sustainability with health care. That, to me, is astonishing. It's just astonishing.

You know, when W.A.C. Bennett was Premier of this province, he spent roughly 10 percent of his provincial budget paying for health care services. We now spend 43 percent of our provincial budget on health care. To suggest that with that kind of trend line…. Regardless of what your politics are, regardless of what you think about how health care services are delivered, regardless of whether you think that there is too much private or not enough private, you cannot argue with the trend line. W.A.C. Bennett spent 10 percent of his budget on health care. We now spend 43 percent of the provincial government's budget on health care.

I can't imagine that there is a man, woman or child in the province that isn't aware of the demographic issue that we now face here in British Columbia. We face it across the country, but I think we face it in a more critical way here in B.C. Because we are such a great place to live, we've had a lot of seniors move to this province, and I don't think that's going to change. We're always going to have a fairly high proportion of seniors in our population, so the cost of health care is just going to continue to go up.

It's unfortunate, I think, that when we try and have a debate in this House about innovative ideas for making health care sustainable, the opposition always seems to want to reduce the discussion to stereotypes and meaningless propaganda, like privatization. They always want to talk about privatization as if the B.C. Liberals invented the concept and as if there were no privatization prior to us being elected in 2001.

It might be worth our while just to remind the opposition that doctors' offices, for example, are private. The diagnostic services offered in physicians' offices — the lab services offered in physicians' offices and in their clinics — are private services that are paid for by the public. That's been part of our system for a very, very long time.

We also deliver seniors services privately today, more and more. I know that I hear fear in the voices of the folks that sit on the other side of the House. I say to them to take a look at how it's actually working.

Today I can speak with some confidence that in my region of the East Kootenay we have either new or

remodelled facilities for seniors in just about every single community. Of course, it's not perfect, and humans being what they are, the people that manage the system will occasionally make a mistake. But for the most part, seniors and everyone that comes into association with the health care system receive excellent care.

The point I wanted to make is that we're now able to build these seniors facilities using private sector dollars. The private sector takes the risk so that the public, the taxpayer, isn't on the hook for the risk, and then the public pays for those services. I would suggest that that's been a great improvement in our system.

Now, with regard to the innovative idea that is being proposed, it's not hard for me to understand why the opposition doesn't like the idea. The opposition doesn't understand how the economy works. They proved that in the 1990s. They don't understand that when you have a monopolistic structure, you're not going to have competition, and you're not really going to have any incentive for anyone to be efficient.

We've got a certain number of dollars to use for health care. I think it is our obligation as elected people to make sure that those limited health care dollars are used in the most effective, most efficient way possible. If there is a means by which we can introduce a note, a little bit of competition to the system and get people thinking about, "How can I accomplish the goal of providing high-quality health care services for a few less dollars than I was doing it before?" then I fail to see how that can be a bad thing.

I'll close with that, because I understand that there are other speakers who want to speak on this topic. It is, I would suggest, a sad day for the opposition party that once prided itself on being a party that would consider all ideas, especially innovative ideas. I am happy to say that I'm proud to be a member of a party that is considering innovation in terms of dealing with the health care crisis that we have before us today.

C. Wyse: Very quickly, on this motion of a patient-centred funding model for British Columbia's health care system, the debate is centred around a phrase that's been with government for a very long time, which roughly says: "Trust me. I am the government, and I'm here to help you."

When I look at health from the rural part of British Columbia and I see what has happened with ambulance situations in rural and remote, we have ambulance stations simply not being available on a regular basis. I look at the bed reductions and hospital closures and the referral centres that simply have not been able to take people from the interior of British Columbia in a whole variety of situations, including critical items.

Then when I look at what has happened with seniors and with the mental health system, where these people have ended up, beyond their control, in beds, not allowing things to occur, not allowing surgery and items of that nature to take place. When I look at the lack of availability of addictions services, and then when I look at a budget in 2008 that was able to find $220 million to give to banks and when I look at a budget in 2008 which was able to find $327 million to give to oil and big gas, I understand what the point is. It is one of priorities.

So when I look at a model that says "patient-centred model," it begs providing services for people when and where they need it. That is what the issue is. This is the major flaw that exists in the motion that is in front of us.

J. McIntyre: Let me say in closing that I'm completely perplexed by the comments from the opposition this morning. I don't know what they're frightened of.

We have an opportunity; we know. We've put $5 billion into Health since we inherited it in 2001, to the $8 billion that was already there. We've committed another $3 billion. We will have effectively doubled the whole Health budget at the end of this cycle. Two-thirds of dollars are committed to funding.

We have an opportunity here to do a pilot project that's been well received by the Leader of the Opposition, by the media quotes here, the editorials in the paper. We have an opportunity to do this differently, and the NDP is frightened of anything….

Noting the hour, I would like to move to adjourn debate, but I'd also like to reserve my right to continue on this topic, if it is raised again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.