2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Morning Sitting

Volume 38, Number 3

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2012

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: I call Motion 47, followed by Motion 46, this morning.

Mr. Speaker: And in the other House.

Hon. T. Lake: In the Douglas Fir Committee Room we have the estimates for the Ministry of Health followed by the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 47 — COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
TO SIT IN THREE SECTIONS

Hon. R. Coleman: I move Motion 47:

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in three sections designated Section A, Section B, and Section C; and that the provisions of the motion adopted February 28, 2012 related to Section A apply to Section C. The Members of Committee of Supply, Section C shall be identical to the composition of Committee of Supply, Section A.]

I came to this House 16 years ago. When I arrived in this House 16 years ago, for the next five years I sat as a member of this House for the entire month of July and oftentimes into the middle of August. The House was brought back around the 31st of March. It had no set dates, and it had no times for operation. There was not a summer in the first five years that we didn't lose at least half our summer with an opportunity to be back in our constituencies or spend time with our families.

It wasn't unusual — it actually happened twice, in my recollection, and for sure once — where the interim supply bill, which was brought in at the end of March to put the funding in place for government to operate, would be debated over and into Good Friday because the House really had no rules with regards to it. Frankly, as we all know, for previous governments — not just the previous government to us but previous governments to that — it was somewhat legislation by exhaustion.

We changed that when we put in some set times and sittings for the House. That was actually to let members have the opportunity, if they were able to do the work in a rational way and get it done, to be able to be back in their constituencies during break weeks to be able to do the work that is needed for the constituencies but, at the same time, be able to know when the House was sitting and when the work could get done.

This motion today is, in my mind, the next evolution for this House. Other jurisdictions for some time have incorporated the practice outlined in this motion, which is to actually split into a House for committee stage of bills.

[1005]

The opposition will say that the only place that you can do a committee stage bill is in this House. I don't believe that two people asking questions of each other, across from each other, need to take up the time in this Legislature. There's other work to be done.

The notion of referring the committee stage debate of bills to a venue other than this chamber is hardly revolutionary here in British Columbia. It actually is referenced in paragraph 8 of the motion to divide and go into estimates debates of Section A. Nor is the substantive motion before the House today revolutionary in nature. My immediate predecessor as House Leader put the same motion before the House as far back as May 2008. At that time the opposition again rejected it out of hand.

By leave, we could have started this debate last week. We have, as a result, lost two days, which would have been the equivalent — and at four days this week and four days next week — to having committee stage debate that would have been two weeks of debate.

As I sat and reviewed the debates yesterday on second reading of a bill before this House, I became even more convinced that this was necessary. There are times in this House when both sides of the House actually go off the message, I guess you would say, and actually take a bill and rag it or do things with it to delay it. They can certainly do the same thing in committee stage.

In my own debates earlier this week in committee stage I was asked the same questions twice by two different critics. It is time for the scope of differences and philosophies to take a separation, to come back together and think about what is best for the bills and the work of this House.

As I said, occasionally members can carry this opportunity to extremes and degrade the quality of the debate. But in the main, second reading debates are thoughtful, measured and informative and are a credit to members on both sides.

Then there is the heavy-lifting part of crafting viable modern laws in the committee stage debate. When the technicians and experts have done their work, it is time for the Legislature to discuss it. In committee stage of debate, that work can be done in any committee room of this House, in my opinion.

It is a way of getting the work done: to actually use the resources of the people that are here, to actually use the resources of the people that are on staff here to their maximum and to their best efficiency. It is time, I think, for the opposition to work with us on this because, frankly, I think it's important that we be able to do this.

As the members know, there's a very substantial bill before this House, and that is the PST legislation. The NDP, the opposition, want to have a good amount of time to
[ Page 11932 ]
debate it in committee stage. This allows for that to happen as well as get the rest of the work of the House done. There are seasoned critics on the other side of the House that are quite able to defend, discuss, argue and question a bill without extensive support. It is my argument that bills attached to these critics are prime examples of those which can go into a third House for detailed canvassing in the committee stage.

This motion before the House goes from when we used to sit by exhaustion. Just as an example, it was not uncommon for estimates debates in this House to go to 1 a.m. day after day — very common as we went in the House. In the early years, the first five years I was here, it was not uncommon at all to actually be sitting till 11 o'clock at night, every night, to be able to debate, basically, estimates debates and bills.

It is important that we use this building and the resources in it to their best ability. I believe that simply by going into committee stage of debate for bills that we think are necessary, that would actually give the equivalent of the two weeks of debate the opposition has asked for, would save money for government, would use resources of the building and the people that are here and the Hansard staff that are here today and be able to get on with the work.

Unfortunately, I suspect we will now spend a number of hours debating the fact that we don't want to go to work, that we don't want to actually go into a third House and extend the ability to get things done. That's fine. That is democracy. That is part of how this is. But once it's done, this House will move to be in committee stage of debates in two Houses so that we can get the work done.

[1010]

J. Horgan: I'll be the designated speaker on this motion for the official opposition. I want to thank the Government House Leader for his brief comments this morning. Over the next number of minutes and time available to me, I will not just dissect his arguments but also put forward some arguments that I believe are compelling and that those on this side of the House believe are compelling, not just for you, hon. Speaker, and for members of this place but for the broader public as well.

Quite often what we do here is cloaked in a sense of elitism, that it's only those that were elected in the 85 electoral districts around British Columbia that are able and entitled to participate in the debates that take place here. To a certain extent, that's true. As the Government House Leader said, when a bill is tabled here, it is only members of the Legislature that have the opportunity to stand and offer criticisms or offer support for whatever that legislative amendment or consequence might be.

But it's the public of British Columbia that need to know what we're doing here, and it's the public of British Columbia that need to better understand why we are amending laws, why we're bringing forward policies that will affect their daily lives — not just in their families and not just in their neighbourhoods but in their communities, in their cities, in their regions and, in fact, across the province.

What we as an opposition are trying to do is to ensure that there is full and comprehensive debate on the issues that have been brought forward by the government of the day. Now, members will know that there are some 21 bills remaining for debate, hundreds of pages — 700 or 800 pages of clauses that will materially affect and change how we look at each other, how we work together, how we interact as a society.

That's a big deal, hon. Speaker, and I believe it's something that not just our team and their team have a responsibility to address. I think that it speaks to not just the government's complete lack of understanding of the changing community which we represent right across B.C. but the changing shape of this Legislature as well.

We have three independent members in this place, and that has materially changed how we work as an "us versus them" — as government versus opposition. Those independent members have the same rights as a government minister, the same rights as an opposition critic, the same rights as the Deputy Speaker or the Assistant Deputy Speaker: to participate in debates not just on a whim, on a fancy, but in the interest of the people that sent them here, in the interest of the public of British Columbia.

One of the interesting aspects of this motion…. I'll take some time to read it so the public has a better understanding of just what it is we're doing here. We are extending a motion that was passed in February of 2012 creating a Committee A.

We have two places here. We have this chamber, which is now being televised, and Hansard is recording what we say. We have learned Clerks at the Clerks' table advising us on procedure. We have the venerable Speaker overseeing the proceedings and ensuring that the debate is thorough, comprehensive, civil and in the best interest of not just the individual standing, not just the party we represent, but the people of B.C. and the integrity of this institution.

That's a big deal, hon. Speaker. I know that you take it very seriously. I know that the Clerks do, the opposition does, and I know that the government does as well. But something as basic as changing the way we function here should have as near unanimous support as you can get.

The Government House Leader and myself have been talking about the avalanche of legislation. We've been trying to find a way, a cooperative way, to get to a point where we can have a civil discourse. We can disagree on points, and we can improve legislation if possible, if the government is willing. In fact, there are examples over the past number of weeks where that very thing has happened. My colleague from Saanich South, working with the Agriculture Minister, made a piece of legislation bet-
[ Page 11933 ]
ter. That's a good thing. It requires a sense of cooperation.

There are disagreements on issues — absolutely. We'll be hearing that throughout the day, and we'll be hearing it over the next six days. But that should not cripple us in our ability to make positive change and to make that change thoughtful. Why are we here today? Why do we come to this impasse? Because of the government's inability to manage their legislative agenda.

We have been here for three months. In the first two months there were 15 pieces of legislation tabled. In the last three weeks there've been 15 pieces of legislation tabled. One is a 160-page document that changes the tax system in British Columbia. Will we have, over the next six days, an opportunity to discuss…?

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Oh, would you knock it off just for one minute — one minute.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: Guess who.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

[1015]

In preparing this motion, we go back to February 28. The motion says as follows, under part 3: "Section A shall consist of 17 Members, being 10 Members of the B.C. Liberal Party and 6 Members of the New Democratic Party and one Independent." That's the configuration of Committee A.

Historically, Committee A has dealt with the budget estimates. I do not recall in my time here as a legislator or in my time here as a staff person that ever did we have legislation debated in Committee A. That has not happened. It has never happened. This is a first.

But not only are they going to compound that first with another first; they're going to bifurcate yet again into a third chamber. So we will have two committees outside of this place. According to this motion, the configuration of that committee room, which I think we're now calling committee room C, or Section C, will be the same as Committee A. Now the interesting part of that is if you read further into the section, it says "where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved," only the Whip will be able to change that configuration.

On our side in Committee A, I am a member, and my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, my colleagues from Fraser-Nicola, Vancouver-Kensington, Nelson-Creston and Surrey–Green Timbers — I'm doing very well at taking these names and making them into constituencies — and the independent member for Delta South. Now, the only way, according to this motion passed by this Legislature, that we can change that is with the approval of the Whip.

The member for Delta South doesn't have a Whip. She is an independent, but yet a member of that committee, and now will be named a member of Committee C, or Section C.

The member for Cariboo North, the member for Abbotsford South — both independents — are excluded by this motion from participating not just in the debates, if the member for Delta South chooses to stay in her place, but they're also prohibited from voting. Because as I understand the rules, votes in Committee A and Committee C must be done by the members who comprise that committee.

That means, by extension, that when we take the legislation from here after second reading and put it into Committee A or Committee C, only those members named in this motion are entitled to vote unless there is an agreement — unanimous agreement — of this place.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Is this a committee stage debate, hon. Speaker, or am I able to speak unimpeded on this motion?

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Juan de Fuca has the floor.

J. Horgan: I know that those on the other side prefer to make this appear like a gong show for those that are watching at home, but there are a number of British Columbians that might take a passing interest in the fact that their Member of the Legislative Assembly, by this motion, is precluded from voting on particular aspects unless they get approval from the other side of the House.

That is taking away the rights of the member for Cariboo North, the member for Abbotsford South and, by extension, other members of the opposition and the government not named in this motion.

Unanimous consent would be required if the government said: "Let's have a vote, but we'll bring everybody into the committee room" or "Let's have a vote. We'll bring it back here." If one member said no, we would be excluding a whole host of members from participating in the democratic process. That is what we will be reaping when we sow these seeds that the member has brought forward. Not an insignificant issue, but one that speaks to the inability of the B.C. Liberal Party to manage the affairs in this place.

I have to take issue also with the member's comments about the old days. He was able to stand and say: "Oh, when I was in opposition, it was terrible. It was terrible back in those days." We had an opportunity to debate
[ Page 11934 ]
well into the evening. We had an opportunity to debate thoroughly and comprehensively everything that the government brought forward. "It was outrageous," said the Government House Leader. "Shame on the government for allowing full and complete debate on the issues of the day."

What we do by this motion is confirm that we are going to shorten debate. We are going to shut people down. We're not going to allow every member of this place to stand and deliver on behalf of the people who sent them here. That is what's going to happen as a result of this motion.

The Government House Leader has talked about time allocation. He's come in periodically with much bluster and said: "You're ragging the puck. You're delaying debate." The point of this place, hon. Speaker…. You know full well, and your learned associates at the Clerks' table know full well that it's an opportunity to share ideas, to disagree respectfully — and, hopefully, politely — in the best interests of the people who sent us here.

[1020]

Quite often in the middle part of the day we stand for half an hour and yell back and forth at each other. The government reminds us of how terrible things were, and the opposition reminds us of how good things could be. That's called question period. That's separate and distinct from the important work that the Government House Leader so ably outlined for the people who are paying attention right now.

Making laws is why we come here. We're members of the Legislature. Part and parcel of that is having the opportunity, if we choose to, to represent our constituents. By separating yet again, into three places, it makes it increasingly difficult for us to do that.

The Government House Leader said: "We're adding extra hours." One of the motions that we'll be debating later in the day adds a couple of hours on a Wednesday night, twice — that will be four hours all up — and maybe a couple of hours on Monday. That's six hours, all compressed into a time frame that makes it difficult for opposition critics and for government members to canvass their constituents on the issues of the day and to ensure that what we're doing here is in the best interest of the public. That's why we're here. We reach out to stakeholders.

There are a number of bills before us today — Bill 52, Bill 44 — that are materially changing the justice system in British Columbia. The government retained a high-priced legal official, whose name escapes me. My colleague the Attorney General critic….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Geoff Cowper — well regarded, highly respected. He's doing a review right now on the justice system. While he's going about it, at multiple thousands of dollars a week, to find out what's the best course for us to follow into the future — what trail shall we blaze? — the government has brought forward two changes to our judicial system without consulting with anybody.

They didn't talk to trial lawyers, didn't talk to the Bar Association, didn't talk to anybody. They've got a guy going around the province trying to make the thing better, and in the meantime, we've got two bills before this place that they didn't talk to anybody about.

It's incumbent upon the opposition to do that. That's our job. In an adversarial system the government proposes, and the opposition opposes. That's what we do. But it's usually designed — as I said, with my colleague from Saanich South and the Agriculture Minister — to try and make it better, at the end of the day, not just to hear ourselves talk.

I know that as I carry on this morning my friend from Kamloops–South Thompson will decide he's had enough of listening to me, but that's just tough, hon. Speaker, because I was sent here by my constituents to make the case on behalf of not just me but them as well; not just the New Democratic Party but the people who sent me here and a vast array of other British Columbians across this province who have the right to hear from a member of the Legislature and get that question: "What do you think about this? I've got a bill before me that will materially change your life. Do you have anything to say about that?"

Quite often — and I know government members do this as well — when we consult with constituents, when we consult with stakeholders, what we get back is positive feedback: "Thanks for asking. This is my concern." We bring it here, we raise it in debates, and hopefully, the world is a better place at the end of that.

The government could not manage their legislative agenda, and as a result we are now, on the whim of the government, changing how we do things here and, in my opinion, materially deteriorating our ability to do our job.

A couple of the proposals that I made to the Government House Leader. First and foremost was that we add a couple of weeks — not hours. It's not about hours, and I think it's important that the Government House Leader understands that. We can sit until 11 o'clock or two in the morning. That will not give us more time to communicate with the people that are affected by these 20 bills. It will not give us sufficient time.

If we had another two weeks in linear time, that would give us an opportunity to consult with people, to ask….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: You want us to call them at three in the morning? "Hello. I'm calling from the Legislature. We've got a bill here that's going to change your life. What do you think about it?" Do you know what they're going to say, hon. Speaker? Do you know what they're going to say when we call at three in the morning because we've
[ Page 11935 ]
only got six days left — six days to change 700 pages of legislation? They're going to say: "Get lost."

If we had a couple more weeks, we could call them during the business day. We could call them after dinner, and we could ask them what they think. It's about more days; it's not about more hours. We'll get to that as we touch upon the other motion.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I'm always delighted to hear from the Government House Leader. He could have said all of this to me instead of just saying, "I'm doing it," but if he wants to heckle me as I speak, that's fine — fine with me.

[1025]

Hon. Speaker, the Government House Leader spoke again about changing the legislative calendar. You will remember, as an opposition member back in the 1990s before you ascended to that lofty chair as our Speaker, that the old adage was that governments start debates and oppositions end debates. That was the tradition and history of this place and many other jurisdictions around the globe. Was it a bit arcane and, at some times, barbaric? Absolutely, and I don't disagree with that.

In fact, as a private citizen, when the government introduced a fixed calendar, I applauded that. I thought: "That makes eminent sense. We will debate the budget in the spring, and we'll come back in the fall and debate legislation." That was what was intended.

In fact, it's in our standing orders, hon. Speaker — Standing Order 2. That's the one just after Standing Order 1, for those who are flipping through their documents at home. It says as follows, Standing Order 2, that it is to be noted that the standing orders "relating to daily sittings has been varied from time to time by Sessional Orders." We've done a number of sessional orders, adding a few hours here, a few hours there.

The government, in my time, has used sessional orders to amend legislation, to change when we have our lunch, to limit the number of hours on particular pieces of legislation and to use what's called closure. So from time to time we change what we're doing, and that is, in fact, what they're proposing today.

It says as follows, that the sitting days will be this, that and so. Section 2: "Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet: (i) the second Tuesday in February to the last Thursday in May inclusive, and (ii) the first Monday in October to the last Thursday in November inclusive." It's in the standing orders.

I made a proposal to the Government House Leader: "I've got a plan, Member. Why don't we just follow the rules? Why don't we pass the bills that you want to pass, those that require immediate attention? For those that do not, let's stand them over the summer. Allow us to go out and talk to people about the impact of those changes and come back in the fall, as Standing Order 2 prescribes, and debate that legislation at that time."

The response from the Government House Leader: a definitive no.

So two proposals, eminently reasonable in my view. Another couple of weeks — would it kill us to spend two more weeks in the city of Victoria? I live here. It's my home. I'm not going anywhere anyhow. But I would argue that many people who live in other parts of the province would not be materially impacted by spending another couple of weeks in the city of Victoria, coming to this Legislature four days a week and debating legislation for a couple of hours a day. It would not be the end of the world for the members on that side.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson…. There must be something in the water in Kamloops. Just an overwhelming desire to interrupt people for no particular reason, just because it feels good.

Why not two more weeks?

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Do you want to let them go, or do you want me to…?

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The member for Juan de Fuca does have the floor.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Chair.

Two more weeks. "Can't happen. We're not going to do it." Abide by the fixed calendar that the Government House Leader just lauded as a revolution in democracy in British Columbia. "What we did," he says. Our New Era document, which was penned by the current Premier when she was Deputy Premier. She brought forward this innovation, and by and large, British Columbians said: "You mean you didn't have a fixed calendar before?"

"Well, no. We didn't," was the response back. Everyone thought: "Well, what a good idea. Let's be civilized. Let's have our debates in the spring about the expenditures of government, and in the fall we'll amend the laws that affect our society. We'll amend the laws that make this place, this province of ours, work. Let's do that. That's a civilized way to proceed."

When I proposed that to the Government House Leader, what was his response? "We don't want to commit to a fall session." They don't want to commit to a fall session. They want to bring in hundreds of pages of legislation in the last seven days and say that that's civilized.

They'll rail against the 1990s and the 1980s and the 1970s and the 1960s as some barbaric period in our history, and that's fair comment. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that.

At that time, hon. Member, you would recall that if
[ Page 11936 ]
the opposition had something to say, the government allowed them to say it.

Since 2005 when I was elected to this House, time allocation, closure…. How many times, hon. Speaker, do you think we've sat here in the fall? Have you ever considered that? We have it in the standing orders. Not very often. In 2005 we came in the fall because the government….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Apples and oranges, my friend. But you go ahead.

We have a fixed calendar.

Interjections.

[1030]

J. Horgan: I don't know, hon. Speaker. I should just ignore them, as they ignore democracy. I'm compelled to listen to their interventions in the vain hope that there might be something useful and constructive in that intervention. Again, I guess I'm mistaken when it comes to the members from Kamloops.

Now, the challenge for us as legislators is…. If we have a fixed calendar, we make plans accordingly. The Government House Leader lamented the fact that he had to sit here and work into the evening in the 1990s, as members did in the 1980s, 1970s, the '60s and so on and so forth. So we changed the calendar. That was an innovation that was acceptable and endorsed by virtually everyone in British Columbia under the assumption that we would follow that calendar.

In the seven years I've been here, we've done that twice. When we did it last fall, it was as a result of the current Premier changing her mind about the importance of having a mandate.

When the member for Vancouver–Point Grey was seeking the leadership of the government, she said it was important to have a mandate. "We're going to call an election." So the other innovation, a fixed election date, was going to be chucked out the window because it was expedient or appropriate, depending on your point of view, for the government to seek a new mandate under new leadership. Fair enough.

We haven't sat for any meaningful period of time for almost 12 months as a result of the change of leadership on that side, and that's fine. But the challenge, of course, was that we were going to disregard that innovation, the fixed election date.

When that changed, all of a sudden there was a requirement for legislation, a requirement for a throne speech, a whole host of things. So we sat last fall. An innovation that I also supported, and I commended the Government House Leader at the time, was rather than use closure, as his predecessor had done repeatedly, when the time ran out…. "Look, it's the end of May. We haven't finished these bills. All of them are now deemed to be passed."

I've got the list here: the Clean Energy Act; the Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act; Oil and Gas Activities Act; Medicare Protection Act; E-Health, hundreds of millions of dollars on E-Health passed without any debate; environmental species-at-risk legislation; Ministerial Accountability Act. It goes on — the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act.

My colleague the Minister of Transportation would know well that that piece of legislation was passed by closure because the government said: "Look, it's the end of May. The calendar says we will now stop this session." It also says we're going to come back in the fall, but that part was always ignored.

So the innovation that the minister is lauding is only halfway there. Yes, we're sitting in the spring. Yes, we end on a fixed date, but the assumption has always been that we're going to come back.

Last fall, when we ended our time according to the standing orders, the Government House Leader did the right thing. He didn't prorogue. He said: "We will come back in the spring and continue to debate the bills that are still on the order paper." The right thing to do, and I told him so. I said so publicly.

Rare is it the day that I stand before a microphone and commend the Government House Leader, but I did that day. I did again in the spring when the government was criticized for having the Premier go to the airwaves to have a throne speech rather than have one in this Legislature.

There were many people who wanted the opposition to assert that this was some sort of an abomination, that we needed to have the Lieutenant-Governor sitting in your chair telling us all the wonderful things the government was going to do. People said: "Get out there, member for Juan de Fuca. Condemn the Government House Leader." I didn't do it because there was no reason to. It was the right thing to do. There was legislation yet to be debated. We took a Christmas break. The world did not come to an end.

In fact, we came back here, and we continued on as if nothing had changed, in a civilized, orderly way.

What I proposed to the Government House Leader is that we do that again today, instead of splitting into three parts, where some members can participate and other members cannot — outrageous in and of itself, in my opinion. Instead of doing that, why don't we sit down as civilized individuals with a vast amount of experience — he and I and our colleagues — and determine what pieces of legislation should we pass right now? What absolutely has to be done in the interest of the people of B.C.? Let's do it.

I will make it as easy as possible for the member. We will sit extra hours. We will do whatever is required to pass those pieces of legislation under the proviso that
[ Page 11937 ]
those massive bills that don't require royal assent on May 31 because the government says so…. Let's put those off to the fall.

Let's come back in an orderly way, after consulting with the people that sent us here, talking about the issues that are important to them. Let's come back here and continue on that debate. What a reasonable thing to do.

[1035]

I know it must pain the members opposite to hear the member for Juan de Fuca being so absolutely reasonable. I know that the Education Minister is used to my reason, and he is not surprised in any way at all, but some of his colleagues may well be — that here I am, standing here saying: "This is a good idea."

Some of the bills…. I talked about the changes to the legal profession, changes to the justice system — absolutely crucial. But there's a whole host of other things. I talked about the failed election call. I talked about Standing Order 2.

I want to say, also, while I'm on my feet, hon. Speaker…. I know that I'm indulging myself here, and I know you'll give me some latitude — he said hopefully. We came back in the fall of 2008 for one week, and that was to debate the economic stimulus package. Remember that? Remember the economic stimulus package?

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Yeah, yeah. Ferry fares were going to be frozen for a week and a half over Christmas, and one of the elements of the ten-point plan was to recall the Legislature. So we kind of had to come here because it said in the ten-point plan that we would. We didn't do anything once we arrived. We passed a couple of things. We had a few question periods, and then they could check off box No. 10: "Recall Legislature — done."

When I talk about using the fall session appropriately, which is where I'm seeking the latitude, we did come back because the Premier of the day had it on his list of things to do. Kind of like going to get the milk and the bread when you're off to the grocery store. "Things to do: recall Legislature. Check — done."

Our team versus your team. That is a big problem for our constituents. You know that. We do live and work in an adversarial place. The people watching today are probably curious beyond belief: "Why is this guy standing talking on and on about something that seems to be quite reasonable?" You're going to sit on a fixed schedule. You're going to come here and do the people's work in an orderly way, in an adult way, in a way that all people can participate — independents, opposition members, government members — looking at legislation, detailed clause-by-clause discussion.

The Government House Leader talked about some of the second reading debate he had heard. You know, everyone likes a critic. Being a critic, I think that I like all of my critic colleagues. But to catch a couple of minutes of a debate and to declare it to be inappropriate, I think, is unfortunate.

Not everyone comes here with the same issues of importance on their list of things to do as a member of the Legislature. But when a bill comes forward that has an effect and an impact on your constituents, it's important that you stand and talk about it. That's what second reading debate is all about. It can be characterized as a waste of time if you're trying to ram legislation through, but that shouldn't be our primary focus here — to ram stuff through.

The Government House Leader said: "We've had the professionals do their work." We had the professionals do their work, and what has the result of that been? We've got one, two, three, four, five sections of just Bill 52 that have typographical errors, spelling mistakes. That's because things are being rushed through. It's not unusual to make a mistake or two when you're doing an academic paper or you're writing a letter to your mom, but when you are drafting legislation, you'd like to think that it doesn't have errors in it when it arrives.

Another component that's vitally important. The freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner by almost, actually, out of a matter of course, reviews legislation when it's tabled to ensure that it complies with her act. She has written four times — four times — in the past number of weeks advising members of this place that legislation that's been introduced by the government violates the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

In one instance in particular, the provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, has also written. That's with respect to legislation that in his opinion would materially affect the civil liberties and rights of individuals and would not in and of itself protect the health of the individuals in question.

That's a debatable point, and the public health officer is entitled to that opinion. But it's an opinion from a valued member of our health community to legislators, saying: "Before you take this step, consider these facts."

It was a three-page letter. It wasn't a whim. It wasn't a fancy. It wasn't something that he felt he would do because he didn't have enough to do. He did it because he felt it was important enough to intervene in the legislative process to advise all of us, government and opposition, that we were on a perilous slope.

[1040]

Now we will debate that. We have debated that bill at second reading, but we've not yet gone to committee stage. It's that committee stage debate that the Government House Leader said was just one person on this side and one person on that side. That's how the debate takes place, as you know full well.The Government Leader, the person sponsoring the bill, is surrounded by his or her most able staff from the ministry that sponsored the legislation.
[ Page 11938 ]

On this side of the House we usually have the member for Surrey-Whalley and the member for Nanaimo — two of my colleagues that do an outstanding job on clause-by-clause debate, among others — allowing us…. Mr. Speaker, you and I have commented on that in private moments, so I know that doesn't come as a surprise to you, and also the member for Peace River South.

We will not be able to do that in three places with two members of the bar. We're going to have to split them up. I shudder to think of a diminished member for Nanaimo, but that's in fact what we may well have to do in order to fully canvass these issues.

It's not just the member asking the questions that's participating in the debate. That is my point. We certainly want to make sure we go line by line. Those who are sitting in rapt attention today, boy, you're just missing a real barnburner when we get to committee stage. I tell you, we get out the popcorn, and everybody has a roaring good time as members on the opposition ask questions line by line during legislative debates and the government responds.

The importance of this was brought home to me by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. He and I were having a dinner one evening — a government member and me, an opposition member — and he told me about one of his proudest achievements as an opposition member. That was when a court case cited his debates at committee stage as a reason for judgment.

What that means for those who are listening at home is that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, as an opposition member, was asking the government questions about their intent and the spirit of a piece of legislation. In doing so, the member was able to expose some of the shortcomings in the legislation. Years later when a judge was ruling, based on that legislation, the judge referred to the member from Quilchena's interventions in his reasons for judgment.

That's why this is important. It was a good reminder of the work that we do here — government and opposition — being valuable. What the government is doing by bringing forward this motion is diminishing our ability to do that, and it's just plain wrong. It's just plain wrong.

That's the time to clap while I get a drink.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: It was the rapt attention, Member. I think some people have had quite enough, and that's okay. I'm just getting started. That's the upside for those at home keeping score and those up in the gallery.

[D. Black in the chair.]

So closure is the end result. Time allocation is the end result when a government is bent on bringing forward legislation and passing it without any meaningful debate. Meaningful debate proves in the long term to be beneficial. We are debating Bill 30 right now. I mentioned earlier the inventory of bills that were passed by closure over the past number of years.

The Clean Energy Act was one of those. A particular clause in the Clean Energy Act with reference to self-sufficiency for B.C. Hydro is a very, very costly mistake by the government. They're moving to correct it with a piece of legislation that's before the House right now. Had we not had closure — time allocation and closure as a result of government misdeeds in the past — we may not have had to do that amendment this time.

The Oil and Gas Activities Act. This is a delightful one. My friend from Peace River South is smiling already, just at the thought of me bringing it up. We have debated changes to the Oil and Gas Activities Act three times in the past three years. That seems odd. Why wouldn't you get it right the first time?

We heard from the Government House Leader. We have experts in the legislative counsel of the Attorney General Ministry. We have staff in the ministries that work tirelessly, daily, on trying to perfect and improve the regulatory regimes and the policy frameworks and the legislation that guide our work here and guide the work in ministries. The Oil and Gas Activities Act — brought in, a day and a half of debate, closure. Big bill, huge bill. There were 160, 170 pages gone, just like that. No committee stage debate.

Well, interestingly, we had an election. We come back, and what's one of the first things the government put on the order paper? Amendments to the Oil and Gas Activities Act — amendments to the very clauses and sections that were passed here by closure.

[1045]

Had we had an opportunity to have detailed discussion of those sections, it's quite possible that we could have saved…. As the Government House Leader bizarrely said: "Save the public some money by not debating it longer." I don't know. The Speaker certainly has a better understanding of the costs of running this place. But what's the cost of not running this place? I think that's a better question to ask at this point in time. [Applause.]

Thank you. I say to my friend from Chilliwack that I think we have found the clap-line button here, and we'll be drinking a little bit more water over the next couple of minutes.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Yeah, drinks all round.

I want to go back briefly to the points I was making earlier about independent members, because I think it's important that we look at this debate and this motion not in the view of our positions as government members, members of executive council, opposition critics.

The advantage we have of having three independent
[ Page 11939 ]
members here is that we should be looking at our activities through the lens of their point of view. They have the luxury, many of us would say, of being able to get out on issues ahead of the government or ahead of the opposition because they don't have to consult with anyone else but themselves.

That would be incorrect, because they have the same responsibility we do to talk to their electors, the people who sent them here. They have the same rights, responsibilities and privileges of members of the government side and the members of the opposition side.

This motion, I believe, takes away some of those rights. I'm fairly confident that we'll be hearing from one or two of the independent members on this question. It strikes me that if you can't vote on something before this House as a member here, your rights and obligations are being short-circuited, and that is the end result of this motion.

By saying only those — as the motion clearly says — appointed to Committee A can participate without…. The only change is substitutions approved by the various Whips. For those watching at home, the Whip is the person that keeps order within the caucuses of the government and the opposition. We're almost at the point where we might need a Whip for the independent members, but I think that's an innovation that I'll leave to others to discuss.

What we need to keep clearly in focus is that, as individual members, our responsibility is not to our caucus. It's not to our Premier. It's not to our leader. It's to the people who sent us here. By separating into three places, it increases the likelihood that all members will not be able to fully and comprehensively participate in a debate.

It's bad enough — we manage through it, and there's not much grumbling — having legislation debated here and estimates debated in the Douglas Fir Room. But now, as I understand this motion and the intent of the Government House Leader, we are going to move committee stage debate to the Douglas Fir Room and to a third chamber, which I believe to be the Birch Room in the legislative buildings. That means that it is physically impossible to be in here, in there and also upstairs in the broom closet that will be Committee Room C.

It's a pretty impressive broom closet. I concede that, but nonetheless, it's a small area that is not the traditional Legislature. What we normally do…. This was one of the debates I was having with the Government House Leader. Traditionally, three sets of estimates take place here in this chamber. So people that don't have access to the Internet but only basic cable, where you can find your friendly neighbourhood MLAs debating…. Someone might well be watching right now — half a dozen people. I know my spouse is watching. She wanted to comment on the tie she picked out for me today.

If we're not debating those estimates here…. Traditionally, the Premier's estimates, in all of my experience, have been here, except for last spring when they were moved to the Douglas Fir Room. I was debating with the Government House Leader just weeks ago about which three, which is traditionally what happens…. Health is often in here. The member for Shuswap will remember debating estimates in here most of the time. Forestry was quite often done in here as well, when forestry was a giant industry in British Columbia.

So historically, we've had three sets of estimates debated here. Not the end of the world. That's fine. We'll move the estimates debates over there. That would provide us with more time for committee stage debate in this chamber here.

[1050]

That was another proposal when the Government House Leader said: "We've got another eight bills we're tabling today" — which is what he told me last week, that we have eight more pieces of legislation — "and by the way, the PST bill is coming some time next week."

And you know what? We haven't finished. There's another bill coming. The order paper is not closed. Six days, after today, of debate, and there's one more piece of legislation coming. If we're to take the government at its word, we're going to be debating that upstairs, off the beaten track, not at the same time.

We could have critics having to be in two places at once. I don't expect much sympathy from my colleagues, but it's difficult to assemble people where they're supposed to be in two places. My colleague the….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Yeah, yeah.

So to get that group assembled in three places is going to increase the level of difficulty. I don't know what the Russian judge will give me as a score for the degree of difficulty on that, but I suspect it will be a difficult task.

I think, with that, I might almost have them on side. The Government House Leader may agree.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: He doesn't agree? Oh, okay. Well, we'll talk about that later, I guess.

The challenge we have is three places. Let's assume that we've got the Justice estimates yet to do. We've not yet completed the Justice estimates. They're taking place in Committee Room A. We've got committee stage debate on Bill 52 and Bill 44 still to do — two government bills, two Justice bills. What if one of them is here and another one's upstairs?

I'm hopeful that the Government House Leader will not schedule them in that manner, but it's entirely possible that circumstances would find us with three Justice bills, three Justice pieces of business, in different places. One Justice critic. Tough to do.

On balance, I believe this motion does not serve this
[ Page 11940 ]
Legislature. It does not serve the government well. It's designed to mask what has been a mishandled legislative session. It's unreasonable, in anyone's imagination, to think that it makes sense to table eight bills in a day and then to table a PST bill to try and resolve the colossal debacle which was the implementation of a harmonized sales tax.

To do that with six days remaining, allowing the Finance critic literally no time to consult with the small business community, with various chambers of commerce — not just the big chamber of commerce in Vancouver, not just the Vancouver Board of Trade, but to talk to people in Prince George, to talk to people in Nelson, to talk to people right across British Columbia about what the impact of this legislation will be…. That's a reasonable thing to do. I don't think that the minister fully grasps that. He hasn't yet sat on this side of the House.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Yeah, he will. Well, if he's lucky, he'll have an opportunity to sit on this side of the House.

What happens if the government, after the next election, goes from that side to this side? What happens when we say as a government: "Oh, we're going to break into three chambers right away because, well, we set the precedent that it's okay to split into three"? How will the very greatly reduced B.C. Liberal Party respond to that — with their five or six or seven or eight members, let's assume? How are they going to respond to that?

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Yeah, I'm speaking hypothetically.

I can't wait for the smear to come from someone on that side. The press release is being written right now. They're tweeting madly in government communications. "The Opposition House Leader said something. Let's tweet that out." Good for you. Well done. Take another chunk of money out of the public's purse. Take some more money out of public purse, and start spinning the propaganda. Off you go.

I'm going to close my remarks, because I'm anxious to hear, I'm hopeful, from the member for Shuswap about his views of history and his views of parliamentary process and decorum. I think that of all the members on that side of the House, I expect at least him to stand and offer a reasoned defence of what I believe to be the indefensible, and that is not living by Standing Order 2.

Standing Order 2, as I've read into the record, as any member who has a copy of MacMinn's handbook can check…. On page 3 it says we will sit in the spring and we will sit in the fall — unless you're the B.C. Liberal Party. They have a different set of rules.

[1055]

Interjection.

J. Horgan: It didn't exist at the time. I know you were living in Alberta. You came to B.C. in the '90s, but it was a different set of rules at that time.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah, okay. All right, good enough.

With that, I commend my colleagues — their opportunity to stand and speak on this motion.

It's the view of the official opposition that this is the wrong way to go. It's the view of the official opposition that the appropriate course of action would be to extend a couple more weeks into the summer. Why not?

Let's sit here for a few more weeks. Let's enjoy a lovely spring in Victoria. Staff are here. They'd be happy to continue working into June and perhaps into July, if the government is amenable to that, if they want to thoroughly and comprehensively debate the legislation before the House.

Failing that, let's pass the bills that the government believes are important. Let's bring those things forward. Let's do it quickly, in an orderly way.

I heard the Government House Leader talk about the importance of efficiency — the importance of efficiency. In the private sector that is important, but when you're making laws that are supposed to last for an extended period of time, efficiency shouldn't be the highest order of the day. A comprehensive discussion that's as inclusive as possible — inclusivity is what this is all about. Three places make it really difficult — really difficult.

With that, I thank the members for their indulgence. I thank you and the Clerks for the work they did to prepare this motion. I'm hopeful that it will be defeated. The official opposition will certainly be voting against it.

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope my voice holds up well here today because it's important to put some issues on the record with respect to this motion. I will be supporting this motion.

I've been honoured to be a member of this place for 16 years now. I was first elected in 1996, and I've seen a great number of changes over those 16 years. I did want to kind of recount a bit of the history around this, because it's important. This is an important step we're taking as a Legislature, and I think it is one that we should consider advisably.

When I first arrived here in '96, it was to, obviously, a pretty fractious Legislature, not that it isn't fractious on occasion today. But we didn't have the same body of rules that we have today. During that first session I was a part of, we had eight evening sittings, the latest till midnight but generally ranging in the ten o'clock-to-midnight area as we moved forward, and one overnight sitting, which I still remember very well from 1996, on June 27 — a fas-
[ Page 11941 ]
cinating, fascinating time.

In the next session, in 1997, we had 26 evening meetings — again, ranging as late as close to midnight but always well into the evening — and two overnight sessions. In the third session, '98-99, 23 evenings were devoted to debate in this House — again, the latest being till midnight but generally ranging well into the ten o'clock, 11 o'clock period and five overnights. Again, it was a wonderful time to be a part of the assembly, to experience the joys of five overnight sittings of the Legislature.

In the fourth session, in 2000 — 15 evening sittings, generally running, actually, not quite as late; many of them just running till about nine o'clock, sometimes till midnight; and one overnight sitting on December 7 of 2000, as we moved closer to the 2001 election.

Again, the Legislature had, as it does today, a large government contingent, at that time New Democrat, and a large B.C. Liberal contingent — a strong opposition, as we have in this House today. While we didn't always agree on things, I think that one thing we did agree on coming out of the sessions between 1996 and 2001 was that this was not a family-friendly place.

[1100]

Often, when this House sat, in terms of days and hours and so on, was entirely unpredictable. There were often occasions where one wanted to attend a high school graduation and wasn't able to, because the numbers were tight and things were unpredictable.

There was a lot of good work done through that period. I think some of my friends on the opposition side will remember very well the late Fred Gingell, the late member for Delta South, who did some remarkable work chairing a committee of the Legislature looking at reforms and innovations to the Legislature. I think again that on all sides there was consensus that the Gingell reforms would take us in the right direction in terms of having a more family-friendly place here so that there might be a little bit more predictability in our lives.

We all work extraordinarily long hours, regardless of whether we're in opposition or in government. This is a very challenging job. We have constituents to serve, as well as ministries to look at. It is an extraordinarily challenging job, without having the unpredictability of when this Legislature may sit.

The consequence of the Gingell reforms and the broader work of the Legislature was that on July 25 of 2001 we introduced a motion to establish a set House schedule so that there was predictability on when the House would begin and adjourn during the session. Again, at that time the opposition was very small after the 2001 election, but I think there was broad agreement that that House schedule was a great step forward.

On August 27 of 2001 we introduced a motion to create a legislative calendar, stipulating when the House would sit for the third session of the 37th parliament. Again, I think there was general support for that.

On September 13, 2005, we introduced changes to double the length of question period from 15 minutes to 30 minutes. Standing Order 14 was amended to add, "In addition, the House may appoint one of the members of the official opposition to be Assistant Deputy Speaker," as indeed you are today, Madam Speaker. I think those were all very good, very appropriate reforms that were undertaken in this House.

The House schedule changes, I think, benefited the opposition as well as government and brought more predictability to the sitting so that MLAs were not forced to sit into the night and early morning, as well as making it easier to coordinate travel, time with family and important issues like that. The legislative calendar provides a clear and predictable schedule for MLAs to know when they'll be in the capital for legislative work and when they'll be in their constituencies working on local matters, spending time with family, etc.

Expanded QP. Having been on the opposition side and remembering how hard it was to fill, on occasion, 15 minutes with compelling lines of questioning, I'm certain that on some days the opposition probably wishes, more than the ministers on the government side, that QP was shorter, because it does become an enormous time to fill.

I don't want that to be a commentary on the compelling nature of question period, as every day it's something that keeps me riveted and on the edge of my seat. It has been an innovation which I think, again, has held its own in the test of time and is appreciated. In 2005 when it was announced, the opposition leader of the day, the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill, called it a positive step, which was, I'm certain, as nice a compliment as one could give at that point to that.

The member for Port Coquitlam noted:

"You know, when we gained the nice and sort of civilized structure that came from a fixed calendar, which brought some more civilized work hours to members in this chamber, we were able to know that, okay, the House will finish at 6:30 instead of how we used to go till nine o'clock or ten o'clock or sometimes two o'clock in the morning or even later."

That was the member for Port Coquitlam back on March 5, 2008.

[1105]

Even the member for Nanaimo, referenced earlier in this debate by the Opposition House Leader:

"I gave credit, and I have given credit in this House, to the reform that was brought in when this government was elected in 2001 when it went to a fixed sitting schedule. I must say, on a personal basis, that I was never pleased, if you will, or supportive of the concept of calling a Legislature in the spring and having it drive itself until the opposition got tired and went home."

Again, another, as they always are, compelling quote from the member for Nanaimo:

"This government, and I give them full credit, brought in a system of a fixed legislative session. Now, why was that? It's because they wanted to take into account the concerns of the families of the members who sit here. It would give the opportunity for people to know how long a session would last. It was a civilized reform."

I agree with all of those comments, and they were chan-
[ Page 11942 ]
ges, I think, in the right direction.

I want to address the comments that were made by the Opposition House Leader in respect of the proposal for the addition of a third House, hereafter characterized as Committee C. He notes that it was a first, that there have never been bills debated in Committee A before, and that is not correct.

I'll quote here from Hansard — actually it's probably Orders of the Day — from Monday, June 28, 1999, "By leave, the hon. D. Lovick," who, as I recall, was House Leader for the NDP government of the day. Mr. Lovick moved:

"Be it resolved that the Resolution of this House dated April 15, 1998, dealing with Sections A and B of Committee of Supply, be amended by adding to the said Resolution Section 9.1 as follows:

"9.1 Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof, and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in Section A, and for all purposes Section A shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to Section A shall be made upon motion, without notice, by the Government House Leader, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate."

J. Les: Very interesting.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, very interesting indeed. Go ahead and applaud, because I'd like to have a drink of water. [Applause.]

Thank you very much. This may become a new practice in our House, where, as our throats decline, we beg more and more for scattered, tepid applause.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It continues on June 28. By leave, the hon. D. Lovick moved that "the following bills at committee stage be considered in section A of the Committee of the Whole, namely: Bill 56, Forest Land Reserve Amendment Act, 1999…." And it goes on through Bills 71, 72, 73, 76, 79, 81, and 86, the Park Amendment Act of 1999. For the purposes of brevity, I won't go through what all of those bills were, but they were very important — Land Commission Act, Water Amendment Act, and so on.

Again, a little later on: "Order for Committee of Supply called. Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section A of Committee of the Whole to consider the following Bills: Bill (No. 72) intituled Water Amendment Act, 1999; Bill (No. 86) intituled Park Amendment Act, 1999; and Bill (No. 79) intituled Land Reserve Commission Act."

Again, in Committee Section A it goes on to list those bills once again. The following day, June 29, 1999, there were again…. Order for Committee of Supply was called. "Pursuant to Sessional Order, order called for Section A of Committee of the Whole to consider the following Bills: Bill (No. 56) intituled Forest Land Reserve Amendment Act, 1999; and Bill (No. 73) intituled Private Post-Secondary Education Amendment Act, 1999."

[1110]

It's not a first, nor is it a first for other provinces in our great nation of Canada. Quebec has a third House which operates, I suspect, very much along the line of what occurs here. Manitoba — which I think, as I've heard most recently, has a New Democratic Party government — has a committee stage of bills read in their committee rooms 254 and 255.

Again, there is nothing unprecedented about this. We have seen innovations before, whether it was setting a House schedule or setting the legislative schedule or doubling QPs. We have seen innovations before, and I will argue that this is another worthy innovation.

The volume of business that we have today in this Legislature…. Again, I appreciate the arguments that the House Leader for the opposition has made about the volume of the bills. I think he understands as well as we do the reason why some of those bills arrive rather later in the session than earlier in the session. They are large and complex and challenging.

The volume of business, I think, makes the third House a necessity, not a nice to-do. It is a necessity for this Legislature to do that. We could ask the question as well: is this legislative session of 2012 an anomaly in terms of the volume of people's business which we are undertaking? Will the volume decline as we move further into the 21st century? I think the answer to that is no.

The volume of public policy, the volume of statutory and legislative work that this assembly will do will not decline as we move further into the 21st century. Having had the opportunity to lead a couple of the more complex areas of public policy in Education and Health, these are complex areas. The result of complex public policy is, on occasion, that one needs to meet in this assembly to put in place a statutory framework to deal with those complexities of public policy. Whether it's in education or health or law or the environment or finance or energy or economic development, these are always areas where there are going to be changes that are necessary.

Again, I appreciate the argument that the Opposition House Leader made about the time or the necessity to debate these things, and I agree. But there needs to be some give. I think the appropriate place to give…. I don't think it's as challenging as he might claim around that third House.

A couple of other important points. Again, I'll try to wrap this up relatively quickly, Madam Speaker. The Opposition House Leader noted that they have been trying to find cooperative ways to deal with the volume. Well, perhaps they have. I have had the privilege not of listening to second reading debate for a few moments but on some occasions for hours, hearing, actually, what I thought were quite repetitive arguments about the bill, only to find that at the end of those many hours of repetitive debate, there was unanimous support for the bill —
[ Page 11943 ]
as was the case recently with Bill 36.

In short, I'm saying that, in a different sense, the allocation of time for debate is not always, I think, done in the most constructive ways in this chamber. But those are decisions which, obviously, the opposition makes for their reason.

The other important area, the other important issue that's raised by the Opposition House Leader is around the independent members. It's important to note that we are very much conscious of not only the opposition, government members, but also independent members, as we move forward with these innovations.

[1115]

There is nothing to prevent any member from disagreeing at any time in any House. An independent member, as has been noted, can be in Committee A, or they can be in Committee B at any moment in time. They can't be in both; nor can they be in all three at any one time. But the fact of the matter is that now there is a division within this House.

The issue, though, has been raised about the independent member's chair in Committee C, which I understand to be designated to the member for Delta South. But I'm advised that there is no reason why she cannot, if her interest is in another chamber, relinquish her chair and have it taken up by another independent member. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that would stand in the way of any member, whether independent or on the opposition side, to yield a seat for an independent member to be a part of Committee A or Committee C.

The logic of the Opposition House Leader is that a third House limits the opportunity to debate. Well, I think if that is so, by extension, the same could be said of Committee A. Yet I don't hear an argument from the House Leader, nor anyone else, that we should shut down Committee A because it provides a division of this House and a member can't be in both places at once.

If the logic is that the third House somehow limits the opportunity to debate, then obviously, the second House limits the opportunity to debate, and therefore, we should have only one House and try to drive the enormous volume of business all through this one House. Of course, that makes no sense at all. Nor does it make any sense not to have a third House to deal with the purposes that were set out earlier by the Government House Leader.

It's true that you can't be in three places at once. You can't be in two places at once. So I don't accept the logic of the argument that has been advanced.

Finally, I know that the Opposition House Leader has said it will be extraordinarily difficult for the opposition to manage debate in three chambers at one time. Well, I have greater faith in the opposition, clearly, than does the Opposition House Leader.

I know that on the opposition side there are at least a couple of dozen designated opposition critics who, with great force and regularity, enter into the debates around the bills and the estimates that are considered by this House. In addition to those couple of dozen critics, there are probably another dozen or more members who, again, regularly choose to enter into debate.

I can't imagine that it would be impossible, as has been suggested, for the opposition to manage a third House. I just don't believe it is so.

The Government House Leader has made it clear that we're not going to have bills in all three Houses. We're not going to be estimates in all three Houses. There will be different things going on in the three different chambers. I think, on balance, it's the right thing to do.

Again, I know the members opposite might prefer to have less business before the House, but that's not going to change. We need to find ways to move forward, to ensure that the business of the people gets done, that debate is thorough. I believe all of that is entirely commensurate with the proposal, the motion, that has been put forward by the Government House Leader.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to the motion. I listened intently, actually, on this debate when the Government House Leader first introduced it. He talked about how he's been here 16 years.

[1120]

I, like so many other members in this House, was elected in 1996 and had the privilege of coming to this very chamber as the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I, too, recall the days when the House sat through the summer months — weeks into the summer. I, too, recall evening sittings as a regular affair around the legislative chamber. I, too, recall that there were times when we extended beyond the regular schedule of the evening sittings, beyond those hours.

The government of the day, though, consistently, as best they could, had tried to allow for debate to take place. Sometimes, I would venture to say, the debate would be, shall we say, irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Why I say that is because I remember one distinctive debate in this chamber. It was actually by the very member who just spoke before me, the Minister of Education, who stood as an opposition member and at that time wandered into talking about his dog Shep in the middle of debate. Now, try as I might to understand the relevance of that to the issue at hand, I could not. That said, though, the Minister of Education continued on debate. That is the essence, I think, of what we're talking about — democracy and to allow for informed debate, though some people might veer off from time to time as the Minister of Education did at that time.

I, too, have sat through around-the-clock debates many times, I might say. I remember, actually, sitting through around-the-clock debates when there were only two members as op-
[ Page 11944 ]
position critics in this very chamber. The government did not hesitate at all to go around the clock, even though there were only two members as opposition critics. The government rammed through legislation and did exactly that, and there was no respect for a schedule.

If the government members want to say that they somehow respected democracy and the voices of the people, to ensure that opposition critics have the opportunity to do their work and therefore be informed in their debate in this House, I ask the government members to look truly in the mirror and reflect on that history to see what really happened.

As members know, I have children. I became a mother in my opposition days. I'm very happy and feel very lucky and privileged to be a mother. As all members recognize, we all have family. We all have lives outside of this chamber. The government then said, after they formed government in 2001: "This is uncivilized, what goes on. We don't know what the schedule is. We can't have this. We can't have sittings in the middle of summer. We can't go all night. We can't have evening sittings anymore." Then the schedule of the House was amended and changed with much fanfare, with much acclamation from the government saying how great it is going to be that we're now going to have these fixed schedules.

I remember that debate too, because I was right here in this chamber listening to the Government House Leader, the Deputy Premier, the leader, the Premier of the day. The government amended that very schedule to…. Significant changes, I would argue. We would have a fixed schedule for the fall sitting and the spring sitting of the House. Members are supposed to know what that schedule is, so when we come in here, we know when we're to do our work in this chamber on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of British Columbians. We would be able to schedule things in our own constituency for events that were important back at home and also schedule things with our family accordingly.

Well, Madam Speaker, since that time, what has happened to this fixed schedule? I would argue that the government barely actually abides by their own fixed schedule, in particular the fall sitting of the House. Even when there were only two members of the House, the government did not have the wherewithal in many instances to follow their own fixed schedule.

[1125]

They brought in closure to shut debate down when there were two members of the House — I recall this like it was yesterday — because two members raising issues was just too much for the government members. They had to bring in closure, and that's exactly what they did.

Then what happened to that fall session? The fall session was meant to deal with legislation that was introduced in the spring. If we did not get time to get through all the legislative work that needed to be done in debating those bills, then those bills would be carried over into the fall sitting of the House.

Then we would be able to complete that work to ensure that opposition members and government members have the opportunity to go back to their own community and consult with members of their own community — stakeholders — around the changes of those proposed bills.

Well, what happened to the fall sitting of the House? There have been so many times where the government would simply cancel the fall sitting of the House or cut it short, not because there's no work to be done but because the government chose not to come back to the House.

Here we are today, and the government wants to change the rules yet again because they say that is civilized. Three Houses is civilized, and that's the way to go.

What happened to the civilized approach of putting legislation that is not completed in all stages of debate in the spring session over to the fall sitting of the House? What's wrong with that? That was exactly what the government proposed at the time they amended the schedule. But now they say it's not to be.

That's no longer civilized, I guess. That doesn't make any sense, because that was the plan. That was how it was supposed to be, and that's what the government said they were going to do. Not so. Why? I would venture to say it's because it doesn't fit the government's agenda. Why doesn't it fit the government's agenda? Because they don't want to be in the Legislature to do the people's work.

Then there was another piece on the legislative change, on the calendar into the evening sittings. That's a motion that is coming later, so I will reserve the debate for when we end up debating that. The government changed that too. That was supposed to be more friendly for families so people can go home and spend time with family and friends. The government is about to change that, and I'll go into that when we end up debating Motion 46.

On this motion around changing the schedule into three Houses, I would venture to say that there are problems with that. Having been an opposition member of two in this chamber, it is a trying task to be at both Houses and engage in debate — meaningful debate.

When you have bills coming with the kind of volume in which they have been coming, it is challenging to make sure you do the kind of work and analysis and the consultation that need to be done so that you can debate the bills in a way that best reflects the opinions of the very people we're supposed to represent.

When I say this, some will argue: "But you guys now have 36 members as opposition members, so what's the problem?" There are challenges with that, because as we all know, when debate goes on, often many members want to enter into that debate. They want to sit and listen to the debate so they can get in on it and be informed of what's been exchanged in the dialogue that goes on in this House, and then they can enter into debate.

Now, they'll say: "So what? There are two Houses already. You can't be at two places at the same time." True, and those are the compromises you make. But every time you stretch that thinner, you lose more opportun-
[ Page 11945 ]
ities to engage in debate. That's exactly why we are supposed to be here.

I say this, actually, also in thinking about the independents. I sympathize with the independents, because in some ways it's a little bit like when there was a caucus of two, except that they're a caucus of one — even more trying in their circumstances. They most certainly cannot, fair enough to say, be at two places at one time. But for sure, they cannot watch three debates at the same time.

[1130]

We now have technology. As you are sitting in one House, as somebody is engaging in debate, you have an opportunity to put on your computer screen and be at least somewhat involved with what goes on in the other House by watching Hansard live and being able to pick it up live and have a sense of what's going on.

I've done that myself a number of times. I'm in this House with one set of bills or one set of issues under debate, and then something else is going on in the other House. I see that the issues on that particular topic are coming to a close, and I want to get in on the estimates debate in the other House. I will then leave this chamber and bring my stuff and go over to the other side and make sure that I get in on that debate as well. You're able to manage two, but you cannot manage three.

We can do a lot, but we're not superhuman, and we cannot manage three Houses as one individual. For the independents, of which there are now three in this Legislature, this does make it very difficult, if not impossible, to do that work.

I heard the government members say that they'd been thinking about the independents, and I'm sure they'll speak for themselves. But let me tell you this. The independents were only just told that this motion was coming. Nobody consulted them in advance. If the government members really were thinking about them, the government members might have thought it prudent to actually talk to the independents in advance of the motion being tabled in the House.

I say this. The government says that they don't want to ram through legislation. They don't want to engage in debate by exhaustion, legislation by exhaustion. They said: "Oh, we can't do that." Well, let me take a moment to review what has happened in this very chamber, Madam Speaker.

The government has, since February, tabled some 954 pages of bills — 32 bills in total. More than half of them — 17 of them — were tabled since April 30, knowing that the legislative calendar was such that we would end our work here at the end of May with a break for Victoria Day. From April 30 to May 3, six bills were introduced in this House. From May 7 to 10, ten bills were introduced in this House, and this week a hefty bill, the PST bill, was introduced in this House.

The government knew what our calendar was. They knew that we have limited time and scope in this very chamber. Now what the government is trying to do is ram through legislation in a rushed format. That is legislation by exhaustion in another format. I dare the government members to not admit that. To say that it is not is simply not true. It is legislation by exhaustion. That's exactly what it is. Why? Because the government wants it to fit their agenda. They will say: "But we offered, with the Opposition House Leader, to try to come to some sort of arrangement."

Well, why is it that it's always like this? The government goes into the House. They know what they have to do. They know what their legislative agenda is prior to coming into the House. Then all of a sudden, as the end comes near, there is this panic. There's this frenzy that goes on, which says: "Oh no, we're going to run out of time. We're going to have to go to a third House. We're going to have to extend the hours. We're going to have to do something to get everything through." Then somehow the opposition has to just agree and say: "Oh gee, okay. That's really what we have to do — exactly what you say."

How is it that the government members cannot manage their legislative agenda? How is it they cannot get the bills tabled earlier in the House? How is it that before we get here, the government cannot organize their work and get that work done so that there could be civilized debate and introduction of bills and debate of bills in a manner that gives credit to the bills that are being brought to this House and credit to British Columbians, who want to ensure that they are heard and that their opinions are reflected in this very chamber?

The government says and the Premier says that she has changed her ways, that she has learned, that she is now going to listen and invite input.

[1135]

Well, is this how you actually engage and invite input — legislation by exhaustion in this very chamber, trying to ram through bills that were just recently introduced? Some 17 bills have been introduced over the last little while, and we're supposed to get them all through over the next less than two weeks.

I guess that is the Liberal way of saying to the public that they would consult, that they are somehow listening to British Columbians, that somehow they welcome the opinions of British Columbians and stakeholders on legislative changes. I think that is just a farce. That is exactly what is happening in this House here.

I heard the Government House Leader say that this is evolution, that going into a third House is civilized. Well, I would argue this. If the government truly respected democracy and truly wanted this House to change the way in which we operate and the process and the procedures with it, then take up the issue before the House is sitting, engage with the Opposition House Leader and engage with the independents to try to see if you can come up with a different format of procedures and pro-
[ Page 11946 ]
cess.

That was not done. What has been done instead, in the final days of the sitting of the House…. The government is desperate to not have to come back for the fall sitting, even though that was the schedule they brought in. They want to ram through the legislation by introducing a third House, which has never been done in this precinct, and by going back to evening sittings, which is a motion that will be brought up subsequent to this.

The government knows they can do this. Why? Because they have the majority. They're just going to ram it through, and they know it. That's why they planned this out. It is a planning process amidst chaos from the government's side. They did not do the homework in advance, in planning out the bills that they were going to table in this chamber, to ensure and allow time for informed debate and allow time for proper consultation and input from the public.

How is it that we get bills where you have the Privacy Commissioner already making comments on four bills in this House that raise issues and concerns around privacy issues? How is it that the government did not consult the independent commissioners in advance, before the bills were introduced in this House? Surely the government would have planned that in advance. But not so.

In this session with these 32 bills that had been tabled, four of them have already been subject to concerns that have been raised by the Privacy Commissioner. That tells you something. It tells me that the government is in chaos, that they have lost control of their own legislative agenda and are just trying to get things done in a rushed way. One might argue that it's in a somewhat irrational way. Along the way, when you operate that way, you make mistakes. That is what is happening.

This is not what's best for democracy, as the government members would want you to believe. It is not at all democracy. It is the government trying to drive an agenda in their best political interests. That is what it is. It is not about respect for the members of this House so that they can engage in debate. It's not about respect for this building. It's not about respect for the people that we represent, the constituents we represent. It is about a government desperately trying to drive through their political agenda in a way that best suits their political agenda, and nothing else. The three Houses for the bills, three Houses for debate — for estimates debate, for this big chamber and now Committee C.

[1140]

It is interesting to note that the government argues that this is the best way going forward. Well, I would say this. If the government really wants full and informed debate, there were options put forward by the official opposition. The government rejected those options, one of which was, yes, to go to the fall sitting of the House, which I've already touched on. To me, that makes the most sense.

We're supposed to be back here in the fall. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts right now, Madam Speaker, that the government has no intention to actually bring in the fall sitting of the House. I'll bet you that. I'd love to be proven wrong — that we will have to come back to do work in the fall here in this very chamber. I'd love to be proven wrong, and I hope that I am, because that's how it should be.

If the government had planned to bring the fall sitting of the House in session, then there is no need for a third House or evening sittings, for that matter. There are bills that could be tabled over into the fall. By the way, I know the government would like to say that they are being very considerate and very civilized around the sittings of the House and so on. The fall sitting of the House…. Even though the government brought in the changes, the fixed schedule for that, not once have they ever committed in advance that they would call the House back in the fall — not once.

As opposition members, when do we find out? Usually sometime in September, for sure after Labour Day — that is, if you're lucky. Generally speaking, we don't get notified until the last week of September to get back here for October. Usually that's how it goes. Well, that's some consideration — letting people plan ahead what they are going to do for October and November when the House is supposed to be sitting. We don't actually get notified until sometime late in September. That's usually the procedure.

If the government was considerate, they would have actually provided that information at the beginning of the sitting in May — let people know what will happen in the fall. In fact, given that it was this government who brought in the fixed schedule, with much fanfare around the fall sitting and the spring sitting, the government should have committed to the fall sitting each and every time right off the top. If we run out of legislative items to debate in this House, then we can shut the House down — but not so.

That's not how this government operates. They've never operated that way, and why is that? Once again, the government always operates in such a way that best meets their political agenda as opposed to what is actually best for democracy.

The government says that three Houses are okay. Everybody and anybody can do that. I want to raise this example, a real-life experience right here in this chamber. Two opposition members at the time, and one of my colleagues at that time…. Well, Joy MacPhail. There was only one. She had a commitment, an interview with Voice of B.C. actually, as it were. She went downstairs to do the taping. This is towards the end of the sitting of the House.

There was agreement with the Government House Leader of the day that when Joy left to go to do that — I had to be in another chamber because the two chambers were going — the government would not ram through or try to ram through the next set of estimates, which was Environment. We had lots of issues because at that time
[ Page 11947 ]
the government made tremendous cuts to environmental measures and safeguards in our environment, and we wanted to engage in debate around that.

Even though there were only the two of us, we specifically asked the government not to bring forward that set of estimates, to which they agreed. The government of the day agreed, and the Government House Leader agreed. I was in this chamber debating, and then my colleague had to run down to do the interview. As time passed, all of a sudden I get a frantic note coming in that says: "You've got to go in the other House now because they are trying to ram it through." That's what the note said — something to that effect.

[1145]

I thought to myself: "But there was an agreement. How could that be?" So I asked for a five-minute break in this chamber and rushed over to the other side to see what was going on. Guess what. The government was trying to ram through estimates debate. I believe it was the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education was opening their statements….

Interjection.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. Environment, my apologies. The minister was opening statements, and I was shocked at what was happening, because that was not meant to happen. There was an agreement that that was not to happen. I challenged the House Leader right on the floor at that moment — literally a screaming match across the floor — to the point where, finally, the Government House Leader agreed that they would stand it down.

That's what happened. The note came to me by…. Actually, I love interns. Everyone has known that I love interns. They saved our lives. One of the interns had left this precinct. We had no more staff here at that time. I was by myself doing my thing. Nobody was watching the debate anywhere else and what was going on. That intern went home, got into his jeans, sat down and turned on the legislative channel. And what was he doing? Watching the debate.

Then he goes: "Oh gosh, what are they doing? They're trying to ram this through." He rushes out to his car, drove back and then brought me a note. That's how I found out about it in time to catch it and stop it from going through. That's a true life experience.

So three Houses — right? I don't know how the independents will manage that. I truly don't. They have insufficient resources to do their work. They are legitimate members to represent their constituents in this House, and this format will not allow for that.

This will set a precedent. Let's be clear. I don't know what will happen after the next election. Who knows? There could be just two opposition members in this chamber again. You never know what could happen. And then we pull a stunt like that, if we were government? Let's just say I'm only surmising that we might be in government. If that should happen and there were three Houses sitting and we decided to go forward that way, how would that be? How would that serve democracy, more to the point?

It doesn't — is my point. It doesn't. That experience I just shared with everyone in this House is an example to show, I guess, members that the government is acting always in their own best interest — political interest — even though there was an agreement.

I see that my time is running out. I will simply say I will not support this motion for all the reasons I've outlined. I, too, hope that the government will consider those points.

H. Lali: I see that my hon. colleagues from across the way are listening carefully to every word I'm going to say. I want to thank the audience on the other side that is here, waiting to hear what I have to say.

I stand here speaking on Bill 76, which has been introduced in the dying days of this particular session, the spring session — a very, very important motion that they brought forward.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Sorry, I stand corrected. I said Bill 47. With the rate at which the Liberals have been dumping bills on this Legislature, in the dying days of the Legislature, one might be mistaken by calling the motion a bill. I understand there are 21 bills that are still remaining to be debated, and we get this motion from the Liberals right here, at this point. So I stand here to take my place on Motion 47.

The B.C. Liberals — it really seems like they don't want to actually come back in the fall to have some real live debate on these issues.

We've had instances in the past where agreements have been reached by the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader that if there are some important pieces of legislation that the government wants to pass in this House, they'd let the opposition know these are really important bills. "Those are important; we need to pass those."

[1150]

Some of the other ones…. I'm not saying they are not as important, but they could wait, because they were either introduced late, or there was no proper due diligence done — or a lack of consultation. You put them off, and those bills are on the order paper, on the orders of the day until you come back again, until the House is prorogued and they fall off. But they are there, and you can come back and debate them in the fall session.

That's exactly what happened here in this particular chamber in 2007. Vaughn Palmer…. Actually, May 11, 2006, his article appeared in the Vancouver Sun. He calls it "Outbreak of Cooperation Will Allow Legislature
[ Page 11948 ]
to Wind up Peaceably." Then he says: "The two Mikes, as they are known, were looking to bring the spring Legislature session to an orderly conclusion." This is the appropriate phrase that he has used — "orderly conclusion," where the two House Leaders got together and decided what was important and what was not, at that particular time, to pass.

This Liberal government in the 1990s and before that in the 1980s…. For a long time the protocol was that governments open the session, but the opposition, if they felt they needed to debate the bills or needed to debate any of the motions that were put forward, could do so for as long as they wanted, according to the rules obviously. Then, of course, when they felt that they asked all the questions they needed to ask on behalf of their constituents and the folks they represented through their critic roles, they could do so. They could do so right here in this House to their heart's content.

The wisdom at the time was that the government would open the session, but that the opposition would close it. If they chose to close the session within a month, they could do that. They could say whatever they needed to say and then get out and close the session, and we'd come back when the House was called back again. If they chose they wanted to go for a longer time — two months, three months or four months, as used to happen — they used to be able to do that. Of course, the media and folks who followed politics called it legislation by exhaustion. That is basically what they called it.

Hey, the Liberals, when they came into office in 2001, said: "No way, we're not going to do this legislation by exhaustion." As we know, there was an imbalance in the House. There were only two members of the opposition, the member to my right from Vancouver, who spoke earlier; and Joy MacPhail, who was the other member at the time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I don't know what they were afraid of in terms of exhaustion. They had 77 members, but they were afraid that two members were going to exhaust them. I think that's what they were afraid of. They said: "No, no. We want to bring in an orderly legislative session. We're going to break it up, and we're going to have a fall session as well as a spring session." They were going to do that.

I see the Speaker is nodding to me. I would like to save my place and adjourn debate on this particular motion right now.

H. Lali moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. McIntyre in the chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $16,032,867,000 (continued).

M. Farnworth: In the 2012 budget the government has committed $2.3 billion over the next three years for health capital projects. The projects include: the Jim Pattison Outpatient Care Centre in Surrey; Royal Jubilee Patient Care Centre in Victoria; Fort St. John hospital; Kelowna; Vernon; northern cancer control strategy centre in Prince George; Lions Gate mental health redevelopment; Interior heart and surgical centre in Kelowna; and the children and women's hospital, amongst others.

Additional capital spending has been allocated around e-health, and the budget says that about $242 million has been spent on that already. Can the minister provide an itemized breakdown of how much funding will be allocated to each of these projects over the next three years, please?

[1010]

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe that in general the answer is yes. What I'd like to clarify is…. I think the member was referring to a list from somewhere. If he can confirm the nature of the list, then when I say yes, I will know with certainty which projects I am referring to.

M. Farnworth: I probably should have been a little clearer in the question. Basically, the list has some of those key projects that I read out: the Jim Pattison Outpatient Care Centre in Surrey, Royal Jubilee Patient Care Centre in Victoria, Fort St. John hospital and residential care centre, Kelowna General and Vernon Jubilee hospitals, northern cancer control in Prince George,
[ Page 11949 ]
Lions Gate, and Interior heart and surgical.

Also, I was going to come back to it in a little bit, but I can…. Anything for Royal Columbian?

Hon. M. de Jong: For the projects that the hon. member listed, the answer is yes. The only…. It's not really a caveat, but in a couple of instances — Jimmy Pattison Outpatient Centre, for example — the number at this point would likely be very small or perhaps even zero because it's done. But we can certainly do that for those projects.

[1015]

M. Farnworth: How much of the $2.3 billion in provincial funding is from provincial coffers, and how much is from foundation or private contributions?

Hon. M. de Jong: The figure refers to the estimated value of those projects. The provincial contribution to that amount is $1.73 billion.

M. Farnworth: Roughly $600 million is from either foundational or from private contributions. Is the ministry able to provide a breakdown on that $600 million?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, the other significant contributors outside of the Lower Mainland are the regional hospital districts, which have responsibility for 40 percent of large projects — not something that exists within. So foundations, donors, but in the case of a major capital project outside of the Lower Mainland, regional hospital districts, generally speaking, are obliged to contribute 40 percent of the cost.

M. Farnworth: I guess where I'm trying to go with this, to get a sense of it, is…. The regional hospitals will be classed as, in essence, public funding from regional hospital districts. That 40 percent does not include foundational gifts or private donations. Is that correct?

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Yeah. I'd just like to get an idea of the size of the foundational gifts and private donations in terms of the capital construction and what's taken place in the province.

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe we can do that. The most accurate way for us to do it would be to go project by project and confirm where there is a commitment. An example of that would be the mental health centre at VGH that includes a significant foundation contribution for which there is a commitment, and the project is proceeding on that basis.

For a number of the other capital projects similar commitments have been made. The projects proceed on that basis.

Happily, there has been, I think, a success rate of close to 100 percent on meeting those foundational or charitable contributions. We'll have to do it project by project. I don't have a cumulative figure for the member at my fingertips.

M. Farnworth: If the minister could commit to providing that, that would be much appreciated.

In terms of the decision-making process around which capital projects in fact go ahead in any particular year, how much influence does the fact that there may be a significant foundational or private donation have in terms of a decision to move forward on a particular capital project? Is that a determining factor in the process by which a project is approved?

[1020]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll start by saying this. The analysis of the capital projects that are on the table, or proposals, is ultimately decided on the basis of need. The ministry works with the health authorities in terms of establishing priorities around projects. The member can well imagine, as a former Health Minister, some of the challenges that that involves, because there are competing needs. It is often difficult to distinguish, on a priority basis, one from the other. The other constant is that there is always a need and a desire to build that outstrips the capacity that the taxpayers have to fund.

The determining factor is need. But the member asks a good question. A very generous philanthropist comes along — be it a foundation, an individual, a company — and says: "I have $5 million, $10 million, $15 million, $20 million." What influence does that have? The best way…. This is based on my direct opportunity to participate in this exercise. To suggest that it doesn't register would be incorrect because, of course, it does.

The ideal situation is when the donor's generosity intersects with the need at the right time and the right place. Lions Gate mental health facility was an example of that. VGH mental health project is a similar case, where donors have stepped forward with sizeable contributions targeted for a project that has already been identified as having a need.

[1025]

Now, the other thing that does, of course, is that arguably it has an impact on other projects because the donation of the funding frees up what would otherwise be allocated public dollars for application to other projects. So there's a bit, or there's more than a bit. There's a spinoff effect, a spinoff benefit that accrues when donors step forward and say: "Our company, our family, our foundation assign such great importance to this project that we are prepared to make this sizeable contribution."

I have not seen a case, however, where a project arises out of nowhere simply because a donor steps forward
[ Page 11950 ]
and says: "If you'll build X, I'll contribute 20 or 30 or 40 percent of the cost." It has always been, in my experience, a case of the generosity intersecting with the need and a project that was already being pursued. It certainly does assist with meeting the fiscal challenges with a project.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate that answer from the minister. I think it's an important question. I mean, we don't want to discourage philanthropic giving. I think it can play an important component in the development of capital facilities. I think that we've seen some very significant gifts in this province that have really done a lot of good work.

I guess the question I'm asking…. I want to make sure that, as much as possible, you have that intersection of the government's priorities, the health authorities' priorities and that of philanthropic giving. So my next question I was going to ask the minister is: does the government have a strategy, or does it actively seek out donors for capital projects, people who are considering making a significant gift? If so, does it in a way that attempts to match or to encourage giving with regard to a particular capital plan that the government has?

As much as possible, if someone has $10 million or $15 million or $20 million that they're looking to donate, and they maybe have…. "We think that it should go here." Does the government say: "You know what? That's really good, but you could also do some really good work if you looked at these particular projects in this particular community or these particular projects dealing with this particular type of treatment facility"? Does the government have a plan or strategy in regard to that approach?

[1030]

Hon. M. de Jong: Generally speaking, I would say that the government and the ministry are not engaged in the act of philanthropic fundraising activities. That generally is performed by the foundations. We are eternally grateful when someone steps forward and a foundation steps forward.

There are a variety of scenarios. I will quickly go through the ones that seem to recur with regularity.

The foundations — when I use the term "foundation" in this context, I'm generally referring to hospital foundations that have been created over many years and evolved over time and are volunteer-driven. Some are very, very sophisticated in terms of the amounts of money that they raise. They are located across the province — not simply a Vancouver or Victoria phenomenon. They exist all over the province and do incredibly valuable work.

When a project is on the books, what will frequently occur is that the foundation will come to the health authority and to the ministry and say: "Look, we are anxious, obviously, to see this project — this patient tower, this emergency room, this surgical suite — proceed. We are confident enough in our fundraising capacity that we will commit to raise X number of dollars, and by announcing the project you will actually unleash our energies. It's harder for us as a foundation to pursue those dollars until such time as people know a project is actually in the works and going to become a reality."

They'll sign on for a particular commitment and then go off and do their work. That's a very common scenario. They will then approach donors large and small. If they're fortunate, they'll attract a very generous philanthropist who will donate a large amount. Sometimes that is reflected in naming rights that then accrue to the agency or the family or the individual.

There are other cases where a project has been announced, is proceeding, is actually in construction, and an agency or an individual will step forward and say: "I have learned of this project. I want to make a contribution — a significant contribution." That has happened.

Very rarely, and I do mean very rarely, an individual or agency will come forward, identify themselves to the government, the ministry, or the health authority and say: "We are interested in making a sizeable contribution. We don't have a particular project in mind. We would like it to be in the field of health care. What are you up to? Let's talk about what a good fit might be." That doesn't happen often, but I have seen that occur on at least one occasion. If I've seen it, then it's certainly not outside of the realm of the possible.

Those are three tracks by which donated money finds itself into a project, and as I say, sometimes the donation is of such magnitude that it generates a conversation about naming privileges or somehow assigning a permanent acknowledgment of the donation.

[1035]

M. Farnworth: I appreciate that answer. I think one of the concerns is that, given the potential in terms of capital projects and just the sheer amount of money that's required to make them come to fruition, it's important in terms of funding sources that as much coordination as possible is taking place, particularly with the health authorities, the foundations and the province, to get the best bang for the buck, but also to get the best bang in terms of where the ministry's priorities are in terms of the capital projects that we'd like to see going forward.

I would like to raise the issue, while we're on this topic with the minister, of a gift that was initially offered around ADHD from the owner of, I think it was, Trev Deeley Motorcycles. It was the $3 million gift for adult ADHD. I gather the individual contacted the health authority and did not hear back. He tried again and eventually gave up, and he went to take his donation somewhere else.

At the time the health authority said that they would have a look at the policies and procedures that were in place for when somebody does contact wanting to make a donation.
[ Page 11951 ]

I want to ask the ministry, one, if they're aware of the particular issue, and two, what action has been taken in that area.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have some of the information. I think the specifics of the offer are that an individual who is or was the CEO of Harley-Davidson Canada had offered to PHSA, the Provincial Health Services Authority, a donation of up to $3 million for an adult ADHD program.

[1040]

The first thing one wants to say is that a donation, an offer, of that kind is exceedingly generous. It bears repeating on the record here — acknowledging that generosity, that interest, that willingness to step forward and help in a very tangible way.

As I understand from the information that's been provided to me, a couple of things happened. But maybe I should cut to the chase. The issue that is identified for me relates to the speed with which information was conveyed to the donor, which does not appear to have been optimum. When someone makes that kind of an offer, one hopes and assumes that there will be a solid line of communication and that the donor will be kept apprised of what is taking place and what, if any, problems are identified.

What appears to have happened, however, is that the health authority was unable to accommodate the offer in the way that the donor wished, but $1 million was ultimately received — again, with much thanks — from the donor and found its way to the Lions Gate mental health, as part of the Lions Gate mental health facility, which some of us are very familiar with and have worked hard to make a reality.

One can never be happy about leaving potentially donated dollars on the table. It is, however, an example of something the member raised earlier. It is certainly evidence of the fact that donations and offers of donations cannot and do not drive the decision-making process.

I'll have to check, but my sense is that particularly around programming dollars, if someone comes along and — as generous as a multi-million-dollar donation is — if it is to establish an ongoing program, the receiving agency — in this case, PHSA — has to ask themselves where the ongoing funding is going to come from to sustain that program through the longer term. If they're unable to answer that question in the positive, then it's probably disingenuous to begin something that they can't see through.

I'm not certain that's the only issue that was at play here, but it was certainly one of the issues at play — in terms of the question around priorities and the ability to sustain the program, worthy as it undoubtedly was — and that drove a decision. Timeliness and courtesy in communicating that decision in a case like this, however, is paramount.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the answer, because I do think that that is one of the key points. In this particular case, timeliness was lacking, and there was a commitment when this became public that there would be a review of policies by the foundations and the health authority to make sure that this did not happen again.

The question I would put to the ministry is to make sure that reviews of the policies and procedures did in fact take place so that when somebody does come forward with a generous offer, as was the case here, that they're contacted, that they're gotten back to in a timely fashion. But just as importantly — and I agree with what the minister is saying, for example, in terms of program funding — there are all kinds of ongoing costs once the money runs out, and those have to be addressed.

At the same time, if somebody is willing to make a donation, that's where I raised the issue earlier in terms of the ministry saying: "Look, we do appreciate this. Here's why either it doesn't fit right now or there may be other areas in which your donation may in fact achieve a similar goal or objective that's in line with provincial or health authority priorities." I think it's important that that be well established within the health authorities. That sort of understanding and those procedures need to be there.

[1045]

I'd ask the minister to look into that to make sure that the health authority did indeed follow through with what they said they would do with regards to what happened in this particular instance.

Hon. M. de Jong: We are going to follow up. I should say, and I suspect I won't get much argument from the hon. member, that this strikes me as an imminently commonsense thing. Someone makes a donation, and every donation is important, but when someone is bringing a multi-million-dollar donation to the table, you want to do everything possible to try and accommodate that donation.

We have, over the course of our discussion thus far this morning, I think, demonstrated that that's not always possible, because the priorities identified by the health authorities on the basis of need are what must ultimately determine the course of action. But you sure hate to leave money on the table when someone comes and says generously: "My family and I, or my company and I, wish to provide a donation to assist in public health care initiatives."

I will pursue that. But it strikes me that this is one of those areas where a healthy dose of common sense is what should largely drive the policy, the actions and the approach.

M. Farnworth: Still on capital, I'd like to switch the focus for just a minute because, first off, there'll be a number of people who want to ask some questions on specific capital projects. Vancouver and Surrey are the obvious
[ Page 11952 ]
contenders right now.

In terms of establishing priorities, the ministry and the health authorities, working together, are looking at need, clearly, and future growth — what's happening throughout the province in that regard.

Another area where there's significant need — I know that my colleague from Vancouver–West End will focus on a specific hospital — is the role of seismic upgrading. What role does that play in the capital decision-making process of the ministry? How much is being allocated across the province in terms of seismic upgrading of hospital facilities? Can the ministry give me some idea of whether or not they have a seismic upgrading plan that applies to health care facilities, hospitals, across the province?

[1050]

Hon. M. de Jong: A few dimensions to this. Here's one that is not included. Maybe I'll start there. There is not a seismic upgrade program of the sort that the member will have heard about in the Education Ministry, where a set number of facilities or a set amount of dollars has been earmarked for a category of capital upgrade called seismic upgrade. As we move around the province and either renovate or replace facilities, obviously that work gets done as these facilities are upgraded and renewed.

A couple of things that I am reminded of, however, are worth repeating. There is non-structural work that takes place on a regular basis, on an ongoing basis. In the case of a catastrophic event — in this case, we're talking generally about earthquakes — a lot of the injuries, I am told, will result from material falling on people, whether it's bookcases, lights, equipment.

Non-structural upgrades that involve tying things down — lights being hung on chains that are better able to resist earthquake seismic activity — can be and is done on a regular basis. But I wouldn't want to suggest that there is this separate envelope of money and a separate line item that has been dedicated to seismic upgrade.

I suppose the last point, again, that I'm reminded bears repeating, is that hospitals, whether they were built in the '50s, '60s, whenever…. Seismic standards today are much stricter than they were, but all of these facilities were built in their day with a view to resisting seismic activity to a much larger extent than other buildings.

There's no question that the hospital that was built recently in Abbotsford is, from a seismic point of view, far superior to the building that it replaced, but even in the 1950s, they applied a stricter standard to the building so that they would resist those kinds of natural disasters better than other buildings in a community.

[1055]

I hope that begins to answer the member's question.

M. Farnworth: It does begin, but it actually raises a number of questions. Yes, I accept that buildings built in the '50s or in the '60s were built to a higher seismic standard than, let's say, other public buildings, including the building we're in at the present time. But having said that, standards do change over 50 and 60 years. Assumptions that were in place in the '50s and the '60s can be found to have been incorrect. Engineering advances are far more significant.

The question I have is: has there then been a survey of our hospital facilities with regard to their seismic safety and standards done in the province?

Hon. M. de Jong: Right. There is a survey presently underway for facilities in the Lower Mainland.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell me when it started, who's doing it and when it's expected to be completed?

Hon. M. de Jong: A timely question. Here's the chronology on what has taken place.

[1100]

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

There was an RFP by the ministry to retain the services of a firm capable of doing an assessment of facilities' structural conditions, including their seismic capacity. That RFP closed in December. There has been a preferred proponent identified, and the parties are in the midst of finalizing the terms of the contract and expect that to occur over the next three to four weeks.

The work, in general terms, will involve assessing facilities in the Lower Mainland. The health authorities will identify the highest-priority facilities. The work is structured in a way that would see…. It will be a five-year project, with the reports being issued on an annualized basis. So 20 percent of the facilities would be done each year, starting with the highest-priority facilities as identified by the health authorities.

I think that's all I have at this point.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate that response from the minister. So this is taking place in the Lower Mainland, which we know is a seismic area. Has something like this being done on Vancouver Island, which is every bit as sensitive to seismic activity — in some ways, perhaps even more so? Has this work been done on the Island, and if not, when can we expect a similar RFP and project for Vancouver Island?

Hon. M. de Jong: To answer the member's question, work of a similar sort has not been completed on Vancouver Island. The overall intention is to move across the province with this kind of assessment work.

I would say this, however, about Vancouver Island. With perhaps the exception of Nanaimo, if we go up and
[ Page 11953 ]
down the Island, we're largely dealing with very, very modern facilities. North Island will see two new hospitals built. Royal Jubilee, of course, has just completed the major upgrade.

In terms of rationalizing the Lower Mainland going first, I suppose someone had to go first on the basis of priority. But the fact is that on the Island the risk is somewhat different — not the risk of an event but the risk associated with the facilities, given that they are, in virtually all cases, much more modern facilities.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for the response. Yes, on the Island we are dealing with newer facilities. But nonetheless, I do think it's important that some form of that work be done. There are a lot of health care facilities, particularly in smaller communities. I think it's important that we have a good understanding of the seismic structural situation of those facilities.

In terms of the work that's being done on the Lower Mainland, the minister stated that it's a five-year project that's being envisaged, with a 20 percent reporting out each particular year. Have the health authorities already identified the structures that they believe need to be assessed? Does the minister know if they are prioritized, or is that work that's still to be done?

[1105]

Hon. M. de Jong: I may have inadvertently provided the member and the committee with incorrect information. The contract that I spoke of that is due to be finalised here shortly, that five-year contract, I am advised, is for work across the province. The intention is to start in the Lower Mainland, and there is a working group in place to identify the priority facilities which has representation from the ministry and from each of the health authorities.

So that group is doing their work. Those priority facilities in the Lower Mainland will receive attention first. I'm not aware that they have been identified at this point, but they will be, in the case of the Lower Mainland, very, very quickly because the work is due to begin. But there is a working group in place that will be identifying the priority facilities across the province.

Again, I apologize for not having provided the correct information earlier. The contract covers work that will ultimately take place across British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to ask the minister, then…. The contract is for work right across the province. Is it still a five-year timeline for the entire province, or is that just for the Lower Mainland? The 20 percent rollout — is that, again, for work across the province?

Are we going to get a sense of, at the end of year 1, that here's the situation in various parts of the province? Or is it just going to be the Lower Mainland? So in that first year they're going to look at the Lower Mainland, and the second year, another part of the province? Can the minister enlighten me as to exactly how it's going to work out?

Hon. M. de Jong: Five years covers the entire province. At the end of the first year it's anticipated that the report will primarily address facilities in the Lower Mainland, but there is a possibility that there may be a facility or a couple of facilities from outside of the Lower Mainland. We expect it will primarily involve facilities within the Lower Mainland.

M. Farnworth: Once those facilities have been addressed…. This work is ongoing, and it's addressing facilities primarily in the Lower Mainland in the first year. We're reporting out over a five-year period.

The next question I have relates to the three-year capital budget. Is there funding in the three-year capital budget that the government has tabled to deal with issues identified in this report? Or is that going to require additional funding over and above what's in the capital projections that the ministry tabled in the budget?

[1110]

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's the best way I can think of to describe this. The short answer is no. It would be incorrect for me to suggest that in anticipation of the first report of the five-year reporting people…. As I said a few moments ago, there is not a separate item, X number of millions of dollars or tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, for seismic upgrade. There is a separate budget allocation for facilities rehabilitation.

I don't want to suggest to the member that's all for seismic. For some aged facilities there are electrical upgrades and elevator upgrades. That's what that is largely designed to address. As these issues emerge, it will require an assessment.

Let's take an example. When I think about seismic upgrade in aged facilities, quite frankly, in the Lower Mainland the building I think of is St. Paul's. It's old, parts of it very old — not all of it, but parts of it very old. My expectation at this stage is that seismic upgrade at St. Paul's would be taken care of as part of the redevelopment of that campus. I'm not sure one would want to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading a facility at the same time that we're talking about a significant rehabilitation or renewal of the campus.

Depending on the project, depending on the risk, that will in large measure determine the response and how that response is categorized as either a significant renovation, replacement, renewal versus an upgrade or seismic rehabilitation. I think much depends on the facility itself.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his response, and given the fact that the minister has raised St. Paul's, and we are going to be talking about that, it might be a good segue for the member for Vancouver–West End
[ Page 11954 ]
to ask some questions on St. Paul's, so I would turn the floor to him.

S. Chandra Herbert: To the minister: we've had many conversations on St. Paul's, as I've had many conversations with the previous ministers on St. Paul's. And I know the former member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is now working with the Liberal caucus, has also had many discussions with his caucus over the eight years that he represented them and my community, arguing for renewal of St. Paul's.

I'm interested in this discussion of seismic safety and the idea of a study being done. My understanding is that since 2003 the government has had a report on its table showing that the main Burrard building is at only 10 percent to 20 percent of what we would need for it to be seismically safe.

My question is to the minister. When will we finally get action to appoint a project board and have that business case ready to go, so that we can then, depending on what the government finds there, move on to the next stages of renewal for St. Paul's Hospital, so it's safe for all residents of Vancouver and, indeed, residents across B.C. who come to use the great programs that we have there?

[1115]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for his participation in the discussion.

I'll take a moment to highlight the trajectory and the sequencing of this, where we now have a concept plan and have had since last year, and say that there is a strong desire to move forward with this. The next stage would be the commissioning of the business case.

Business case is an interesting term, because it sounds like someone is being put to the onus or burden of establishing that something must happen. It's not really that. I think there's a recognition of the fact that there needs to be redevelopment at the site. The business case is really about: but what does that look like, and how does it all work together?

It's a $5 million or $6 million endeavour, I'm told. There was a day not that long ago when we talked about new hospitals costing $5 million or $6 million. Now the planning document, or one of the planning documents, costs that much.

The other significant feature to that is…. I actually consider that money well spent — good business case, good planning document, good project. But they have a limited shelf life, because in addition to determining what it is that the project is going to look like, there is a costing component to that. Well, that's probably good for a couple of years before it becomes stale.

[1120]

What you don't want to do is spend the $5 million or $6 million on the business case and then sit on it because of an inability to move forward.

I believe — I say it modestly — that the government has established some bona fides around the sequencing of these projects so that when these various tasks are done, we then flow to the next stage, and people can be confident that the timeline will be adhered to and the business case will be acted upon. We'll go to procurement, in whatever shape that takes, and get on with the construction of the project. Construction of projects like this are three- or four-year endeavours as well.

What is influencing the timing on this? Recognizing that there is a desire to move forward, that there is now, I think, general acceptance of the proposition that redevelopment will take place around the existing site…. I think the last time we had this conversation in this forum I was a little more cagey about whether other properties were in play. That was the information I had at the time.

I think it's fair to say that there is general acceptance of the proposition that the best case will be made for redevelopment at the site.

We have, in a province replete with worthy projects, in the case of the Lower Mainland…. The member is here from Surrey, where a sizeable project is taking place — in fact, I think the single largest project at the moment, the Surrey tower.

We're also confronted by the needs at Royal Columbian. I don't want to be coy with the member. Finding a way to manage those two projects, for which there is certainly urgency, and to move them forward….

I will say this, because it is relevant to the discussion around the fiscal questions and the financing questions. In the Lower Mainland, pursuant to agreements that were reached earlier, we do not enjoy the benefit of a 40 percent contribution from a regional local hospital district, local community. When, for example, the Abbotsford Hospital was built, there was a sizeable contribution from the local hospital district. That doesn't occur, again pursuant to agreements that have been made in the past, but to be sure, it adds to the complications around arriving at a logical and viable financial package for the project.

My purpose in going through this was not, as the member might be suspicious, to avoid answering the question. It was to candidly lay out the sequence that we are on, the considerations that we are on. I will say this: when the decision is made and the announcement is made to move forward with the business case and the expenditure of that $5 million or $6 million, I believe that represents the beginning of the redevelopment project.

I believe that triggers…. In order to have the value that it deserves, it says…. We are now on a track that says that these things are going to happen in this particular order, and the costs associated with it are going to begin to accrue.

[1125]

Yes, there will be approval processes along the way, but once you've taken that step and said that we are expending that money for the business case, for that busi-
[ Page 11955 ]
ness case to have value….

I see the member for New Westminster is on deck. Interesting — the two colleagues sitting side by side.

There is the dilemma associated…. We're not building Corvettes here; we're building aircraft carriers. These are two of the biggest, and that's the challenge right now.

S. Chandra Herbert: A thank-you to the minister for his detailed answer about why the government hasn't decided to do anything about St. Paul's at this stage.

I guess the question that comes up in my community consistently is…. The government was planning on moving the hospital out of our neighbourhood, moving it to the False Creek Flats. That was the Liberal plan. They were planning on spending approximately $1.2 billion on that plan.

The plan to renew St. Paul's on site is currently — without the full business case, I understand — sitting at approximately 50 percent of that, about half the cost of what the Liberals were planning to do before when moving it out of the neighbourhood. So it's a little difficult for our community to understand what's taking so long, given that in 2008 the government had been promising that a plan would be announced shortly which would show where different communities sat on the priority list, whether or not it's Royal Columbian or St. Paul's or other hospitals.

That had been the Health Minister's line at the time. The Health Minister in 2009 repeated it again. The plan was coming out soon. We would soon find out where people sat.

Here we are now, 2012. I understand the government is now saying another planning process is still continuing. People are frustrated, particularly when we hear from somebody like Bonnie Maples from Providence. Her line, when asked if she warned the government that St. Paul's would fall down if there was an earthquake, was that she's going to tell the judge: yup, she sure has warned the government about the inadequacies of our seismic safety at St. Paul's Hospital.

The community also finds it confusing that the government continues to spend approximately $800,000 a year on the Station Street lands through paying taxes. I'm not sure if that operation continues.

Can the minister let this chamber know if the government is indeed continuing to pay about $800,000 a year for the vacant land down by Station Street?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me say a few things in response to the member's submission. First of all, at one point I think I heard the member ask about when some attention was going to be paid to St. Paul's — to do something about St. Paul's.

[1130]

In fact — the member knows this, and I can send him over the list — tens of millions of dollars have been spent at St. Paul's on ensuring that the infrastructure is maintained and safe: elevators, electrical infrastructure.

Now we are at that stage, and I know this well from my involvement in other projects, where one seeks to maintain a balance between what is necessary and expending money on a facility that one hopes, in short order, is due for replacement and redevelopment. That does influence the decisions that are made. But tens of millions of dollars continue to be spent ensuring that the infrastructure at St. Paul's is maintained so that people can have the confidence that it will be there when they need it to provide service. I think it's important to acknowledge that.

I'll also say this — and only because I, perhaps incorrectly, detected a tone of dismissal or even ridicule in the member's submission to the committee. I would be cautious about criticizing agencies like Providence or the health authority — or the ministry, for that matter — for identifying some options around redevelopment. I understand that the member and many others have a position on the discussion between where the redevelopment should occur. In fact, I think that question has been largely determined.

I will not criticize an agency for establishing some options. I can also tell the member this. Redeveloping a campus where there is a working hospital is tricky business and includes some very, very technical, detailed planning to minimize the impact to patients, to the folks that work there. Both options involve costs. Both options involve different kinds of planning.

Moving a hospital from one site to the other is also challenging and difficult. I have seen that firsthand as well, and it's an incredible thing when a hospital literally shuts down on one day and begins operating on the same day elsewhere.

I think that has largely been resolved. The society that was established to hold the Station Street property continues to hold it. I think any analysis of that property and its value will reveal that that sale — and it is slated for a sale, I am advised — will realize significant profits that can be used and devoted to the cost of redevelopment at St. Paul's.

I may have been mistaken, but as I say, I detected a tone of criticism or ridicule around the fact that property had been purchased to develop at least a contingency or an option. I think that was entirely appropriate, and my expectation is that most people, including the member, will quietly cheer when that property is sold and the proceeds are available to devote to the redevelopment of St. Paul's.

M. Farnworth: I just want to come back to the seismic issue for a moment. Then other colleagues have questions about specific capital projects. I want to be mindful of the time.

We've established the term of the contract the minister has made on this particular issue, on St. Paul's — that he
[ Page 11956 ]
sees that as separate from this work that's being done in terms of the seismic. I see him nodding. I appreciate that.

The question, then, that flows from that is that clearly, this five-year project…. The expectation — certainly, from my perspective as Health critic — is going to be that once this work is done, once this is identified and once those annual reports are completed — the 20 percent on a year-by-year basis — that will need to be reflected in the capital decisions of government into the future.

[1135]

Once these issues have been identified, then these reports, particularly on seismic and safety, cannot sit on a shelf but rather are going to have to be acted upon in some sort of long-term plan, and that's going to have to be reflected in the capital funding that's available. Right now, that's not.

Just a quick response from the minister on that, and then we can move on.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, no doubt we will want to be guided in the development of future capital plans and priorities by what is revealed in the report. I think that's why you do the report. You do the report to help make decisions around where it makes sense to invest in an upgrade on an existing facility versus a replacement of that building. And where the two intersect, as I suspect they will in a facility like St. Paul's, you address the seismic issue through a major capital replacement project.

There will be other projects, I'm sure, that involve less dramatic improvements and structural upgrades to existing facilities. But all of that, as the member points out, flows from conducting the survey, establishing the inventory and then utilizing the information there to guide decisions around future priorities.

J. Brar: I think the minister knows very well that one of my kind of key concerns and key issues since I've been elected a Member of the Legislative Assembly has been health care services to the people of Surrey.

The minister knows very well that Surrey is the fastest-growing community in the country. We welcome about a thousand people every month, and it has been like that for about the last 15 years. In my view, keeping in mind the population growth in the city of Surrey and in that area, a decision was made by the previous government here to purchase a piece of land to build a new hospital to meet the health care needs of the growing community. That piece of land sits at the corner of Highway 10 and 152 Street.

In the last budget presented by the Minister of Finance, we found that that piece of land, which was seen as very important to meet the growing health care needs of the people of Surrey, was put on sale.

I understand that the government has built the outpatient hospital. I understand that the new tower is under construction. I understand all that.

At the same time, I want to say this. I vaguely remember that there was news coverage a few years ago indicating that the Fraser Health Authority had presented a report to the ministry basically saying that even after building these facilities, Surrey would need a new hospital in the future to meet the needs of the growing community.

Having said all that, I would like to ask two questions to the minister on this topic. The first one: did the Minister of Finance consult with the Minister of Health on this very important issue, and what was the advice given by the Minister of Health to the Minister of Finance on this piece of land?

The second question I want to ask: did the minister consult with the Fraser Health Authority about this important issue, and what was the advice given by the Fraser Health Authority to the Minister of Health about selling the piece of land we have at the corner of Highway 10 and 152 Street?

[1140]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member. I've heard him discuss this matter in the past. I don't know that there's any great mystery here.

I think that what we saw was an example five or six years ago of some prudent planning where land was acquired with a particular purpose in mind — certainly, the identification of a need to expand hospital facilities in Surrey. For a variety of reasons, decisions were made — and I think, ultimately, wisely — to expand the existing campus at Surrey Memorial and to augment that with the Jimmy Pattison surgical outpatient centre.

I presume there is no quarrel around the wisdom of those sizeable investments — in fact, huge investments. As a result, taking into account the conversation we just had with the member's colleague from West Vancouver and the one that I'm sure I will have momentarily with the member for New Westminster, we do have to establish some priorities.

Upwards of $1 billion plus has been spent in Surrey, is presently being spent to expand facilities. The present projections go out beyond 15 and 20 years before that property or any other property would be required for further expansion.

Now, I just received some mild criticism from the member's colleague for why land was purchased and being held for two or three years. If the member is suggesting that the land at No. 10 should be held for the next 15 or 20 years, then I guess he can tell me that.

[1145]

My guess is that we are going to agree to disagree on that point, because these significant investments are taking place, expanding the Surrey Memorial campus to provide health care services. I understand that the member probably would like to look out over his backyard fence and see a hospital at the corner of No. 10 and
[ Page 11957 ]
152 — Johnston Road as we used to call it back in the day. However, the decision was made to expand the campus that the member's colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers lives around the corner from. Can't do both.

All of the projections are that there won't be a need, and there certainly isn't going to be any ability on the part of the government, given the challenges we face at Royal Columbian and St. Paul's, to consider another $1 billion plus project in the next 15 years at least. As a result, the land is considered surplus and is available for sale and development.

J. Brar: Thanks to the Minister of Health for the response. I just want to, once again, put this on record, that my specific question was on the sale of property at Highway 10 — whether the minister consulted the Fraser Health Authority and what the specific response given by the Fraser Health Authority was. So I will put that on the record.

My next question, basically, is related to the new tower at Surrey Memorial Hospital. I know that the tower is under construction. I also understand the completion date is 2014, if you keep in mind the last promise made by the government.

My understanding is that 130 beds are being added, with a large number being ICU and NICU. So the new tower needs, of course, new staffing. My question to the minister is this. I'll put, probably, a couple of questions and then sit down. The question is: can the Minister of Health tell us if he has done any work to identify staffing needs to operate the new tower at Surrey Memorial Hospital to its full capacity?

Having said that, I recently met with the members from the HSA, and they have done that work already. In their view, they need for this new tower the following health professionals: speech-language pathologists, nine; dietitians, five or six; occupational therapists, 18; physiotherapists, 21. This does not, of course, include the nurses and pharmacists and other physicians.

Keeping in mind that we have a huge shortage of health professionals, I would like to ask the minister what plan the minister has prepared and how he is going to, basically, find these health professionals to fill these new positions for this new tower.

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is yes, and I will obtain information with respect to the third question.

I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada