2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 21

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Time

Introductions by Members

Constitution (Fixed Election

Dates) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 7). Hon. G. Plant

Introduction and first reading

Community Charter Council Act

(Bill 12). Hon. T. Nebbeling

Introduction and first reading

Consumer Protection Statutes

Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 19). Hon. R. Coleman

Introduction and first reading

Oral Questions

Appointment of B.C. Hydro CEO

J. MacPhail

Impact of offshore hake sales on fish processing

plants

G. Trumper

Status of youth employment program

J. MacPhail

Burns Bog conservation proposal

R. Masi

Proceedings in

Section B

Health Authorities Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2001 (Bill 9)

Second reading

Hon. C. Hansen

I. Chong

Lobbyists Registration Act (Bill

20)

Second reading

Hon. G. Plant

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant

Provincial Court Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2001 (Bill 17). Hon. G. Plant

Committee stage

Third reading

Skills Development and Fair Wage

Repeal Act (Bill 22)

Second reading

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Bruce

Committee of Supply

Ministry of Health Services estimates.

Hon. C. Hansen

Vote 33: Ministry operations

MacPhail

Hon. G.

Cheema

Hon. C.

Hansen

K. Krueger

R. Stewart

R. Hawes

G. Trumper

J. Nuraney

Hon. K.

Whittred

I. Chong

Vote 34: Vital Statistics

Proceedings in

Section A

Committee of Supply

Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and

Women's Services estimates.

Hon. G. Abbott

Vote 20: Ministry operations

Hon. G.

Abbott

R. Stewart

D. MacKay

M. Hunter

G. Trumper

I. Chong

Hon. L.

Stephens

R. Lee

D. Jarvis

Hon. T.

Nebbeling

Anderson

Vote 21: Local government

grants

Vote 22: Royal British

Columbia Museum

[ Page 611 ]

MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 2001

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Today I would like to introduce two guests who have been here

before. First, Mr. Jim Abram, who is the president of the UBCM, is here with

Richard Taylor, who is the executive director of the UBCM. The UBCM is an

organization that represents all community councils and regional boards. Because

of that role, it is a major partner in the creation of a community charter.

Today they

are with us to witness the introduction of a bill that will initiate the process

of bringing to British Columbia a community charter. We value not only their

input but also the dedication to bring it into the House in the spring session.

I ask the House to make them welcome.

[1405]

Harris: This is my first time to be able to welcome some guests down from

Terrace. I'd like to introduce to the House at this time the mayor of Terrace

for the last 17 years, Mayor Jack Talstra, who is down here with his chief

administrative officer, Ron Poole. They're going to be spending a couple of days

in the capital, and I'd like the House to wish them welcome.

Hon. L.

Stephens: I have the honour and privilege to introduce to the House today a

delegation from Ethiopia. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you hosted a lunch today,

and I have the honour of meeting with them this afternoon.

I would

like to welcome our guests today. They are the Minister of Women's Affairs and

members of the Women's Affairs Committee, House of People's Representatives,

Parliament of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia: the Minister of

Women's Affairs, the Hon. Tadelech Mechael; the Chairperson of Committee, the

Hon. Hirut Birasa; the Secretary of Committee, the Hon. Ethiopia Beyene;

committee members the Hon. Nuria Mohammed, the Hon. Meselech Wedajo, the Hon.

Senite Andarge, the Hon. Asefash Tasew, the Hon. Aster Donocho, the Hon. Mr.

Girma Tesema, the Hon. Mr. Mohammed Ahmed, the Hon. Hasna Waleo, the Hon.

Zeyituna Teha, the Hon. Mesert Mamo; and their adviser, Ms. Hadera Tesfay; with

the Parliamentary Centre representatives from Ottawa Mr. Ted Dreger and Ms.

Raphaelle Vrain. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Trumper: It's my pleasure today to welcome — they're somewhere in the

gallery — a delegation from the Alberni Valley who is here to meet Treasury

Board regarding the proposed smelter project: the acting mayor, Donna Brett; the

Chair of the regional district of Alberni-Clayoquot, Gary Swann; Hugh Anderson,

who is the Chair of the Port Authority and a past member of the Port Alberni

council and a Member of Parliament and was also given the Freedom of the City

award last year. They also have with them Eric McCormick, who is the manager of

the city of Port Alberni; Bob Harper, who is the administrator of the regional

district; Dennis White, who is the manager of the Port Authority; and Janet

Schlackel, who is the economic development officer. I ask the House to please

welcome them.

Hon. G.

Campbell: All of us in this House know how important volunteers are to our

efforts to serve in public life. I'd like to recognize two people who have

always been strong supporters of mine and of the B.C. Liberal Party. Peter and

Helen Macdonald are here. I can tell you that Helen was a supporter way back in

1993, when I was seeking leadership of the party. I must admit, Helen, that I

feel much better about you today than I did in 1997 and 1998 and 1999. But thank

you for being there all the time. I appreciate it.

Brenzinger: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House three people in my

family who are visiting Victoria today. I have with me today my mother-in-law,

Ingrid Brenzinger, a retired linguistics professor from UBC; my husband, Leo, who

is being a great Mr. Mom these days; and my youngest son, Alexander Brenzinger.

I believe they're somewhere up in the gallery. Would the House make them

welcome.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Today I'm pleased to have two guests in the House from the British

Columbia Wine Institute. The first is Tony Stewart, from Quails' Gate Estate

Winery in Westbank. The other is Harry McWatters from Sumac Ridge Estate Winery

in Summerland. They're both located in the great riding of Okanagan-Westside.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[1410]

Nuraney: I would like the House to welcome two of my very good friends from

Burnaby, Jeanette and Neil MacKay.

Hon. S.

Bond: I am pleased today to be able to introduce Susan Rogers, who is

visiting with us from Winnipeg. I'd like to say she's here to check out question

period. She's actually here to check on a member of my staff, her daughter

Danielle. Please make Susan welcome today.

H. Bloy:

It gives me honour today to have the pleasure of introducing Debbie Moffat.

Debbie Moffat worked tirelessly on my campaign and donated many hours running

the food bank. She also works very hard in the community as Chairperson for

Burnaby's 7th Mountain Scouts, and she's active in her parent advisory committee

at the school. I would like to ask the House to make Debbie Moffat welcome,

along with her friend who's visiting from London, England, Gary Appel.

[ Page 612 ]

Hon. G.

Abbott: Visiting Victoria today from Sicamous is my wife, Lesley. I would

ask the House to make her welcome.

Hon. J.

Murray: I have the pleasure of introducing two people today. One is a

constituent from New Westminster, Michael Cairns, and his friend Nick Deeley.

Michael was a very capable and energetic volunteer in my campaign. He is moving

to Ontario tomorrow, unfortunately, but I'm hoping B.C. can lure him back before

too long. Please make Michael and Nick welcome.

Stewart: It's my pleasure to introduce today the president and CEO of

Riverview Hospital, Marion Suski. Riverview Hospital is a significant employer

in Coquitlam-Maillardville and one of the largest mental health facilities in

British Columbia. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

J. Les:

It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House a good friend from Chilliwack,

John Jansen. He was previously a member of this House from 1986 to 1991 and,

amongst other things, currently serves as the Chair of the B.C. Milk Marketing

Board. Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CONSTITUTION (FIXED ELECTION DATES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I am pleased to introduce the Constitution (Fixed Election Dates)

Amendment Act, 2001. This bill would amend the Constitution Act to provide for a

fixed date for general elections every four years. It will enact the new-era

commitment to establish a fixed provincial election date under the B.C.

Constitution Act to ensure that provincial elections must be held on a fixed

date every fourth year or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in

the Legislature. Another new-era commitment made, another new-era commitment

kept.

In its

terms the act will provide that, subject to the right of the Lieutenant-Governor

to prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly as the Lieutenant-Governor sees

fit, a general election day must occur on May 17, 2005, and subsequently on the

second Tuesday in May in the fourth year following the most recently held

general election.

The

government believes that the certainty and predictability brought about by this

reform will serve to make government more responsible and accountable to British

Columbians and will encourage greater fairness and trustworthiness in the

political life of the province.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

[1415]

Bill 7

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

COMMUNITY CHARTER COUNCIL ACT

Hon. T.

Nebbeling presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Community Charter Council Act.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I move that this bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I am very pleased to present the Community Charter Council Act

today. For a long time local governments have asked for greater autonomy over

decision-making powers that impact their local citizens. The community charter

will do exactly that.

The

Community Charter Council Act is the first step to create the process to

complete a community charter for the spring session. I believe, and so do all my

colleagues and local governments, that the charter is for local governments and

must be created in consultation with local governments. Today we fulfil our

90-day commitment to introduce the process that will allow local governments to

indeed have a voice in how the community charter will be created. The charter

will give local governments greater autonomy. It will stop provincial

downloading and prohibit forced amalgamations, and the charter will give local

governments greater abilities to create financial resources.

Mr.

Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. R.

Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. R.

Coleman: This bill amends the Consumer Protection Act by removing the

requirement that direct sellers be licensed, and it amends the Credit Reporting

[ Page 613 ]

Act by removing the requirement that credit reporting agencies be registered.

These amendments are introduced in accordance with a promise made in the New

Era document: the reduction of red tape and the regulatory burden on

business. This reduction can take place without compromising consumer

protection. I will speak about each amendment in turn.

Direct

sellers licensed as companies, not as individuals, sell such products as home

renovations, cosmetics and vacuum cleaners at a place other than their permanent

place of business. Typically, this involves door-to-door sales. In the latter

part of the 1990s, since the introduction of direct-seller licensing in 1994,

B.C. has worked with other provinces and territories to develop harmonized rules

for direct selling. These rules address the abusive practices that licensing

was introduced to combat and include a cooling-off period that provides the

consumer with an absolute ten-day cancellation right.

Licensing

is not a required element of the harmonization agreement. Licensing in B.C. has

proven ineffective as an enforcement measurement for direct sellers, with most

complaints being addressed through non-licensing enforcement methods. These

include application of the rules of general application, the Consumer Protection

Act and the Trade Practice Act, which continue to apply to direct sellers. The

regulatory burden on business may be lifted without negatively impacting

consumer protection.

These

amendments also eliminate the requirement that credit reporting agencies

register with government on an annual basis. Credit reports contain information

about an individual's credit history and are used by lenders to make decisions

about whether or not to grant a loan. Registration costs credit reporters time

and money and does not assist government to ensure that the rules set by the

Credit Reporting Act are followed. Under the act, credit reporting agencies must

give consumers access to their own credit reports and correct any incorrect

information in those reports. Agencies must have procedures to ensure the

accuracy and fairness of the information they collect, and they are prohibited

from collecting certain types of information. All consumer protection rules

remain in place with the repeal of the registration requirement.

[1420]

Mr.

Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr.

Speaker: If I may, hon. member, I believe we neglected to move the first

reading and introduction, if you would be so kind.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that Bill 19, intituled Consumer Protection Statutes

Amendment Act, 2001, be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENT OF B.C. HYDRO CEO

MacPhail: At tremendous cost to the B.C. taxpayers, the Premier has

appointed the B.C. Liberal transition committee Chair Larry Bell, CEO of B.C.

Hydro. The Premier promised that it would be a non-partisan public service, yet

we know that Mr. Bell has donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Liberal

Party. It has also been reported that a salary of a large size will be

forthcoming to Mr. Bell, although that came from the Vancouver Sun and

the Province , so we need to check our facts on that.

To the

minister responsible for B.C. Hydro: can he confirm the salary that the CEO of

Hon. G.

Campbell: First of all, let me say to the member opposite that our

government has decided that it's going to go out and attract the best and the

brightest British Columbians to public service in this province. It is necessary

that we do that, because her government — the previous government —

decimated the public service, appointed people with no experience, with no

background, and did inestimable damage to Crown corporations like B.C. Hydro.

When you can go and attract someone like Larry Bell — a former Minister of

Finance, someone who's been active in the government for years, a former Chair

of B.C. Hydro, someone who has been an active participant in the business

community of British Columbia, who can help bring together the energy policy of

this province — I say we should say: "Thank you, Mr. Bell. It's great to

have you here, Mr. Bell. We're looking forward to working with you, Mr.

Bell."

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a supplemental question.

MacPhail: Certainly the Premier's tune on that has changed since his

election. Let's look at what the Premier truly has in mind, then, by appointing

Mr. Bell. During the election this government and this Premier promised British

Columbians that they would not sell, privatize or deregulate B.C. Hydro,

including the transmission lines. Now the architect of privatization who is

Larry Bell, the architect of privatization of B.C. Gas, has been appointed the

CEO of B.C. Hydro. Is that the best and the brightest in terms of accomplishing

the goal that the Premier has in mind?

[ Page 614 ]

In his

estimates the Minister of Energy and Mines said that B.C. must provide

"independent power producers unfettered access to those transmission

lines." Unfettered access means one of two things. It means either

privatization or deregulation — one of the two. That's how the Premier's story

has changed. Will the minister please explain to British Columbians how his

comments are anything other than a direct contradiction to what the now Premier

said during the election?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The member should read the New Era document and focus on

it, because that's exactly what this government intends to do with energy policy

in the province.

Mr.

Speaker: One further supplemental.

MacPhail: Indeed, British Columbians expect this Premier to fill in the gaps

of information that were not contained in the New Era document, and

that's what this session is all about. After B.C. Gas was privatized, Larry Bell

served as director of B.C. Gas and as a senior director of TransAlta.

[1425]

As the

Premier may know, many companies require senior executives to undertake to not

work in the same industry for a period of years after they leave. Given Mr.

Bell's close connections with companies that stand to gain from the energy

deregulation that will occur in this province, it would give British Columbians

great comfort and great confidence to know that as CEO, Mr. Bell has no

incentive to sell, privatize or deregulate its parts.

Again, to

the Minister of Energy and Mines — I assume he wrote the contract: does Mr.

Bell's contract include that he not work for any part of B.C. Hydro that may be

sold or privatized, or for any company that stands to gain from the deregulation

of energy in B.C., for a period of years following his term as Hydro CEO?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I think it would be best if this member understood that the people

that we're appointing to government have a far higher ethical standard than the

people that she appointed to government.

Mr. Bell's

background, both in public service and in private life, has been a background

that has always been focused on what's best for the province of British

Columbia. He has been asked to join us as we develop an energy policy. He has

been asked to take over the helm of B.C. Hydro, which was mismanaged for years

and years and politically manipulated under that member's government. So that

member should know this: Mr. Bell, as all other heads of Crown corporations,

will come to the Committee on Crown Corporations of this House, and you can ask

him any question that you'd like.

I can tell

the member this: we will have an energy policy which will put our consumers

first in British Columbia and which will take advantage of the energy

opportunities that British Columbia has, so everyone in this province starts to

benefit from that incredible resource.

IMPACT OF OFFSHORE HAKE SALES

ON FISH PROCESSING PLANTS

Trumper: I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and

Fisheries. Fish processors on the Island are concerned that local fishers are

selling their catch to offshore factories such as the Polish fleet instead of to

the fish processing plants in British Columbia. Many of these processing

facilities fear that the supply of hake has been jeopardized by the size of the

catch that has been sold to the offshore factory ships. What is the minister

doing to ensure the sustainability of processing plants in British Columbia

which rely on this catch for survival?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I want to say to the member that I have met with the owners of

those plants and have toured those plants. Certainly, there has been a

significant level of investment made there based on the understanding of a

long-term policy that priority access would be given to shore plants. I have

written to the federal minister indicating our opposition to further allocations

to the joint venture, to the Polish vessels. We will work with the federal

minister. We have also spoken to the federal minister, the Hon. David Anderson,

and will continue to work with our Minister of State for Intergovernmental

Relations to ensure that these plants get the fish they need based on the

longstanding DFO policy.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Alberni-Qualicum with a supplemental question.

Trumper: I would like to address the Minister of State for Intergovernmental

Relations. The federal government is responsible for determining how much of the

hake goes offshore. British Columbia fish processors are fearful that the

federal government will increase the quota of acceptable offshore sales and

threaten the survival of these processing plants. Will the minister tell us what

he is doing to ensure that the federal Ministry of Fisheries addresses the

concerns of British Columbia processors?

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: To the member opposite, certainly the hake industry is

important to the economy of British Columbia and particularly to the coastal

communities and the fishers and processors over there. Further to that, I have

been working with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries on a common

position for British Columbia. About three weeks ago we met with Herb Dhaliwal,

the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and outlined our position. He has

promised us that he will be reviewing their policy this fall, and we will

certainly be a part of that.

[1430]

Just last

week we had the opportunity to meet with Stephen Owen, the leader of the Liberal

caucus in

[ Page 615 ]

British Columbia. He had met with some of the processors as well, so he's

aware of our concerns. He's bringing those concerns to their caucus in Edmonton

this week and will be meeting with federal members of the Alliance Party, as

well, to make them aware of our position in British Columbia.

STATUS OF YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

MacPhail: Last week six young people in Nanaimo were fired from their jobs

two days after they were hired, because this government axed funding for a youth

team initiative.

Now, cast

your mind back three years ago. The now Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise almost came to blows with the former Premier because a young person

in his riding lost his youth employment position. How things change. The

Minister of Competition has axed six young people from their youth employment

positions because he thinks hiring young people to fix our environment is a

subsidy.

To the

Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. Three years ago he almost came

to blows over youth jobs. Could the minister explain to these six young people

in Nanaimo why he's cut their summer jobs? And how many other young people's

jobs has he taken away that we don't know about?

Hon. G.

Collins: The member can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the program

she's speaking about is something where the government provides subsidies to

elements in the public sector to hire youth for part-time jobs in the summer.

There was a policy in place — and it's been a longstanding policy in place —

that people not make hires until such time as funding is granted. Funding had

not been delivered to any of these programs, to my knowledge, at this point in

the fiscal year. I and my ministry have been undergoing a review of all of our

programs. That is one that we have decided not to continue with as part of our

ability to keep the government's finances under control, and it's unfortunate

that anyone was hired prior to receiving any notice of grants. Those agencies

should not have done that.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I fear for the safety of the Minister of Finance if

the Minister of Competition and Science hears that answer. I say he should not

go out into the hallway when the Minister of Competition and Science is out

there, because what the Minister of Finance has said is that he's cut jobs for

young people — the great defender of young people during the last election.

They've cut the programs for young people, so I fear for his safety. These young

people were to complete a habitat restoration project and protect an endangered

ecosystem at Rathtrevor Provincial Park.

To the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: can the minister explain to these

young people why her government took their jobs away?

Hon. G.

Collins: I'll continue with the answer that I gave earlier. Members of the

public, the various parts of the public service in British Columbia understand

how this program works. They're not to hire people until such time as the funds

are granted. The previous government had not granted those funds. I have chosen,

out of the Ministry of Finance, not to grant those funds.

What I

would like to add, though, to the member opposite is that I expect there to be

many jobs for young people in British Columbia in the future, and we'll actually

see our youth unemployment rate go down over time. The reason for that is that

this government understands that the way to keep longstanding, good jobs for

people in British Columbia is to make sure our economy is doing better than it's

been doing for the last decade. That's why we put tax cuts out there for small

businesses, for medium-sized businesses and for individuals. I expect we'll see

lots of jobs for young people, and we'll see them coming back to British

Columbia instead of leaving.

BURNS BOG CONSERVATION PROPOSAL

R. Masi:

Burns Bog, located in Delta, is home to a wide variety of plants and animals,

many of which are now in danger. The people of Delta are very concerned that

this scenic greenspace may be damaged by development. Can the minister tell us

what the government is doing to preserve and protect Burns Bog?

[1435]

Hon. J.

Murray: In opposition we promised to acquire and protect that important

ecosystem, Burns Bog. Its ecological integrity and future were at risk due to

the NDP's support of the development of a theme park.

This was a

new-era commitment to acquire and protect Burns Bog. One of the first actions

the government took was to put in place funding for a federal-provincial

agreement that included the funding for Burns Bog. We remain committed to

acquiring and protecting Burns Bog.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Delta North with a supplementary question.

R. Masi:

I realize that there is a deal — and our constituents are strongly supportive

of this proposal — intended to transform the area into protected territory.

Can the minister tell my constituents the status of this deal at the present

time?

Hon. J.

Murray: Negotiations with the landowner have begun, and they're underway.

We're confident that we can reach a deal. One thing that I would like to assure

British Columbians, though, is that this government is committed to getting

value from taxpayers' dollars, so we will not pay one penny more than fair

market value for this property. We will

[ Page 616 ]

acquire and protect it, and we will involve the local community in how it's

managed.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, by prior agreement we will be discussing the estimates of the Minister

of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. In this House, I call second

reading of Bill 9, the Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001.

HEALTH AUTHORITIES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2001

(second reading)

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that Bill 9, the Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2),

2001, be read a second time now.

Bill

9 is the result of legislation brought in by the previous government during its

term in office. In 1997 particular amendments were brought in to

section 16.1 of

the Health Authorities Act. The amendments had two purposes.

One was to

allow the government to force government-funded non-profit societies that own

and operate health facilities to amalgamate with government-appointed health

authorities. In essence, what it did was: if even a small amount of money went

from the government health budget into a not-for-profit organization, this gave

government the power to seize their assets, fire their volunteer boards and

force those facilities under the ownership and operation of the local health

authority.

The other

provision in that change was an amendment to the Expropriation Act so that when

this happened to not-for-profit organizations around the province, they also

could be denied compensation for the assets that were expropriated. That was

done by way of an amendment to the Expropriation Act.

[1440]

This bill,

which was introduced last week and is now before the House for second reading,

repeals that

section of the Health Authorities Act. It also repeals

section 2(5)

of the Expropriation Act. In essence, this bill before us today will put the

wording of the Health Authorities Act back to what it was prior to 1997.

I recall

that debate in 1997 very well, because at the time it was going through the

House, I rose in this chamber and asked the minister some very specific questions

about what the changes that they were proposing might entail. If I can, I'll

share with the House some quotes from Hansard from July 23, 1997, because

I think it's instructive, first of all, to give you a sense as to how this

legislative change was first brought in. Secondly, it also points out, I

believe, the importance of the debate that takes place in this chamber. We often

think, as legislation and other matters go through this House, that somehow the

debate itself at times may not seem directly relevant to what we're trying to

achieve. To me, this was a case in point of how important the debate in this

chamber is.

This was my

question to the Minister of Health of the day, who is currently still the member

for Vancouver-Hastings: "If we have, for example, a private nursing home

that's run either by a private corporation or by a not-for-profit society, does

this particular

section give the minister the power to in effect expropriate

those particular facilities?" The minister of the day responded to me and

said: "No, there will be no expropriation." Later when I came back,

just to re-emphasize this point, again she said: "The clause does not in

any way contemplate expropriation."

That

particular

section from Hansard actually became part of a judgment that

was brought down by the Hon. Madam Justice Southin of the Supreme Court of

British Columbia, in a judgment that she brought down relating to Glacier View

Lodge, which I'm going to talk about in a second. Madam Justice Southin's

reflection on this particular exchange in Hansard was this: "From

reading this reply in the Legislature, I can only conclude that the then

minister puts a meaning on the word 'expropriation' different from its common

meaning."

Not only

should these amalgamation provisions devised by the former government be

repealed, they should never have been introduced in the first place. In the

summer of 1997, only a few months after this legislation was passed and in spite

of what the minister had assured me in the House that day, that government used

this provision to force a registered not-for-profit society in the Comox Valley,

known as Glacier View Lodge, to amalgamate with the local health authority. It

was outright expropriation, and it was to be done without compensation. When the

government proceeded down that road, the community got quite exercised over the

prospect of a very valuable long-term not-for-profit society in the Comox Valley

being expropriated without compensation as a result of that provision. The

Glacier View Lodge Society chose to challenge

section 16.1 of the Health

Authorities Act in court and to appeal to the public for their support in

getting this legislative provision changed.

[1445]

The people

of the Comox Valley expressed their dismay with this legislation, which affects

every not-for-profit facility in the Comox Valley and in northern Vancouver

Island. It puts them under the threat of expropriation without compensation. As

much as the media attention on this particular case has centred on the Glacier

View Lodge in the Comox Valley, it also affected communities and community-run

facilities in Port Alberni, Qualicum-Parksville, Victoria and indeed throughout

the province. This is not a story about Glacier View Lodge in the Comox Valley.

This is a story about every single not-for-profit health care facility in

British Columbia. Under the provisions of this legislation, every single one of

them was under threat of expropriation without compensation by our provincial

government.

[ Page 617 ]

Through the

lengthy court challenge by the Glacier View Lodge Society and a very spirited

public debate that ensued around this issue, efforts to stop the previous

government's policy were successful. But in doing so, they sent a letter to give

reassurance to the residents of the Comox Valley that they would stop the action

to expropriate the assets of Glacier View Lodge and that they would not proceed.

While they didn't change the legislation, they did try to give the reassurance

that that legislation wouldn't be utilized. But the continued existence of this

legislative provision remained a huge concern for the residents of the Comox

Valley, who viewed it as a potential barrier to fundraising by the society and

as an ongoing source of distress to members of the society and to the individual

residents of the lodge.

Indeed,

hon. Speaker, as long as this provision is on the books, every single

not-for-profit health care facility in the province has that cloud hanging over

their head. I have talked to community-minded volunteers throughout British

Columbia, who normally would have been the leaders in their community to go out

and raise the dollars necessary to help build not-for-profit facilities for long

term care, extended care and multilevel care in the communities. The word had

got out around this province that those efforts by community-minded volunteers

could be negated by a simple act of the provincial government to walk in after

they had put all of their time and effort into a community project — to see

that community project then expropriated by government.

You know,

hon. Speaker, I want to quote again from the judgment that Madam Justice Southin

brought down earlier. I will simply quote without comment, because I think the

Madam Justice's words speak for themselves:

"When

asked what harm could come in light of the minister's undertaking, Mr.

Holland" — who is Mike Holland, the lawyer in the Comox Valley who

did all of the very valuable pro bono work for this society —

"replied, as I understood him, that the very existence of this

legislation impedes the appellant society in its fundraising and is

distressing to both the members and the residents.

"To

put it another way, this is an argument that this snake may have been

scotched but it has not been killed.

"But

there is a way other than litigation for this snake, if snake it is, to be

killed. The appellants and the people of the Comox Valley, by their

participation in the political process, have already induced a minister of

the Crown not to proceed with forced amalgamation.

"The

Legislature is sitting and an election is not far off. Thus the supporters

of the appellants have now an opportunity to persuade the ministry to

introduce a bill to repeal the compulsory amalgamation amendments of

1997."

Those were the words of Madam Justice Southin in her recent court decision.

Today it's

time to right the wrong that's been done. It's time to let non-profit

organizations like the Glacier View Lodge Society feel secure in their

endeavours. It's time to kill this snake. We made it very clear prior to the

election that we would repeal this legislative provision. It was in our New

Era document for all to read. If I quote from that New Era document,

we said that we would "support community services volunteers and repeal the

NDP legislation that allowed government to expropriate community health

facilities without compensation." Hon. Speaker, that was a commitment that

we made, and that is a commitment that we are fulfilling today.

[1450]

Section

16.1 of the Health Authorities Act should only be included in that act for the

length of time it takes to repeal it, and not a moment longer. This government

values the contributions of hundreds of non-profit societies that play a

significant

part in the delivery of community health services across this

province. As someone who has roots in the Comox Valley and on behalf the entire

government caucus, I am proud to thank the efforts of the Glacier View Lodge

Society and its supporters from the Comox Valley, Parksville, Port Alberni and

beyond for its brave fight in defence of the volunteers and charities of British

Columbia.

After this

legislation was introduced on Thursday, there was a large delegation that was

here from the Comox Valley, Parksville, Qualicum and Port Alberni. After the

legislation was introduced, we gathered in the office of the Minister of

Sustainable Resource Management, who's the MLA for the Comox Valley. As I was

leaving that small reception, a reporter asked me if I took some personal

satisfaction in bringing in this bill today. My response to her was that the

greatest satisfaction I got out of bringing in this bill was the enthusiasm that

I saw in the eyes and faces of those volunteers.

I had met

with most of those volunteers in previous years, and what I found in those

previous years was that they were disillusioned, disappointed and distressed by

the action that government was taking against their hard-working efforts as

volunteers in their communities. What I saw on Thursday after this bill was

introduced was renewed enthusiasm. I got a sense that those volunteers will be

back working hard in their communities to make sure that the volunteer efforts

are there to supplement — not in place of, but to supplement — the efforts

that government is able to do to make sure that we have adequate health care

services and adequate health care facilities throughout British Columbia.

So Bill 9

sends a strong message that our government welcomes non-profit societies and

volunteers to play an integral role in the delivery of health care. It's time to

turn the page and get on with the job of building a health care system that

welcomes the participation of non-profit groups and volunteers.

Chong: I rise today with pleasure to speak on second reading of Bill 9, the

Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001. This bill is neither long nor

complicated, but as was indicated by the Minister of Health Services, it is very

significant.

[ Page 618 ]

This piece

of legislation returns stability to several non-profit and volunteer

organizations which had operated health facilities throughout our province and

donated these facilities to our communities. They were concerned when, in 1997,

the NDP government of the day went out and seized those assets without

compensation. It wasn't always so much about the compensation but the fact that

the government of the day would go and in fact seize these assets, which our

volunteer and non-profit groups had worked so hard for — raised money and had

these facilities built.

In the

riding that I represent, Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the one facility that affected

me was the Queen Alexandra Centre for Children's Health, or the Queen Alexandra

Hospital. Clearly, the previous NDP administration did not recognize or value

the contributions made by the volunteer sector of this province. While in

opposition I disagreed with the tact taken by the NDP government, as did many of

my colleagues. It was so obvious in our minds — so obvious — that there

should never be expropriation without compensation. I remember, at the time, the

Minister of Health Services being so vociferous and so particular in asking the

questions of the Health minister of the day as to why there was expropriation

without compensation. And at the time the Health minister, who is now Leader of

the Opposition and the member opposite, ignored most of his comments.

[1455]

So the NDP

moved ahead with its vicious attack. There were many non-profit groups that

spent money reorganizing, as well, by establishing a foundation that would hold

the assets. The foundation then would be separate from the society that would run

the facilities. At that time I questioned why our non-profits had to spend

moneys they had to raise through fundraising efforts to reorganize in this

manner just to protect the assets — assets that should never have been under

attack. In the end, though, the NDP, while in government, were still wishing to

acquire the assets of Queen Alexandra Hospital. But because of the outrage in

the community, they did agree to have an arbitrator step in to satisfy all the

parties' concerns. I recall that was in the fall of 1997, as well as early in

The person

they had assigned to this was a lady by the name of Ms. Miriam Gropper. She was

hired to come to terms with the suggestions that were being offered by the

society and what the government wanted to do, which, again, was to seize the

assets. Eventually an agreement was drafted, but that agreement, strangely

enough, mirrored the suggestions made by the society, which was that the assets

should be retained by the non-profit group and that the operations could still

be run and funded by dollars from the provincial government. In essence, the

asset would be leased back to the government for a dollar, essentially still

allowing the asset ownership to be held by the foundation. Those were the

suggestions made by the society, and after I don't know how many dollars were

spent by the then government, that was essentially what was drafted. At the time

I felt it was an extreme waste of time and money, that the government couldn't

just see the commonsense approach being offered, as was being offered by many

other non-profit groups who were trying to establish the same set of rules and

guidelines.

Over the

course of the next three years each and every year — 1998, 1999, 2000 — I

got up in this House and asked a question of every successive Health minister as

to where we were with that agreement. In fact, it had been drafted in 1998, but

it had never been signed off. Every successive Health minister would always

answer that it was about to be signed off, but the following year I'd pose the

same question and get the same answer: it was about to be signed off.

That

uncertainty has lingered on for far too long, and I am so proud today that our

government has acknowledged that we have to remove that uncertainty, that we

have to return these assets to our non-profit groups, that we have to value the

contributions made by our volunteer groups by ensuring that they know there is

continuity, that they can continue to provide the services in their communities

without fear that the government will come along and take away their assets.

So as I

rise to speak on second reading, I say this to all those who may be listening,

particularly the constituents that I represent. You finally have a government

that has listened, you finally have a government who acknowledges the value that

non-profit groups and volunteers have in our communities, and we finally have a

bill that will restore the consistency, that will restore confidence back into

their sector. Today is the first day of that turning of the page, as the Health

Services minister has indicated. We should be proud, and we should all support

this bill. With that, I'll take my seat.

Mr.

Speaker: Second reading on Bill 9, the minister closes debate.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion

approved.

Bill 9,

Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I call second reading of Bill 20.

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT

(second reading)

Mr.

Speaker: We'll recess for just a moment or two while the Attorney makes his

way to the House.

The

committee recessed from 2:59 p.m. to 3:02 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

[ Page 619 ]

Hon. G.

Plant: I appreciate the indulgence of the House for the last few minutes. I

rise to speak to Bill 20. I move that Bill 20,

the Lobbyists Registration Act, be now read a second time.

Bill 20 is

another step in implementing this government's commitment to open, accessible

and accountable government. The bill implements a throne speech commitment made

at the outset of the current legislative session. Lobbying is a fact of

political life, and lobbyists can have considerable effect on government policy.

This bill will create a new act and a new process that will require lobbyists

who are paid to lobby government to register and to have their actions and

intentions open for public scrutiny.

Lobbyists,

whether they are on contract or are regular employees of an organization, will

be required to provide information to the registrar of the registry. That

information will include the following: the name of the lobbyist, the

identification and address of the employer or client of the lobbyist, the nature

of the business of the employer or client, information about any subsidiaries of

the employer who have an interest in the lobbying, the purpose of the lobbying,

the date the lobbying starts, the name of any public officials contacted or to

be contacted by the lobbyist and whether the employer or client is funded by

government.

[1505]

The

registrar of lobbyists will be the information and privacy commissioner. It will

be his office that will set up the registry. The registrar — that is to say,

the person who holds the office as registrar will be the person who holds the

office of information and privacy commissioner — will have, under this act,

some powers. These include the power to verify the content of each registration

and to refuse to accept or to remove a registration that does not comply with

the act. It will be an offence not to register or to file false or misleading

information. A fine of up to $25,000 may be levied for such an offence.

In drafting

an act intended to make the business of lobbying transparent, it's important to

set out what the act will and will not apply to. This act, as drafted, will not

apply to the following: members of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada;

members of the legislative assembly of another province or their staff;

municipal council, regional district board, improvement district board, school

district board or other local government authority or their staff; members of an

aboriginal governing body in British Columbia or their staff; diplomatic or

consular agents or officials of the United Nations.

In saying

that the act will not apply to these people, it's important to make clear what I

mean. The people who fall into the categories I have just outlined will not be

required to register if, in the course of their activities, they choose to make

contact with members of government or members of the Legislature or senior

public officials. However, if the people who fall within those categories were

themselves to retain a professional lobbyist, the lobbyist would have to

register the fact of their retainer, and all of the other requirements would

apply.

There are

also some other important limitations on the application of the act to make sure

that it does not interfere with basic elementary processes of parliamentary

democracy. For example, the act will not apply to people who make

representations to public committees of the Legislative Assembly or a public

body under

an act of the province of British Columbia. The act will not apply to

people who are commenting on the implementation or enforcement of existing

programs.

The act

will not apply to people who are responding to a request for comment by a public

official. Someone in my position, for example, could seek input from the public

about a particular issue, and people who respond to that request for comment

would not be obliged to register in relation to their response.

The act

will also not apply — and this is important — to persons who contact their

own MLA regarding a personal matter. Citizens who contact their member of the

Legislature to advance what MLAs often refer to as case files will not be

required to register under this act.

The act

will also not apply where the registrar is satisfied that the disclosure of a

person's name or other information about that person would endanger the safety

of that person.

There are

some forms and regulations required in order to make sure that the act is put

into place in a way that makes good public policy and public administration

sense. The act will not come into force until the regulations are complete and

the register is established and ready to accept registrations. I expect that the

timetable for the implementation of this will be to work to have it come into

force at the beginning of the next fiscal year.

[1510]

The act

attempts to strike a balance. It does not regulate in any detail the profession

of lobbying. Its focus is on transparency and openness. Its focus is on ensuring

that the public — for the first time in the history of the province, I might

add — will have access through a public register to information about who

deals with government for pay in order to influence the members of government to

change public policy, grant benefits or enter into contracts.

We looked

at other models. There are, as you probably know, Mr. Speaker, two other

jurisdictions in Canada that have lobbyist registration requirements: Ontario

and the federal government. We looked at those models to take from them what we

thought would work best in British Columbia. This act represents our attempt to

take from the Ontario and federal statutes a bit of what works for us here in

B.C. and to draft it in a way that makes sense for us overall. In drafting the

bill, we were mindful of this government's commitment to minimize the impact of

regulations on businesses in British Columbia and, in fact, to reduce their

impact over the life of this

[ Page 620 ]

government. We attempted to draft the bill, which will give effect in a

meaningful way to the objectives of openness, transparency and accountability,

without unduly or unnecessarily extending into an arena that would amount to the

regulation of the business of lobbying.

It's a new

initiative in British Columbia. It's an initiative which, I suggest with

respect, is overdue. I think it's a good step down the road to ensuring that

government is open and accountable. I'm certain that like all new initiatives,

this one will bear some watching. Certainly as long as I'm in a position to do

so, I will be watching this act and its implementation to make sure that it's

serving its purposes in the most efficient and affordable way possible, as I

think is the test that should be applied to all legislation.

With that,

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the comments of other members.

MacPhail: Let me just put forward, for the Attorney General's consideration,

some questions. I know this is a debate in principle, but I'd actually like him

to seriously consider these questions as we move forward into the next stage in

the coming days. This is the first time that British Columbians have been

subject to a lobbyist registration act. I listened carefully to the Attorney

General's opening remarks to see what problem is trying to be resolved here. I'm

not exactly clear on that, so we need to have a discussion at committee stage to

understand what problem is actually trying to be resolved.

Is it

inappropriate access to public office holders — I think that's the definition;

yes, public office holders — of which I'm one? Is it that we're trying to

limit undue influence or influence peddling, all terms that have meaning within

the law in other jurisdictions? If indeed the thrust of this is not that

lobbying is wrong, lobbying has to be stomped out or we need to have such an

open and accountable government that people don't need a lobbyist to get to the

government, then what is it we're trying to achieve here? Is it that we're just

trying to put on the record who's got contact with whom?

[1515]

If it's the

latter, I have a major concern about the bill, and it's where the act does not

apply. There are two sections, as the Attorney General was describing, to which

the act does not apply. One is if the government of the day or a public office

holder — and it could be me — has asked or sought advice and therefore the

initiative has come from an MLA, then that's not considered to be lobbying. With

the honour and recognition of the entire legislative chamber here, there are 77

opportunities for that to be invoked by the government and perhaps only two

opportunities for the opposition to invoke that exemption, so I am nervous about

it.

What it

means is that the government, through written direction, can ask a wealth of

people to give them advice. All that written request does then is say to the

lobbyist: "Don't worry, pal; you're off the hook. You don't have to

register as a lobbyist, and you don't have to tell us what your business

is."

Let me just

give you a couple of practical examples of where that's already occurred. The

government has appointed the progress board. In a written form, the Premier has

asked for advice from the progress board, so every single person that sits on it

is exempt from this legislation. And who is sitting on that progress board?

Well, it's the CEOs of major companies, the CEOs that will have a direct

interest in the policy of this government. It's the CEOs of energy companies,

financial institutions and forestry companies whose daily CEO lives are directly

influenced by government actions. In the reverse, daily government actions are

what these CEOs want to influence. Yet the government has given written

direction to the progress board to seek advice on certain matters, and

therefore, they're completely exempt from this legislation.

Today the

Premier appointed his Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology. If

you look at the list of people he has appointed to ask directly for advice, the

majority, if not all of them, are major players in corporations that have a

direct ongoing interest in government activities. They also happen to be major

donors to the Liberal political party. So they clearly have a partisan interest

in the government, and now they've been appointed to the Science and Technology

council to give advice to the Premier. They're exempt, and their companies are

exempt from this legislation.

So who is

it trying to capture? Well, we know that the government isn't asking for advice

from environmental people. We know the government isn't asking for advice from

people who represent working people through trade unions. We know that women's

social policy organizations are not on the Premier's list of appointments, so

they will definitely not be exempted from this legislation. They will be covered

by the legislation.

So once

again, even though it all seems innocuous and it all seems like, "Oh, this

piece of legislation is just for the good of all British Columbians," what

the legislation doesn't cover is more important than what the legislation does

cover. You have to put it together with this Liberal government's actions

already on who they favour in seeking advice from. They favour their corporate

backers — the large corporations, the CEOs of the corporations and the

business community in this province. Putting the two together — who they are

appointing to positions of advice-givers and thereby having them excluded from

this piece of legislation — gives a leg-up to the business community to not

have to reveal their dealings with this government. I think that is regrettable

under this legislation.

I might

just say one other thing. In committee stage I'll be asking the Attorney General

for his comments for future use, and that would be on the personal matter of a

constituent and the Member of the Legislative Assembly.

[1520]

As I

understand it, if a constituent comes forward on a personal matter and lobbies

or make

[ Page 621 ]

representation to the MLA, that is exempt from the Lobbyists Registration Act

as well. Again, on the surface it seems fairly thoughtful and certainly seems to

protect the interests of the private citizen. If that is the case, so be it, but

there are many times, as an MLA, where a personal matter of a constituent

interferes with the rights of another constituent. That's the business we are

in, in terms of balancing the interests of all of our constituents. There are

times when a personal matter of a constituent means it's about the personal

circumstances of the constituent, but it's also about how government actions

have affected the personal circumstances of that constituent. It could be a

small business person coming forward with an advocate, imploring the government

to take action because of his changed personal circumstances arising out of

government action.

I do not

want this piece of legislation to become a shield against competing interests of

constituents, and I would urge the Attorney General to think about that very

carefully, once again, in the exemptions from this legislation. I'm trying to

wrack my brains, Mr. Speaker, after ten years of public service in my

constituency, about a time when such a circumstance would arise that would need

an exemption. Frankly, if constituents are dealing with a personal matter that

is truly of a personal nature, they come themselves. There is the

confidentiality requirement that we all live by and that pretty much all of my

colleagues in this chamber have lived by greatly. But there are also times when

personal issues of one constituent are really about changing government action,

and that should not be excluded from the Lobbyists Registration Act.

My last

concern is with the growing trend of this government to introduce red tape to

the economy. This was an interesting piece of legislation in that it's fraught

with red tape. Lobbyists now will have to go through incredible red tape to

register: filing of reports, specific forms and the content of the return. In

fact, a substantial part of the bill, even though it's legislation, is devoted

to the red tape that this government is introducing. So on the one hand, a

government that prides itself on slashing, having a sale of two for one —

"I'll give you one regulation," says the Premier, "if you give me

back two" — has introduced a substantial amount of red tape.

Again,

that's in the context of who the bill is really trying to target. It won't be

that the big CEOs of the corporations in this province will have to meet the red

tape, because they are exempt. Most of them are exempt by virtue of the fact

that they've been asked to give the government advice. So it will be the women's

organization in the downtown east side, first nations and perhaps tenure holders

that need to fill out these forms. It will be small business people, whom I'm

very concerned about. It will be those who represent working people through

unions that probably will be affected by this.

I know that

there is plenty of time. We can relax and spend time on this piece of

legislation. Between the time that we discuss it at committee stage and now, the

Attorney General can put his mind to perhaps tightening up this piece of

legislation as we proceed through committee stage.

Hon. G.

Plant: Seeing no further speakers, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition

that I'll give her remarks the attention they deserve.

[1525]

I will make

one or two comments about some of her suggestions. Not surprisingly, she

criticizes the act for being too narrow and for being too expansive — that is,

she wishes it covered more but then says that it's already overly regulatory. I

say "not surprisingly" because I'm used to hearing arguments that have

a certain unsoundness on public policy principle from that member and the party

she represents. But she did make some practical suggestions that, if I can

understand them properly, I'll certainly give some consideration to.

Let me say

this first of all. This act isn't intended to regulate or affect the way this

government does business today or tomorrow. This is intended to be

an act that

will endure, and it will affect all governments. It will affect our government

and the successor government. It's intended to be

an act that will work for

governments generally to ensure that the work that governments do is made more

open and transparent.

The second

general comment is that this act is primarily focused on the business of

lobbying — people whose profession or business it is to lobby government,

people who are paid to advocate positions on behalf of clients to persuade

government to issue contracts, grant benefits or change policy or law. It's

primarily targeted at a relatively narrow sector of the business world, which is

the business of trying to persuade government to do something.

So when the

member complains, if I may put it that way, that it may not apply to the

Premier's Progress Board or the Premier's council on technology, the answer to

her question — at least as I understand it so far — is pretty simple.

Neither the Progress Board nor the Premier's council on technology are

lobbyists. They are agencies or organizations set up by the Premier's office to

provide public policy advice and information and guidance to the Premier. They

were not established for the purpose of engaging in the business of lobbying.

When I look

at a statute that's called a Lobbyists Registration Act, it does seem to me to

make relatively good public policy sense to not have it apply to boards or

organizations that are not in fact about lobbying or the business of lobbying.

Sure, they're there to give public policy advice to the Premier and, through the

Premier, to the government, but in my view that's not lobbying. And I expect

that the majority of the advice that these organizations give in the course of

the work they do is in fact going to be made public, so the public will know

what advice the Premier is getting from the Progress Board and the Premier's

council on technology.

The member

asked the question: what is the problem which this act is attempting to fix? I

think the problem, if you will, is this. It's not a question of

[ Page 622 ]

whether there is inappropriate access to officeholders; nor is it a question

of whether lobbyists have undue influence on officeholders. It's not a bill that

is concerned with making a moral or ethical statement about the business of

lobbying. It's concerned primarily with making sure that there is more openness

around a large part of the work that is done to try to persuade government to

take public policy decisions.

When I was

in opposition, sitting on that side of the House and watching the work of the

former government, it seemed to me that a huge amount of the decision-making by

the former government was made behind closed doors as a result of the influence

of lobbyists — that is, people who were using their influence with government

to seek to change government policy or direction. Now, I'm not complaining about

the fact that there are lobbyists who do work out there. There are lots of good

lobbyists who do good work in terms of informing their clients about the

business of government and advocating on behalf of their clients to try to

change government policy.

[1530]

What I

argue for is something that maybe is just a little bit too modest for the member

opposite — who did, after all, have ten years to introduce legislation of her

own. What I advocate for is simply that the public is entitled to know a little

bit more about how the business of government works. They're entitled to know

that there are people whose terms of employment with their employer say:

"Your job is to go and try to persuade governments to change

policies." Those undertakings and those activities happen, generally

speaking, behind closed doors. They certainly don't happen on the floor of the

Legislature. The public, I think, are entitled to know a little bit more about

what goes on — not because what goes on is necessarily wrong, but because when

governments spend public money and do the public's business, governments have an

obligation to open up that business to public scrutiny.

It may be

that the opposition leader's fundamental objection could be summarized quite

briefly: this act doesn't go far enough. We'll deal with her questions, I

suppose, in committee stage. But you know, it goes a heck of a lot further than

any initiative ever undertaken by the former government, and I think it actually

does find a reasoned balance among the competing considerations. In terms of

regulatory requirements, I think it's a pretty light burden. Essentially, the

people who are doing this business are going to have to file a form and provide

a little bit of information about who they are and the business they're doing. I

don't think that people who do that business are going to find that form

terribly onerous, and I think that people who do that business, sharing any of

what I have in terms of my principles of how governments ought to operate, will

be glad to contribute to the spirit of openness and transparency in government

that this act will promote.

That concludes my comments, and I look forward to further comments and

questions from the opposition leader and other members, if they have them, when

we get to committee stage debate. I move second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20,

Lobbyists Registration Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 17.

PROVINCIAL COURT

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2001

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:35 p.m.

Sections 1

to 7 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:35 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17,

Provincial Court Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call second reading debate on Bill 22.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND

FAIR WAGE REPEAL ACT

(second reading)

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'm pleased to move this bill be read a second time. Bill 22 is a

bill eliminating the fixed-wage policy and is another step towards our goal of

eliminating unneeded and damaging regulation. This wasn't a fair-wage law as it

was called; it was a fixed-wage law, and it has been anything but fair. It

burdened provincial taxpayers, construction companies and construction workers

with an uncompetitive wage system and did little to promote skills development.

To give you

an idea of the scale and scope of the fixed-wage program, in the fiscal year

2000-01 nearly 800 projects with a value of $1.5 billion came under this

[ Page 623 ]

legislation. All of these contracts were tendered without giving taxpayers

the benefit of an open and fully competitive tendering system. All of these

contracts were tendered without giving all companies an equal chance to bid.

However, I want to make it perfectly clear that getting rid of restrictive

tendering is not about compromising safety, and it's not about forcing workers

to take less.

Labour

force information shows that there is a looming shortage of skilled people in

construction. There are projected to be approximately 50,000 openings in the

decade ahead. Over one-half is due to the baby boom generation reaching

retirement. This means that people with skills will have plenty of choice about

who they work for, and it means that companies that want to attract and retain

the best people are going to be the ones that offer the best wages and working

conditions, including training opportunities.

[1540]

Our

government is fully committed to increasing the number of skilled workers in

British Columbia in construction and in other sectors. But there has been no

evidence that fixing wage rates and protecting trade jurisdictions has resulted

in more apprentices being trained. I would argue that fixed-wage legislation is

not the right tool for the job. The best training program is a healthy

construction industry. With a healthy industry, you will see good wages for

skilled people. You will also see that people who are motivated to improve their

skills are rewarded for getting additional training. You will see that companies

are motivated to provide it.

Finally, I

would like to state clearly and for the record that this government fully

intends to honour contracts awarded under the previous government's restrictive

tendering practices. However, we will be seeking to make savings on contracts

awarded in future.

This bill

fulfils yet another of our government's 90-day-agenda commitments. It allows for

open tendering, and it allows the competitive marketplace to operate. It gets us

out of the way of innovation and gives everyone an honest chance to compete.

These will be the foundations of a strong economy and a strong construction

industry in the years ahead.

I now move second reading of Bill 22.

MacPhail: It may surprise the members of the Legislature that I am not going

to fight this to the death, because of course the government did campaign on

this during the election. There's no question about it. On this particular one,

they were pretty straightforward. They of course used to taunt people by calling

it the fixed-wage legislation, but nevertheless they did that fully explaining

what their actions were. British Columbians did know, in a very straightforward

fashion, that this government was going to end the fair-wage legislation. The

government has stood up, unlike perhaps some other pieces of legislation, and

they haven't fooled around with their commitment. It's straightforward. People

who discussed this matter received accurate information during the election

about what the government planned to do, and hence we have Bill 22 here.

I say to

the government straight up that there will be no challenge to the

straightforwardness of this exercise, unlike some of the accusations I've made

in the past — well, accusations with substance always. In this particular

case, I want to have some discussion about what exactly is going to be the

consequence of repealing this legislation. I'm putting it to the government that

I will be watching to make sure that the advances that were achieved under the

fair-wage legislation are not now eroded. This will be as much for the record to

test the government's progress in a few months or a year, but also to put on the

record for those that are re-entering public service about what they must

protect in their responsible role as a member of the executive council.

I know that

the thrust of this legislation from the Liberal government has been that somehow

fair-wage legislation really increased costs horrendously to contractors in the

construction industry and that that increased cost put an unfair burden on the

taxpayers. The proof in the pudding, the testing of the government's theory, will

be this: when this legislation is in effect and no longer will there be a

threshold level for wages, does the value of the contract put to the government

for bid decrease, or does the money just go into the pockets of the contractors?

If the government's premise is proven here — the Premier goes around and says

that this legislation costs the taxpayers $300 million, $400 million, although

I'm going to present some evidence to say that he's wrong — the government

should have some way of proving their premise that that was an unnecessary

invalid cost. They should be able to say that the taxpayers' construction costs

have gone down by $300 million to $400 million.

[1545]

Here's why

I put that question to the minister for him to present the evidence for, very

quickly. I expect what will happen is that the new-found money for contractors,

which they're not paying in the form of a fair wage to workers, will go into

their own pockets. It won't go back to the taxpayer; it'll go into the profit

margin of the contractors, which is why Phil Hochstein of the ICBA wanted this

legislation in the first place. For all contractors who paid fair wage, there

was a level playing field whether you were union or non-union. Then people had

to turn to quality issues to determine the best competition — quality and

being on time and on budget — because there was definitely an open tendering

process. So I will be watching to be shown how this legislation puts money back

into the pockets of taxpayers and not into the pockets of contractors.

But there

were other aspects of the fair-wage legislation. In his opening remarks the

minister recognized this, because he said that he knows he has a problem to deal

with here. The fair-wage legislation required that companies also contribute to

the training of the workforce and that they give that training in a fair and

equitable way to all British Columbians.

[ Page 624 ]

There was a

very good reason that the former government required that caveat; it's because

these contractors are spending public dollars. Mind you, they're contributing to

the economy — absolutely. But it's taxpayer dollars that they're taking.

They're building hospitals, schools, roads and highways. But it isn't the

private sector that's contributing to the private sector; it's the public sector

putting forward these dollars that stimulate the economy.

So it made

sense, the legislators of the day said, to get some value for the public in the

long term for their hard-earned tax dollars going to these construction

contractors. The law said: "You've got to train workers; you've got to have

apprenticeships on your job. You've got to have a certain number of

journeypeople on the job to make sure that training and safety can take place.

Secondly, you've got to train people outside of the norm that you've been

training in the past. You can't just say that the only people you're going to

train are males of a sturdy, healthy nature. You have to train women, who

traditionally have not been part of the construction workforce."

In areas

where there was an aboriginal population suffering high levels of unemployment,

the government of the day said: "We're going to take the tax dollars and

ensure that people in the community are trained and benefit from these tax

dollars being spent in their community. You've got to train aboriginal, first

nations, people."

Then the

government of the day also said: "And with the tax dollars, contractors,

you have to train people with disabilities who can work in the construction

trade." But the contractors, left to their own devices, weren't training

those people.

This became

increasingly important when the industry was going through a very, very

difficult time dealing with the leaky-condo crisis. They're not related in terms

of a legislative connection, because the leaky-condo crisis was among developers

and construction workers who weren't covered by legislation — the residential

contractors and builders. But at the same time, there was a crisis of confidence

amongst consumers. Consumers were devastated by the lack of quality construction

that they were being faced with each and every day, literally in their own

homes.

So the then

government said: "We have to do something to shore up that confidence, so

we are going to require a certain level of accountability amongst contractors

who are using public dollars to build." That was one reason why this was

put into place — not just the fair-wage aspect of it but also the requirement

to train and contribute to a skilled workforce.

[1550]

The other

reason was that we were in the mid-nineties, and the baby boomers were — are

— aging. There were predictions even in the mid-nineties of a skill shortage

that would emerge at the end of the century, 2000, and would be exacerbated into

the next century. And it wasn't as if we were going to be able to get males.

There weren't enough white males to fill all of the vacancies. We knew that if

we were going to rely on the traditional group of young people to draw from to

train in trades, we would fail. We had to look for some other area to draw young

or middle-aged people from to train them in the trades.

We gave

that impetus in the legislation, and it has proved to be very effective, Mr.

Speaker. Was the problem resolved as a result of the fair-wage legislation? No,

it wasn't resolved, but there were huge improvements, and I'll go through that.

I just want to put the government on notice — and I say that advisedly, with

respect — that I will be monitoring to see how their repeal of the fair-wage

legislation achieves any end or any goal of resolving the skilled labour

shortage. I will be watching that carefully.

Let's look

at what was achieved in the decade of the nineties in terms of the changing face

of labour in the construction industry. Just to go through it, there was a study

done by Marjorie Griffin Cohen, renowned economist at SFU, and Kate Braid, who

also works at SFU. They refer to the fact that the occupations in the

construction trades are amongst the least integrated of all. Not only have women

been kept out but so, too, have other potential workers from minority groups. In

B.C. women accounted for less than 1 percent in construction trades. The story

is the same for first nations, only slightly better for other visible minorities

and most dismal for those with disabilities. So something needed to be done.

That was at the beginning of the 1990s.

important first step was made when women and first nations were trained for

construction work on the Vancouver Island Highway. I don't know whether the

community of the minister responsible for this bill touches directly on the

Vancouver Island Highway, but I know that the area certainly benefits from that

construction. Here's what happened. During the construction of the Island

Highway, during peak building periods, the people from those two equity-hire

groups, women and first nations, in about equal proportions accounted for over

22 percent of the workforce,

whereas in the general industry of the construction

trade less than 1 percent are women. That's a huge benefit.

One had to

go on even more to understand that there was a benefit to contractors with the

fair-wage legislation in that the government set up HCL, which at the time was

called Highway Constructors Ltd., although they have expanded. They were

responsible for assisting contractors with training and dispatching workers. It

was not that the government of the day imposed all these rigorous minimum-wage

requirements in the construction industry and then said: "Go out and cope

on your own." The government of the day assisted with training, hiring and

occupational health and safety. All of that is gone now.

[1555]

At the

beginning not everybody accepted the fact that there were more women and first

nations in the workforce and that there had to be a common working relationship,

a partnership relationship, amongst the contractors, the local community and

assistance from HCL and the government to make sure that there was a proper use

of government funds to expand the skilled

[ Page 625 ]

workforce in the trades. The government played a very, very useful role

there.

I know that

the Premier and the Liberal government did a campaign promise that was very glib

and certainly had a lot of appeal to non-union construction workers. I know that

Phil Hochstein of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, ICBA,

lobbied long and hard for this, and I know that Phil Hochstein was the single

largest donor to the B.C. Liberal Party in the year 2000. He made almost

$150,000 in donations to the Liberal Party.

So we had

to sort of say it was a slam-dunk that the government would be eliminating the

fair-wage legislation. All British Columbians want to make sure is that while

this government moves along on its risky, hasty agenda to deliver for its

corporate backers, it doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. They

definitely want to level the playing field so that Phil Hochstein doesn't have

to train people, doesn't have to pay people fairly and perhaps can put the rest

of the money into his own profit margin — although I expect the government

knows that it will have to prove that the money doesn't just go into the pockets

of the non-union contractors.

I have a

study here that was done by Marjorie Griffin Cohen and Kate Braid. It was August

2000; it's very current. It's the

summary of the value of the fair-wage

legislation and the application of that legislation to various taxpayer-paid

projects. I'm going to table this for the benefit of the minister. Actually, I

won't table it; I will just make sure he gets a copy of it. It will be on the

basis of this success that we will watch as this government pays off another one

of its large Liberal donors, perhaps to the detriment of ordinary British

Columbians.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Bill 22 is just one more of our New Era document 90-day-agenda

items that we said we would do and now are doing in fulfilling it. It's all part

of making British Columbia more competitive and restoring the economy so that we

have jobs from one end of this province to another, not just in certain areas.

All these pieces that we have brought in and changes to legislation through the

Labour ministry have been aimed at ensuring that there are good jobs for

everybody — well-paying jobs — and with that, there will also be the

appropriate skills developments necessary through the province to meet the

requirements in the future.

This isn't

a question of the political contributions. I think some $330,000…. I'm not

sure if it was the BCGEU that contributed to the former government's campaign

fund or whether it was the B.C. Federation of Labour, but it was some $330,000.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It was the B.C. Federation of Labour. Thank you.

An Hon.

Member: It has nothing to do with the decisions he was making.

Hon. G.

Bruce: No, and we're not making and taking direction in government based on

one particular special interest group or another. The entire program we have

brought forward here is on behalf of all citizens, from one end of this province

to the other, to restore the credibility and the economic vitality of British

Columbia. That's what this, in part, will do.

Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 22.

Motion

approved.

Bill 22,

Skills Development and Fair Wage Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

[1600]

Hon. G.

Plant: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be

debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services.

The House

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

The

committee met at 4:05 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH SERVICES

On vote 33:

ministry operations, $9,361,610,000.

MacPhail: The Minister of Health Services and I agree, certainly for the

benefit of the members of the House, that we'll be discussing issues with the

Minister of State for Mental Health. If anyone else has any questions in that

area, that's what I'll be proceeding with right now just for efficiency reasons.

Can the

minister explain the relationship between mental health services and the health

authorities?

Hon. G.

Cheema: This is my first question from the opposition side. Let me first

explain my role, and I think that will help the member to understand what my

role is with the ministry. Maybe that will be helpful.

The

definition of my role as the minister of state is very clear. It's a very

flexible role. There are three main responsibilities that I have: (1) being the

advocate for mental health patients throughout the ministry; (2) to build a

public information campaign which will reduce the stigma attached to mental

illness; and (3) to implement and fully fund the mental health plan. I do work

with the Minister of Health Services, and I will work with any other minister

where mental health patients are concerned to make sure they get the best

possible care. As regards your specific question, I hope I have answered that.

I have to

work with the Minister of Health Planning as well as the Minister of Health

Services. It's a very unique role; it's very flexible. The main idea is to give

the focus to mental health patients, which obviously was not given full

attention in the past even though

[ Page 626 ]

there were good intentions. I understand that the mental health plan was

brought in by the previous administration. It is the 1998 mental health plan,

but unfortunately, because there were a lot of difficulties during that time,

somehow they did not put the money into the mental health plan. I was examining

the budget, and it was only $10 million over a period of almost two years. That

was not good enough.

As the

Premier saw, this issue has been ignored in the past. There are so many pressing

issues which concern the day-to-day management of health services and long-term

planning, so the two ministries were created. Then there were two ministers of

state: one is myself, the Minister of State for Mental Health; the other, the

Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care.

The people

of British Columbia are very fortunate that we are in the situation where we can

focus. I know my job description; I know which direction we are going. I have

met with many, many stakeholders and many interested groups, and there is not a

single group that has told me that this thing cannot be done. It's possible. It

won't be changed overnight. I am telling them when I meet with them that

whatever we do for mental health patients is not going to have good effects in a

week, a month or maybe two months. It may be six months; it may be one year, but

we have to start somewhere. The positive process has been started. I am meeting

with many consumer groups, and I'm getting a lot of feedback. In a short period

of time we'll be able to tell the member more about the mental health plan. We

will be fully funding the plan as well.

[1610]

I hope we

can get help from the opposition, especially the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

She was the Minster of Health, and it's my understanding that she was very much

in favour of the plan when the plan came in. Then somehow, because the critical

culture was very different, it was ignored. So we are not going to be ignoring

that issue.

Those are

my three main responsibilities. I will repeat them again. The first one is to be

an advocate for mental health patients throughout the government. The second one

is to build a public information campaign. I think that's very crucial, because

people see mental illness as a very significant issue, but they're always afraid

to talk about the issue. They are not very open, because sometimes the stigma

attached to mental illness is more dangerous than the illness itself. I think

those are the issues I will be building on.

My third

role is to implement the mental health plan. Of course I have to work with both

Ministers of Health and many more ministers. I also have to look at the issue of

how we are going to change the culture of mental health within the government's

structure, within the hospitals, within the institutions, within the various

groups, and how we are going to deal with the issue so that this becomes an

important issue where the patients are given equal status. I think that's where

we are moving.

I'm very

positive that we'll be able to achieve many things, but they will not happen

overnight. It's going to take some time. If you change the system of acute care,

if you fund the hospitals more at this time — give more money, for example, to

cardiovascular care — you will see the good effect. You will have a lot of

patients coming for bypasses, and you will see the results immediately. For

mental health it is very, very difficult. We are trying to give service to

people who have been forgotten in the past.

I sincerely

believe, and I'm fully dedicated. I have fairly good knowledge about what's

happening in this province and in many other provinces and how this thing is

going to evolve. People want to look towards us to resolve this issue. I

have met with many organizations. They're all thinking in the same pattern. I

would encourage the member to be on the positive side, to see how she can be of

help and to give us some of her insight as to why the plan was not implemented

when they were the government, why the issue was not given priority, why these

patients were ignored and, I think, above all, why…. When you announce

something, you should be able to deliver it.

I think

there's a question of trust here, especially for people who cannot speak for

themselves. There is not a single family that is immune to mental illness. In

anybody's lifetime, any family's lifetime, you will end up having one form or

another of the problem. One in five British Columbians at any given time will

have one or another form of mental health problem.

That's the

role, and I feel very positive about the role. I think we can really do very

well. It's going to take a lot of courage, but I think most importantly it's

going to take dedication and a commitment to fulfilling our obligation. We are

going to fulfil our obligation. On page 23 of our New Era document it's

very clearly stated that we will be funding and implementing the mental health

plan.

I'll wait

for the member to ask me more specific questions, but I must tell her that many

jurisdictions in this country are very excited about this position. They think

it's the first in this country, and I know it's the first in the country. I met

with many ministers from other parts of the world. They were here three weeks

ago during the World Assembly for Mental Health meeting, and they were also very

positive and very excited that this is a new opportunity. I think we have a good

beginning.

There's

only one caution. When I go out, I tell them it's not going to be done

overnight. It's a very, very difficult problem; it's a very complex issue. You

need the patients, and you need the families. The key is the patients. We have

to make sure that the patients are given proper respect, that families are given

proper respect and also that health care providers who are working for mental

health patients are given the proper tools to work for these patients. There are

many, many advocacy groups, many volunteer organizations who have done a

tremendous amount of work. They have put in thousands of hours of volunteer

work, and nobody really appreciates that. I'm finding out, even myself, that

there is so much out there that we can do.

[ Page 627 ]

[1615]

I would

certainly expect the member to be on the positive side of this issue so that we

can achieve the goals that this government started in 1998. At least we have the

chance now. I am here, and I don't have any other responsibility. I'm working

full-time on this issue. We're spending a lot of time, and I'm getting help from

many members of this House. We're trying to come up with a reasonable, rational

and realistic policy approach to a very, very complex problem.

MacPhail: I hope the minister of state can pace himself a little bit,

because I did ask a very specific question, and I got the full-meal deal.

Perhaps I'll just address a couple of those right now, but it was a very

specific question that I asked.

First of

all, maybe the minister of state was absent when I said to the Minister of

Health Services that I will be examining only the parts of the estimate that are

new initiatives of this government. I fully appreciate that the Health Services

budget is the budget that was brought in by our government. Virtually every

health initiative that has been announced so far from this government, including

the nurses plan, is with old money that was already there in the budget.

So the

questions will be about what the minister of state has planned as part of a new

government. There was no new money allocated for the mental health plan in this

budget brought down on July 30. The plan had been funded by the previous

government. If there are new initiatives, then perhaps the minister of state can

stand up and say what those new initiatives are.

But my

question was: what is the relationship between the Minister of State for Mental

Health and the health authorities or regional health boards and community health

councils?

Hon. G.

Cheema: I will try to explain my role again. As I told you in my first

reply, my role is very flexible. There are three areas of my job description.

They are on the website, and anybody can have a look at that. I work with the

Minister of Health Services. The Minister of Health Services and the Minister of

Health Planning are responsible to work with the other authorities. I just work

with them, mostly with the Minister of Health Services.

Again, my

role is to implement the mental health plan, to be an advocate for mental health

patients and to build a public information campaign.

If the

member doesn't want to pay attention to the positive things we are doing, then

it's your problem; it's not my problem.

MacPhail: I'm just asking a question. You're insulting me here already.

Hon. G.

Cheema: No, I'm not. I'm just trying to explain to you that you can ask me

three times, and my reply is going to be the same, because that's what my role

is. My role is very clear. I'm not going to redefine my role for myself. My role

is to work for the mental health patients. That's my role.

MacPhail: I asked two specific questions. They are straightforward

questions: what new money in the July 30 budget was allocated for mental health

services, and secondly, what is the role…? Maybe what the minister is trying

to say to me is that it's the Minister of Health Services who actually

implements all of this and that he acts as an advocate on the issue of mental

health planning. But does he have any authority over mental health programs and

the health authorities?

So the

question is twofold: what new moneys are in the July 30 budget for mental health

services, and secondly, what is the role between the Ministry of Health Services

and the health authorities with regard to mental health programs? Is it

regionalized, community-based? Has that changed?

[1620]

Hon. G.

Cheema: I'll try to explain a little better for some of the specific

questions. There is the same amount of money that was given in the March budget.

We have the same kind of money dealing with the thirty-first of July. So it's

the same amount of money; we don't have extra money attached for this year's

budget.

The second

question was what my role is with the mental health authority. Is that the

second question? Can you repeat it for me, please?

MacPhail: Just to be clear, there's no new money for mental health programs,

despite what the minister said in his opening remarks. The money that's been

allocated for the mental health plan is the money that was allocated by the

previous government. Okay.

The second

question is: do mental health programs under the new Liberal government operate

from Victoria? Is there a mental health department within the Ministry of Health

Services? What is the relationship between spending on mental health programs

and the health authorities?

Hon. G.

Cheema: The first part of the question was…. The adult mental health

division provides the policy direction. That's the policy within the Ministry of

Health Services.

Second is

that health authorities deliver a broad spectrum of mental health services,

including in-patient and out-patient assessment, counselling, treatment and

outreach services and also residential services, rehabilitation services,

emergency response and support to the consumers' families and caregivers. Health

authorities also provide specialized mental health assessment services for

persons with a mental handicap as well as a mental illness. These are provided

by the capital health region, Simon Fraser health region, Northern Interior

health region and the Okanagan-Similkameen health region.

The main

thing is that within the Ministry of Health, there is an adult mental health

division that will be providing the policy direction. The health

[ Page 628 ]

authorities will continue to implement the program as I have outlined.

MacPhail: There have been substantial changes to the delivery of residential

services in the Kamloops area. What involvement did the health authorities have

in that?

Hon. G.

Cheema: If the member is asking a question on a continuing care area, that's

not part of my responsibility. You have to ask the other minister. If there's

any question regarding mental health, then please go ahead.

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair, it was about mental health. I asked specifically

what the services were that health authorities offer in the area of mental

health. One of the areas that the minister of state listed was residential

services for people requiring treatment for mental illness. There has been a

longstanding planning process for a residential psychiatric facility in

Kamloops. What role, if any, in the provision of residential services did the

health authority participate in, in the change of plans announced last week?

Hon. G.

Cheema: I know where the member is going now, which direction. There was no

announcement made last week. We made no announcement; we are not changing that

plan. The commitment made during the campaign was for a Kamloops provincial

facility; we are going to be fulfilling that obligation.

[1625]

We had an

initial discussion. The Minister of Health Services made a very clear statement

that there's no change in the plan. But we will be meeting with the board and

many other interested parties. I'll be going to Kamloops and meeting and also

consulting with them. We are going to be fulfilling our obligation. There is no

change in the plan. I think the most important thing is that in 1995, 1996 and

1997 the previous government made the commitment. That commitment was not

fulfilled. We are going to be fulfilling our commitment, the commitment that was

made during the campaign by our Premier and then by the Minister of Health

Services. I'll re-emphasize: there's no change in the plan.

MacPhail: For reassurance, could the minister of state please outline the

plan that will be proceeding: number of beds, type of institution and where it

is at in construction?

Hon. G.

Cheema: I'll read it again because I don't want to be stuck in the words or

have the language changed by the way the person who is asking the question wants

to look at it. Let me just make it very clear again: our government is committed

to a psych facility in Kamloops. We want to ensure that the new facility will

meet the need and support our focus away from institutional care. We have to

make sure that patients get the best possible care, and that means the

institutional beds as well as the long-term beds and that we are going to be

requiring rehabilitation beds. We have to look at the new model of delivering

mental health care. I think the Kamloops area is going to be very pleased to

have a facility. It's going to be a provincial facility. It's going to be a

state-of-the-art facility. We'll be meeting and discussing with them, not only

with the board but also the medical staff and many other interested parties. We

are going to fulfil our commitment.

MacPhail: I think this a question that actually requires technical detail.

The minister of state has said that there has been no announcement about a change

in plans. All I'm asking him to do is stand up and describe the facility that

his government is building, because the planning and approval process was for an

88-bed regional psychiatric institution. Stand up, please, and describe the

commitment. Is that the commitment that the minister of state is making — for

an 88-bed facility, which is what the community has been working on?

Hon. G.

Cheema: I think the member is trying to put some kind of legal trap here. I

will just again explain to her that we are going to fulfil our commitment.

MacPhail: Just answer the question.

Hon. G.

Cheema: I am answering the question. I don't want to answer the way you want

me to answer. I'll be answering the way I know. We are going to fulfil our

commitment, and that's not going to be changed by you asking me the question. I

think we have to go to Kamloops, and we'll be explaining to them. We'll work

with the interested groups. We are going to work with the health authority. We

will work with them. You can smile, and you can make all the faces. That's your

problem.

My job, my

responsibility, is to implement the mental health plan. That's one part. The

second

part is that the commitment was made for Kamloops, and the commitment is

going to be fulfilled. That's my final answer.

MacPhail: The minister of state misjudges my thrust here. That facility was

planned after a lot of input from the community. The community has worked long

and hard in building the facility. There have been troubles with the planning

process with the city around the parkade. There's been a lot of trouble.

[1630]

Interjection.

MacPhail: The

Minister of Health Planning, who seems to want to get into the debate, says:

"Your government had the chance to build it — your government."

Well, the fact of the matter is that the money has been there, the approval

certificate has been there, and the community is devoting a lot of energy to

getting the 88-bed psychiatric facility built and integrated with the city

zoning laws. They're doing an excellent job, and they're about to start

construction.

[ Page 629 ]

All the

minister of state has to do is stand up and say that the planning process that

the health authority has put in place, that the city of Kamloops has worked on,

that the Royal Inland Hospital has worked on for years — that that is the

facility that's going ahead. Here's what the rumours are in the community: this

government is cutting the regional psychiatric facility down in number of beds

and that the remaining residential beds will be put out to some sort of process

about planning for smaller group home units. So all the minister has to do….

It's not a political trap; this is current discussion going on in the community.

Let me ask

it this way, then: what will the Minister of State for Mental Health be

discussing with the community of Kamloops? Will he be discussing how to proceed

on his election promise to build an 88-bed psychiatric facility?

Hon. G.

Cheema: If we want to get into the history of this facility, this member

knows full well that it's your failed history on the Kamloops facility. It was a

failure on your part. We are going to fulfil our commitment. Our commitment is

to build a provincial psychiatric centre, and it's going to be one of the best

centres. The people of Kamloops and area are going to be very happy. We will

provide a new model of delivery. Minister Hansen has met with some of the

groups, and I am going there to visit and meet with them. The staff will go with

me, and we will explain it to them. They will be very happy in the long run

because our intention is to take care of our patients. The caregivers, the

hospital board in Kamloops and whoever wants to talk to us…. We will go and

explain to them, but the main idea is to fulfil that commitment. I think it's

the trust there.

If I look

at when the member was the Minister of Health, there was one story in Kamloops,

I think, in 1997. The minister said at that time: "Let me reassure you this

will be done." We are not going to do that. We are going to do the real

thing. We have met with some of the groups, and the planning has been done

properly. Our commitment is going to be fulfilled. At the end of the day, our

commitment is to the patients. That is what's going to be done.

MacPhail: During the election, what discussion around the psychiatric

facility occurred? Did the Liberal government say: "We're going to build a

provincial institution, but it won't be 88 beds"? Did they say that?

Hon. G.

Cheema: We made commitments during the campaign. There were two parts of the

commitment. One was a 90-day commitment, and we are fulfilling all of them. This

commitment for a psychiatric facility was part of the pre-campaign. The Premier

made the commitment, then the Minister of Health Services made the commitment,

and we have clarified it a number of times. I have tried to explain to the

member that our commitment is to build a psych facility in Kamloops. It's going

to have acute care beds, long-term beds and also rehabilitation beds. The member

should know; she was Minister of Health.

During this

time, if you want to provide the best possible care, acute care beds are

important. They are a very important part of the health care system, and so are

long term care beds and rehabilitation beds. If a patient is discharged from an

acute care facility, where are you going to send them? Our idea is to keep them

in their communities. In the Kamloops area we want to make sure patients are

with their families. We also have to take care of their families. You can't move

the families from Kamloops to Vancouver.

[1635]

You should

understand that this is a very complex problem. These things are not resolved

by two minutes of estimates questions. It's not going to be done. You took seven

or eight years. It was a wasted opportunity for you people. On this side we are

going to be fulfilling that obligation. I will repeat the answer again: we will

be building a psych facility in Kamloops. You can scratch your head. You can do

whatever you want. But the answer is going to remain the same. We are going to

fulfil our obligation.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, let me try a different approach to see if I can get

some information out of the Minister of State for Mental Health. The Premier

went to Kamloops and said that the psychiatric facility in Kamloops will proceed

as planned. Until last week the health authority thought "as planned"

meant an 88-bed psychiatric facility. When did the community first become aware

that the psychiatric facility that this government is building will not be an

88-bed psychiatric facility?

Hon. G.

Cheema: I looked at the whole process, and we had a good discussion with ministry officials. I met with the deputy minister, associate deputy minister,

and also met with people who are in charge of planning this psych facility. It

was a good discussion, and we looked at it from all angles. Also, at the end of

the day we decided that we are going to go there and talk to the board. We are

going to go and talk to the medical staff. We need to talk to the mayor and the

council, and we need to go and talk to the health advisory committee there.

We have to

sit down with them and explain to them the whole process. At the end of the day

we are going to fulfil our commitment. Our commitment was to have a psych

facility in Kamloops, and I think we will be providing one of the best

facilities possible. Members should know that when they were in government, at

Riverview Hospital they announced a 20-bed facility, and that's a new prototype

facility. That's one of the good facilities. It's going to be built at Riverview

Hospital. We want to look at all the things now.

At the end

of the day the most important issue for us as a government is how we are going

to be serving our patients and their families and to make sure that the patient

receives that care where they live and in their community so that they don't

have to uproot their

[ Page 630 ]

family. It's very difficult for mental health patients to move away from

their communities. So our commitment is going to be fulfilled. We will be

implementing the mental health plan as well, which will also complement this

facility and many other services which this government will be providing for

mental health patients not only in Kamloops but in many parts of this province.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I asked a very specific question. It may be just that I

didn't understand the tense, but when did the minister of state discuss the

change in plans with the community? So far I heard that he discussed it

internally with his officials and amongst his colleagues. When did the community

become aware that there was going to be a different kind of psychiatric facility

built?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I decided to participate at this stage, because what the member is

asking about is decisions that were made well before the election and made while

I was Health critic. Maybe I can just take a minute to fill the member in on

some of the history around this particular facility. This is a facility that was

first promised to the community of Kamloops in 1993 by a previous government.

Here we are in the year 2001. There has yet to be a shovel in the ground after

eight years of NDP government, eight years after that promise was initially

made.

The promise

to build that provincial psych facility in Kamloops was reiterated by the NDP

government prior to the 1996 election. It became a big issue during that

election, because Kamloops, as this member will know only too well, has been

betrayed by the previous government. A previous leader by the name of Mike

Harcourt promised Kamloops that they were going to get a cancer centre, and then

in 1991, after the election of the NDP government, that promise was reneged on

by the NDP government. In 1996 Kamloops got promised once again, three years

after the initial promise, that they were going to get their provincial psych

centre.

[1640]

Do you know

what happened after the election? Twenty-eight days after election day, 28 days

after the election in which they reiterated their promise to the people of

Kamloops, they froze all of the capital construction projects across British

Columbia, including Kamloops. Is that member going to stand up and tell me that

they did not know that in the middle of the election campaign, when they were

making that promise to the people of Kamloops? They put them on hold — iced

them.

Shortly

after that freezing was brought in…. In fact, I believe she was named the

Minister of Health immediately following the election in 1996. She was actually

the Minister of Health on that day that the Finance minister, Andrew Petter, had

to admit to the public of British Columbia that they had been betrayed in the

middle of the election campaign and that these capital projects were in fact not

going to proceed as they had been bragging about during the campaign.

The next

year, while this member was still the Minister of Health in this province….

This is from the Kamloops Daily News , dated October 28, 1997. The

headline says: "Psych Facility Funding for RIH to Go Ahead, Health Minister

Says." Let me read from this article. It's a quote from the member, and she

says: "Let me assure you, 85 beds in Kamloops are going ahead. There is no

doubt about that." That was just under four years ago.

Let me also

just read another wonderful paragraph from this

article — again, referring to

the member for Vancouver-Hastings. She suggested — this is while she was

Minister of Health — that two facilities may be preferable to one. A facility

of more severe cases that needed acute care services could be located beside the

hospital. Another facility could be located nearby for people who needed less

acute care support. I know very well that during the years while the member was

Minister of Health and during the term of the one, two, three, four ministers

that served after that period of time in a very short space of years, there was

a very active debate as to what the appropriate model was to meet the needs for

the delivery of mental health services in British Columbia.

During that

period of time a lot was changing. A lot was changing in the whole philosophy

and the principles around how mental health services should best be delivered in

British Columbia. We made it perfectly clear last January or February. I can't

remember the exact date on this now. We made it very clear that we were

committed to proceeding with making Kamloops a centre for mental health services

in British Columbia. But we were also clear that we weren't necessarily buying

into the exact model that the previous government was trying to impose and that

we reserved the right to look at that model. So in terms of the commitment that

we made to the people of Kamloops, the commitment we made during the election

campaign, that has not changed. We will live up to our commitment. As the

Minister of State for Mental Health has said, we will ensure that there is the

construction development of a mental health facility in Kamloops that will truly

make Kamloops a centre for the whole province in terms of the delivery of mental

health services.

What I did

last week in a meeting with representatives of the Thompson-Nicola regional

health board was share with them some ideas around what that new model might

look like. It was not, in any way, backing off from the commitment that was

made. What it was saying is: "Let's look at the model to make sure that we

best meet the needs of mental health patients in British Columbia." That

was the sum total of it.

What

happened after that meeting is that one of the individuals at that meeting

decided to go to the press, as if we were announcing some change. We weren't.

What we were doing was exploring some options. As the Minister of State for

Mental Health has explained, he's going to be in Kamloops. He's going to be

meeting with all of the various participants in this discussion to look at what

that appropriate model is and how we can

[ Page 631 ]

move forward. I think, more importantly, the commitment from this government

is that it's not going to take eight years to fulfil a promise. This promise

will be fulfilled, and it's going to be done in as rapid and timely a fashion as

it possibly can.

[1645]

MacPhail: Well, it's all very well and good for the Minister of Health

Services to try to rescue the Minister of State for Mental Health, but let's

just go over some of the things that the Minister of Health Services has said.

First of all, he says mental health planning is complex, is active and has

to keep up with current trends. Yet here's a government now in office, when

there was a mental health plan put in place that required active participation,

which got the active participation, and that acts were changed, greater rights

were given to patients, and then how the programs flowed…. This government

stood up and slammed the fact that there was a process in place that may have

taken time.

If the

minister somehow thinks that putting an 88-bed psychiatric facility in a town

that's as thriving and as complex as Kamloops is something that just occurs

overnight, then we'll see. We'll see just how well he does.

Let's stake

it in the ground right now. Somehow he thinks that all of the work that was done

by the regional health authority, which was given responsibility for the

planning of the psychiatric facility, was just a waste of time; that the

complexities of integrating it with the rest of the acute care system, the

complexities of the zoning, etc., was just the health authority wasting its

time. Let me just say to the Minister of Health Services that at no time during

the election did the member for Kamloops–North Thompson or the member for

Kamloops ever stand up and say anything other than: "The psychiatric

facility will be built." Guess what. The community then turned to the

Premier, and the Premier said: "Have no fear. The Kamloops psychiatric

facility will be built as planned."

I have just

asked both ministers to stand up and confirm that they will be building an

88-bed psychiatric facility.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Well, 85 or 88. My apologies for not having exactly the same

resources available as the minister does, that I have to rely on my memory. Let

me just say that all the minister of state has to do is stand up and give

reassurance to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, because the debate is

raging in the community that there will be an 88-bed psychiatric facility built,

as was the plan. Believe you me, that community went through a lot of planning

to confirm an…. I'm sorry, minister — is it 85 or 88?

Hon. C.

Hansen: It is 88, but you were talking about 85.

MacPhail: If we're talking about a difference of three beds, then I'll

concede to the Minister of Health Services, but that's not what we're talking

about. What the Minister of Health Services floated was cutting the regional

psychiatric facility in half and the rest of the beds going into the community.

Just tell us what your options are.

Hon. G.

Cheema: Let me, again, just go through the history. We made