British Columbia Hansard — TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 (37th Parliament, 5th Session) (20040309pm-Hansard-v21n11)

20040309pm-Hansard-v21n11

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

2004 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 11

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Sustainable Resource Management

Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 15)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Sexual exploitation of children and

youth

S. Orr

Interprovincial migration

R. Nijjar

Mental illness awareness

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Suspension of Liberal MLAs and caucus

stipends

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Collins

Construction of new bridge in Kelowna

J. Kwan

Hon. K.

Falcon

Government aid for B.C. cattle

industry

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. van

Dongen

Community living authority for

developmentally disabled

R. Hawes

Hon. C.

Clark

SFU campus in Surrey

B. Locke

Hon. S. Bond

Alternative budget

R. Sultan

Hon. G.

Collins

Point of Privilege

Hon. R. Coleman

Second Reading of Bills

Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Authority Act (Bill 4)

Hon. R.

Coleman

J. MacPhail

Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Act (Bill 2)

Hon. R.

Coleman

J. MacPhail

Cremation, Interment and Funeral

Services Act (Bill 3)

Hon. R.

Coleman

J. MacPhail

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

Services (continued)

R. Sultan

Hon. C.

Hansen

J. MacPhail

D. Hayer

R. Hawes

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. I.

Chong

Hon. M.

Coell

Mayencourt

B. Bennett

M. Hunter

[ Page 9277 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Campbell: I am pleased to introduce 34 guests of the Leaders of Tomorrow

program in the House today. The Leaders of Tomorrow is a pioneering

student-mentor program providing 150 post-secondary students with mentoring.

Students from all disciplines across a whole variety of activities are brought

together with community leaders and business leaders to help them with

interpersonal skills, preparing for the challenges of the workplace. I hope the

House will make all of the Leaders of Tomorrow welcome.

B. Kerr:

This afternoon I had the great privilege of having lunch with four members of

the Frances Kelsey debating team, along with a coach and teacher. They asked me

several probing and intelligent questions, which I tried to answer without

getting into a debate. I would like to introduce Sara Cubica, Jennifer Cain,

Kelly McLeod and Tannis McDonnell along with the coach and teacher, Phil Archer,

and wish them all the success in their debating through school district 79. I

hope the House will give them a very good welcome here.

[1405]

Hon. S.

Santori: This afternoon it is indeed an honour and a pleasure to welcome two

very special friends of my family in the House today. Visiting us are Dan and

Helen Gibson from Toronto. Dan and Helen also happen to be my much older

brother's father- and mother-in-law.

Many of you

as well as many British Columbians, I'm sure, are familiar with Dan Gibson's

work. His work can be found in almost any store in Victoria as well as around

the world. Dan Gibson is the founder of the Solitudes line, which is a

collection of recordings of nature's voices from moonlit northern forests to

sun-baked deserts in the southwest, from the crashing Pacific coast to

snake-infested swamps in Florida.

Dan Gibson

has won two Genie awards for best movie soundtracks. In April of 1994, at the

age of 72, Dan Gibson was presented the Order of Canada. Canada's highest

civilian honour was presented to Dan for his work in filming and recording

nature and for his role in creating public awareness of conservation, wildlife

and our natural heritage. In 1997 Dan Gibson was also presented the Walt Grealis

Special Achievement Award. This honour celebrated Dan's lifetime of work in

music and the recording industry.

I ask the

House to join me in welcoming Dan and Helen Gibson to Victoria and to the

Legislature today.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Joining us in the gallery today are three representatives of school

district 71, Courtenay: the chair, Rick Grinham; trustee Karen Charlesworth; and

trustee Janice Proudfoot. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Roddick: In the gallery today is a group of 34 grade 5 students from a new

— and growing by leaps and bounds, I might add — school in Tsawwassen:

Southpointe Academy. The students are joined by headmaster Andrew Wallace; two

teachers, Mrs. Alison Boomer and Mr. Steve Hilton; and two parents, Nancy

Friesen

and Julie Wizinsky. Will the House please give Southpointe an enthusiastic

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon.

G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I am pleased to introduce this bill today. The Ministry of

Sustainable Resource Management proposes amendments to the Assessment Act;

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; Land Act; Land Title Act;

Local Government Act; Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act; Property

Transfer Tax Act; and University Endowment Land Act. The ministry also proposes

to repeal both the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act and the

Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act.

The bill is

consistent with the government's new-era commitments and deregulation

initiative. The bill also underscores government's goal of improving the

efficiency of administrative procedures and decision-making in its operation.

To briefly

summarize, the amendments to the Assessment Act eliminate provisions that are

redundant in the act and remove time-consuming requirements for assessors to

complete various forms and declarations.

The repeal

of the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act eliminates an outdated act.

The Commission on Resources and Environment was responsible for developing

provincewide land and resource use recommendations by a cabinet-appointed

commissioner. This work was completed a number of years ago. Therefore, this act

is being repealed. As a consequence,

schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act is amended. This amendment repeals reference to

"CORE" and replaces it with "Minister of Sustainable Resource

Management."

The repeal

of the Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act eliminates another outdated act. This

act was de-

[ Page 9278 ]

veloped for the Kootenay Canal hydroelectric project, authorizing government

to acquire specific lands, which it did. Therefore, the act is no longer

required.

[1410]

The

amendments to the Land Act allow the ministry to take advantage of current

practices in the real estate industry, such as using the Multiple Listing

Service and requests for proposals. Amendments to the Land Title Act are being

made to support the government's new-era commitment to create a B.C. trust for

public lands to encourage private land donations for public purposes. Other

amendments to the Land Title Act and the Property Transfer Tax Act add

definitions and procedures to support the electronic filing system project for

land titles. This will allow the land title office clients to submit

applications and other documents electronically.

Finally,

the amendments to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act and the

University Endowment Land Act allow the minister to delegate certain functions

related to the administration of land to appropriate officials. This will assist

Land and Water B.C. to more efficiently administer the land for which it is

responsible. This bill is part of the government's continuing efforts to reduce

regulatory requirements and increase the efficiency of administrative

procedures. I am pleased to present this bill in the House today.

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.

Bill 15

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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

S. Orr:

The city of Victoria and the Capital Region Action Team against sexual

exploitation of youth proclaimed this week the Capital Region Stop the Sexual

Exploitation of Youth Awareness Week.

It is a

terrible fact that our children and youth are being recruited into the sex trade

by pimps, the scourge of our society. These people do not care who they seduce

into the trade. They just go out and look for the most vulnerable child they can

find. The notion that the children only come from poorer homes is untrue. Every

child is a prime target. Pimps — I prefer to call them vermin — roam school

grounds, playgrounds and kids' hangouts. They will work on a child for a long

period of time, befriending them and then snaring them into a life of abuse and

horror.

They are

very nasty people, and they live amongst us. We all need to speak out very

loudly and make sure they hear that we are watching out for our children. Our

children are not for sale, and anyone living in British Columbia or coming to

British Columbia looking for sex with our children should understand very

clearly that it is illegal to have sex with our children, and if anyone tries,

they will feel the full arm of the law.

These may

seem like tough words, but you cannot be tough or blunt enough on this subject.

I have worked with adults that were lured into the sex trade as children, some

as young as 11, and I have seen many ruined and devastated lives. Let's all

become very aware of this problem, and let's speak out openly to all our

communities. Consider doing what the city of Victoria has done and put this

issue on the front burner.

Believe me,

no community, large or small, is protected from these disgusting people who will

keep trying to steal our children into the sex trade. I commend my community

leaders for proclaiming this week as an awareness week and for always keeping

the safety and security of our children at the top of the agenda.

INTERPROVINCIAL MIGRATION

Nijjar: I stand before this House to state that this government is directly

responsible for the demise of an export industry. Yes, government is directly

responsible through changes in policy, regulations and legislation that have

essentially killed an export industry that the former government took years to

build. The former government spent years creating regulations that their own

ministers acknowledged were several metres high, creating legislation never

before seen in Canada, signing contracts and creating a tax regime that gave

life to this industry.

In three

short years, this current government destroyed this export industry. What is

this industry, you may ask? It's the exporting of B.C.'s youth and workers to

other provinces to find jobs. The industry peaked in 1998 with a loss of

interprovincial migration of over 17,500. In the second quarter of 1998, some

6,200 British Columbians left the province to find opportunities and a future

away from home. In three short years the current government dismantled this

export industry, and in the third quarter of 2003 there were over 2,600 more

Canadians coming to British Columbia than leaving it to fulfil their dreams and

find jobs.

[1415]

Why did

this government end this export? It's because we want families to be united. We

want husbands and wives to live together and work in the same community. We want

children to be able to grow up and be close to their families and their support

networks instead of leaving the province because they couldn't find work here.

This is

about strengthening communities, giving hope and having British Columbians

believe in themselves, knowing they can fulfil their dreams and their potential

right here in community after community throughout British Columbia. We will not

return to a government direction that ripped families apart, wives essentially

becoming single parents as their husbands work in mines and oilfields in

Alberta.

[ Page 9279 ]

Yesterday

was International Women's Day, and some members asked what we're doing for

women. This is what we're doing for women: giving them opportunities for jobs

where they live, keeping their families united and giving their children the

ability to fulfil their dreams at home.

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS

Hayer: Mental illness knows no boundaries. It strikes every colour, race and

creed. It can appear in early youth, or it can surface in later years. Each of

us has been or will be touched by mental illness, whether it be a family member,

an acquaintance or a colleague. The unfortunate aspect of mental illness is that

it is often left undiagnosed and untreated.

We can do

something to help. We can intervene on behalf of the person and offer a helping

hand. We can learn to recognize the onset of symptoms and try to begin treatment

as soon as possible. We need to understand mental illness. That is just what

happened in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead recently at the fourth annual Early

Psychosis Conference held at the Sheraton Guildford Hotel. This conference was

designed to alert health care workers to the signs of early psychosis, a disease

that can strike children as early as ten years of age but can attack someone as

late as in their early thirties.

This

conference was an eye-opener for me. It also contained some very good news for

our young people, in that I was proud to announce an annual contribution of more

than $120,000 from the Ministry of Children and Family Development plus a

further $30,000 to be put toward a public education campaign about early

psychosis.

Since

mental illness is so pervasive and affects people in every community and every

corner of this province, I am proud that this government appointed the first

minister responsible for mental health and addictions in the Commonwealth.

Although we still have a long way to go in educating the public about mental

illness, I applaud the strides the ministry has already made.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes member statements.

Oral Questions

SUSPENSION OF LIBERAL MLAS

AND CAUCUS STIPENDS

MacPhail: Yesterday, when it was politically expedient, the government

released information about an alleged assault and a suspended caucus member —

information that it had kept secret for months because it was damaging to her.

To the Premier: how many other Liberal MLAs have been secretly suspended by his

caucus?

see the guidance from the House Leader is for…. The House Leader says the

Premier should remain silent. Isn't that interesting.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let's hear the question.

MacPhail: Just an hour ago the government Whip told the media, in fact, that

other government members had been secretly suspended from caucus. But there's

another question. The government caucus is funded by taxpayers on the basis of

how many MLAs are in the caucus. Can the Premier advise the House whether the

government caucus advised the legislative comptroller general that the funding

for the MLA for Surrey-Whalley should be diverted for two weeks — taxpayers'

money — and can he assure the House that the government caucus has not

received a penny of taxpayer funds to support other Liberal MLAs who have been

secretly suspended? Taxpayer dollars.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question.

[1420]

MacPhail: Well, I certainly hope there are not going to be any soft

questions that the Premier feels comfortable answering later on in question

period. Had it not been for the fact that the member for Surrey-Whalley quit the

Liberal caucus yesterday, the public would never have been told that this

incident occurred, and the people of Surrey would never have known that for two

weeks they lost a member of the government caucus. So much for openness. So much

for accountability. The government Whip said that there were very few others

from the Liberal caucus who had been suspended secretly.

Why doesn't

the Premier get up and now inform the constituents of those government caucus

members who had been suspended secretly and explain to them what they were

suspended for, when and what procedure went over to suspend them?

Hon. G.

Collins: Questions about caucus are not in order in this House. That member

knows that. I assume the Chair knows that as well.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, the question of caucus stipend is in order. The

remainder of the question is out of order.

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BRIDGE

IN KELOWNA

J. Kwan:

The Kelowna city council is writing to the Minister of Transportation asking him

to ensure that the new bridge is built by the public sector — a move that they

say would save taxpayers money during construction and operation. Can the

minister tell this House how much money would be saved by not privatizing the

new bridge in Kelowna?

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm very happy to educate the member on this particular subject. One

of the things I will do is tell the member opposite that financing costs are

only one component of a deal. One of the components that those members — the

NDP members —

[ Page 9280 ]

might be a little more aware of is cost overruns. The reason we engage with

the private sector in partnerships is so that the risk gets transferred to the

private sector so we don't engage in a situation like the fast ferries, where

hundreds of millions of tax dollars get flushed down the toilet because they

took all the risks on behalf of the public.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

Well, the Kelowna city council has written to this minister advising him that

the government will save $16 million by constructing and operating the bridge

itself. Kelowna city council is not bent on the notion of privatizing the bridge

for the sake of privatization. They say that the government can save $16 million

by not privatizing the bridge. Can the minister assure the House and the

taxpayers that he won't blow $16 million and use the draconian powers in Bill

75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, to override the legitimate

concerns of the Kelowna city council?

Hon. K.

Falcon: You know….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that it is almost difficult not to

answer this question without breaking out into laughter when it's asked by that

member.

Interjection.

Hon. K.

Falcon: If the member opposite would stop yelling, one of the things I can

do is suggest that I'm not sure how much experience the city of Kelowna has with

building bridges. I will say this: that member and that government actually have

some experience. I'd like to remind them of a bridge called the Lions Gate

Bridge. Remember that bridge? Well, that was a bridge they built with public

money with zero contingency. That's why it was over budget, and that's why the

taxpayers had to pick up that cost — another example of their waste of

taxpayer dollars.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

GOVERNMENT AID FOR

B.C. CATTLE INDUSTRY

Nettleton: The mad cow crisis continues to hurt cattle producers, and the

B.C. Ministry of Agriculture is refusing to sign on to very necessary

adjustments in increases in assistance to the CAIS program recommended at the

federal level and contained in three amendments — that negative margins be

covered, that a loan guarantee be offered through CAIS and that the maximum

payout to the producers be increased. The minister cited budgetary concerns in

B.C. as the reason for not accepting these. As early as last August the B.C.

Cattlemen's Association in fact was urging the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture to

accept these amendments for the sake of the producers.

[1425]

My question

is to the Minister of Agriculture. When will the minister follow the examples of

Ontario, Alberta and Prince Edward Island and sign on for the sake of the

long-suffering cattle producers in our province? I say budget be darned, and

let's help our producers out.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: The member is correct. There are seven provinces who have not

signed the amending agreement No. 3. We have been very clear in our position on

negative margins. We support the policy of a negative margin amendment to the

CAIS program, but we have offered two sources of funding. One is to adjust the

funding envelope so those costs can be covered by deleting an item in the

existing package.

I, along

with three other western ministers, have also written to the federal minister

supporting the loan guarantee proposal of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

We have also made a proposal that the federal government, given that it is a

federally reportable disease, should be paying their share and should cover the

negative margin cost for the first two years of the program.

COMMUNITY LIVING AUTHORITY

FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Hawes: Last Thursday the Leader of the Opposition shamelessly sought the

media spotlight by playing politics with the developmentally disabled in this

province. She completely ignored facts and stated that the transference of

governance to the communities in this sector was moving back to square zero. She

claimed all of the hard work done by self-advocates and families across the

province was all for nothing. Included in those she frightened were Bryce

Schaufelberger, a self-advocate member of the interim board who lives in my

constituency, who was left very angry and confused.

Can the

Minister of Children and Family Development now straighten out the record by

explaining to Bryce Schaufelberger and my constituents and families all over the

province exactly what's happening and correct the misstatements made by the

Leader of the Opposition?

Hon. C.

Clark: The previous board's term was up, and the government has moved to put

in a new board. The new board will continue the appointments of two of the

people that were on the previous board, Rod

[ Page 9281 ]

Gunn and Lynn Rolko, both of whom are family members of people who are facing

developmental disabilities — people who have dealt with the system and who

have had very good experiences and sometimes very challenging experiences and

will bring that to the table.

The new

chair will be a woman named Lois Hollstedt. Lois brings with her a background in

Kamloops, where she was very involved with people with developmental

disabilities. She's the former chair of B.C. Women's Hospital. She's the former

CEO of the YWCA based in Vancouver. She is a fantastic candidate for this job,

and we want someone of that quality in this particular role.

I know the

opposition doesn't think it is particularly important for the community to be

controlling community services for people with developmental disabilities, but

our government thinks that is very important. We think community control over

community services will empower people and mean that better services are

delivered for people on the front lines.

SFU CAMPUS IN SURREY

B. Locke:

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Surrey is thrilled with

the announcement of Simon Fraser University establishing a permanent home in

Surrey. Not only is this project good for post-secondary education in the South

Fraser, it will be a catalyst for the rebirth of Surrey city centre.

There has

been some criticism, however, surrounding the recently announced plans of SFU

campus in Surrey at the ICBC building. Some think that the old government's

decision to close the old Tech B.C. and then reopen it has cost the government

more than if the original institution had been left open.

Was the

decision to close and reopen the campus at Surrey's ICBC building in the best

interest of British Columbians?

Interjections.

[1430]

Hon. S.

Bond: I find it interesting that the members opposite are laughing. You

know, on Friday….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Bond: It's unfortunate that the members opposite are laughing at the people

of Surrey today and those who live south of the Fraser who are celebrating a

permanent, sustainable campus.

Let's talk

about the costs…

Interjections.

Hon. S.

Bond: …related to the previous Tech B.C. process. Not once did it deliver

on the number of students it had planned. The cost of the building was twice as

much as we saw, and the cost per FTE in the campuses that we're going to

bring…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. S.

Bond: …in fact, will be less than half of what the cost would have been

under the former Tech B.C. We want to celebrate with the residents south of the

Fraser and with the people of Surrey that this is a cost-effective and excellent

announcement for their area of the province.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

ALTERNATIVE BUDGET

Sultan: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The Carole James NDP

budget calls for massive increases in corporate income tax, massive increases in

personal income tax, massive increases in sales tax and a reimposition of the

corporate capital tax. I think we all appreciate what happens in this sort of

tax environment to the ability of British Columbia to retain its skilled

workforce and to attract investment. Could the Minister of Finance give his own

assessment of what happens under the impact of a Carole James budget to capital

spending in this province?

Hon. G.

Collins: All one needs to do is look at the history of this province under

the NDP to get a sense of what it would be like if we went back to the NDP. The

fact of the matter is that over the last couple of years, there's been a major

turnaround in private sector capital investment in British Columbia. In 2003 it

looks like we've moved to second in Canada for new investment. That was done, I

think, in part because of a change in attitude here in British Columbia,

certainly a change in the corporate capital tax — which was a punitive tax; it

drove investment out of British Columbia — not to mention the elimination of

the PST, which also helps to contribute to reinvestment in plant and equipment

and productivity gains in British Columbia.

We've made

huge gains in the last couple of years. There is lots more to be done. We're

number two in 2003. We're going to continue to try and get further.

[End of

question period.]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Solicitor General has the floor.

[ Page 9282 ]

Point of Privilege

Hon. R.

Coleman: The member for Vancouver-Hastings alleged on February 18, 2004,

that I had previously told this House that our government has taken the

provincial politicians out of the decision-making process when it comes to

operational decisions in gaming. In this regard, she is correct.

minister, I am responsible for setting broad policies for gaming in British

Columbia. However, operational decisions — such as which facilities will have

slot machines allocated to them and how many — are the responsibility of the

B.C. Lottery Corporation. This division of responsibility is outlined in the

Gaming Control Act passed by this House in 2002. The rationale behind the

assignment of responsibility is simple. The mistakes of previous governments'

inappropriate involvement in gaming must not be permitted to occur again. Thus,

gaming policy is the role of government while the operational decisions rest

with the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

[1435]

Last fall

the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast approached me and asked for

information regarding the process communities must follow to apply for slot

machines. I informed the member that the government policy direction to the B.C.

Lottery Corporation is to place slot machines in full-service casinos or, in

areas that do not have sufficient populations to support such full-service

casinos, in community gaming facilities.

addition, I informed the member that another government policy is that slot

machines will not be placed in communities where local government supports…

Interjection.

Hon. R.

Coleman: …their introduction. As such, I suggested that the member

determine if his local government was interested in hosting slot machines in

their community.

In fact,

the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is reported to have told the Peak

newspaper in an

article dated December 23, 2003 — which

article was tendered

by the member for Vancouver-Hastings in support of her motion — that the

decision would be up to the municipality and the people of Powell River.

Contrary to

the suggestions of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I was not seeking a

specific venue or venues for slot machines. Rather, I responded to an inquiry

from a member of this Legislative Assembly as to the government policy and the

role of the B.C. Lottery Corporation in assessing requests for slot machines. At

no time did I offer to place slot machines in the member's community, and there

is no suggestion that I did so in the newspaper

article tendered by the member

for Vancouver-Hastings.

Thus, the

privilege motion amounts to no more than an accusation that I spoke to a member

of this assembly and outlined government's policies around the placement of slot

machines in individual communities and asked the member during the conversation

if the community he represented had expressed interest in slot machines.

At no time

was I asked nor did I offer to direct the B.C. Lottery Corporation to place slot

machines in a particular community, and there is no suggestion that I did so in

the newspaper article. I simply explained government policy to the member, which

is clearly within the responsibilities of me as a member of executive council.

Mr.

Speaker: The Chair will now take the comments of both sides into

consideration and rule on the point of privilege in due course.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

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

members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services.

In this House

I call second reading of Bill 4.

Second Reading of Bills

BUSINESS PRACTICES AND

CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act establishes an

independent authority that will administer the Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Act and the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act. It

demonstrates our government's commitment to finding new and better ways to

deliver services and protect consumers in British Columbia. The authority will

be responsible for licensing, inspections, investigations and enforcement of

B.C.'s consumer protection legislation. It will regulate travel agencies, debt

collectors, funeral services and credit reporting agencies for now.

Our

consumer legislation is forward-looking and has written-in flexibility to allow

us to add regulation of other new industries to the mandate of the authority. It

will allow us to move quickly to better protect consumers in the future, if and

when such future protection is required.

In addition

to regulating specific industries, the other critical role of the authority is

to administer the general consumer protection laws that affect all businesses in

British Columbia.

[1440]

We are

taking advantage of the unique position of the authority and set for it an

additional purpose. That purpose is the promotion of fairness and understanding

in the marketplace. Let me explain these features a bit more. The creation of a

new authority will ensure better consumer protection in the province by

increasing industry and consumer involvement in consumer protection activities

through the setting up of industry

[ Page 9283 ]

advisory groups, providing an efficient and responsive structure to regulate

specific industries, administering a consumer advancement fund which will

provide for the education of consumers and suppliers and programs to increase

compliance with the act, and increasing the focus on issues that are

particularly critical to industries and consumers.

As the

authority will not be part of government, it will be able to concentrate all its

energies and resources on improving business practices and consumer protection

in the province. The authority will be accountable to government and to the

public through administrative agreement with the government. The authority will

be governed by an appointed board of directors. The process for appointing the

board members will be transparent and based on merit, ensuring the board members

have appropriate qualifications.

The

government will continue to be responsible for consumer protection legislation

and regulations, setting the rules which govern businesses and consumers. The

authority will not have legislation- or regulation-making powers. We expect the

authority will be up and running by early July of this year. The authority will

be a non-profit corporation achieving full cost recovery within two years. In

order to facilitate a smooth transition to industry oversight by the new

authority, the act provides for the appointment of an initial board and startup

financial support to the authority. In this way, British Columbia will soon be

able to realize the benefits of all our new consumer protection legislation.

MacPhail: Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, is one

of three bills introduced on February 26 by the Solicitor General aimed at

changing B.C.'s consumer protection laws. The other two bills are Bill 3, the

Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act, and Bill 4, the Business

Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act. The Business Practices and

Consumer Protection Act is a sweeping bill that repeals and consolidates six

acts and four supplementary acts, including the Consumer Protection Act, the

Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, the Credit Reporting Act, the Debt

Collection Act, the Trade Practice Act and the Travel Agents Act.

On this

bill's first reading, the Solicitor General stated that together these bills

will strengthen consumer protection in the province and support good business

practices. Whether or not this will actually be the case will remain to be seen.

We know the Solicitor General says one thing and then does another. He says

there will be no expansion of gaming and then almost doubles gaming revenue in

this province. It remains to be seen whether the minister's statement that this

will strengthen consumer protection actually comes together or not.

Bill 2, in

conjunction with Bill 4, represents another attempt by government to off-load

costs and responsibility through the creation of an arm's-length authority. This

authority, which is designed to allow more self-regulation by industry, will

provide the vehicle for government to off-load its consumer protection

responsibilities.

This new

authority will have the ability to set, charge and enforce new licensing fees

for industry operators. Small wonder then that travel agents, tour operators and

funeral planners have already spoken out against this new legislation. They see

through the rhetoric being given by the Solicitor General. They see what this

bill actually represents — more costs being placed on the consumer.

Despite

what the Solicitor General said in the first reading of this bill and now second

reading, Bill 2 and the means for its implementation, Bill 4, will allow this

government to avoid its consumer protection responsibilities and off-load the

costs associated with those activities on to the private sector.

Where will

the private sector get the money to pay for all of this? You guessed it — the

consumer. Consumers — the same people who are paying higher MSP premiums.

Those who earn $60,000 or less in this province are paying higher taxes than

they did last year despite the Liberal backbench MLAs who say, oh no, their

government is doing so well. That same group is paying higher taxes than last

year. Everybody's paying higher tuition. Everybody's paying higher provincial

sales tax, higher alcohol and tobacco taxes, higher park user fees, higher B.C.

Hydro rates, higher ICBC rates. Oh no, that group is going to be hit again. The

consumer's going to have to pay more. The list goes on and on.

[1445]

Any

consumer protection that this bill purports to ensure, it is becoming

increasingly clear, will come at a higher consumer cost. We will, at committee

stage, be exploring this further and showing our disagreement and our opposition

to this legislation.

Mr.

Speaker: We're on second reading of Bill 4. The Solicitor General closes

debate.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I thank the member for her remarks. I look forward to committee

stage of the bill.

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.

Mr.

Speaker: First of all, we must call second reading. The question is second

reading of Bill 4.

Motion

approved.

Bill 4,

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority 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. R.

Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 2.

BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that the bill be read a second time now.

[ Page 9284 ]

The

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act meets three of the government's

commitments: to improve consumer protection in the province, to support good

business practices and to reduce the regulatory burden on business in this

province. The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act repeals and

replaces six consumer statutes: the Consumer Protection Act, the Cost of

Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, the Credit Reporting Act, the Debt Collection

Act, the Trade Practice Act and the Travel Agents Act. In addition, it replaces

the consumer protection provisions of the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act.

Contract

provisions from various current acts have been brought together in one place and

reorganized in order to clarify for businesses and for consumers what their

rights and duties are with regard to consumer contracts. The bill does more than

amalgamate and clarify the existing legislation. It establishes one streamlined

licensing system for all industries covered under the act. One inspection and

enforcement regime will be applied to all businesses regulated by the act.

All

deceptive or unconscionable acts or practices are prohibited. If an

unconscionable act or practice is committed by a business, the result will be

that the entire transaction will be void and non-binding on the consumer. It

represents a significant disincentive for business to engage in behaviour which

is deceptive or harmful to consumers. Federal and provincial governments have

been working towards a consistent approach to ensure that there are common

standards for businesses and common protections for consumers.

This act

incorporates harmonized provisions addressing disclosure of the cost of consumer

credit. Credit granters will be required to ensure that information regarding

the true cost of obtaining consumer credit is clearly presented in writing to

the consumer. This act applies consumer protection provisions dealing with the

Internet sales of all forms of distance sales, electronic sales, telephone sales

or any other type of sales transaction that is not conducted face to face. These

provisions enable consumers to cancel distance sale contracts in certain

prescribed circumstances.

This act

also enables a harmonized list of prohibited debt-collection practices developed

by all Canadian jurisdictions. This list prohibits the harassment of debtors and

clearly defines actions and forms of communication by debt collectors which are

not allowed. Credit reporting provisions in the act have been amended to reflect

the fact that the province's new Personal Information Protection Act, along with

the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, now

deals with issues such as access to any collection of personal information held

by the private sector.

This act

establishes administrative penalties that permit regulators to levy fines for

breach of the act. These penalties will encourage full compliance with the law.

The act establishes a consumer advancement fund to educate consumers and

suppliers about the matters relating to the act and to increase compliance with

the act. The main source of revenue for the fund will be financial penalties

imposed on business if they don't comply with the act. The act also allows a

consumer compensation fund to be established to compensate consumers who are the

victims of unscrupulous practices.

The travel

insurance compensation fund, which compensates consumers when travel companies

fail, will continue to exist.

[1450]

The new act

gives the director of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority

the ability to seek a court order to dispose of assets that have been frozen

during an inspection. Assets can be frozen now, but the current legislation does

not address the seizure or sale of those assets. As a result, the assets cannot

be used today to compensate consumers without the permission of the owner. The

new act will allow proceeds from the sale of these assets to compensate

consumers and pay inspection costs. The act also permits the publication of

licensing or enforcement action. This will help educate consumers and help

discourage businesses from breaching the act. This act will clarify that

consumer organizations have standing in court proceedings, allowing groups of

consumers to take similar cases against the same supplier to court together.

Currently, it is often impractical and expensive for individual consumers to

take a supplier to court.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. I have to say that the notes that I read

into the record were for Bill 2. On the first one, which was Bill 4, apparently

the minister…. I'm sorry; I missed his opening call. My comments for the last

bill were for Bill 2. The minister started with Bill 4, I understand. Anyway,

I'm sorry. I missed my opportunity to read on Bill 2. I can't understand why the

minister started in that order, but my apologies. I'll have to make my comments

at committee stage. It does seem to be a bit bizarre.

Mr.

Speaker: Bill 4. Solicitor General closes debate. Pardon me, Bill 2. We've

done Bill 4.

The Leader

of the Opposition seeks the floor.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. What I'm going to do, then, is remake my remarks around

Bill 2 if I may — that would be in order, I assume — so that at least the

record is clear. My apologies, Mr. Speaker. It does seem to be.…

On Bill 2,

Mr. Speaker, which we're now debating.

Bill 2, the

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act…. That bill is one of three

bills introduced on February 26 by the Solicitor General aimed at changing

B.C.'s consumer protection laws. The other two bills are Bill 3, the Cremation,

Interment and Funeral Services Act, and Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Authority Act.

The

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Bill 2, is a sweeping bill that

repeals and consolidates six acts and four supplementary acts, including the

Consumer Protection Act, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, the Credit

Reporting Act, the

[ Page 9285 ]

Debt Collection Act, the Trade Practice Act, the Travel Agents Act. On this

bill's first reading the Solicitor General stated that together these bills will

strengthen consumer protection in the province and support good business

practices. Whether or not this bill will actually be the case will remain to be

seen.

Bill 2, in

conjunction with Bill 4, which I will talk about just briefly in a moment,

represents another attempt by government to off-load costs and responsibility

through the creation of an arm's-length authority. This authority, which is

designed to allow more self-regulation by industry, will provide the vehicle for

government to off-load its consumer protection responsibilities.

This new

authority will have the ability to set, charge and enforce new licensing fees

for industry operators. Small wonder then that travel agents, tour operators and

funeral planners have already spoken out against this new legislation. They see

through the rhetoric being given by the Solicitor General. They see what this

bill actually represents — more costs being placed onto the consumer.

[1455]

Despite

what the Solicitor General said in the first reading of this bill, Bill 2 and

the means for its implementation…. That's why I'm confused, Mr. Speaker. Bill

4 is the implementation of Bill 2. Bill 4 will allow this government to avoid

its consumer protection responsibilities and off-load the costs associated with

those activities onto the private sector.

Where will

the private sector get all this money to pay for this off-loading? You guessed

it — the consumer. The same people who, if they earn $60,000 or less under

this government, are paying more tax than they did last year. Everyone is paying

higher MSP premiums, higher tuition, higher provincial sales tax, higher alcohol

and tobacco taxes, higher park user fees, higher ICBC premiums and higher B.C.

Hydro rates. Under this government all those have gone up. The list goes on and

on. The consumer is now going to pay more under Bill 2. Any consumer protection

this bill purports to ensure, it is becoming increasingly clear, will come at a

higher consumer cost.

The

implementation of Bill 4 allows for the creation of an independent authority at

arm's length away from the government to implement this. We've already seen the

government do this with health authorities and B.C. Ferries. They're now trying

to do it with safety standards. It's the same old wolf in sheep's clothing. Bill

4, which will implement Bill 2 — Bill 4 is the Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Authority Act — provides the means for government to off-load the

responsibilities and costs of consumer protection onto industry and consumers.

This new

authority will be charged with the enforcement of consumer protection laws and

the regulation of industries such as debt collection and credit reporting

agencies, travel agencies, funeral homes and cemeteries. It's going to be

completely independent and therefore not accountable to anyone who has been

elected.

The

authority will take over functions that used to be carried out by the public

service, the consumer services division of the Ministry of Public Safety and

Solicitor General. But this government is a government that hates government.

They don't want to have any direct responsibility, which in some ways, because

of their incompetence, is good news. In terms of accountability, Mr. Speaker, it

is a disaster. This government wants to be held accountable for nothing, and

Bill 2 will be implemented through this independent authority that is

accountable to no one.

Of course,

Bill 2, Bill 4 and Bill 3 have already been criticized by travel agents and tour

operators and death care providers. The groups are very unhappy with the lack of

consultation with stakeholders involved with the drafting of this package of

legislation. The groups are also unhappy with the anticipated hikes in licensing

fees that these bills are going to permit. The authority will be able to charge

new fees onto businesses, fees which will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers

because the economy isn't growing in this province, so businesses have no choice

but to pass on consumer fees. Consumer protection, it seems clear, will come at

a higher cost to both consumers and businesses.

We will be

expressing our opposition at various committee sections of both Bills 2 and 4.

Mr.

Speaker: Second reading of Bill 2. Solicitor General closes debate.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I was advised that the order of the bills coming in today was

actually provided to her office before question period today. If that wasn't the

case, I will look into that. I do know the House Leader did call Bill 4 first.

Whatever confusion there was, I'm sure we can straighten that out.

This

actually is an accumulation of an extensive amount of work by some very highly

qualified professional members of our civil service. When I became the minister

responsible for this area of government, it wasn't by virtue of any other

discussion than the fact that when I was briefed about consumer protection in

the province, its strengths and its weaknesses, I asked a senior civil servant

who had been working with consumer protection in this province for an extensive

period of time what they would recommend to improve and enhance consumer

protection in British Columbia.

They felt

that we needed to harmonize and bring the legislation together, that we should

look at other jurisdictions, that we should do this and move forward so that we

didn't have all the confusion that existed in consumer protection — as well as

the fact that we actually had assets in our possession that we couldn't dispose

of to get money back to people who were bilked out of money because we had to

actually ask the person accused of the crime if we could have permission to

dispose of the asset.

The

consultations on this bill were extensive. It's been a two-and-a-half-year

project. I look forward to any discussion in committee stage with regard to all

of that and the benefits of this piece of legislation.

[ Page 9286 ]

[1500]

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

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

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

Bill 2,

Business Practices and Consumer Protection 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. R.

Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 3.

CREMATION, INTERMENT

AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the bill now be read a second time.

Bill 3

repeals and replaces the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act. This bill is closely

linked to Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, which I've

already spoken about in this House. The contractual and consumer protection

portions of the current Cemetery and Funeral Services Act have been moved to the

new Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, where they fit well with

other provisions regulating general contracts entered into by consumers.

The

Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act sets guidelines to operate

cemeteries, mausoleums, columbariums and crematoriums along with the rules

regarding disposition of human remains — important issues that are best

handled in a separate act rather than

an act that deals with general consumer

protection. The new act addresses three areas: public health and safety, land

use and planning, and appropriate business practices to operate cemeteries. The

act clarifies language and cuts unnecessary red tape. Mandatory filing of some

information will no longer be required, with filing of information in some

circumstances.

specifically, Bill 3 deals with the operation, opening and closing of

cemeteries, mausoleums, columbariums and crematoriums; the licensing of

businesses and key professionals who work in the bereavement industry and the

occupational health and safety standards they must meet; the disposition of

human and cremated remains; the disinterment of human remains; and the keeping

of historical records about disposition.

The act

uses the same framework for licensing as the Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Act, and it adopts the same inspection and enforcement provisions.

This makes sense and fulfils our promise to rationalize the licensing of

different businesses while retaining one complete set of enforcement tools to

manage a spectrum of businesses dealing with consumers. The act also adopts

administrative provisions from the Business Practices and Consumer Protection

Act so that the two acts will be administered by the same people with the same

expertise on consumer issues.

MacPhail: Bill 3, the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act

completes the package that is made up of Bill 2, the Business Practices and

Consumer Protection Act, and Bill 4, the Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Authority Act. Bill 3 gives the option of repeal by regulation of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of the 1996 Cemetery and Funeral Services Act and

Supplement.

The

Cemetery and Crematorium Association of B.C. and the Funeral Association of B.C.

have already expressed written concern over this bill in a letter to the

Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. They are also distressed by the

other two bills currently being forwarded by the Ministry of Public Safety and

Solicitor General — Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection

Act, and Bill 4, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act.

These stakeholders have not only criticized the lack of government consultation

in the drafting of this bill but have questioned the underlying motivations of

government in forwarding the legislation.

The

Solicitor General says he consulted a former public servant who is expert on

consumer protection, just the same way as the Minister of Health Services, in

choosing the appointment of the national health council and coming up with the

Premier's brother-in-law, consulted the head of the BCMA. Wow, isn't that great

consultation? This government doesn't like to go too far away from their friends

and insiders before they make changes. They certainly have a different

definition of consultation than the rest of the world.

These

groups, which will be directly affected by the legislation, do not believe this

bill reflects the concerns they have been vocal in communicating to the Ministry

of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Maybe another definition of this

government's consultation is that if everybody disagrees with us, but it's what

we want to do for our friends, we're going to go ahead and do it anyway. And by

the way, don't ever accuse us of not consulting.

[1505]

The very

people whose lives are being changed by this legislation disagree with this

legislation. They are not convinced that this bill addresses the interests of

either business or consumers. The changes included in this bill will see the

increased fees placed on service providers. Fees will be passed on to consumers

in the form of higher consumer costs and services. This is becoming a trend

British Columbians are well acquainted with under this government — paying

more to get the same or even reduced services. In the case of B.C.'s death care

industry, this means increased consumer costs for cremation, interment and

burial services.

This

government and this bill add new meaning to the old saying: "Nothing is

certain in life but death and taxes." I am certain that we will be hearing

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 25:

ministry operations, $10,404,260,000 (continued) .

Sultan: I would like to pose a series of questions concerning the '04-05

budget of the Health Services ministry, concerning the big picture, concerning

the size and the scope of this key ministry of the government and, finally, ask

a question reflecting on the importance of this ministry in the economic

development of British Columbia.

To put

matters into perspective, we have testifying in the Legislature today

individuals who set the course for an enterprise which accounts for a full 42

percent of all provincial government spending in this province and who are the

ultimate stewards of spending which accounts for one dollar in ten of our gross

domestic product in British Columbia. Furthermore, given the merger of the two

ministries of Health Services and Health Planning, they now oversee the

activities of what is, by my reckoning — and estimates can always vary

depending on the accounting assumptions — approximately $2.5 billion more

spending in the first four years of this government's term in office and which,

by my reckoning again, is exceeding by a significant margin the growth in

spending in the Health ministry of the previous government in its final four

years in office.

My first

question to the minister is this: while by my reckoning you are increasing

spending even faster than your predecessors, you — and we — are accused of

cutbacks. Why is this so?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We were certainly elected with a mandate to bring some changes. I

remember I had an

[ Page 9288 ]

encounter with an individual at one point, who said: "Well, when you ran

for election, you said you weren't going to change health care." I said:

"No, actually, what the Premier said was the exact opposite — that if we

did not change health care, we would not be able to sustain the proud public

health care system that we have today." Certainly, we were elected with a

mandate to bring in some changes, and as we brought in those changes, clearly we

have had to reallocate resources to areas of higher priority.

But if you

look at the growth in the spending, the big increase over this last couple of

years since we formed government, most of it is actually as a direct result of

increases to wages and benefits and increases to fees for physicians. Those make

up the biggest chunk of it, and those were initiatives that were really underway

as a result of the previous government, which we inherited after we became

government and were saddled with those big cost pressures.

Now, I

don't begrudge them, because the fact that we pay our nurses the highest

starting wage of any nurse in Canada helps with recruitment. We look at the

total budget that we have for physicians in B.C., which is the highest

per-capita budget of any province in Canada. That helps in terms of recruitment.

It shows in the data. You know, we have the lowest population-to-physician ratio

of any province in Canada. It's particularly true in the rural parts of B.C.

[1515]

We have

made some changes. We have reduced spending in areas of lower priority in order

to reallocate those dollars into areas of higher priority to meet patient needs.

I certainly hear the comments around the province that the member has alluded

to, but I think the fact of the matter is that we significantly increased health

spending. Our goal now is to make sure that any increased dollars from here

forward over the next couple of years get channelled directly into direct

patient care.

Sultan: All of this spending power and authority is exercised by the Health

Services ministry on behalf of what citizens have come to believe is their

entitlement from the cradle to the grave for excellent services, and in my own

experience we deliver on that. One might say these individuals, in terms of what

voters deem to be most vital to their lives, exercise more authority perhaps

than any military commander or any bank president. This is an extraordinary

concentration of authority. The spending they direct is growing twice as fast as

the economy. Many, including myself, have speculated that it may reach one-half

of the total spending envelope of the provincial government, possibly even

within the time span of the careers of people in this room.

Our British

Columbia experience is hardly unique. A provincial Premiers meeting recently

seemed to say with one voice that this trajectory is unsustainable on the

present model, that a new formula must be found and, reading between the lines,

that even if the federal government ceased reneging on its own health funding

obligations, that would not constitute a permanent solution.

My second

question to the minister is this: given its scale, do you ever consider the

possibility that the concentration and centralization of decision-making

authority in one ministry under one set of decision-makers can be overly done

and that, on management grounds if none other, a greater degree of

decentralization might not be more prudent and advisable in the future?

Hon. C.

Hansen: What we inherited as a government was a structure that had 52 health

authorities around the province under the umbrella of the ministry of…. Well,

actually, it was previously referred to, under the former government, as

Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors. Under that umbrella

were these 52 health authorities, which I think was considered to be too

much…. It was too fractionalized. It was too fragmented — that's the word

I'm looking for — and probably too decentralized, in the sense that we had

some very small health authorities that really didn't have enough of a critical

population mass in order to run a comprehensive health care system under that

particular health authority.

The

decision we made as a government early on was to combine those 52 health

authorities into the six structures that now exist. It has actually turned out

to be a very positive model. I've had discussions with other Health ministers

across Canada and have certainly recommended to them the model we have landed

on. I think it does allow for the ministry to have the broad policy-making

responsibilities at the ministry level but to decentralize the actual health

care delivery mechanisms — the operational side of health care services — to

the six health authorities.

Now, the

one thing that's key to that is good communication, so we have regular meetings

between the CEOs of the health authority and the senior staff in the ministry,

which was referred to as the CEO leadership council. I think the original intent

was that they would meet monthly. In fact, I think it has been more like every

two weeks that the leadership council meets to make sure they discuss issues of

common concern.

The other

advantage out of this is that you wind up with one health authority piloting

certain projects or taking on certain initiatives that can then be replicated

with the other health authorities. The other thing that you find is a much more

cooperative relationship between the CEOs of the health authorities and the

ministry staff when it comes to developing the policy and accountability

frameworks we have that are driven from the ministry itself.

[1520]

To answer

the member's question: yes, it is a very large ministry with a very large budget

in excess of $10 billion. The structures that we put in place allow that to be

divided up in a way that I think still allows us to meet the interests of

patients in a regionally sensitive way but doesn't create entities that are too

small to not benefit from the economies of scale that are there.

[ Page 9289 ]

R. Sultan:

I would like to explore the ramifications of the merger of the two ministries,

the Ministry of Health Services and the Ministry of Health Planning. As I

understand the previous division of labour between these two ministries in the

past…. On one hand we had Health Services, a ministry concerned with keeping

the ambulances running and the operating rooms at full complement, with paying

the doctors, hiring the nurses and so on. On the other hand was a Ministry of

Health Planning concerned with — perhaps one way of stating it — the

relationship between resource inputs and health care outcomes and the planning

consequences of those relationships — and one might hope, as a result,

learning to spend more and more wisely on one side of the equation for the

longer-term benefit of planning in the future.

Since aging

has become such an important driver of the health care costs, I suspect Health

Planning probably spent a lot of time, for example, addressing chronic disease

management strategies. Because of aging and the inventiveness of the

pharmaceutical industry, I understand pharmaceutical costs are rising about 14

percent annually — perhaps the minister would have more accurate figures —

if so, doubling about every five years. This might be a positive operating trend

in the long run if we link those investments and view them as such in better

disease management and health outcomes — keeping people healthier and out of

hospital. But perhaps we're not sure. Do we really have those answers?

The

question of the linkage between the planning insight and the Health Services

operations outcome, it seems to me, is critical. Some have suggested to me that

in the past these two ministries operated as silos — Health Planning and

Health Services — and really didn't communicate with each other very well.

Perhaps insights acquired in Health Planning weren't actually deployed in better

managing the finite resources on the Health Services side.

My third

question is: was this to some extent true, or is it just another theory that

outside observers are prone to conjure? If these two silos were not as linked as

they might have been or should have been, is the merger of Health Services and

Health Planning going to be an opportunity to further maximize the benefit and

the value of health outcomes as defined — for example, just to cite again

chronic disease management?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, the member's comments remind me of a discussion I had with

the then deputy minister when I first assumed this responsibility in June of

2001. She was talking about the establishment of this separate and distinct

Ministry of Health Planning. The instructions that she had from the Premier's

office were to take all of the FTEs from the former Ministry of Health and

transfer them over to this new ministry, the Ministry of Health Planning. She

paused for a second, looked at me across the table and said: "We don't have

any FTEs in the ministry dedicated to planning." It was just an astounding

statement when you think of what was at that time a $9.3 billion organization

with not one senior official dedicated exclusively to the planning function.

I think the

initiative that the Premier took to really put a focus on planning in health was

a very important and timely one. But it was also important that the planning

function not be separated from the operational function, because you can't do

good planning in a vacuum. You have to have the operational reality. The other

side of it is that you can't get so bogged down in the day-to-day operational

issues and management crises of the day to the point that you don't have enough

time put aside for the ongoing long-term planning.

The dynamic

that has taken place over the last two and a half years was having two separate

ministries but having a common executive. For most of that period of time, there

was a common deputy minister, and the executive level within those two

ministries was very much integrated. If somebody said these two ministries

operated as silos, I don't think those were people very directly involved,

because clearly it was anything but. I think there was a really good

integration.

[1525]

I think the

success we've had of getting that planning function rolling has been very

beneficial, but now it is time to make sure that we bring it officially back

under one roof, under the auspices of the Ministry of Health Services.

The

challenge and our commitment is that we will not lose the planning focus that we

have built over this last two and a half years. The planning function within the

ministry will continue to be a distinct responsibility. There will be officials

for which that will be their primary responsibility, and they will be able to

learn from the close integration that they have with those in the ministry

responsible for the operational side of health care delivery. I think that

synergy will serve us well as we move forward.

I think the

member mentioned issues around chronic disease management, for example. That is

a perfect example where Health Planning had a function of developing the

framework for that, but it is Health Services and the health authorities that

have the operational side of delivering on that.

There was

good coordination leading up to those initiatives, but I think the new structure

recognizes that that coordination has to continue to be well integrated.

Sultan: I wonder if I could turn to issues concerning the interaction of

this massive industry, the health services industry in our province, and

economic development — or, if you want to be somewhat crude about it,

industrialization. I think many would find that term offensive, but I think that

is at the core, perhaps, of what I want to get at. It has been suggested to me

that we could perhaps consider this breakdown in silos as in fact facilitating

the industrialization process. I would be interested in any observations one

might have on that subject.

To set the

stage on this industrial scene, let me describe some of the key players — as I

have made in-

[ Page 9290 ]

quiries and as have been described to me — who make up what perhaps could

be called the health innovation industry in British Columbia, as I understand

it, or what is perhaps more commonly referred to as biotech.

We have in

British Columbia, I have learned, a remarkably diverse cluster of institutions

and firms operating in biotech. In strategy terms, B.C. has managed to form a

life sciences cluster. Some of the main players in this cluster are, first, the

medical school and university research sector with particular emphasis upon the

University of British Columbia and its medical school faculty, as well as Simon

Fraser University with extensive biotech research infrastructure. I understand

that with support from this ministry, this will soon be expanded to strengthen

both the teaching and the research platforms at the main UBC campus, as well as

UNBC in Prince George and the University of Victoria. Needless to say, the

advanced education budget of this government is large and increasing, and I

presume that spending by this ministry plays a key role as well.

Second, the

Michael Smith Foundation named after the late Nobel laureate, who was a pioneer

in molecular genetic research. The Michael Smith Foundation funds university

chairs for medical sciences. I understand B.C. taxpayers have invested $120

million in it.

Third, the

Canadian Genetic Diseases Network based in Vancouver and chaired for now by the

former federal Finance minister, Don Mazankowski. I cannot help but note in

passing the more than coincidence that these institutions seem to seek out

Finance ministers for their titular heads, and I'm sure that's not a

coincidence.

Fourth,

research-oriented hospitals, notably Children's Hospital in Vancouver and the

research organizations housed there — also VGH, St. Paul's and a whole host of

hospitals throughout British Columbia where international clinical trials on new

medicines and therapies are taking place. I presume the British Columbia

taxpayer is contributing to these endeavours through the Health ministry as

well.

[1530]

Fifth, the

regional health authorities, not to be overlooked since they organize people and

resources for top-tier research, particularly the provincial health services

authority. More of your tax dollars at work. Sixth, Genome B.C., heavily

supported by the federal and provincial governments — world-class, expensive.

Seventh, funding from the federal government via the Canadian Foundation for

Innovation and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research — lots of dollars

flowing here too.

Eighth,

funding and research grants from major research-based pharmaceutical

organizations such as Merck Frosst, which in November announced a $31 million

grant to the Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics based at Children's

Hospital in Vancouver. Pfizer and other research-based pharmaceutical giants

fund research programs here as well. Ninth, there's the B.C. knowledge

development fund, BCKDF, which is B.C. government money — $217 million I'm

told, so far — used by our institutions to lever far greater sums from the

federal government and private money.

My fourth

question to the minister has two parts. Since government funding, including

provincial government, of these entities is so significant, do the people here

accounting for this ministry routinely monitor and interact with the recipients

of these health science funds? If so, is the ministry doing all it can to

positively leverage research sources from the private sector with the same

enthusiasm as from other provincial jurisdictions? Secondly, what benefit do

they foresee for the vast taxpayer investment in these organizations? If

commercialization is in prospect, is the taxpayer benefit actually formalized?

Hon. C.

Hansen: This is a complex picture to paint for the member, because from the

health care sector we do support research and innovation, and there is some

direct funding that has gone into research, as the member has indicated. From

the health sector per se we don't wind up with a direct…. Certainly, we are

involved with those projects, and there are accountability frameworks in place,

but in terms of a direct financial benefit back to the Health ministry, that is

not the case.

What we are

trying to do is promote innovation. We're trying to promote the kinds of

technological advancements that will support the health industry of the future,

but we are one of many players in this if you look at other ministries of

government that are involved — the Ministries of Advanced Education, Small

Business and Economic Development, Finance, Agriculture. The resource industries

are all involved, as well, in trying to encourage that kind of innovation, of

which biotech is certainly one. The underlining objective for us is to create

excellence of science here in British Columbia, and the economic drivers that

generates in turn feed a health economy, which produces the revenues back to the

health sector.

[1535]

[K. Stewart in

the chair.]

In terms of

direct payback, if that's the right word, the approach that is being taken now

is to concentrate that in certain sectors. When we wind up with the

commercialization of a product that comes from some of the direct research that

is done in this province, that typically winds up as a payback to the university

sector — advanced education. As a product becomes commercialized, they wind up

retaining a particular interest in that product so that if there is a dividend

to be paid, then the dividend does come back to benefit the taxpayer in that

sense.

Sultan: Thank you for that encouraging response and certainly the support of

the ministry and governments of the day and of the past. The investments they've

made in this area have been phenomenally productive in terms of research

excellence. I might just observe in passing that as our university system

perhaps becomes more distinct from government itself, at

[ Page 9291 ]

some point perhaps the taxpayers' interests might be more directly

considered.

I would

like to move on to considering this cluster of biotech research and application

that has been created here in British Columbia by the endeavours the minister

described and move on to the commercialization of research, as he referred to

it. It's my understanding that this cluster of biotech activity in Vancouver is

second only to Montreal in Canada in size and, in fact, here in this part of the

world is the fastest-growing in Canada. I'm also told — and I find this

astounding — that we have here perhaps a fifth- or sixth-ranked entity in

North America after Washington, Boston, San Diego and the San Francisco Bay area

— in my mind, a remarkable accomplishment.

Spreading

out from this research and development core we find numerous commercial

ventures, some with market capitalizations in the $1 billion-to-$2 billion

range. Some are companies started by a scientist from one of our universities

with an idea backed by very early-stage angel investors. Notable examples would

include Vancouver-based Angiotech, market cap over $1 billion; Inex

Pharmaceuticals, a local company commercializing their own oncology

pharmaceuticals now with their own distribution — that's special — $3

billion market cap; Forbes Medi-Tech, another UBC spinoff; QLT, another UBC

spinoff and remarkable for actually having commercial products, including

Visudyne, a product that can help retard blindness among the aged; Xenon

Technologies, another UBC spinoff; Anormed and Stressgen, each with a market cap

in the $300 million range; Inflazyme and Micrologix, each with a market cap in

the $100 million-to-$200 million range.

Here we

have created locally in little British Columbia billions and billions and

billions of dollars of market capitalization in the stock market in biotech —

absolutely remarkable. In this regard, it's useful to distinguish biotech from

high-tech. Biotech is identified with the life sciences: chemistry, biology,

genetics. High-tech, of course, is associated with physics, engineering,

electronics and computers.

According

to UBC's vice-president of research, last year almost half of British Columbia's

top technology companies were biotech. We will go further and point out that the

vast majority of biotech firms in B.C. — let us estimate about 80 percent of

them — operate in the biopharmaceutical sector. The other 20 percent operate

in fields as diverse as forestry and agriculture, as the minister has already

alluded to. So when we talk about B.C. biotech, we are usually talking about

B.C. biopharmaceutical. Let us also acknowledge that biotech or

biopharmaceutical cannot prosper without high-tech. For example, sequencing the

SARS genome involved data massaging and computer capacity on a scale undreamed

of a decade ago.

[1540]

The

commercialization spinoffs — and let's acknowledge that we are mostly talking

biopharmaceutical spinoffs here — are funded by angel investors, by sweat

equity and through partnership arrangements with more senior firms. Our venture

capital industry, hardened by years of sorting out the wheat from the chaff in

the junior mines sector, quickly became very knowledgable at doing the same

thing among the winners and losers in biotech. Vancouver capital markets have a

long and successful tradition in entrepreneurial finance, operating on the more

extremes of risk and reward, so when biotech came along, it was not such a

stranger to this financial neighbourhood.

My fifth

question to the minister, then, is this: does the Health ministry, in its

development of health policy and plans, consider the large and rapidly growing

presence of commercial biotech companies in British Columbia? Do we have a clear

plan in the ministry to support our B.C.–based biotech cluster, or what some

might call small pharma?

For that

matter, do we have a clear plan to develop partnerships with big pharma? Does it

see interaction between health service policies of this government and the

success or failure of commercial biotech ventures, and why? Is there a public

policy issue here, considering the linkage between the economic development

strategy of our province and the workings of this huge health care system? In

sum, what is the responsibility of the Health ministry in facilitating economic

development and return on taxpayer dollars?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Our approach to funding research in the province is really driven by

a couple of principles. One of those is to make sure we leverage research to

further develop the health sector as a dynamic, powerful asset to the provincial

economy. This was the member's opening comments about how significant the health

sector is to our provincial economy. Certainly, we want to use our resources

when it comes to funding health research to stimulate that as we go forward.

There is a

lot of work done across ministries to make sure we do have a common provincial

government approach to funding for health research. There is a lot of

interaction involving different ministries in that regard. Also, it is important

that the funding decisions around research be done in a way that is properly

peer-reviewed. We have the Michael Smith Foundation, for example, which the

member referenced, that is set up at arm's length from government. They make

sure they receive proposals that are then properly peer-reviewed. The whole

principle behind the Michael Smith Foundation is then how to lever that money,

how we can get other contributions to that research from outside of British

Columbia. I think they've been extremely effective at that.

[1545]

Finally,

the P3 initiatives bring some opportunities here in that through P3s we can

bring additional partners to the table to become part and parcel of those

research initiatives. I think on all of those fronts we are trying to make sure

there is a cohesive approach and one that really involves all of the ministries

that need to be part of that unified approach.

Sultan: I would like to point out, at the risk of straying perhaps

considerably beyond the mandate of

[ Page 9292 ]

this particular ministry, that British Columbia didn't arrive at this very

happy state of biotech excellence and stature by accident or serendipity. There

was a large and active — indeed interventionist, if you will — government

role. I refer, for example, to the pioneering work of a member of this

Legislature, Dr. Patrick McGeer, who used his position 20 years ago to play a

powerful role in helping to create a culture of innovation through fostering

strategic investments by the provincial government, including the university

liaison offices and research facilities through discovery parks; through venture

funding of Discovery Enterprises, an organization of which I was a director for

many years; and through nurturing other organizations, such as the Science

Council and Advanced Systems Institute, or ASI. It's a long list. ASI was only

one of four or five things that Dr. McGeer — a physician, by the way, and

researcher — did to create more of an emphasis on the commercialization of

research, particularly in the biotech area.

All of what

we see today didn't just simply happen. Government facilitated the emergence of

a commercial biotech sector in many institutional ways and not simply through

granting ever-larger dollops of cash. My next-to-final question is this: does he

see a similar role and opportunity for government today to further advance the

commercialization of biotechnology in British Columbia?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I would say that we continue to build on that good work started ten

years ago by Dr. McGeer. Actually, Dr. McGeer was never a Minister of Health in

the province. He was a Minister of Advanced Education, and today that is still

the ministry that is really responsible for driving the research agenda for the

province and is responsible for the provincial government's role when it comes

to commercialization.

I think it

would be inappropriate to have various government ministries all competing with

each other to try to maximize a commercialization benefit out of this research.

As much as I would love to see more money coming into the Ministry of Health

Services from different sources, I would have to say I think it is appropriate

that be focused on advanced education as the route by which that is reinvested.

Certainly,

I believe the Ministry of Health and the health sector in the province benefit

from that research enormously. If you go back to the example the member raised

of QLT with the development of Visudyne…. You know, Visudyne is really a

miracle drug for those who have suffered from the onset of macular degeneration.

Individuals in the past who would have no treatment options available to them

would just face deteriorating eyesight and progressive blindness. Today, as a

result of research that was initiated here in British Columbia out of the

University of British Columbia, that commercialized into QLT. As a result of

that initiative, those individuals in this province and indeed around the world

now can face a future prospect of continued eyesight rather than that

progressive blindness they would have faced otherwise.

The real

benefit, I believe, to the health sector is the innovation, the treatments and

the kind of therapies that will enhance health status as we go forward.

Sultan: A final question. I just wanted to explore briefly the role played

in this milieu by the global research-based pharmaceutical organizations — the

sector that some describe, perhaps with a bit of emphasis in their voice, as big

pharma.

[1550]

It seems

that our health care systems around the world and our biotech commercialization

systems around the world are certainly, if not married, in a long-term

relationship with one another.

As MLAs

we're invited to a lot of meetings, and we're subjected to a lot of messages.

One of the frequent messages is that we should celebrate our health science

success, but the second message is that as we, like anxious parents, see these

entities struggle to survive and prosper, there are many years and many

disappointments and many risks along the way. Only a few, a precious few, of the

great ideas that come out of the labs ever see, in fact, successful commercial

application.

It is

further suggested that only the established research-based pharmaceutical

companies have the pockets deep enough to fund the 25-year cycle from innovation

through intellectual property and, ultimately, commodity status. It seems,

again, that a common denominator is money. We have come a long way in British

Columbia through the generous application of government money, through our

native brilliance — and I think we should all take pride in that — and

through the wisdom and foresight of pioneers such as Dr. Patrick McGeer.

I think the

question we must ask ourselves is: is this sufficient for the future? Looking at

things globally, I've been told that we're already underfunded. We consume 2

percent of the pharmaceuticals in the world and account for only 1 percent of

the pharmaceuticals research spending.

I suppose

one issue to ponder is whether we can continue to rely principally upon

government funding in this sector. Personally, I doubt it. Governments' spending

fancies change — biotech today; maybe it is Mars missions tomorrow. Who knows?

Any strategy depending on a constant and ever-growing flow of tax dollars is, in

my mind, vulnerable. So I appreciate any quest for long-term commercialization

on this basis. Involving major pharmaceutical companies invariably raises the

spectre of these huge giant, offshore big pharma companies. In my own

conclusion, commercialization is necessary for sustainability in this sector. We

could perhaps accomplish more through engagement than exclusion.

My final

question is to ask whether or not the ministry does buy into the proposition

that it has an obligation to assist the various entities in the B.C. biotech

cluster in fostering an effective commercialization system as well as an

effective innovation system. And further, does it buy into the proposition that

through

[ Page 9293 ]

focusing various activities of the Health ministry to maximize the return on

the vast taxpayers' investment in biotech…? As an incidental add-on to

everything else we ask this ministry to do, from running our ambulances and

getting our loved ones to the hospital on time to looking after us when we're

aged and feeble — as an incidental add-on and almost a p.s. — by the way, we

would like you to do this as well. Can the ministry deliver on that on top of

every other vast service we demand and expect?

[J. Weisbeck

in the chair.]

[1555]

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member's comments and questions sort of trigger for me a

sentiment that I try to share with my colleagues whenever I get the opportunity.

That's that you can look at the whole spectrum of government activity, and

somehow it has a health component to it. You know, if you look at the World

Health Organization's report on the broad determinants of health, what you

actually find in there are things like education. It's economic development.

It's clean drinking water, which is a health responsibility, but so many of the

broad determinants of health are not really what we think of as responsibilities

that fall under the Ministry of Health Services.

appreciate the member's sentiment and the need for governments and our society

as a whole to encourage research and innovation. I just want to be very careful

how much of that responsibility I take on out of our health budget, because

clearly it is stretched beyond its means even today.

You know,

obviously I think the ministry does have an important role to play when it comes

to health research. I think that role is to be the link between what the needs

of the patients are and what it is the next frontier of science can solve for us

in terms of meeting the needs of individual patients. What are the challenges

health authorities are facing that innovation from the research sector could

assist with? To that extent, we can be a bridge between the needs of the

population when it comes to health responsibilities and what that scientific

community can bring.

I think the

real generator of those partnerships really has to come through some of the

industry organizations. B.C. Biotech, for example, is an excellent organization

that I think helps to foster that kind of partnership between, as the member

says, the big pharmaceutical companies and the local science that is there.

I think we

have an important role to play, but it's not a role of being the primary funder,

by any means. We can help out where we can, but at the end of the day we really

have to ensure that our accountabilities are driven towards providing real and

meaningful change in the lives of individual residents of this province when it

comes to their health status.

MacPhail: Has the minister or his staff had time to get me any information

around Dr. Les Vertesi's appointment?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'm pleased to share with the member the biography for Dr. Vertesi.

He is a career emergency room physician with a track record for innovation. He

comes with over 25 years of clinical and 12 years experience as department head

in a busy trauma referral emergency department. He has a master's degree in

clinical epidemiology, in which he has a special emphasis on computer modelling

in management. Designer and founding medical director of B.C.'s paramedical,

ambulance and advanced life support programs…. That was between 1975 and 1985.

He was the first chairman of the Canadian Medical Association accreditation of

ambulance training standards. He was the first winner of the Justice Institute

of B.C.'s Cohen award for outstanding contribution to public safety. He has been

the medical director at Royal Columbian Hospital and recently has a faculty

appointment with Simon Fraser University for the Institute for Health Research

and Education.

MacPhail: My questions were…. The information I asked for was around the

agency's board and commission process that led to his selection.

Hon. C.

Hansen: There was an ad that was posted on the website and was also

circulated through the health authorities, asking for nominations of individuals

whose names should be put forward for the health council. Let's see if I can

find the date that process closed. I think it was in late October. Basically,

that led to us submitting names, which were the four nominees from the province

of B.C., to the first process. Then once that process was finished, the

provinces had to designate their own individual appointees. That announcement

was made. There was a press release that was put out on December 9 announcing

the chair and all of the members of the health council. All of the biographies

of the 25 members plus the chair were included in the press release that came

out on that date.

[1600]

MacPhail: No. Mr. Chair, could the minister do what I asked him to do? I'm

not talking about the process other than the process to appoint Dr. Vertesi,

which was the direct appointment of the government — the process that was put

in place around October. I assume he is referring to the four names chosen to

put forward other than Dr. Vertesi's position. Am I not correct on that?

Hon. C.

Hansen: No, it was all part and parcel of the same process. The reason why

the designation of the provincial representatives was not done until after the

first process had been completed is that in some cases some provinces and

territories put forward four names, not knowing which of the four might get

selected. Then they had the option of designating one of the unsuccessful four

to be their direct provincial appointee, so it was a process that happened after

that. The process of collecting names and biographies was

[ Page 9294 ]

one process that then led to all of the B.C. names that went forward as

prospective members for the health council.

MacPhail: So Dr. Vertesi was one of the four put forward?

Hon. C.

Hansen: No, he was not. What I did in receiving the bios and information

that came in through that process was that I then evaluated the names that had

come in. From that I selected the four individuals that we were going to

nominate as part of the initial process. I subsequently nominated Dr. Vertesi

from the list of names that had come in through that process.

MacPhail: Okay, so the first process was to establish…. It started in

October. I'd appreciate the website ad, if I could, please, and also the process

that was…. Was that done through Ms. Watson's office — the agencies, boards

and commissions office — and therefore would it be an open process so that I

could view the candidates that were submitted, etc.?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The ad that was placed on the website was placed through Ms.

Watson's office.

MacPhail: Yes, okay. I would like a copy of that, if I may. That produced

the list, I assume, from which the government selected the four names to send to

the federal government. That was a separate process from the selection and

appointment of each province's and territory's personal appointment, of which

Dr. Vertesi was the chosen one. Did Dr. Vertesi apply during the original ad

sent out in October?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Names came in through a variety of individuals. I put forward some

names of people I had encountered around the province that I thought would be

likely candidates. We had some suggestions that came in from health authorities,

and we had some direct names that came in specifically in response to the ad. We

reviewed all of those names in trying to determine, first of all, whose names

should go forward as the four nominees from B.C. and, secondly, who should be

the direct B.C. appointee.

MacPhail: So Dr. Vertesi was not one of the group of four that the minister

put forward. When did his name get submitted to Liz Watson's process?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think, as I mentioned this morning, that Les Vertesi's name was

first put forward and supported by Dr. John Turner.

MacPhail: When?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I don't have the exact date. In fact, I remember that it came to me

verbally. I then asked for a written confirmation of that, which followed some

time later.

MacPhail: Okay, good. So Dr. John Turner has actually written a letter.

Well, I'd like a copy of that letter, please.

When can I

actually see the process that Liz Watson did — the names. Maybe the minister

has the names that were submitted to her for consideration, not of the four —

well, all of the names of the four and when Dr. Vertesi's name was submitted and

what process the people went through, the vetting process, and how he happened

to be the one chosen.

[1605]

Hon. C.

Hansen: In fairness to individuals who put their names forward who were not

selected, I don't think it's appropriate that I circulate those names.

I can tell

you the individuals from British Columbia who serve on the health council. We

have George Morfitt, former auditor general of the province. We have Bob

Nakagawa — I was going to say Dr. Nakagawa, but I guess it's Robert Nakagawa

— who, the member will know, is a former director of the Pharmacare branch of

the province of B.C. The third person from B.C. who serves on the national

health council is Dr. Les Vertesi.

I'll send

over a copy of the information that was posted on the website by the board

resourcing and development office.

MacPhail: It's all very well and good that the minister says, "Oh, Dr.

Vertesi, even though he's the Premier's brother-in-law, was the best-qualified

candidate," and then won't cough up any of a process of how he was chosen

as the best-qualified candidate. Did the minister take the names, of which Dr.

Vertesi's was one, from Liz Watson and sit down and say, "Go through the

list," and then say: "Oh, Dr. Vertesi is the best"? Is it the

minister that did that?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Yes.

MacPhail: Why is the minister embarrassed about revealing who the

competition was? Why? What's secret about it?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think in fairness to people that put their names forward, if

they're not selected, I would like to protect their privacy. Also, there are

individuals whose names we put forward for a process that involved all of the

provinces casting votes on the initial 13 members, and some people in B.C. were

not selected as a result of that process. I think I have an obligation to

protect their privacy.

MacPhail: Which category? This ad lists two categories: expert councillors

and public councillors. To which category was Dr. Vertesi appointed?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think if you look at the qualifications that are listed under both

expert councillors and public councillors, you will see….

First of

all, to answer the member's direct question: it isn't a case of saying that

somebody's appointed un-

[ Page 9295 ]

der a particular category. If you'll note up top in the second paragraph:

"The health council will consist of 13 government representatives" —

in fact, there are 12 because Alberta chose not to participate, and Quebec was

never a participant from the very beginning — "as well as 13 expert

public representatives and one independent chair, for a total of 27

councillors."

If you look

at the qualifications under expert councillors: "Expertise in health system

issues." Dr. Vertesi certainly meets that classification. "Expertise

in patient-client issues; expertise as health care provider; expertise in other

relevant areas — including performance measurement in health, governance and

accountability, and public finance; a well-respected leader in their field of

expertise…and will not act as a representative for a particular

organization."

In the case

of public councillors: "…demonstrated interest in health care issues,

expertise in addressing health care issues at the local and community level,

well-respected leaders in their community and will not act as representatives of

particular organizations."

I think in

all of those areas, Dr. Vertesi is able to meet the test on every single one of

those bullets.

MacPhail: Dr. Vertesi wasn't appointed as an expert councillor or a public

councillor. I think that's the point the minister made. He submitted four names

Vertesi wasn't one of those four. He wasn't even chosen or submitted as one of

those. Where is it here that it calls for names to be submitted for the

government representative, to which Dr. Vertesi was appointed? Where? It doesn't

say anything here about that.

Hon. C.

Hansen: When we went out seeking names, we did not have in mind that we were

going to put certain names in one category and certain names in another. We went

out to look for names that would make good, constructive representatives on the

health council.

As we

mentioned this morning, of all of the provinces, four provinces chose to put

forward the name of their deputy minister when it came to their designate to the

health council. I think on top of that there were two of the territories that

did the same — put forward their deputy minister.

[1610]

In B.C., I

happen to know that our deputy ministers are overwhelmed with their

responsibilities. The last thing they could do is afford the time to take on yet

another responsibility. We first of all made a choice that it would not be a

deputy minister. Then we found somebody that we thought could bring another

level of expertise to that table specifically around the mandate of the health

council, which is accountability. I think the experience that Dr. Vertesi has

will be an invaluable contribution and addition to the makeup of the health

council.

MacPhail: I feel sorry for the minister, the way he's skating and skirting

and avoiding. I feel really sorry for him that he is having to do this to

justify the appointment of the brother-in-law of the Premier. This ad says

which Dr. Vertesi was not one. Clearly, he didn't qualify as an expert

councillor or a public councillor, because the minister didn't submit his name

as one of the four. He just admitted to that. He didn't qualify for an expert

councillor or a public councillor, it turns out.

It turns

out he only qualified to be the direct government representative, of which it's

a secret process. We're getting used to secret processes in this government;

that's for sure. Every day there is a new secret process about friends and

insiders, or problems in the caucus, people being suspended, inappropriate use

of their office. Now we have a situation where the minister is skating and

waffling about the appointment of the Premier's brother-in-law.

This ad has

nothing to do with the appointment of the public representative, the government

representatives. Dr. Vertesi didn't qualify to be one of the names sent as what

the ad deals with — expert councillors and public councillors.

What is the

date of the letter that Dr. John Turner submitted to nominate Dr. Les Vertesi?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it was around the end

of November or possibly the first week of December. As I mentioned earlier, it

had come to me verbally, and I asked for it to be followed up in writing.

I want to

come back. You know, I am not skating at all. What I have said, quite bluntly,

is that I made the appointment. The designation of the government representative

was my responsibility to make, and I chose Dr. Vertesi because I believe that

given his background and his experience, he will make a very valuable

contribution to the work of the health council. I'm not the least bit apologetic

about that.

MacPhail: Well, that doesn't surprise me — that he's not the least bit

apologetic. This government thrives on appointments of friends and insiders —

thrives on it. This application closed October 22, 2003, so Dr. Vertesi wasn't

part of this process. The minister needs to come clean in the House. Dr. Vertesi

didn't have anything to do with the public process. The minister got a nudge

from the head of the BCMA. It happened to work, I guess, for the head of the

BCMA. The head of the BCMA probably likes a doctor that encourages privatized

medicine, which of course Dr. Vertesi does.

Interjections.

MacPhail: I am very familiar with Dr. Vertesi's criticisms of my time when I

was in government — very familiar. It turns out that the minute this

government got elected and nothing changed, Dr. Vertesi de-

[ Page 9296 ]

cided to fall silent, and now he's getting his payoff. The Premier's

brother-in-law gets to represent the province at the country level on the

national health council, and everybody on the Liberal benches thinks that's just

fine.

Gee, who,

as a friend and insider of this government, hasn't got a job yet? And what

secret star chamber processes does the government use to find these people?

Well, it turns out it is a secret process. It has nothing to do with the public

process. A private little conversation between the head of the BCMA and Dr. Les

Vertesi, the Premier's brother-in-law, a proponent of partially privatizing

medicine — certainly, more than is available now….

[1615]

Let me ask

this question. By the way, Mr. Chair, I'll be happy when the government produces

the letter from Dr. John Turner nominating, at the end of November — what?

five or six weeks after the process closed — Les Vertesi to be the government

representative. How long will it take the minister to get that letter to me?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I will first of all determine if it's a public document, and if it's

appropriate, I will provide it to her as soon as possible. To be quite honest,

I'll have to find out exactly where that letter is filed.

MacPhail: Why wouldn't it be a public document? The minister said the letter

exists. It's way beyond the time frame that the competition closed. Of course

it's a public document, if it exists. I'm sure I take the minister's word that

it exists, because surely a casual private conversation….

Oh, I'm

sorry. That's how Doug Walls got his position in government. That's right. It

was a casual conversation, taxpayer money in the hundreds of thousands going

from the taxpayer to Doug Walls. The Minister of Children and Family Development

says he didn't work for government. Really. I'm sure the taxpayers will be

thrilled to know that. Let's see; he's related to the Premier's family as well.

He got hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, and it turns out it was a

conversation between the Minister of Advanced Education…. She said: "Oh

yeah, he's a good guy."

Now we have

a conversation with the head of the BCMA — confirmed by a letter, says the

Minister of Health Services — saying that Dr. Les Vertesi, the Premier's

brother-in-law, is a good guy, and ignore everybody else.

Will the

Minister of Health Services be reviewing the performance of Dr. Les Vertesi at

the national health council?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The national health council is a body that is set up to provide

oversight for the additional spending under the health accord dollars. I think

there are lots of people that have read lots of things into what they think the

health council might become, but I think the touchstone for it is the agreement

that flowed from the first ministers' conference in November of last year.

It is not a

policy shop. As I said when I participated in the press conference announcing

the council on December 9, it is not a policy shop; it is an accountability

shop. It is there to provide feedback to the public in terms of how the

increased health accord dollars were being spent.

Certainly,

I have the opportunity to talk to Dr. Vertesi at any time in terms of the work

of the council. I've made it quite clear that we are not asking him to be there

solely in a capacity to speak for and on behalf of British Columbia. He's there

to bring his expertise to the table, which is extensive. If there are issues we

think are specific to British Columbia that we want to have introduced at the

table of the council, then I have the choice of either contacting Michael Decter

as the chair directly, or I have the opportunity of talking to Dr. Vertesi and

asking if he would raise issues to the chair of the council.

He is there

designated by the province of British Columbia, but he is there to bring his own

insight and expertise to that work.

MacPhail: So we have a representative at the table who doesn't represent

government — is that what he's saying? — Dr. Vertesi. The minister can't

have it both ways. He can't say Dr. Vertesi isn't there representing British

Columbia and now say that I'm wrong to say that the government doesn't have a

representative there. There are 13 government representatives, it says in this

posting. Who's the government representative? Who's speaking for the government

of British Columbia?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think it might be useful if the member listened a little more

attentively when I answered, because what I said was that Dr. Vertesi was there,

designated by the province of British Columbia. He is there to bring his own

expertise to the table. He does not have to feel bound to speak only lines that

are somehow approved by the province. He is there to bring expertise, which he

has an enormous amount of, to the work of the council.

[1620]

If there is

direct representation that the province feels it needs at the table of the

council, then I have the option of contacting either Michael Decter or Dr.

Vertesi in that regard. In fact, I could contact any of those who are serving on

that council from British Columbia.

This

council is not set up to be an agent of the provinces. It's set up to be an

independent body that will provide oversight to the implementation of the health

accord spending.

In that

regard, there is a process that was put in place to arrive at what was

anticipated to be the 27 members of the council. In fact, it turns out to be 26.

It is that process that designated government and non-government appointees, but

these individuals aren't necessarily there to be solely representatives of their

respective jurisdictions.

MacPhail: Oh, that's great. British Columbia has a representative there

that's the Premier's brother-in-

[ Page 9297 ]

law, determined by a secret process, and he's actually not even there

representing the interests of the B.C. government. Let me just ask the minister

this, then: does the minister agree with Dr. Vertesi's books — his opinions

that he published, his views in Broken Promises: Why Canadian Medicare Is in

Trouble ? Is that the view that's representing British Columbia at this

national health council?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I encourage the member to read the book, because it's

thought-provoking. I actually read it two years ago when it was still in a

manuscript form and provided some comments back to Dr. Vertesi at that….

MacPhail: You're very close to him, it seems — very close.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member says I'm close to Dr. Vertesi. I do have coffee with him

on a regular basis, because I find his insights about how the health care system

works very useful. He is very much a professional, and he very much takes his

responsibilities in the public health care system seriously.

I think if

the member reads the book, she will actually find he brings an interesting

perspective. It's not one that I'm prepared to say I endorse 100 percent, but

certainly it is a useful piece of work that I think broadens the debate around

health care. If the member reads it, she will realize it is not about a

privatized health care system. It is about how to make our public health care

system, our publicly funded health care system, work more effectively.

MacPhail: Oh, it's such a cosy little world in this Liberal government. It's

such a cosy little world. Either be a relative or have coffee. You get the

appointment through a secret process, and you don't actually have to represent

the government — even though they're called government representatives. That's

what every other province is sending their government representative to do.

Deputy ministers, academics — they're actually there representing the

government, but not in British Columbia. If it was actually there to represent

the government, how could they appoint the brother-in-law of the Premier if we

had that high standard? We don't have that high standard.

All we know

about Dr. Vertesi — about where he wants the health care system to go — is a

book called Broken Promises: Why Canadian Medicare Is in Trouble . The

minister puts a very positive spin on Dr. Vertesi's ideas. I also recall the

criticism that Dr. Vertesi levelled at the previous government every single

chance he got. Fair enough, but it wasn't about extending the public medicare

system. That wasn't what his criticism was about.

Dr. Vertesi

is there representing his own point of view. Our minister can contact the chair

if he wants any input. Wow, British Columbians should feel just great about the

representation we have on this national health council. The minister says it's a

very interesting book. He's not endorsing it. Isn't that interesting? I wonder.

What does the minister disagree with in the book?

Hon. C.

Hansen: It's about two years ago that I read it, and I certainly don't

recall all aspects of the book, other than that I found it thought-provoking.

MacPhail: Oh, I see. So, secret process, Premier's brother-in-law….

Minister says: "Oh, he's got some good ideas, but he's not representing the

government. He's got his own ideas." He doesn't remember what his ideas

are. Oh, by the way, if British Columbia has any trouble, they can call Michael

Decter, the chair of the national health council, or he can discuss it with Les

Vertesi directly as an option.

What

obligation does Dr. Les Vertesi have to the people of British Columbia?

[1625]

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member keeps talking about some secretive process. It wasn't a

secretive process at all. As I said to the member, it was a name that was

recommended, and I appointed him. That's not very secretive. I made that

decision. I made that recommendation, and it went forward.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Please, member, let's listen to the answer.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The council itself does not have accountabilities back to any

individual government. They have accountabilities back to the provinces and

territories and the federal government collectively, but most importantly, if

you're familiar with the health accord, the accountability is to the public. The

work of the health council will be to monitor, to evaluate, the dollars that

were spent around the health reform fund, for example, which is an initiative

that is what part of that health accord money was for. They will be trying to

assess whether or not the initiatives that were taken by different provinces,

which will not be the same…. There will be different initiatives taken in

different provinces, because this is all outside of the Canada Health Act. It's

to evaluate whether or not those were effective and whether the additional

health accord dollars actually produced meaningful results.

That's the

work of the council. That's not something where you would expect each individual

province to be sending plays in from the bench to tell the council how to direct

their work. I think they need a level of independence, but they need competent,

talented, experienced people around that council. I'm very proud of all three

representatives from B.C. who sit on that council, because I think they will add

exactly that to it.

MacPhail: The deputy ministers of other provinces who have been appointed as

the government

[ Page 9298 ]

representatives are not there to represent their government. Is th

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20040309pm-Hansard-v21n11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20040309pm-Hansard-v21n11
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a04289e9c155744b01fee994b3997ae9ba4aa214

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Hansard — TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 (37th Parliament, 5th Session) (20040309pm-Hansard-v21n11)

HANSARD

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

INTERPROVINCIAL MIGRATION

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS

SUSPENSION OF LIBERAL MLAS

AND CAUCUS STIPENDS

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BRIDGE

IN KELOWNA

GOVERNMENT AID FOR

B.C. CATTLE INDUSTRY

COMMUNITY LIVING AUTHORITY

FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

SFU CAMPUS IN SURREY

ALTERNATIVE BUDGET

BUSINESS PRACTICES AND

CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY ACT

BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT

CREMATION, INTERMENT

AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH SERVICES

Document details