Hansard — Thursday, May 1, 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


Reports from Committees		11837
	Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills
	A. Horning

Second Reading of Bills		11837
	Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 21) (continued)
	S. Simpson
	G. Coons
	K. Conroy
	H. Lali

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		11853
	Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts
	Hon. S. Hagen
	N. Macdonald
	R. Fleming

A. Horning: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

A. Horning: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Bills Pr401 and Pr402 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Thorpe: In the House today I call the continuing debate on Bill 21, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008, and in Committee A, I call the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join again in the debate. Just to touch on this matter for this bill we're debating here, Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008. Essentially, what this piece of legislation does is add the term "sustainability" to the principles of the Canada Health Act, which are included in the Medicare Protection Act.

As I noted the other day, generally when we talk about sustainability…. Sustainability has become a bit of a buzzword and maybe a code word in some cases for a number of things. But what we see here with sustainability is greater pressures coming, I believe, through the use of this terminology and through the use of the incorporation of this into the legislation, into the bill.

What we see is the opportunity here for a greater level of privatization of our health care services. It certainly is my view that that is not something that's in the public interest, and it's certainly not something that I believe is desired by British Columbians in this province.

British Columbians have told us time and time again — whether it be individually or through the government's own initiative around the Conversation on Health, where some 12,000 people participated in that process — that they want to ensure the protection and the integrity of our public health care system.

Certainly, British Columbians — as members in this House and certainly members on this side of the Legislature have spoken about in many instances — are looking for innovation. We are looking for ways to improve the system. We are looking for ways to make our health care system better.

But what we know — certainly on this side of the Legislature, what's absolutely clear to us — is that making our health care system better, providing incremental improvements to health care and the privatization of our health care system don't have anything in common at all. There's a total disconnect there, and what we need to do is advance the public system.

The government and the Minister of Health will tell us — and the Minister of Finance certainly has attempted to tell us previously — that there is the great potential where our health care system becomes unsustainable in economic terms. We certainly know that the Minister of Finance attempted at one point to make the case that by 2017, we'd be spending upward of 71 percent of our budget on health care.

The problem with this, of course, is that the facts don't bear that out. What we know is that if you look at health care as part of GDP, what in fact happens is that health care across the world in western industrialized countries doesn't look anything like 71 percent. What we know is that when you look at the costs of medicare, it generally consumes in the 8-to-10 percent range of GDP in Canada.

In 2005, 20 of the 30 OECD countries considered to be similar to Canada in many ways spent between 7½ and 11½ percent. In Canada it was just under 10 percent, about sixth on the list of countries in terms of spending on health care.

In British Columbia we've seen a situation where our costs as a percentage of GDP have in fact gone

down. In 2001-2002 we spent about 7.4 percent of GDP on health care. That has decreased in '06-07 to about 6.9 percent of GDP. Those are numbers provided by the British Columbia Economic and Financial Review, which are numbers provided by the government's own sources.

So what we know is that health care in this province isn't becoming exorbitant in terms of its costs. In fact, if anything, we're eroding our health care costs, and I think that becomes clearer when you look at information provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

When you look at what the Canadian Institute for Health Information said in their national expenditures report in 2007, it shows that British Columbia has gone from second in health care spending to seventh in health care spending per capita in the province. So we're on our way to being last in health care spending in the province.

You know, this is an interesting situation. As the government here…. They seem to be quite comfortable driving health care spending down to the bottom, as they seem to be equally comfortable to have child poverty at the top. So they have child poverty at the top of the list and health care at the bottom of the list.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister would like to join in debate when he gets a chance.

I'd be happy to have the minister join the debate. I'm sure he can get up after I'm done and do that if he'd like to speak to this bill.

So what do we have here? We have a question about what sustainability really means. Sustainability — if we're serious about what it should really mean — should mean services to seniors, improving our services to seniors. We need to do that. That has to be a challenge that we meet.

Unfortunately, that's not what we see happening in British Columbia. We're not seeing improvement of services to seniors. As I pointed out yesterday, the government broke its 2001 promise around 5,000 residential care beds for seniors. They determined a way to cobble together some combination of that and assisted-living beds, which are quite different in terms of the services they provide. But this is a way to hopefully get around their problem in terms of breaking their commitment, and I suspect they will continue to break that commitment in this province.

We're not seeing services provided to seniors. That would be real sustainability, if we provided those services to seniors that they require. If we did that, as others have pointed out, people like Ken Fyke, a former member of the B.C. Royal Commission on Health Care, a commissioner on medicare in Saskatchewan and a former Deputy Minister of Health in both this province and Saskatchewan as well as a former CEO of the Greater Victoria Hospital Society….

It was his view that if we wanted to start to deal with these challenges, one of the things we had to do was deal with the challenge of our aging population, and that meant finding the opportunities and the services to meet their needs. Unfortunately, that hasn't been accomplished by this government.

We need to find strategies, true sustainability, that allow us to free up acute care beds. We need to find strategies. The government should be here not talking about ways to find structures to enhance privatization or to open the door for more privatization. We'd rather have the government in here talking about initiatives and plans that they would have to free up and reduce wait-lists and the waiting times in emergency rooms.

But that's not what they're here talking to us about today. What they're here talking to us about today is how to further privatize health care, instead of talking about how to deal with problems in emergency rooms. They're not here today talking about how to ease up pressures on acute care beds in our hospitals. They're here talking about how to privatize health care. We don't see the government here today talking about the role that community health clinics can play in our communities across the province — clinics that are delivered through the health authorities or clinics that are non-profit clinics.

In my community there are clinics like the REACH clinic, which is a longstanding non-profit clinic. It provides great services for people. It very much has a preventative perspective in terms of what it does and provides a whole range of supports — health care supports of a more traditional nature but also a lot of support around nutrition, around advocacy. It's a great facility that is very beneficial to the people in my community. I'm sure that clinics like REACH would be beneficial to people across the province.

But we're not here talking about how to enhance community-based health care and community-based clinics. We're here talking about putting in place changes to legislation that will allow us to advance privatization of health care.

The other thing we're not here talking about when we want to talk about preventative health care…. We're not here talking about how we deal with issues that are much of the root causes of our health issues. We're not here talking about how we deal with poverty in British Columbia. We're not here talking about how we begin to put an end to poverty in British Columbia. That would go a huge way to dealing with much of our health care pressures. We know that the correlation between being poor and not being healthy is very direct. That is a very direct link, and we need to meet that challenge. That's a huge piece in terms of preventative health care.

The government is not here talking about strategies to improve dealing with addictions issues. We're not

talking about that. That would be talking about real improved sustainability in our health care system, if we talked about how to deal with addictions. But we're not here talking about addictions today.

We're not here talking about how to deal with the mental health issues of people who suffer from dual diagnosis around addictions and mental health. Now, if we were talking about those things; if we were putting that envelope together; if the government was coming forward today and talking to us about a strategy; if Bill 21 was about how we deal with real prevention to address poverty issues, to address dual diagnosis issues around addictions and around mental health issues, about how to begin to ease those pressures and create more opportunities or services for people who suffer or who are living in poverty, then we would be going a long, long way.

But we're not doing that. Instead, Bill 21 offers us nothing in terms of real sustainability. It offers us nothing other than a code word, and the government has adopted sustainability as a code word. It's a code word for: how do we increase privatization, and how do we take more tax dollars, health tax dollars, and put them in the pockets of private corporations? That's what we're talking about here.

How do we make Brian Day a little wealthier than he is already? That's what we're talking about today. That does nothing for the public interest; it does nothing for British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker, it's my view that this bill certainly isn't worthy of support. It's a piece of legislation that does nothing for the public interest. It certainly does nothing for my constituents. I don't have anybody telling me that we need to find new ways to privatize health care services. They're saying improve health care services; don't privatize them.

I would hope that the government would back away from this legislation, but of course, that's not going to occur. As a result, this is a piece of legislation that doesn't deserve support. It certainly doesn't deserve support and won't receive support from this side of the House. If the other side of the House, the government side, was particularly concerned about the public interest here, it's a piece of legislation that also wouldn't get support from their side.

G. Coons: I rise to speak against Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act. It's nice to see some students in the House today.

What we're looking at is this Premier, the decider of that side of the House, planning through this bill to enshrine in provincial legislation the Canada Health Act's five basic principles — the principles of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility — and also add a new clause, an undefined buzzword, a sixth basic principle referred to as sustainability.

If we look at the legislation, Bill 21, it's not much of a bill — two and a half pages — but there are some real concerns in here that this side of the House has, and many British Columbians. It talks about the preamble to the Medicare Protection Act, and it's going to be amended by adding some paragraphs to it. One of them talks about ensuring reasonable access to medically necessary services. That's a major concern that I have, and I'll come to that through the discussion on Bill 21.

Also a major concern is the sustainability. It talks about health expenditures being within taxpayers' ability to pay without compromising the ability of the government to meet the health needs and other needs of current and future generations — major concerns as this government or this minister fails to define a few key concepts of Bill 21.

This government says this bill is responding to the 12,000 British Columbians who participated in the Conversation on Health. Contrary to that belief, I believe it's proven that the Premier made his intentions clear about the changes to be made prior to the Conversation on Health. He stated his intention to amend the Medicare Protection Act to include sustainability prior to this conversation. The Finance Minister has been trying to create political support for this change through repeated telling of the doomsday scenario for health care spending.

During the Conversation on Health, I do have to note that the closest it came to the North Coast was Smithers, and my constituents didn't have a chance to, face-to-face, come to a meeting. Throughout my riding, I've held my own discussions on health. I went to approximately 12 meetings throughout the North Coast riding — in the Nass Valley, Stewart, the Queen Charlotte Islands, Prince Rupert and the central coast.

This bill does not represent what my constituents want from their government. Many have questioned this Premier's devotion to our medicare system, given his emphasis on cutting costs and services and trying to persuade British Columbians that our current system is unsustainable. It's obvious that those who support our public health care system….

Adding this Liberal doublespeak word, whatever it is — sustainable — to the Canada Health Act can only mean one thing. This Premier is deciding what is sustainable and what is to be covered under the public system.

This government, on their wild journey to strip British Columbians' coverage under medicare and force patients to pay out of their own pockets…. It's something that we are standing against.

If we look at the Premier, he has indicated that changes that it makes to the provincial system will be consistent with the Canada Health Act. He has argued that the act needs updating. After the throne speech, he basically said: "Accessibility, universality, portability, public administration and comprehensiveness are all things we've embraced." Yes, as Canadians, we've embraced that. But the Premier pointed out in the throne speech that they are, really, largely undefined, and so our Premier is trying to define this.

For over 40 years we've had one of the best health care systems in the world, and this Premier, on a whim, wants to tinker with it, with Bill 21.

What is the Premier's definition of this significant piece of legislation before us? Will it again result in horrendous health care and other cuts that average British Columbians have seen since this Premier took over his reign of error? A 30 percent cut of home support and care for frail elderly and the disabled?

He cut the Minister's Advisory Council on Women's Health. He cut the violence and relationship program. He cut funding for 24-hour community-based rape crisis centres. He cut Pharmacare coverage, including eye exams and other health services. He cut the Mental Health Advocate. He cut $1.7 million in funding for 37 women's centres, cut 70 percent from adult mental health services and reduced medical coverage through Fair PharmaCare programs. He closed retirement homes and long-term care facilities. He increased medical service premiums.

The concern from this side of the House is quite different than the concern from the other side. When the Premier gets an idea, writes it on the back of a napkin or a coaster and proceeds forward with a scheme that puts in a principle of sustainability, there's much to be concerned about.

My constituents are concerned with Bill 21, and I've been getting the phone calls and e-mails about it. Bill 21 is very problematic, and it should be. I believe, as do many of my constituents, that this Premier is on a slippery slope towards the introduction of increased user fees, more cuts to service and a greater level of privatization within our public health system.

Those on this side of the House are strongly committed and determined to support a public health system that is truly public for everyone in Canada and in British Columbia. We will fight to ensure that it is there for everyone when they need it, especially — as we've heard through the debate — for our seniors. We support them versus those on that side of the House blaming them.

If we look back at a press release last November from the B.C. Care Providers Association…. The headline: "Seniors in care are at risk due to ongoing funding shortfalls. Quality suffers, say B.C. care providers, under current budgeting and service demands."

We should be here discussing how to look after our seniors, not blaming them. Continuing in the press release: "Our members feel their concerns are not being…considered. Our health authorities are ignoring the fact that seniors in care are at risk due to the lack of fair funding in relation to the demand for complex care services."

The press release also points to a number of "recent concerns stemming from insufficient funding and high care needs — namely, the continuing difficulties in recruiting and retaining quality staff; the problems associated with low morale; increased care needs not being met, resulting in complaints from family members; and a higher incidence of violence between residents and caregivers."

The press release from the CEO of the B.C. Care Providers Association continues with his quote: "We continue to wait for government to fairly address the needs of our increasingly aging population. It's a crisis situation which government could avoid by allocating fair funding for seniors in care."

What do we have before us, hon. Speaker? We have a bill that wants to privatize and put costs onto seniors even further. This bill compromises our public access to quality health care, and those on that side of the House smile and chuckle as they and their friends reap the benefits of privatization of our health care system.

We go back to some of the promises made by this Premier. Back in 2000 he said: "I want to get the public system back firing on all cylinders so that private clinics become redundant." What have we got? This government continuing to contract out public surgeries and services to private clinics. This is where this Premier's sustainability mantra will get us.

We look at another promise made by this Premier, and this is a quote: "Work with non-profit societies to build and operate an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006." What happened? They closed thousands of long-term care beds and used affordable housing funds to build assisted-living units through public-private partnerships.

Bill 21 will mean British Columbians will be paying more, getting less service and suffering longer — and putting even more of our seniors at risk. They will see increases in medical plan premiums and reductions in the coverage of medical services. We've already seen, under this government and this Premier, medicare premiums increase by over 50 percent, where we now have one of the highest medicare premiums in Canada. It's only to climb higher and higher under this bill before us.

People now have to pay for delisted medical services, including eye exams, physio, chiropractic, massage therapy, non-surgical services. Because of regionalization of health services and other government services, people are paying more in transportation to get to regional centres and will pay even more with this Premier's thought of the day — of including sustainability in this legislation.

I can relate to transportation. The Minister of Health realizes the struggles of getting services in Prince Rupert. Having to take the Northern Health bus 12 hours one way to Prince Rupert for MRI or physio — that's unacceptable. I don't think anywhere in the province would anybody expect patients to travel 12 hours one way on a bus for….

G. Coons: But more specifically in reference to Bill 21, I'd like to refer to the terms "sustainability" and "reasonable access."

Let's start with sustainability. The hon. member for Prince George–Omineca was kind enough to quote for the House from a dictionary a couple of days ago. He proposed that sustainability was a characteristic of a process that could be maintained at a certain level indefinitely.

G. Coons: I'd like to talk about that definition, above the chatter in the House.

G. Coons: I'd like to talk about that definition of sustainability, and in turn, I'd like to get at the heart of what sustainability means in the context of Bill 21.

As much as the hon. members on the other side of the House would like us to believe that Bill 21 represents an insignificant change, a benign change, and that they are using sustainability as a benign term with the best of intentions, I'm not convinced and those on this side of the House are not convinced that this is the case.

Perhaps it could mean: "Oh, we would love to take care of our elderly and frail seniors, but given the demographics of increased population of elders, we simply cannot do this in a sustainable fashion." What a powerful statement that would be, as this Premier and those on that side of the House smile and grin and cheer at the thought of privatizing services beyond the means of many seniors in this province.

My first concern would be: what is this certain level that we will maintain health care at indefinitely, as the member for Prince George–Omineca quoted in his definition? The members on the other side of the House have been using distorted mathematics to incite panic and have taken a path of fearmongering in the public about the cost of continuing health care at its current level.

Now, if we consider the immense amount of effort that the members on the other side of the House have made trying to convince British Columbians that health care costs are spiralling out of control, even to the point of making the ridiculous declaration that health care would eat 71 percent of provincial revenues by 2017, I would hazard to guess that members on that side of the House wouldn't even support current health spending as sustainable.

But they seem to have backed away from this inaccurate, made-up figure of 71 percent. I believe that the members on that side hoped that their mistruth would slip out as part of their doublespeak and fearmongering.

It appears that this Premier and this government continue to kowtow to their favourite author, George Orwell, whose visionary novel 1984 has probably been on their shelves for many years. Their adoption of Orwell's doublespeak seems to be the official style for their government communications and their legislation. Orwell once wrote: "Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful…and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

Some examples of this doublespeak. I'm just giving a few. They are numerous. One example is: "We will protect provincial parks and Crown lands." What have they done? They've systematically removed governance ability to enforce the law, while allowing industry to regulate itself.

"Protect B.C. Hydro and all of its core assets," and what have they done? They're selling off our B.C. Hydro.

Hon. G. Abbott: Realizing that there is some room for latitude in reading to debates, nevertheless, the member is nowhere near the mark in terms of debating the bill that is in question here.

The member's remarks, by and large, relate in no way to second reading of Bill 21, and I believe he ought to be advised to keep his comments directed there.

D. Cubberley: In the gallery this morning we're being joined by 30 grade 5 students from Northridge Elementary School in Saanich. They're accompanied today by their teacher Mrs. Terri Smith and by ten other adults. Would the House please join me in making them welcome in the chamber today.

H. Lali: While my colleague from North Coast was delivering his speech, I distinctly heard the member for Peace River North state that that's a lie. He is impugning the reputation of a member of this House. I would respectfully ask the member to withdraw his remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Members, considerable latitude has been allowed in debating this bill, but I do caution members that the subject at hand is the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, Bill 21. If members could please direct their remarks to what is in the bill.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, I will withdraw the remark about a lie. I would say that the statement was the strangest thing from the truth I've ever heard. I won't use the word "lie." I withdrew…

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, with all due respect, the minister needs to withdraw his remarks unequivocally. To state that somebody is lying is totally against the rules. He can't make a conditional apology, so I would respectfully ask that he withdraw his remarks unequivocally.

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Energy and Mines, please unequivocally withdraw your remark.

Hon. R. Neufeld: On a point of order. The statement that the member made that B.C. Hydro is being sold off is totally incorrect, absolutely incorrect, and I would ask the member to actually withdraw that statement.

This whole discussion is getting beyond reason. There is no necessity to withdraw a remark that is made in debate, only those that are unparliamentary. I'm now going to ask the member for North Coast to continue his remarks.

G. Coons: As I continue debate on Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, again, the concerns that we have on this side of the House, that I have, are the definitions that this minister and this government have put forward about sustainability and reasonable access.

When we start to look at that, my reference to what I've been talking about is the doublespeak of this government and how they say one thing and mean another. So I will continue my debate on Bill 21.

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, is it parliamentary to use the term "doublespeak"?

G. Coons: What I see with Bill 21 is a continuation of this government's serving its friends or donators, their privatizers, to reap benefits off the backs of average British Columbians.

Bill 21, this legislation, says little about what sustainability will actually mean in practice. It doesn't set out minimum levels of care. It does not specify a maximum percentage of government revenues that health care can consume. In reality, it seems to do very little to define what the government means by sustainability.

It does not provide any solutions, just in case we do become unsustainable. I do not believe it's unreasonable to ask the Minister of Health what the point of this legislation is. It does nothing to improve health care. It seems like little more than a terrific waste of time and paper. It's two and half pages — nothing substantial, looking at it from the outside. It isn't as though just by slapping the term "sustainable" on our medical system, costs will magically decrease.

We already have one of the most cost-efficient systems in the world, a system that offers higher value for money than almost any other medical system in the world. This Premier, with a stroke of a pen, puts our public health care, our medicare, basically on a cutting board.

I would be the last on this side to suggest that we have no improvements to make. But no one can argue that Bill 21 will add any measurable improvement to the system we have. It won't help any of my constituents get their hips replaced or their dental coverage improved.

At the very best this legislation is useless. At the very worst it's a foundation for the troubling changes to come and will make it cost more for British Columbia. It's already been debated that this legislation, Bill 21, seems to be a cotter pin for the drive towards privatization.

Some of the members on that side of the House have rebutted our concerns about privatization with jeers, but I for one will stand by our socially responsible, fiscally prudent public health care system. Like many of my constituents and British Columbians across the province, I will not stand by idly and quietly when our public health care is threatened by this government on behalf of their rich American backers.

The members on that side of the House are basically just figureheads, I believe, for corporations who would like nothing more than to sink their fangs deep into our health care system and turn it into something resembling a shambles that our friends….

G. Coons: I see Bill 21 as pushing us towards the medical care system they have in the United States, which our friends, colleagues and neighbours to the south are forced to contend with.

If we look at the facts, we see that the total health care spending as a share of GDP in Canada is 9.8 percent, while in the States the cost is 15.3 percent. This is a significant difference, and it's one of the key reasons I'm proud to support public health care because public health care makes sense both socially and fiscally.

If we look at sustainability — let's return to that much-debated word that this government wants to put into Bill 21 — some comments made on this draconian bill include health policy expert Bob Evans from the University of British Columbia. He said that governments can create the appearance of sustainability concerns, and this is a quote. "It's a Trojan's horse because there isn't any global sustainability problem. The appearance of a sustainability problem can be created by fiscal choices they have made."

He goes on to say: "This government cut taxes and expenditures when they formed government in 2001." The health budget was frozen, and Evans says: "When health costs are put up against tax and expenditure cuts, they appear to be rising at alarming rates. When measured against increasing revenues, they are not as imposing."

As a final statement about sustainability, he said: "It leads you to wonder what the purpose of this sustainability thing is." He said in The Province: "It's a phony issue. They are providing themselves with a legal basis for shifting the funding from the public to the private sector."

If we look at the sustainability crisis being manufactured, Paul Willcocks basically said in the Times Colonist in April about this bill: "There is no sustainability crisis. Perhaps the Minister of Health will clarify the government's intentions during debate on the bill. In the meantime, the legislation fuels fears that governments will use scare tactics to justify cutting care or offering patients a chance to pay extra for private treatment" — he goes on — "a shift that would actually increase health care costs overall. User fees mean the total cost for a specific procedure rise."

Dealing with Bill 21 and sustainability, even the federal Conservatives are on the opposite side of the issue. The Minister of Health asked his federal counterpart to add sustainability to the Canada Health Act last year, but what did the federal minister say? He saw no need to make the change or any purpose in reopening the Canada Health Act.

So that's the question. Why is this bill before us? That's a reasonable question to ask and try to get some reasonable answers, but obviously, as we can see from debate, there are no answers from this government.

Perhaps by looking at some things that are not sustainable, it will give us an understanding of what sustainability actually means. Sometimes the only way to really understand what a word means is to look at the opposite. If we analyze sustainability and look at the opposite of sustainability, if we look at this government's persistent drive to dismantle and tear apart everything that works in this province and sell it off, that's not sustainable.

The Premier's public relations budget is another thing that's not sustainable. Handing out millions of dollars in tax breaks to big banks and big oil is not sustainable.

Hon. G. Abbott: I realize the member is working from a written script and he is having a really tough time whenever he is forced to depart from that script, but I'm afraid the script, as I said before, is entirely unrelated to second reading debate on Bill 21. The member is abusing the rules of this House over and over again.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I have cautioned you, I think, two or three times about relevance. Please confine your remarks to be relevant to the bill that is being debated.

G. Coons: Well, thank you, hon. Chair. I realize that the members on that side have a problem with people trying to analyze the bill and look at their definition of sustainability or reasonable access. I will continue debating Bill 21 on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of British Columbians who have concerns about this bill and the lack of definition. We need to see where we need to go with this bill. This minister will have his opportunity to close.

Now, as I continue on and look at sustainability and what isn't sustainable in this province, this government has put forth the premise that our health care is not sustainable. Perhaps, as I said, we need to look at things that are not sustainable.

When we have a government that is basically chained to corporate interests rather than to the people they serve, I find that not sustainable. When we look at issues that we should be discussing as far as our health care system, and we look at the special interest groups and at what's happening in this province as far as addictions, poverty, homelessness…. These are issues that are not sustainable, and this bill does nothing to push forward the agenda that we need to be pushing forward as far as our medicare system in this province. Poverty is one more thing that is not sustainable in this province.

Sustainability is a nice buzzword. It's a nice code word that this government and this minister have pushed forward. They've pushed forward this word prior to the Conversation on Health.

I believe that as far as Bill 21, the people of British Columbia would be happier to see the members of this House address the deplorable state of our seniors care homes in this province rather than ramming through the Premier's new word of the day into our health care legislation, as this Bill 21 does.

Now that I've taken the opportunity to look at what sustainability means, perhaps — and what is not sustainable — I would like to turn to reasonable access, something else this government is throwing into this legislation. Again, it seems that Bill 21 adds another perhaps benign term, but if we take it in the context of the legislation before us, it gathers a rather sinister tone, I believe. What does reasonable access mean? This term, I believe, like sustainability, is left undefined, presumably because we are supposed to accept its meaning as self-evident.

I am concerned about this term. It could be argued by someone, perhaps those on that side of the House who feel no reason to continue public health care, that it's not reasonable for someone — let's just say someone who smoked for their whole life — to expect the public to pay for their cancer treatment — or perhaps someone who lives in the Okanagan or the Shuswap and has skin cancer due to where they live, due to prolonged

sessions in the sun or whatever, due to their work. Would it be reasonable to deny access due to where you live and choices you make? I wouldn't agree with this. I wouldn't agree with this particular interpretation of reasonable access to health care. This definition, this clarification, this government's definition of reasonable access could be done without the necessary clarity that we need in this legislation.

Now, the term "reasonable access" is a concern, because a word like "reasonable," with no definition or left undefined, can mean a number of things, depending on who you speak to. It's open to interpretation, and therefore, hon. Speaker, it's open to abuse.

What would be reasonable and what would be sustainable would be to treat small problems before they become big ones, regardless of whether they fall under the health care or dental care that we have in this province. I believe that sustainability and reasonable access without well-defined parameters are just buzzwords from the Premier and basically mean nothing.

Now, there are serious health care issues in the province that we need to attend to, and we would welcome a bill that addressed the grave concerns of people in this province, who have concerns about staff hours given to our seniors and would support a bill that actually defined the role our government plays in health care. But in the meantime I need to, on behalf of my constituents, reject this shallow attempt by the government to look busy on health care, and I think citizens from all around the province will do the same.

Hon. Speaker, this bill is wrong. This bill is going in the wrong directions from what British Columbians want. It is going to affect the health care system in British Columbia and in Canada like we've never seen before. I would say, at this point in time, that this is a bill we need to defeat in this House. We need to move forward with the concerns that are of real issue to British Columbians in the province — dealing with, as I said before, poverty, homelessness, addictions — and get off this government's and this Premier's use of buzzwords to guide us along so that their friends and….

K. Conroy: I, too, rise today to speak out against Bill 21 for a number of reasons, but for starters, to call the government on the hypocrisy of even introducing this bill. Bill 21 amends the preamble of the Medicare Protection Act and adds the principle of "sustainability," and I use sustainability in quotes. It also gives provincial definition to the five principles of the Canada Health Act.

Why would we need a bill like this when the minister himself has even been rather incoherent when providing a rationale for the changes? I think the minister is actually rather a coherent fellow at times. It must be incredibly frustrating for him to have to support a bill that is supporting the Premier's unequivocal support of a private health care system or the Finance Minister's continual doomsday scenario over spiralling health care costs, alleged spiralling health care costs, which creates the need for this minister to introduce a bill on sustainability.

We know the truth. The truth is that B.C. has gone from second to seventh in per-capita spending on health care in Canada and that in B.C. health spending, as a percentage of the GDP, was 7.4 percent in 2001-02 and has decreased to 6.9 percent in '06-07. So what's with the spiralling health care costs where we would need sustainability introduced in a bill?

We also know that the reality is that British Columbians are paying more personally for health care than ever, since 2001. Let's see — a 50 percent increase in MSP premiums and delisted services, including physiotherapy and vision care. The cost of private supplementary services has increased from a $256 bill in 1997 to $480 today for the average family. And drugs are costing more. More and more people are having to buy necessary services due to long, Liberal-induced wait-lists.

Will Bill 21 deal with this Liberal record? Will they deal with all these issues that people in this province are now having to deal with? Let's see. Will they deal with the fact that the patient-to-bed ratio in B.C. has dropped to 1.8 acute care and rehabilitation beds for every thousand people? Will they deal with the fact that 15 percent of the acute care beds in B.C. have been cut? Will they deal with the fact of the closure of hospitals in this province, the closures of ER departments?

In fact, in Castlegar, where I live, the emergency department was cut back after this government was elected. It was cut back from a 24-7 service to a 12-hour-a-day service, eight in the morning until eight at night. We have seniors who get chest pains in the middle of the night, can't afford to call an ambulance, don't live where anybody is close to them and wait until they get somebody up at eight o'clock in the morning to drive them to the hospital because they don't want to risk waking someone up, and they don't want to call for an ambulance.

There's a real fear amongst seniors when you come to a community and you lose your ER. That happened after this government was elected. What's the sustainability of health care in Castlegar when you don't have a 24-7 ER? It's a real concern for people in my community.

We also have the broken promises to seniors. I am just continually reminded of the broken promises to seniors in this province. I want to talk a bit about that record. I want to ask the minister, when he gets a chance to respond, how this bill will ensure the sustainability of services to seniors.

I want to talk about the record. Let's first talk about the 5,000 long-term care beds. When that promise was first made, it was 5,000 publicly funded long-term care beds. Then suddenly it became 5,000 beds — not long-term care beds, not publicly funded beds. And what is it now? Well, it's a combination of assisted living and supportive housing. It's not the long-term care needs that the seniors in this province need.

That's really frustrating for people — people who are waiting to get into a long-term care bed, people who need those kinds of services, people who use assisted living. Assisted living has provided excellent services

but not at the cost of long-term care beds. The supportive-housing beds are great but not at the cost of long-term care beds, and that's what we're seeing happening.

One of the problems — and I'm not sure if Bill 21 will address this with their sustainability — is the issue of ratio of beds in this province that this government has put onto the health authorities. The ratio of beds for seniors is 75 beds per 1,000 seniors over the age of 75. Is that working? No, it's not working. It's one of the lowest ratios in Canada.

How can we be proud of providing the lowest ratio in Canada of beds needed for seniors in this province, long-term care beds that are really needed by these seniors? How can we be proud of that? Is this sustainability bill going to say, "Yes, this is going to work for us, because we're going to sustain the beds," when there aren't enough of them to start with, when this ratio makes it so that the health authorities can't provide those beds to the seniors?

I want to talk about seniors on wait-lists, lists that we know are out there. For some reason health authorities tell us there are no wait-lists, but managers who are running these seniors facilities know there are wait-lists. They have wait-lists. They have families, they have residents' families…. They have them calling them to say: "When is my parent, my loved one, going to get into that facility? We need the support that facility offers."

We know there are wait-lists. For some reason the authorities say: "No, no, no. There's no wait-list. We're managing fine. Everybody is getting what they need." Well, the reality is that they're not.

Will Bill 21 alleviate the problem in this province of the seniors requiring these beds? I don't think so. I haven't heard anyone say that it's not a problem anymore, that sustainability will now ensure long-term care beds for seniors. I just don't see it. I just don't see how it's going to happen.

The other issue out in the province — especially, I know, in the Kootenays — is that we are really tired of being told that we are "overbedded." Now, I don't know who created that word, but it is getting extremely tiring, when you've been on a wait-list for over a year or two years, or are trying to get your loved one into a bed, when your community is told: "You're overbedded." There are too many seniors beds in your community, so too bad. You will have to wait.

I mean, I can't even find that word in the dictionary, but it sure gets thrown around a lot, and it's a word that was created after this government was elected. We'd never even heard of that word in the '90s. People had beds in the '90s. So I want to know: will this Bill 21, will this sustainability create it so that we don't have to hear the words "we're overbedded" anymore?

I have to hark back to what happened in our community two years ago. We all remember what happened with the tragic situation with the Albos. That family was courageous when they took the opportunity to say that we need to change the way things have happened in our region.

We need to ensure that seniors have the beds they need, but especially we need to ensure that couples who have lived together for over 60 years — couples who have been married for over 60 years, who have contributed to their community, who have given their lives and been there for that community, have paid their taxes, have raised their children and their grandchildren — have a bed and have the services they need when they need it.

Now, what happened to the Albos was tragic, and the family said: "We don't want to see it happen again." The community said: "We don't want to see it happen again." I look at this bill, and I think: will this bill make sure that there's sustainability of beds in our region so that never again that has to happen?

What did happen? Well, reports were done, promises were made, operational reviews were completed, and committees were formed, but has it worked? In our region some things have worked, but unfortunately there have been a number of situations that have shown that, in fact, the government hasn't been paying attention — hasn't been paying attention to the Albo tragedy two years ago. We continue to see these issues get raised again.

Just last month a couple who had been together for over 60 years, who had managed in the final years of their lives to still live on their own in supportive housing, where they had the support of their families and friends and the people that lived around them…. Despite medical complications, they had a pretty good life.

Unfortunately, one spouse, the spouse who was actually the primary caregiver, became ill and ended up in the hospital and then in a long-term care facility. The family and their family doctor pleaded with the authority. They pleaded with them: "Please put our parent into the facility with our other parent. Please let them be together. They need to be together. The parent that took ill was the primary caregiver. The other parent cannot be on his own."

The plea fell on deaf ears. Unfortunately, the other parent, who was home alone, ended up being taken to the hospital and, shortly after that, died of a stroke. This is a really sad situation, a sad, sad ending. The couple couldn't be together.

This is happening again, after we were assured this wouldn't happen. The other parent is devastated. The family is too. One of the daughters told me they are struggling with trying to deal with this. They are struggling with trying to come to terms with how this could have happened again. They can't comprehend it.

Can they speak out about this? No. They don't feel comfortable speaking out about it. They don't feel comfortable in an environment where they still have a parent who is in the system, who is still in a facility, who still requires care. There's something desperately wrong in the system in B.C. if that's what's happening to parents, to grandparents, to great-grandparents in our community.

Will this bill change that? I don't think so. I don't think adding sustainability to Bill 21 is going to ensure that couples aren't separated after 60 years of life, that couples will be able to stay together and that, in the end of their lives, they will have the joy of being able to be in the same facility together. I think the only thing we can do is ensure that this bill is pulled, because it doesn't meet the needs of seniors in our community.

After the aftermath of the Albo tragedy, there were actually 13 long-term care beds that were converted to publicly funded beds in our area. One of them was in Trail, and 12 of them were in Castlegar at the Castleview Care Centre. Those beds filled very quickly. People were excited. People were really happy to have public beds in our region. The beds filled. Residents and their families were happy. They were happy with the facility and the care being provided. They were happy to be within the area where they had grown up and where they had raised their families.

Imagine our surprise, the surprise of the community, when once again, just recently, we were being informed that we are overbedded again. It's interesting. Once again, we end up with a situation. Again, I ask: is Bill 21 going to ensure that we have some sustainability of long-term care beds in our province?

We're getting some new beds built in Trail. It had been an ongoing project for a long time. We've been told that once these beds open, the beds at Castleview will close. I guess if you're looking at it from a bean-counter perspective, well, that could make sense. But if you're looking at it from the perspective of families and seniors who are on wait-lists in our region, well, it really makes no sense — absolutely no sense at all.

A spouse of one of the residents there came to my office to express his concern. His wife is extremely happy there. She has dementia, but she loves the facility, and a move could have really tragic results. He just can't do that to her again. So we asked him: "Do other people feel this way?" He said that yes, he thought so. Here's a senior in our community who said: "I'm going to find out." He said he'd get some letters together. We said that yes, we would take those letters to the Minister of Health on his behalf, as we do for anyone who brings us issues.

We said that the Minister of Health is bringing forward legislation that is supposed to make things better for people in this province. We said that we would bring those letters to make sure he can address those issues that he brings. Well, in a matter of weeks we got over 1,700 letters individually signed by people in the community that were concerned about the beds being closed. They brought those letters to my office all in envelopes addressed to the minister, with notes on them about issues that they've been facing. I brought those letters to the minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I've been waiting very patiently for the member to address the issue of Bill 21 in second reading. What I'm hearing is a fascinating discourse on residential care issues, but I am not hearing a second reading debate on Bill 21.

K. Conroy: I'd just like to make a clarification. In Hansard, when the minister opened up his remarks in second reading of the bill, there are actually at least five pages of reading that refer to the '90s and what happened in the '90s and not, in fact, to sustainability or Bill 21. So I'm just bringing that forward for the Speaker's….

K. Conroy: I just wanted to talk a bit about where the sustainability is in Bill 21, the real sustainability. I want to talk about what is happening in our region and whether or not Bill 21 will actually bring the sustainability to my region. Will Bill 21 actually show that we will be able to have seniors beds? Will Bill 21 show that we will in fact not have seniors being separated?

One of the principles in Bill 21 is that the plan would be delivered on an accountable basis. Well, I have some concerns about accountability with this government when we look at what's happening with the Freedom of Information Act and the fact that we can't get information.

I have Bill 21 right here: "5.2 …operated on an accountable basis." Will it in fact be an accountable basis that we find this bill operating on? That's something that perhaps the minister can respond to when he gets an opportunity to respond.

I think it's interesting that the minister has included "accountable" in the bill itself, because there are some issues around accountability. There are issues when we make freedom-of-information requests. We quite often don't get any of the information because the entire request is blanked out.

I have real issues with the term accountable in here. I think it needs to be defined so that we know it is something we can look at and can see that it is going to have a real impact in this bill, that it is going to be true accountability. Maybe we should have had "transparency" in this bill, because that's another word that seems to be thrown around.

One of the things I've noticed with this bill is…. When you talk about sustainability, you think the only thing that is going to be sustainable in our region would perhaps be the sustainability of the private operators who are getting funds put into their own pockets, as opposed to into the services to seniors. I don't see anywhere in this bill where that issue could be addressed. I think it's interesting that it's not defined. It's really not defined.

In the minister's comments, in the minister's own second reading to this bill, the definition of sustainability was not there. We didn't hear it. We heard much discussion about what the minister thought the past history of this province was about, but we didn't hear what he thinks sustainability should be about. You know, it's a real concern.

I had a group in Castlegar send me a letter. It's a letter to the Health Minister, and I know the minister gets thousands of letters. In fact, this week he got over 1,700. I know that he probably doesn't have an opportunity to read every one, and he might not have got this one because he's been reading the other 1,700 that we delivered to him.

This speaks to the issues of Bill 21. This succinctly addresses the concerns of Bill 21. With the Speaker's permission, I just want to say that Castlegar and District Health Watch was formed after the 2001 election. It's interesting that after the 2001 election we've had to form all of these health watch–type groups around the province, but suddenly we had this need to have more voices in our community speaking out in defence of health care.

Castlegar and District Health Watch came together when we lost our hospital, when the acute care beds were closed, when our ER was cut back. It's a group that's been working hard in our community to ensure that the services for rural British Columbians are there.

For the record, I want to read this letter into Hansard because it addresses Bill 21. It addresses the issues and the concerns, and I just want to make sure that the minister, as busy as he is, has the opportunity to hear.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Members, it's very difficult when there's conversation going behind and past the speaker.

It speaks to the issues, especially, of support to rural B.C. Are we, with this bill, in fact going to ensure that there is sustainability of the system, sustainability without it costing us more, without people in rural B.C. having to pay for more and more services — services like MRIs that are desperately needed? In order to get it, if you want to get it quickly, the only way you can get it is to pay for it. Is that what this is all about?

We had a number of people in our region that went to the Conversation on Health, and I talked to other people across this province who went to the Conversation on Health. We know that the minister, when developing

this bill, has referred to the input he got on the Conversation on Health. We know that in virtually every part of this province where the Conversation sat, people said no to the sustainability issue.

People weren't concerned about that. They were concerned about ensuring we get services in rural B.C. They were concerned about making sure that the wait-lists were cut. They were really concerned about making sure that we didn't have to pay for services that are desperately needed. That's what they heard.

That's why I have real concerns when the minister uses this bill, Bill 21, to say that sustainability is what we need, the principle of sustainability, because it hasn't been defined anywhere. Nowhere has anyone said: "This is what sustainability is going to mean to this province."

All we've heard are these innuendos. We heard a lot of diatribe about the '90s. It's frustrating to speak to a bill when there's no definition, no real concrete information. We are concerned because we look at what's happening in the Interior Health Authority in the rural part of B.C. and at what's happening with the privatization of health care, and I have to believe that sustainability is something along the ideological bent of privatization.

We know that it doesn't work. We know that it's more cost-effective for a government to put money into the publicly funded system. We know, for instance, that the health authority in Kelowna had contracted out with a private health clinic in Kelowna to provide orthopedic surgery, and they had to cancel that contract because of the over 20 percent increase in the costs of the surgeries.

They know that when you put money into public facilities, the money goes back into the public system. That's sustainable. That's making sure that the health care system is sustainable. That's making sure that people can get the services they need. That's making sure that people can go and get the services they need without having to pay for it. When you look at the costs of services in Canada compared to the States, you think: is this what we want to see happen?

They like the word sustainability in the States, because the insurance companies run the health care system in the States. We also know that the American system costs almost twice what our system does in Canada. What have they got for it? Millions of people don't get health care in the United States. They don't have sustainability in the United States, because they don't even have health care. George Bush — I'll quote him. He said: "Everybody who goes to the ER gets service and…."

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, again, I fear the member is drifting away, and decidedly so, from second reading on Bill 21.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you refer, in your remarks, to the bill under debate.

K. Conroy: I will continue to refer to the Bill 21, which raises the issues of sustainability.

One of the things in the bill that I looked at with interest is in the preamble. The value of individual choice is one of the issues that it talks about. I just want to talk about whether there is an opportunity for individual choice in this province when many people don't have a choice, when they have to pay to get the services. Is individual choice, as it is stated here in Bill 21…? What does that mean? Does that mean that you have an individual choice to pay for the service? That's your choice. You can't get it in your community so you'll have to pay for it. Individual choice is here.

Personal responsibility. I think one of my former colleagues referred to personal responsibility. I know that in the States you can't get health care if you've been diagnosed with certain diseases or if you partake in certain…. I think it's been very difficult for them. It's interesting that they can't get that health care.

We're wondering if this is the way, the direction that the minister is going in. It's a real concern for people. People have concern about what direction this minister is going in, what this sustainability means, what personal responsibility is. I'm quoting directly from the bill: personal responsibility, individual choice, innovation.

When you talk about innovation in the bill, what is it going to mean? Is it innovation for private operators to put more money into their pockets or innovation to ensure…? Innovation here in this bill: what exactly is that going to mean?

I'll look forward to the minister's wrap-up eventually some time so that he can tell us what innovation means. Does that mean more money for the health care system, more money to ensure services for people in rural B.C.? Or is it these one-off projects that this minister is fond of doing? Just fund it on a one-shot basis, and once the project's over, the service disappears. Once again, the people in the area are left without the services they need.

Is that what innovation in Bill 21…? Is that what that means? Is it just another thing that we look at and say where is it? Where's the accountability?

I'm looking forward to the minister's response eventually, because in this bill, you read through it, and there are some real concerns when they talk about…. In sustainability they include cash. They include the concept of…. They're talking about money, and then as a secondary, it almost seems, is the discussion around the true health care needs.

I worry in this province. Are we getting caught up in the business of health care, instead forgetting that health care is a service? Health care is a service to people. It's a right to people. It's something that we all have to look forward to.

H. Lali: It is indeed an honour to follow in the footsteps of my colleague from West Kootenay–Boundary

and the remarkable information that she has provided to highlight not only the concerns of health care in this province, but especially in her neck of the woods in the Kootenays, where there's been a complete abandonment, as in other rural areas, of health care by this Health Minister and by this Liberal government.

I stand here to speak against so much of what the minister has put forward in the bill, Bill 21. I think the minister should appropriately have called it the "medicare destruction act," because Bill 21 does not actually do anything for the people in British Columbia who need health care. It does everything to take health care away from them.

I don't know why the minister's even actually looking at bringing this in as an amendment to the Medicare Protection Act. He should have brought in a new bill and just called it the "medicare destruction act," because that's what he is doing. It's destroying health care.

C. Puchmayr: I have a group of students here — my first group from Richard McBride Elementary. They're here for another four minutes. Please make them all welcome. They're the grade 5 class, and they're studying politics. I hope they're very inspired by the debate here today.

H. Lali: I thought for a minute there…. Here I am just starting my speech and somebody's getting up on a point of order, my own colleague, but he wasn't. Obviously, he was making an introduction.

Just getting onto it, I think the minister should have appropriately called it the "medicare destruction act," because that's what he's doing. He's destroying health care. These Liberals are destroying health care. From the day they took office in 2001 they have been on a rampage, a vengeance, to try to actually take health care away from all of the people in British Columbia. That's what they've done. They've made the lives of British Columbians miserable, and now Bill 21 is the final straw.

Earlier in this parliamentary term the Premier put out a committee to go around the province. He called it his Conversation on Health. That's what he called it. Now, a conversation on health is a two-way dialogue, but that's not what it was. It was actually the Premier sending his folks around the province to basically tell people that he wanted to privatize — float a trial balloon and see what would happen.

The Premier's Conversation on Health was nothing but a sham. It was a cruel hoax. On the one side, we get the Minister of Health on Tuesday, April 8, when he introduced the "medicare destruction act," and he says we received over 12,000 submissions from people across British Columbia on the Conversation on Health. Well, if it was truly a conversation on health, this minister would be doing justice for the people of British Columbia. If he had actually truly sat down to read and listen to what people had said, if he had clearly listened to the people, the vast majority of the people who put in their submissions told this Minister of Health and this Liberal Premier to leave health care alone. Do not go on the slippery path to privatization.

There is a betrayal of the people of British Columbia when a minister brings forward this Bill 21, this "medicare destruction act." Obviously, this Premier and this Liberal minister did not listen to the will of the people of British Columbia, the 12,000 submissions that have come in. It is a sham; it was a cruel hoax.

I want to read from the minister's own words on April 8 in this House. He says: "This government is committed to ensuring the world-class health care system we have is available not only today but for future generations." You know, I take exception to those remarks, because everything that this Liberal government, since 2001, and this Minister of Health have done has actually eroded that world-class health system that we left behind in 2001. They have gutted it. They're continuing to gut it word by word and area by area in this province. And here you have now the minister talking about future sustainability. He says that this is a sustainability bill.

It's a nice word, sustainability. When people hear this nice word, sustainability, the picture that comes to their mind is that they want a world-class health care system in this province and that they want it to be sustained. Well, there is something fundamentally wrong with Bill 21 and the way this minister has presented it and what his true motives are. First of all, he doesn't define sustainability. He doesn't define what sustainability means.

Does sustainability mean that we are going to have the restoration of those massive funding cuts to health care that this Liberal government started in its first term and that this minister has continued since 2005? Is that what sustainability is all about? Is that how the minister defines it — that he's going to restore those cuts? Or is it that the minister's going to say that he's going to reinstate those beds — all of those acute care beds and those long-term care beds that this Liberal government has cut over the last seven years, especially in their first term? Is that the definition of sustainability?

The minister doesn't tell us that. The minister doesn't define it, and I'm wondering if the minister is going to define it. He has to tell the people of British Columbia what his true motives are, because nobody on that side of the House has stood up to define what sustainability is. Nobody on that side of the House….

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member sitting to my far left here, from the north there, to withdraw

his remark. He just called me a liar. I ask him to withdraw his remark unequivocally.

J. Rustad: Madam Speaker, in my speech yesterday, in my response to this, I clearly defined the definition of "sustainability" out of the dictionary. The member opposite here has suggested that I am accusing him of saying something incorrect. My remarks are very clear, and they're on the record.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you will withdraw your unparliamentary remarks unequivocally, as it is a dispute of the facts.

H. Lali: I want to thank the member for withdrawing his remarks. I am actually looking forward to seeing the hon. member on future bills — I know that there are other bills there — take his stand right here and make remarks as he wishes.

In any case, we want that Minister of Health to define sustainability — to go out there on the hustings, talk to the people in the ridings and the towns across this province and tell people what he means by sustainability. If he doesn't, it is our obligation as Her Majesty's official opposition to point out what the minister really means, because what he really means….

Sustainability just happens to be a buzzword, just the catchphrase of the day, which the Liberals are known for bringing into this House. It means cuts, further cuts, to health care. "When the money runs out, no more health care." That's what they're going to say. "No more services to people." They'll just cut them.

H. Lali: The fact of the matter is that the Liberals just can't handle the truth. It gets at them. That's why they sit there mocking us off in the Legislature time and time again. They can't handle it. They take their place in the Legislature. They make speeches. We sit here; we listen to it. We didn't sit there like these people, making objections and standing up and saying all this kind of nonsense, because they can't handle the truth. They can't handle the truth.

Deputy Speaker: Member, there is a wide range of discussion on second reading, but you must keep your remarks relevant to the bill.

H. Lali: As I was previously saying, before I was rudely interrupted, it means cuts. That's what the Liberal minister across the way is intending to do — further cuts to health care.

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, the member just suggested that I was not telling the truth. He has not yet, at any point, landed on his feet to start talking second reading on Bill 21. His tone has been entirely abusive, and, I think, inappropriate.

H. Lali: On Bill 21 and what this word sustainability means. In addition to the cuts that will surely come in the future, it also means further privatization of our health care in this province. That's what that means. We've seen it under this Liberal government — the cuts and the privatization. That's what is going to happen.

I also want to ask this Legislature: what does the minister mean by "reasonable access"? What does he mean? Does reasonable access mean that folks who live in Lillooet, for instance, who used to get access to health care services that were available in that hospital, or those folks who live in Hope or Merritt or Princeton and all of those other rural communities in my constituency…?

Does it mean that the minister is going to reinstate the access that was there? That's what my constituents want to know. I just want to remind my Liberal friends across the way of the Premier's statement during the 2005 election. What did he say about health care to the people of British Columbia? He said: "Health care when you need it, where you need it." That's what he said. Is that what the minister meant by reasonable access when he introduced Bill 21?

I ask on behalf of my constituents, because they're asking me to ask that very question, that same question, to the minister. So I stand here before the minister asking him this question. When he says reasonable access, does he mean — and does he believe in the Premier's words — health care when you need it, where you need it?

What we have seen since this Liberal government, in their first term…. They continued in the second term on the rampage that they have had across British Columbia and the relentless attack on our health care system across British Columbia. It has been anything but health care when you need it and where you need it. That's what's happening.

The words coming out of Liberal ministers and members opposite are one thing, but their actions speak something else — just typical of the kind of Liberal hypocrisy that we see. So when we come up to third reading and we go to committee stage, when we go to line-by-line debate, I'm going to be asking those tough questions to the minister, because we want him to define sustainability and reasonable access.

Again, I want to read what the minister said on Tuesday, April 8, in this House. I'm sorry. It wasn't on April 8. It was later on. I apologize for that. It was actually in second reading. Honest mistake. The minister likes to say that the health care costs are rising. That's what the minister says. He says that health care costs are rising. Not only that. He says that his government has increased health care funding. It's at 44 percent. It's going to go to 50 percent, and it's going to go to 71 percent. That's what the minister likes to tell us. I'm just going to refer to some facts.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member suggested that he was quoting from my remarks at second reading. At no point in that discussion did I make a reference to 71 percent.

H. Lali: Liberals across the way like to say that health care costs are increasing from 44 percent right now as a percentage of the annual budget in British Columbia to 50 percent, and it's going to go to 71 percent. Various ministers and members opposite have made that statement publicly.

I wish the minister would chill out and listen for a minute. I know the minister has a huge research department. Somebody ought to be actually giving him the facts. If they're not giving him the facts, our research department will give the hon. minister across the way the facts.

Here they are. I'm going to read them. "In 2001 British Columbia has gone from second-highest funding for health care of all provinces" — only Quebec was higher — "to seventh" — now today — "in per-capita spending on health care." This is from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, national expenditure report, 2007. If the minister wants to dispute those facts, he can go talk to those folks who did that.

Secondly, health care spending as a percentage of the GDP was 7.4 percent in 2001-2002, when the Liberals took office, and has decreased to 6.9 percent in 2006-2007. This is from the B.C. Financial and Economic Review, July 2007, page 95 — that great institution of socialism, the B.C. Financial and Economic Review.

Those are the facts. The facts say, contrary to what the minister and the Liberals across like to say right here in the House or out there on the hustings, that they're going backwards in terms of funding and health care funding in this province.

Here are some of the other facts. The government has increased MSP premiums by 50 percent and has delisted services, including physiotherapy and vision care. Now, this has increased the costs for individuals and also for private insurance plans. They're increasing privatization of health care in this province.

Even the median expenditures per household for private health insurance increased from $360 per year in 1997 to $600 in 2006. That's a Stats Canada figure, by the way. The cost of private supplementary insurance, including delisted services such as vision care and physiotherapy, has increased from $256 in 1997 to $480 today — again, a Stats Canada figure.

I'm going to read some more facts into the record here so that the minister's research folks and his communications folks can actually bring him to light on this so that when he speaks on Bill 21 later on, as he surely will close debate on it, and in third reading as well…. I want to also provide some more facts.

British Columbia, as I mentioned, has slipped from second to seventh in health care spending of all provinces. The bed-to-patient ratio in B.C. has dropped to 1.8 acute care and rehabilitation beds per 1,000 population, which compares to the Canadian average of 3.0. It is even lower, at 1.43 per thousand people, in the Fraser Health Authority. In all of the provinces…. It's almost half of what it is in the Canadian average for acute care beds, and it is even lower than half in the Fraser Health Authority.

That's what this Liberal government has done since taking office in 2001. They've made these massive cuts. Bill 21 will just be a continuation of that.

Hon. Speaker, there's an introduction that needs to be made, so I'll take my seat for a minute.

C. Puchmayr: I have the second group from Richard McBride Elementary here. They are studying politics as well, and they're in the chamber. They are grade 5s and some grade 4s. They're a very gifted bunch. I'd like this House to please make them welcome.

H. Lali: Fifteen percent of acute care beds in B.C. were cut between 2001 and 2004, a reduction of 1,279 beds. The Liberals also closed five hospitals and closed emergency departments as well across this province.

The Fraser Health Authority is currently experiencing a shortage of at least 550 acute care beds, and the

shortage is expected to grow to at least 700 beds by the year 2010. The Liberals also broke their promise to seniors to build 5,000 long-term care beds and instead closed 54 residential care facilities between 2001 and 2004. That was a reduction of almost 2,500 residential beds. Those are the facts.

The reality is that we're still waiting for the Premier's promise of 5,000 long-term care beds to come on stream. We'll probably still be waiting well into the next decade under this Liberal government if the people of British Columbia are unfortunate enough to have them re-elected in 2009.

We've got a massive backlog in our emergency wards across this province. Under this Liberal government, hospitals are dirty. Staph infections and others are spreading. People are catching them within the hospitals. And it's all because they privatized some of the health care services, like the cleaning of our hospitals, in an effort to reward their friends.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's assertions are not only patently false; they're also irrelevant to Bill 21 second reading.

H. Lali: Again, the minister can say whatever he wants when he gets up in debate, but he doesn't like it when members opposite are putting facts here on the table. That's typical of Liberal behaviour in this House.

But the fact is that I want to ask the minister a question, and I'll get a chance to do that on third reading. Does it mean that Bill 21 will continue dirty hospitals in this province? Will Bill 21 mean that there will be a further increase in the wait-lists across this province?

Under the NDP in office, our wait-lists were decreasing for surgery. Under this Liberal government, in some areas it has increased to well over 100 percent in terms of wait-lists in this province. Is that what Bill 21 means?

Accountability. The Premier said he was going to make his government the most open and most accountable government in the history of this province, and we've seen nothing but. It's gone the other way. Is that what this means? We're going to get more accountability under Bill 21?

I've already talked about MSP premiums. What we're witnessing in this province under this Liberal government is crisis after crisis after crisis in health care.

I need not remind the hon. minister across the way of the crisis in his own backyard, in Kelowna, just an hour's drive from where he lives, in terms of the shortage of beds that we have. We have hallway medicine being practised in Kelowna just in the last couple of years. I'm sure the minister must be aware of that. And if he drove another hour or so in the other direction, towards Kamloops, to Royal Inland Hospital…. There have been many crises in 2005 and 2006 in terms of the shortage of beds.

They cut acute care beds. They cut almost 2,500 residential beds in this province. They turned around and cut acute care beds all across the province and said: "We're going to regionalize health care."

You would think the Liberals would have increased the services and the beds in those regional hospitals to take care of those situations so that people, when they can't access health care in Lytton, Lillooet, Merritt or Princeton and Keremeos, could go to Kelowna or Penticton or Kamloops to get that. Instead, we got those backlogs that took place. Does Bill 21 mean that the minister is going to actually reinstate the beds that this Liberal government has cut?

I've already talked about the Merritt situation, where we had the hallway medicine that was taking place there as well. It's not just there in rural B.C., but it's all…. The Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster. There's a crisis once every month taking place due to the failed health care policies of this Liberal government.

Need I mention ambulance service and the total abandonment of health care in rural British Columbia? We are not getting adequate ambulance services in our rural communities.

Paramedics. What's the minister doing to make sure that we have enough paramedics in this province, especially in rural B.C., and to fill those vacancies that are still left unfilled in this province? Will Bill 21 do something to actually rectify that situation?

All we have seen from this Liberal government are platitudes and platitudes and platitudes. That's all they do. They make announcement after re-announcement after re-announcement of the same things. I don't know. I've lost count after six times, I think, that the 5,000 long-term care beds were announced and re-announced by the Premier and the minister and the minister before this minister in terms of health.

The people of British Columbia are fed up, and they want answers. It's time for this Liberal government to finally start giving answers to the people of British Columbia. They want reasonable access to health care, but the minister needs to define that. They want their health care to be sustained so that it's available when they need it and where they need it. The minister needs to define that.

This Liberal government has to come clean and tell the people of British Columbia what the real intention of Bill 21 is, because so far what we have seen are massive cuts to health care since 2001. We've seen the massive privatization of our health care services in this province. Is that what is intended by Bill 21?

The minister needs to answer those hard questions. He can't hide anymore. This Liberal government cannot hide anymore. It would behoove the backbenchers on the Liberal side to ask those same tough questions on behalf of their constituents, to ask those tough questions

of the minister and the cabinet and the Premier. They're abrogating their responsibility.

In the abrogation of their responsibility, it is the official opposition's responsibility to raise those tough questions, and we will not stop until we get answers.

Hon. G. Abbott: I rise to close debate, if there are no further speakers to this.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it's just a short recess while we're waiting for Committee A to report out.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

N. Macdonald: I very much appreciate the time that we have. I would point out that for a ministry that is this wide in range and this important, it's unfortunate that we're limited to what will essentially be an hour and a half. I think that is a very unfortunate thing.

What the minister has agreed to is…. In the past he's always been very generous about briefings, but I also just need to say that there are a number of groups that will not have questions that need to be asked, asked in this forum.

Examples would be that we're not really going to have an opportunity to talk about ActNow, which is a program that I think is very important but which we really won't have the time to address here. I just would let people know that it's a program that's important to me. It's no sign of disrespect that the questions won't be asked here. We've been briefed, and I would like to publicly say that.

Other things that we will probably rely mainly on letters to the minister with questions on are things that I feel are very important but that I don't think we'll have time for — forests, rec sites and trails; the whole arts community and the questions around that and museums and around Legacies Now related to the various things that this ministry does with films; BC150; B.C. Games; Tourism B.C. All of these are really big parts of what the government does. Unfortunately, we will not have the time to go into that.

What I would say is that it is particularly unfortunate that estimates have been pushed into the tight time frame that they have been put into.

With that, we'll get ahead. Most of the focus will be on areas related to PavCo. I'll begin with something that I've talked to the minister about quite a bit, and a couple of pieces of information that I would appreciate having. The first one would be that June 2006 report. I would very much like it.

What we found with the freedom-of-information process is that it's unnecessarily long. I think the minister should be giving that to the opposition, and I would ask the minister to give that to me. It's the June 2006 report to the minister from PavCo on the state of B.C. Place.

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said yesterday in question period, the document in question has been released under the Freedom of Information Act. I understand that someone — I assume it's the opposition — has gone to the commissioner and that it's being reviewed by the commissioner as far as severing is concerned. I would suggest we wait for that process to carry out.

I just want to introduce the people that I've got here with me. To my right is my deputy minister Bruce Okabe. To my left is Warren Buckley, the CEO of PavCo. I have John Harding from PavCo; Colin Smith from PavCo; Shauna Brouwer, who is the ADM of management

N. Macdonald: I'll just put on the record that I think the institution is served better when information is freely shared. There's no question that this ministry has made it very difficult to get information that the opposition and the public should have. It's a document that is 15 pages. My understanding is that 14 pages are vetted, and the experience I've had is that we are consistently getting information that is vetted in a way that doesn't meet the standards of the freedom-of-information office.

What happens with the appeal, which takes a long, long time, is that we get back documents at some point which are significantly different than what was put forward to us. So I just put on the record that it's unreasonable to me that we would not get this basic information. So that's on the record.

I guess the next piece of information that I would ask for is the PavCo report on options for B.C. Place roof that is with the minister. That's something, again, that I think the public would benefit from — all of the options that are on the table. It seems reasonable to me that the public would participate in the decision-making around that very important project. Will the minister provide the PavCo report on options for B.C. Place roof?

Hon. S. Hagen: I do want to comment on the comments that were made with regard to the June '06 report. I don't do the severing of those reports, and I expect that whoever does the severing does it in accordance with the act. I get your frustration, but that's the law. The opposition, as anyone else does, has a right to question the commissioner on that. I understand that that process is in place. I for one would suggest that we wait until that work is complete.

With regard to the report mentioned from PavCo, there is no report from PavCo with regard to options on the roof. That work is in progress. As the member probably knows, there's a lot of investigative work and engineering work going on, and we await the results of that work.

N. Macdonald: Just coming back to the process that I think would be healthy, what I hope we've learned from the convention centre is that the public scrutiny is going to lead to better decision-making. With the convention centre, just as a context for what I'm talking about, we were told consistently and the people of B.C. were told consistently that it was going to cost $495 million. But when you read the Auditor General's report, right there on page 2 they said that the figure that was in front of government was $637 million. Stuff like that means that the public has to dig deeper on these projects. I think the system works better when there's more information.

The reality that the opposition and the people of B.C. face…. I'll give you an example from two other FOIs. We had an FOI on minutes from the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. I can share with the minister what was vetted from it. I mean, it is page after page that is blacked out.

When you actually go back and eventually, six or seven months later, have a look at what was blacked out, it is like a kindergartener was there with a marker. You cannot follow the logic. They don't cite the reason for things being blocked out. There are things like people leaving the meeting, I would suggest, probably to go to the washroom. That's left there. When they come back ten minutes later, that's blacked out. There's no logic to it.

I can give this to the minister, if he would like an idea of what we're actually dealing with, and I would invite the minister to judge whether that is a reasonable way to provide information to an opposition.

With that in mind, if there's not a document in front of cabinet or in front of the minister with regards to B.C. Place and the options that are looked at, would the minister arrange a briefing from PavCo on the options that are being looked at so that the opposition fully understands and, through us, the public fully understands what is being looked at with B.C. Place, so that we can really point our questions in a more constructive way and hold the government to account for the decisions they're making, which is how the process is supposed to work?

The question is: will the minister arrange a briefing, with a full ability to ask questions on what is being planned at B.C. Place, with the staff of PavCo and with the staff of B.C. Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: Just going back to the first part of your discussion with regard to FOI, I think it is important for not only you but for anybody who might be watching to understand that the staff we have doing the FOI work, whether it be in a Crown or in the ministry, are competent staff. They are governed by the law. So they are doing the legal thing to do.

I take your point about being frustrated, and if I was in your position, I might well be frustrated too. But it's not something that we do. The people who do it, do it according to the law. I have full confidence in those people that they are doing it according to the law.

With regard to your requests for a briefing, there is no obligation, and I will not be briefing anybody on deliberations before cabinet. Those deliberations are ongoing. When government, cabinet, makes a decision, then we will go public with that decision.

N. Macdonald: Just coming back to the FOI, there's the letter of the law, which is…. You can organize things in a way that slows it down as much as possible, or you can go to the spirit of the law, which is to provide information as clearly and quickly and effectively as possible.

Perhaps I can understand that if I was in your position, I might be more willing to try to slow that down. But the reality is that if you — and I can provide this to

the minister…. What is going on there somewhere within government — and I don't even say it's with this ministry — is that information that should be shared is not being shared. That is the final conclusion that we get to, but it takes so long.

So far I've asked for information on the information that the government received in 2006. You know, I'm not going to get that except over a very extended period of time. I've asked for information on the options that the government is considering with the B.C. Place roof. I'm not going to get that.

The next thing I would ask is about a document that did come out eventually, which is the Joint Health and Safety Committee report. There were recommendations related to the roof collapse, and the question for the minister: are those recommendations fully implemented?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have the recommendations in front of me here. With regard to recommendation 1, which is to:

(1) "Create, inform, implement and post a no-snow accumulation policy for the roof. This policy would become the goal for the stadium in keeping the roof up. It defines the facility philosophy and makes it clear to all parties that every effort will be made to prevent snow from accumulating on the roof." That has been done.

(2) "Without further delay, complete an external audit of stadium operations to focus on policies, procedures and training, and then immediately implement the corrective actions. This includes risk identification and management in stadium maintenance and operations." That's in progress.

(3) "Immediately have a qualified person, assisted by a qualified testing laboratory, conduct a physical assessment of the roof material and seams adjacent to the ring beam starting with each of the triangle panels, and make the necessary corrections." That has been done.

(4) "Have a qualified person knowledgable in these roof systems assess, modify and update roof support control systems, including a method for the control room to see the roof and know when it is in crisis." That's been done.

And "complete a comprehensive independent external audit of the occupational health and safety program of this facility and implement recommendations." That is in progress.

On top of that, the corporation has gone well beyond those recommendations. PavCo has installed newer generation systems to assist in monitoring and controlling the roof. They have updated staff procedures and training. They have engaged in numerous extensive studies of the roof, and all of those reports have been made public on our website.

N. Macdonald: So the audit of the operations department has been done externally. I guess that's been taken care of.

Just a question on…. There was an assertion — I forget where I read it — about the management bonus structure being set up so that it would reward keeping costs down and that that might have been a factor in trying to keep costs down around heating.

I guess two things. If that's an assertion that's inaccurate, it would be good to hear. Then if it is an accurate assertion, has the minister given thought, or has PavCo given thought, as to how they would make sure that the bonus structure — if that's what they choose to put in place — would take into consideration the needs around the roof and the fact that there are heating costs involved, and would make sure that the bonus structure doesn't have the unintended result of pushing towards behaviour that would be a problem?

Hon. S. Hagen: I am told by my staff here that the heat comes on automatically when a certain temperature is reached, when the temperature is dropping or if there are any snowflakes sensed. They advise me that they think the temperature is 3 degrees, so when the temperature drops to 3 degrees, the heat automatically comes on.

N. Macdonald: All right. I don't actually want to spend too much time on it, but the assertion was that there are procedures in place that would heat the roof and melt it and that the structure you have in place for management is such that the costs, if they are controlled, would be pushed by a bonus system.

Just looking back, unless I've misunderstood it, in 2007 the general manager received $30,000. Presumably, one of the major costs that would need to be kept down would be the heating costs, and therefore that was a factor, perhaps, in the decisions made around the roof.

Like I said, I don't have very much time, and I'm not going to push the minister on it. I simply put it to him that that's a factor and that's a question that was raised. If it's something that he's comfortable with — that it's not a factor in decision-making with management — then that's fine. I'm going to move on to a different question. If he wants to comment on what I've said later, then that will be fine too.

The other thing is the budget for the roof improvements. Obviously, in the existing budget, there is nothing there. How is that going to unfold? What time frame do we have for the minister and cabinet to make a decision on the roof? What's the time frame for letting the people of British Columbia know how it's going to be paid for? Obviously, even if it is going to be paid for with real estate development, it is going to have to flow as a cost through the budget.

What sort of time frame before we start to see the information that we need on the re-roofing of B.C. Place, which PavCo has said needs to be replaced in four years…? I assume that's still an accurate number, so a maximum of four years is the quote that I would be working from.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not exactly sure how the member came up with four years, because I'm not aware of any report I've seen that talks about four years. But having said that, the member also knows and most members of the public know that PavCo is doing work with regard to the replacement of the roof. So it's probably not a point worth debating.

Certainly, as government receives that information and makes the decision, then the decision will include how the roof is going to be paid for and what is going to happen with the roof.

N. Macdonald: The reference is just a quote out of a newspaper article, where the chair of PavCo was commenting to reporters on that.

Just to jump around a little bit in terms of making sure that I get the request for information…. Last year the minister provided a list of confirmed expansion events for the Vancouver Convention Centre annex. These are conventions that are of significant enough scale that they need the expanded facility. There were 29 confirmed events as of May 11, 2007. That's what the minister provided for me.

I remember the explanation for not providing the names of the conventions last year. I don't want to say that I accept that explanation. I don't know why I wouldn't also have the names of the conventions, but I don't even need that explanation again, because the actual thing that I'm interested in is to see the dates and to see that there are improvements. So if you could provide me with the written documentation.

You'll remember from last year that the length of the convention and the dates basically are what I would need. Then what I would be looking at from there is just judging whether or not the concerns that were raised about the fact that there simply weren't enough conventions to justify the expense are warranted concerns. I'm sure the minister understands the information that I need. It's very similar to the document I received last year, but an updated document. So if the minister could just clarify that he's going to provide that, that would be great.

Hon. S. Hagen: It's always great to get a question that leads to good news. There's so much good news with regard to the expanded trade and convention centre, and there will be so much good news with regard to B.C. Place Stadium that I think you will be very, very happy, as will your colleagues. You'll have all summer to brag about this.

The good news is that the numbers you received last year have increased to 108 conventions in total, 43 of which would not be coming here without the expanded centre. That is about $2 billion worth of economic activity.

We obviously have a list of those conventions, but as the member knows, I'm sure…. I might add that the list includes several international union organizations and congresses that are coming to British Columbia.

As the member knows, in some cases the organizations have not announced to their membership where the convention is going to be. In other cases, the organization might not want to have their name floating around somewhere. But we have the list. It's 108, of which 43 would not be coming here without the expanded centre.

It's great news for British Columbia. It's great news for tourism because, of course, we want to leverage the convention centre. We want to make sure we invite the people who come here for conventions to come back again and vacation in British Columbia, throughout the province — the East Kootenays, the West Kootenays, the Okanagan, the north and Vancouver Island. You know, we invite them to come back.

We've moved from 29 to 43. I think, just so that the public keeps this in context, the 29 that were over the period that the minister gave me represented about 6 percent of the available space. There's still lots of room for improvement. I think the people of B.C. would be happy that it's moved to 43. I think there's also a recognition within PavCo and that decisions have been made to try to strengthen the marketing.

Those are all positive things, but there's a recognition that there's still a tremendous amount more that needs to be done. So I would appreciate that list, and I look forward to that.

Just a question, back to the…. Well, still with the convention centre, just very quickly. How regularly does the minister meet with the chair of PavCo to talk about not only this project, the Vancouver convention centre expansion project? Presumably, from the day he got the job, the minister said that was focus number one for him — to make sure he paid close attention to that. How often is he meeting with the chair of PavCo? Are there going to be any concerns around delays?

The second part of the question is: is he going to confirm publicly that the number that was put out is still a firm number in his mind? So those two questions.

Hon. S. Hagen: Another good-news question, which I really appreciate. In answer to how many times I meet with the chair and the CEO, it's very, very regularly. The board meets monthly. I receive monthly reports.

In answer to the second part of your question, the $883.2 million figure is the number. We will complete the project at that number, and we will complete it on or before March 15 of '09.

N. Macdonald: Have there been any changes in the scope of the project to keep that number firm?

N. Macdonald: Just jumping to something that I was curious about in terms of how the architects are paid. I noticed in one document that they had the architectural fee for $565 million, and then they had a different fee structure for $615 million. Is the architect's fee based upon the price or the cost of the project? What is the structure for paying the architectural firms?

It's just that the two numbers seem to work as a percentage. How are the architectural firms being paid? Is it a percentage of the cost of the project?

Hon. S. Hagen: To be clear, it's not based on the percentage of the value of the contract, and VCCEP has followed industry best practices in its procurement process and the awarding of the contracts to the architect.

N. Macdonald: If you can give, in two sentences, just a quick layman's explanation of best practice for the architects so that I can understand a bit more the growth in the numbers. Is that possible?

I'm looking at staff. Is it possible to give a two-sentence layman's explanation for how that fee structure works, please?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by staff that the procurement process was a competitive process. Then the bids that came in from the architectural firms were evaluated, and negotiations took place to get the best value for money that we could get.

Coming back to B.C. Place, there are a number of companies that have been active and are working, trying to come up with options for government around the roofing. For those companies — just to help me understand, and this is something I haven't asked research to do anything with — just in a quick look, I have not seen any proposals or reference for proposals.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, or maybe I don't understand the process. But has the government started to engage people and put out proposals? If you haven't, when you move ahead, is it going to be the normal procurement process? Or is all of that going to be decided after the cabinet makes a decision about the project? Would there be one sort of procurement process if, before the Olympics, there's an attempt to…?

A number of questions there, but basically, with the procurement process, as I follow this, where am I going to be finding the information? Would you be following the normal procurement process, or is there something that's going to be different? If the minister could explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. S. Hagen: The process will be that PavCo will follow the normal procurement process, and that information will be posted on their website.

N. Macdonald: I'm going to jump back to the convention centre. I apologize for jumping back and forth, but here we go. The Auditor General's report did not attempt to talk about whether or not the project was a reasonable project to enter into. So one of the things that I've tried to go back and look for is essentially the business case to move ahead.

The only thing that I've found, I think, is the KPMG report that talked about the need for the convention centre and asserted a number of things. Yet to me, unfamiliar with these sorts of projects, it seems a very slim sort of rationale for entering into a billion-dollar project.

So the question is: is that the basis for making the decision to go ahead, or is there a wider body that would make up the business case for moving ahead?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm having real trouble dealing with these good-news questions. I think the member opposite will be pleased to know that the process of the consideration of an expanded trade and convention centre started back in 1993-1994. You've seen the quotes of Premier Glen Clark at that time talking about the necessity and the backing for the expanded convention centre, which was stimulated because the existing one was full. Of course, the backing came from industry, from Tourism Vancouver, from the hotel association, from the board of trade.

The only comment I will add is that by not doing it, not actually getting going then, we've probably lost about a billion dollars in economic activity. But the good news is that we can make that up now. PavCo is working very, very hard to make sure that the expanded convention centre will be full long into the future.

N. Macdonald: One of the interesting things about the job is that you learn to understand that basically, when the minister says "good news…." I mean, with the earlier one, I don't think a project that's gone from $495 million to $892 million is what most people would consider good news. But I certainly appreciate the political skill of a veteran who knows how to stand and put a good spin on everything. That's seen as quite laudable here.

The other part of it is the question I asked about a particular study in there. I guess there really is no particular document that I could turn to. I asked about the KPMG. I've read that. It's a pretty thin document that makes a number of assertions that have not turned out to be accurate in any way, perhaps not predictably.

There were assumptions around the dollar. There were many things that haven't been predictable about the growth in the sector. I think what KPMG talked about is numbers that we had in '96-97 that simply haven't been repeated. In fact, we have come down substantially. That has to do with factors that are mainly external.

But the central question was: is that the document that was the basis for moving forward? If it was or if you have a different document, you can let me know. If not, then I can move on to the next question. Basically, is that the document that was the basis for the decision?

Hon. S. Hagen: This leads me to another good-news comment. I am told by staff, because I wasn't here in the '90s, that there were many, many reports commissioned and done by various groups that pointed towards the need for an enlarged, expanded convention centre.

You know, the member opposite keeps talking about the number, the 883 number, which I had said many times I'm not happy about either. But I would remind

him that a former Premier at that time, Premier Glen Clark, had said that an NDP government was prepared to commit, if they had to, $900 million to build this.

I would remind the member that of the $883 million, the province of B.C.'s contribution is $540.7 million. The federal government's contribution is $222½ million, and then, of course, Tourism Vancouver, through the hotel tax, is putting in $90 million.

N. Macdonald: I don't want to get pulled off into numbers because the $90 million is still provincial. I know it's being paid back, but there's still…. Substantially, that's the provincial part. Actually, no, I really don't want to get pulled off on this.

I have a question about…. Back to B.C. Place. There will need to be a restructuring. B.C. Place is going to get a new roof. Unfortunately, what the opposition is left to do is depend upon media sources for information on that.

What the media is reporting is that PavCo has said to wait until after the Olympics before there is an attempt to put on a retractable roof. So the preferred option that was put in front of cabinet is that PavCo is saying there needs to be a retractable roof. That's something that would reasonably be done after the Olympics.

There are other reports about other options that are before cabinet. I know that the answer from the minister will be, "If it's before cabinet, I'm not talking about it," and I respect that.

So here's the question. The question is: when did the minister ask PavCo to bring forward recommendations on the roof of B.C. Place? What was the first date that either the minister asked PavCo or that PavCo, any officer of PavCo, suggested to the government that the roof issue needed to be decided upon?

Hon. S. Hagen: I guess I would begin the answer with a cautionary note, and that is that I wouldn't put too much basis in the newspaper articles. I know they look factual, but they — as I said to reporters yesterday — may or may not be correct. I would really caution the member. I mean, I respect the fact that reporters have to write something, and in this case, they have written something.

With regard to when I had my first discussions with PavCo with regard to the roof, it was several months ago. I don't remember the exact date, but the work is stepping up. It's been progressing well. I think that, as I've said before, when the recommendations come to the government, government will consider those recommendations, decide on a path to take and make that decision and then let the public know.

N. Macdonald: What I would ask is if the minister could provide a calendar of his meetings over the past period. I know that that's a regular FOI request. It's one that does come to us — what's the proper word? — in a fairly straightforward way, and it's a useful document. I guess what I would ask the minister is to provide a list of meetings.

In particular, we would be interested in a list of meetings over, I guess, this year that included, in particular, PavCo. So if the minister could provide that list of meetings and dates — perhaps staff could provide that — we would appreciate it.

Can I jump back to B.C. Place? The minister said that the recommendations from the Joint Health and Safety Committee had been implemented, and the minister mentioned that there was an independent audit of the operations department. Now, my understanding was that there was a grievance around that particular recommendation. Can the minister tell me who is actually doing the independent audit on the operations department?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said in my answer to that question before, this is in progress. The management is contracting with a company for an operational assessment, and it's not completed yet. So it's in progress.

N. Macdonald: What company is going to be brought in? Which company are you talking with, and what time period do you have in terms of expectations for bringing this external audit in?

Hon. S. Hagen: The negotiations are underway with the company now for the scope of services. Once that is complete and the work is underway, PavCo expects to have the information in 90 days.

N. Macdonald: I might come back to this, but just to help me understand…. Earlier on the minister talked about certain contracts being procured, but I don't see the contracts on B.C. Bid. You have a number of people — or a number of companies — that are on site. You have Geniver, Stantec, Dominion, Mud Bay Drilling.

You've got all of these companies. I guess what I need the minister to explain to me is: were these people brought in through the normal procurement process, and where would I have found those? Did I just miss them? I don't see them on B.C. Bid.

How were those contracts led or how were any of the contracts that the minister was referring to…? I think earlier on he was talking about that certain contracts have been procured. I guess the question for me, as I try to watch this file, is: how did I miss them, or have I just misunderstood the minister?

Hon. S. Hagen: You're getting a bit technical here for me, but I'm happy to try and work your way through this.

First of all, the proper procurement procedures were followed. A consultant was hired to canvass the community to see the talent that was out there. Three bids were received. Some of this has to do with design or possible design. Some of it is preconstruction or

constructability, looking at the options, what needs to be done. This is very minor work that's being done compared to what may be done, and as I say, the proper procurement procedures were followed. Certainly the major works that are going to be done, if they are going to be done, would be posted on the website.

N. Macdonald: I'll just jump back to the previous answer. The Joint Health and Safety Committee recommendation to have an independent audit of the operations…. It sounds like that's something we're just getting to. Now, three weeks ago there was certainly a grievance in place. Did the grievance push that recommendation to come forward? Or what's the explanation for a report that's been there for quite a long time and only now do you have this external audit being prepared for? Is it the grievance that pushed that? What's the explanation for why it would possibly take that long?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by senior staff here that they are not aware of a grievance. So obviously the grievance isn't what drove this. The recommendations that they have done or are dealing with…. I also listed out the extra additional things that they've done.

N. Macdonald: Okay. Thank you very much. There are reports of riggers on the roof, some people say daily. So the question is: is that an accurate report? Are there riggers on the roof? How often are they there, and what work are they doing? This is the B.C. Place roof, of course.

Hon. S. Hagen: I am told by senior staff that this is just regular business. People are up there checking the roof to make sure that everything is okay.

N. Macdonald: How often are the riggers on the roof? What would be the number of times that they're there? How would that compare to previous years? Is this something that is now being done more often?

What part of the roof are they working with, and what specific concerns are they up there for? Conceivably, since there have been major issues with the roof or since its due date is close, they'd be up there more often.

Specifically, what are they up there doing? How often? How does it compare to previous years?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by staff that this is part of regular assessment of the roof, that the people up there are doing stress tests. They're doing this on a regular basis, but a lot of it has to do with preparing the options of what kind of roof the structure would support, which is part of the report that government is awaiting from PavCo.

N. Macdonald: Just so I have a better understanding, my assumption was that it was primarily based upon the roof. Maybe just in terms of clarity, the riggers — which company? What is the scope and the size of their contract, in terms of what they're up there doing?

Just so that I understand, the minister talked about looking at the structure of the rim. Is that what they're up there doing, or are they looking at the actual roof? Is it simply assessment of the roof, or is it actual repairs or anything like that? So just a broader sense of exactly what they're doing — specifically, the company, what their contract is in terms of length of time and approximately how much they would get paid over the year.

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have that information here, but I make a commitment to you that we will get back to you with the name of the company and the value of the contract.

N. Macdonald: How much is the total for roof maintenance in the course of a year, and what is expected for next year? What's the total being spent on roof maintenance presently?

Hon. S. Hagen: I will include that information together with the information of the previous question, because we don't have it broken out from the regular maintenance.

N. Macdonald: Okay, I'll come back to that in a minute. I'm just going to jump, again, back and forth to the convention centre.

Mr. Podmore was brought on. What was the first date of your conversation with Mr. Podmore about what the board structure was going to look like? When was the first conversation that you had with Mr. Podmore? Here I'm working on a number of assumptions — that you approached Mr. Podmore. I remember that we talked about this last year. Of course, he brings tremendous credibility and skill to what he's doing, but when was the first time that you talked to him about how you wanted to restructure the board that was responsible for the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion process?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't remember the exact date of the meeting, but I'm holding a press release dated April 13, 2007, which announces the merging of the PavCo and VCCEP boards and the appointment of David Podmore as the chair of the merged board.

N. Macdonald: This is another one that we really don't have a great deal of time to deal with, but it's just another example of the FOI process with the ministry. I understand that it's not the staff here who make the decisions. That's what the minister has said — that it's a different process. But it's a merger that I want to understand. The difficulty for me is that I'm not given the information that I should have to understand that, so it's difficult for me to do the job that I'm paid to do.

Now, we FOI'd any of the discussions, any of the meetings that the minister had, related to the merging of the board. Presumably, there were meetings or discussions, or there would be something. All that we received was one letter that was sent to the people that

eventually joined the board, congratulating them and thanking them for agreeing — which, presumably, means there was a discussion before — to join the board. I think it is another example of where there is information that is kept from the opposition, which makes it unnecessarily difficult to meet the obligations.

So what I would ask from the minister is to have staff go back and put together the package of documents that would shine light on the process that the minister went through in restructuring those boards. It's sort of an odd structure. It was timely to move away from the existing board — very timely. I think the minister realizes that, but we have an obligation to understand it and to ask questions.

The question for the minister is: will he go back and ask staff to provide the documentation that was requested through the FOI — documentation that would be much more than what we have, which is, pretty clearly, inadequate?

Hon. S. Hagen: To the member opposite: my calendar is FOI'd every day. I mean, I would assume you already have the information of the meetings. I'm not sure what further information I can give you.

N. Macdonald: It would be like the minutes and any of the conversations that the minister would have had — just who was in the meeting, generally what the meeting was about and some of the documentation that would help us to understand that reorganization. I'll leave it with you. It's something that would be useful for us to have.

I'm going to jump to another question, because we're really stuck on time. What date does VANOC take over the expanded convention centre? What is the set date that VANOC takes over?

Hon. S. Hagen: The date for VANOC taking over the new part of the convention centre — the expanded part — is September 1, '09; the existing part, November 25, '09.

N. Macdonald: I would like to say it just seems a ridiculously short period of time that we have to go through what we do. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to turn things over pretty quickly.

I'm going to just jump quickly to a local issue, Jumbo Glacier resort. We received the briefing outlines for an announcement that was going to be made last summer. Thankfully, it wasn't. I would just question the member. Jumbo Glacier resort is of huge interest to the people in my area. I would just remind the minister that the regional district that includes it had a referendum with 73 percent or 76 percent of the people against. That's very consistent.

The government position is officially that the decision would be basically a zoning decision made by the regional district of East Kootenay. There has always been background noise that the government would work in a different direction. I think assurance from the minister that that would not be the case would be reasonable.

I also think that the facts that the minister was given around the project — that you had responses from people in the area about what they believe is a more accurate portrayal of what is going on — were provided to the minister.

Just a question. Is the government still committed, as they should be, to their promise to have this a decision that will be made by the regional district of East Kootenay? Is there any truth to the assertion from the proponent that the Treasury Board has provided money to deal with first nations interests in the area related to the project?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I'm sure the member knows, we're in the middle of consultation with the first nations. I'm not going to make any comments with regard to Jumbo that might jeopardize those negotiations.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister just a question around the government's goal to double tourism by 2015. I think it was one of those goals that the government has made on a number of topics. When they made it in 2005, where they felt they were confident that tourism, under its own momentum and under its own weight, was going to achieve those targets with government having to do very little…. It's similar to the literacy goal to become the most literate jurisdiction, when we already are only exceeded by the Yukon, and that's why you're not seeing any coordination or any new investment into literacy programming in B.C.

I think it's the same with tourism. You're not seeing a substantial strategy. I have some questions later on about how that plays out in my community. But I wanted to ask the minister, in tracking that commitment to double tourism by 2015, whether he has, I presume, a benchmark year from the tourism organizations and the tourism sector itself.

I wanted to ask him about performance measurement in his own ministry. We had the summer and full seasons of tourism in 2006-2007, where we are in 2008 now. I want to ask him about where we are in achieving that target to date, because we're almost one-third of the way through that.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yeah, the challenge to industry to double tourism by 2015 was, I think, a big challenge. It was a good challenge, and I'm pleased to say that we're on track on that challenge.

R. Fleming: Could the minister be more precise in providing, maybe, figures about what being "on track" means? I know that he was very careful in his answer to say that it's a challenge for industry, but it's his government's goal. So his government has responsibility to work with industry to do what it takes to achieve that, to make B.C. an attractive jurisdiction.

The tourism market is global. It's competitive. B.C. has to stand out as a place to continue to grow its share. It does very well on tourism. There are sustained decades of initiative to promote this place, so I'd like

some precise numbers. "On track" doesn't quite do it, I don't think, as a measurable.

Hon. S. Hagen: Again, I just appreciate these questions from the opposition that lead to good-news answers. I want to thank them very much for that.

I have some numbers here for '07, but I want to go back to '06 first of all. Last year, for '06, the target in growth was 3.5 percent, and we achieved 4 percent in overall tourism growth. The '07 numbers — I'm going to give you some numbers here, but the final '07 numbers are not available till the end of '08, till this year. This sort of indicates B.C. tourism performance. That is, the provincial room revenues grew by 7.9 percent, hotel occupancy increased by 1.3 percent, and the provincial average room rate advanced by 5.7 percent. Vancouver International Airport passenger volumes grew by 3.4 percent. Victoria International Airport volumes increased by 6.6 percent.

R. Fleming: I know that some tourism associations…. My own here in Victoria is trying to figure out how to remain competitive with gas prices, with passport issues, with all kinds of things. The minister cited increasing prices as a sign of attraction for tourism. I think some tourism associations are trying to turn their communities' homelessness crisis into an urban-blight sort of market niche for tourists to come and see, because right now it's a detraction, and all the exit surveys are showing that growing concern.

Perhaps the minister is working with northern communities — I don't know — on having pine beetle tourism or any of those kinds of things, but it is a concern. The market is changing, and I think the concern is that the government has always had this view that tourism will double by 2015 by itself and that we don't have to do anything. I think we're into tougher times now, and I think it requires a government to do more and work more closely with industry.

I wanted to ask the minister some questions around a task force that he's well aware of on the future of the Belleville international ferry terminal. We're celebrating the 150th anniversary of the province of B.C., and I don't think that facility has changed all that much in 150 years unfortunately. It looks that decrepit and aged right now when you approach it.

It is a major gateway for a million visitors to the capital region. This is an important tourism market in B.C. For seven years this government has done nothing to advance the revitalization and the renewal of that facility. They have talked. They have had studies. They have had reports, and we've had no action.

They inherited a situation where that land had been rezoned, where three levels of government cooperated and consolidated property on that site, where rezoning was done at the city that entitled new usages on that site. Everything was done. There are even funds that the city of Victoria has to redo Belleville Street as a pedestrian boulevard, but the province has never come to the table once with any money, has never taken the lead on redeveloping its own property. They insist that the city should do it.

I know this minister named…. He calls it a mayor's task force. There was a Belleville task force report delivered last summer. It was unanimously panned by all the editorial boards and anyone who knows anything in the tourism sector in this town as a flawed report. I think it's actually the minister's task force. He should take some credit, because he had staff that sat on that panel. He wrote the terms of reference himself. It came out of the government. The terms of reference said from day one that the province wouldn't contribute a dollar, so I wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions about that.

First of all, can he confirm the members of the "mayor's task force," if it included an assistant deputy minister and also if he had a ministerial assistant that attended meetings of that task force on his behalf? Also, could he describe the role of Larry Blain at Partnerships B.C. in reviewing that report?

Hon. S. Hagen: I must say I feel sorry for the member's attitude when it comes to tourism. I would hate to walk around with that black cloud hanging over my head every day looking for all of the mud puddles to step in.

The Chair: Member for Delta North, would you please allow the speaker to have the floor?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm holding up and I'm going to present this through you, Mr. Chair, to the member so that he can become educated on what this government has done for tourism and what was not done for tourism in the 1990s, which was a dark decade. For members who are a member of that party, which was a governing party in the 1990s, I don't blame them for seeing the dark clouds.

This government has increased funding to Tourism B.C. Tourism B.C.'s budget when we became government was $25 million a year. This government increased that to $50 million a year. This year, they will get $62½ million.

The government then produced the Tourism Action Plan, which I just presented the member with. It lays out all kinds of targets and all kinds of ways that we're going to double tourism. Tourism British Columbia then took this plan and adjusted their working plan to the government's plan. That plan was produced with the cooperation of the tourism industry around the province.

When I was up in the Kootenays with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke for the winter games, I met with the Kootenays tourism association. I want to tell you that you want to be very, very proud of what that tourism organization has accomplished up there in cooperation with the tourism industry, because they've done a great job. They're one of the top destination marketing organizations in the province.

Then the other thing we did as a government was we created Aboriginal Tourism B.C. — $5 million to help the aboriginal community focus on and determine how they want to organize and sell their product. As we all know, the aboriginal brand is a very, very powerful brand.

The room nights in Victoria are tracking well. Besides the money that goes to Tourism B.C., the government gave $25 million to the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We provided that money so that communities around the province could apply to the UBCM for grants, because we felt that it was better for the UBCM — that they could do a better job than government could.

On top of that, we gave $12 million to the regions — $2 million to each of the regions — to help with regional marketing plans. So for that member to stand there and pontificate about this government not doing anything about tourism is absurd.

R. Fleming: My question to the minister was for him to confirm that he had political staff in his office sitting on the "mayor's task force" on the Belleville terminal and ministry staff sitting on that task force. So I think we know that that's the case, so he can ignore that question again if he wants. We also know that Larry Blain from Partnerships B.C. did review the report and said it was unworkable and unmanageable. I'm wondering if there's a written opinion in that regard.

Because the minister has had this file for a long time, I wanted to ask him a further question. Has he ever taken all the knowledge he has and all that he's heard from the tourism sector in Victoria about the importance of redeveloping Belleville terminal, has he ever taken all of the investment that he's made into studying it and studying it some more and made a submission to cabinet? I wonder if he's actually taken the leadership to drive to his cabinet colleagues and try and achieve support to redevelop Belleville terminal. So if he could answer that very directly, I'd really appreciate it.

I want to leave him with one thought. The Belleville task force failed to identify a workable model. Larry Blain said that. Other people said that. Even the chair of that task force said: "Hey, the terms of reference were given to us by the government. They were an unworkable terms of reference, and hence the report is not adequate and will not get the job done to redevelop Belleville terminal."

So I want to ask him if he has ever — because he talked about how successful the Vancouver Airport and the Victoria Airport have been in drawing more visitors to our regions — looked at an airport authority–style model, a private but government-shareholder type of entity that would control and lead the redevelopment of that terminal.

I know that the four international ferry operators there would favour it. They have agreed, and for some of them, this is a first. They've never agreed to this before, but they have agreed that they would allow a departure fee to go into the terminal. They would collect that revenue through sales of tickets. So that's a revenue stream that would allow them not to rely on government borrowing. Government has always said, "Look, we don't want to directly invest capital," but a combination of loans or grants and also the ability and the authority to collect revenue would be able to get the job done and finally redevelop this.

I know the minister wants visitors in 2010 to see all of B.C. put their best foot forward to the world, and we want to do that here in Victoria through that terminal. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether he's looked at that idea, whether he's ever put a submission forward to cabinet in the wake of the task force report not providing a workable, feasible answer last summer.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm actually going to change my tone in answering this question, because I appreciate the comments that the member has made. We are not on different pages on that. We're looking at all possibilities with regard to Belleville Street.

I agree that this is a gateway not only to Victoria, but a gateway to British Columbia; it's a gateway to Canada. So we are working with the owners or the people who own the vessels that go in and out of there with the harbour authority. It's certainly on my radar screen, and we'll continue to work with the city of Victoria.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

N. Macdonald: …that we're finishing now? Is that the idea? That was the agreed-to time?

N. Macdonald: Okay, well, I'll just say one thing on the record. As I said at the beginning, the decision by government to compress estimates into this ridiculously short period of time…. I mean, I think it does a disservice to not only the democratic process but just to this ministry. Two hours, with all of the things that need to be talked about, is just a complete disservice.

I want to put that on the record. I know we voted against it, and I know the government imposed it on us, but it's a real problem. And with that….

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.