2002 Legislative Session: 3rd 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 5, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 20

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 7)

Hon. S. Santori

Medical Services Arbitration Act (Bill 9)

Hon. C. Hansen

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Retail sales in B.C.

B. Suffredine

Breast Cancer Awareness Day

I. Chong

Post-Polio Awareness Month

R. Stewart

Oral Questions

Advocacy role of Mental Health Minister of State

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Cheema

J. Kwan

Trans-Canada Highway between Alberta border and Revelstoke

W. McMahon

Hon. J. Reid

Disability benefits for employed disabled persons

V. Anderson

Hon. M. Coell

Tabling Documents

Report of the Crown Proceeding Act 2000-01

Public Service Benefit Plan Act, annual report, 2000-01

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

On vote 9: office of the Premier

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Campbell

J. Kwan

Point of Order

Hon. G. Collins

J. Kwan

[ Page 1497 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Stewart: It's my privilege today to introduce the chief executive officer of

Maple Ridge, Mr. Bob Robertson, who unfortunately will be leaving Maple Ridge

for a new position in the city of Hamilton as their chief executive officer.

Will the House please make him welcome.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to say that today in the Legislature I

met a national celebrity of significant merit. On entering my caucus meeting

today, I ran into none other than Marg Delahunty. Having met with Marg now, I

can tell you that her social commentary is matched only by her sense of fashion.

Hon. C.

Clark: Gee, I'm sorry I missed that.

Today I

would like to introduce two people that I had lunch with — as interesting but

certainly not as well dressed as Ms. Delahunty: His Excellency Wade Armstrong,

the high commissioner for New Zealand, who is making an official visit to

British Columbia. The high commissioner was accompanied by Tony O'Brien, who is

the consul general of New Zealand in Vancouver. I hope the House will make them

welcome.

Hon. J.

Reid: It's my privilege to make an introduction today. Unfortunately, this

person isn't in the House. It's the birth of my first grandson. Congratulations

to my son, Sean, and his wife, Grace — and add a new face to the Reid clan.

[1405]

Hon. G.

Hogg: I'll ask the House to join me in welcoming a delightful student from

my alma mater, Semiahmoo Secondary. John Gratto is here with constituency

assistant extraordinaire, Verna Logan. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Bloy:

It gives me a real honour today to stand in the House and only as a proud

father. I would like to introduce and ask you to make welcome my daughter,

Katie, a first-year university student at the University of Victoria.

Nuraney: I have great pleasure today to introduce a group of students who

are visiting us from the Ailanthus secondary school in Burnaby — a wonderful

group who are visiting to learn about the history and the procedure of the

House. I'd ask the members to please make them welcome.

Hunter: It's a pleasure for me to introduce a person who's well known to me

— my greatest fan in the House: my wife, Joy. Will the House please make her

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. S.

Santori presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. S.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Santori: Mr. Speaker, Bill 7 amends the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act to respond to the special committee of the Legislature

that reviewed the act from October 1997 to July 1999 and to address compliance

and cost issues.

The

amendments in Bill 7 will allow the information and privacy commissioner more

flexibility in meeting operational responsibilities; clarify FOI request

requirements; make the addition of public bodies automatic; require further

legislative reviews of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

clarify the

definitions of personal information and provide the ability to

disregard frivolous and vexatious requests; require the publication of a

personal information directory — the first of its kind in Canada; allow the

adjustment of response times to accommodate appeal processes before the

information and privacy commissioner; require public bodies to issue a fee

statement before providing a service; and permit public bodies to require a

deposit to be paid.

The changes

in Bill 7 are accepted by stakeholders and provide immediate improvements to the

legislation and response to the legislative committee's recommendations. It will

set the stage for further amendments in ensuing legislative sessions, resulting

from a comprehensive operational review of the act and the need to provide a

solid and evolving foundation for electronic government and electronic commerce.

It will

address compliance and cost-reduction issues and recognize and facilitate

compliance with recent budgets.

I move that

Bill 7 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

[1410]

Bill 7

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

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

[ Page 1498 ]

MEDICAL SERVICES ARBITRATION ACT

Hon.

C. Hansen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Medical Services Arbitration Act.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that the bill intituled Medical Services Arbitration Act be

read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The previous government of British Columbia entered into an

agreement that provided for an arbitration process to resolve competing

interests of the government of the province of British Columbia and the British

Columbia Medical Association concerning compensation increases for doctors in

this province.

The

arbitration resulted in an interim decision for physician compensation that came

down on February 8. Phase 1 of the interim decision provides for fees and

on-call services. These two items alone are estimated to cost over $250 million

annually. Our government is prepared to honour the spirit of the interim

decision. The problem with this decision is that the arbitrator did not address

structural problems in our health care system that are undermining patient care.

The interim award also suggests further arbitration decisions on a number of

other aspects of physician compensation, which have the potential to require the

government to pay significant additional funds each year to doctors for services

they are providing to British Columbians.

Our

government values doctors. We need to attract and retain doctors to give

patients the health care that they depend on. We need to ensure that we are

providing an attractive and competitive quality of life for our health care

professionals, particularly in remote and rural parts of this province. But it

is clear from this recent arbitration process that binding-interest arbitration

as a tool to resolve physician compensation issues is unduly risky in the power

to impact the province's fiscal responsibilities to the public.

By signing

on to binding arbitration, government forfeits its responsibility to maintain

control and balance in the fiscal matters of the province on behalf of British

Columbians. It is also clear that the arbitration process perpetuates a

dysfunctional relationship between the government and the province's doctors

that does not support appropriate and effective relations among the government,

doctors, taxpayers and patients. The Medical Services Arbitration Act, which I'm

introducing today, will remove specific sections and portions of sections that

we find in the agreements that exist between the association and the government.

The

introduction of this legislation marks a further step in efforts by our

government to work with doctors to reform the health care system, to help make

health care dollars work for patients and to make health care sustainable in

British Columbia. By working with doctors and bringing our valued health care

professionals to the decision-making table, we can save and renew health care

and put patients first.

Hon.

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9

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) RETAIL SALES IN B.C.

Suffredine: On the weekend I became aware of the latest retail sales numbers

and economic figures in both Canada and the U.S. South of the border, an

economic rally on Wall Street began on Friday and appears to be continuing.

Sales in a number of sectors in the American economy have improved

significantly. These results are being hailed as an indication of strong

economic growth and end the fears of a prolonged recession. Even the Federal

Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has signalled that he expects an economic

recovery in the near future. Here at home the Bank of Canada governor, David

Dodge, has predicted that an economic recovery could be here by the end of the

year.

[1415]

Well, Mr.

Speaker, this recovery may be sooner than we all think. Retail sales in British

Columbia are up significantly. Retail is our largest private sector employer. It

employs one in eight British Columbians. It shows no signs of decreasing. Since

the beginning of the year, retail sales are up more than 5 percent over the same

time last year. This is well above the Canadian national average. Part of the

reason for this retail sales boom is attributable to income tax cuts. British

Columbians in the two lowest brackets pay the lowest income tax rates in Canada.

An Hon.

Member: More good news.

Suffredine: More good news.

The tax

cuts are bringing the forecast benefit to the economy of this province. Much of

that extra money in people's wallets is spent in the retail sector. After all,

what is more logical than people spending their hard-earned money on goods and

services where they live?

Furthermore,

our retail sector has become diversified and has weathered the restructuring of

the sector over the past two decades with success. Niche retailing is booming in

the province, with a wide array of shopping experiences unique to British

Columbia. Our tourism industry is expanding rapidly.

With more

money in people's pockets, retail sales will continue to be strong as we prepare

for more prosperous and fiscally responsible times ahead. This is the first sign

that a new era of prosperity is emerging.

[ Page 1499 ]

BREAST CANCER AWARENESS DAY

Chong: On March 5, 2002, the Vancouver Island branch of the Canadian Breast

Cancer Foundation held its sixth annual awareness day. It began with a breakfast

at 7 a.m., followed by a luncheon at noon where attendees were able to hear

special guest speaker and international artist Carole Sabiston speak on her

recent experience with breast cancer. These venues also provided an opportunity

to find out more information on these related topics. The goal of awareness day

is, after all, about sharing with everyone information about what is happening

locally and, most of all, positive and hopeful information about breast cancer.

The theme adopted this year is Reach for the Stars: Aim for a Cure.

The

most recent statistics indicate that breast cancer mortality rates have declined

slightly since 1985 and particularly since 1990. Breast cancer incidence has

actually risen steadily during the past decade. This is due in part to more

effective detection because of the rising number of mammography examinations

since the mid-1980s.

While

we are heartened by these statistics, there is still much to be done and to

improve upon. Every year more than one million women worldwide are stricken with

breast cancer. Later this year, from June 4 to 8, Victoria will be host, for the

first time ever, to the World Conference on Breast Cancer. An expected 800 to

1,200 delegates from more than 80 countries will gather in Victoria to share

ideas and plan action for the eradication of breast cancer around the world.

Cancer does

not discriminate, no matter the age, no matter the gender, no matter the race or

the social or economic background. This disease affects us all. Even a former

MLA, Penny Priddy, brought her very personal circumstance to this Legislature

during the previous parliament. We were all touched by her courage to be a

breast cancer survivor.

Today in

Victoria we mark awareness day for breast cancer. I wear my pink ribbon in

recognition of and in gratitude for all those people and volunteers who continue

to support and offer all of us so much more to hope for.

POST-POLIO AWARENESS MONTH

Stewart: March 2002 has been proclaimed Post-Polio Awareness Month by the

government of British Columbia. Thousands of Canadian who survived the disease

of polio as children now live with post-polio syndrome. They struggle with a

long list of symptoms, including excessive fatigue; new or increased muscle

weakness; muscle or joint pain; reduced endurance; respiratory difficulties;

difficulty swallowing and sleeping; and sensitivity to cold, anaesthetics and

medication.

While polio

has been largely eradicated in North America, more than a dozen countries

worldwide are known to have active polio cases. As a result, Canadians

travelling to these countries risk encountering the virus and bringing it back

home. Health Canada recommends that residents who have not been vaccinated for

polio or who have not had a booster shot in the past ten years should check to

see if they need polio vaccine before leaving the country.

[1420]

One of the

goals of the Post-Polio Awareness and Support Society is to make all British

Columbians aware of the continued risk and presence of this disease. Many in

this room are aware of the tremendous efforts by many groups, including Rotary

Clubs such as my own, across the country and around the world to completely

eradicate polio from the Earth in the next couple of years.

I'm sure

the entire House joins with me in honouring the Post-Polio Awareness and Support

Society of British Columbia, Rotary International and the many other groups that

are working hard on this issue and in wishing them every success in their

important work.

Oral Questions

ADVOCACY ROLE OF

MENTAL HEALTH MINISTER OF STATE

MacPhail: I want to return to a question the opposition raised two weeks ago

with the Minister of Health Services. It related to a letter that I had received

and passed on to the Minister of State for Mental Health. Those letters lay out

a tragic story of a family looking for an advocate to help them cope with mental

illness — and clearly a system that isn't meeting their needs — and how they

approached the Premier. Then the Premier passed them off to the Minister of

State for Mental Health, who did nothing.

I'd like to

ask the Minister of State for Mental Health what training he has in mental

health advocacy and what training his staff might have in advocating on behalf

of the mentally ill.

Hon. G.

Cheema: My office has been in touch with this person, and the health

authorities have been in touch with this person. I have been in touch with this

member's office, and we are doing everything that can be done.

Our first

intent is to make sure that we provide the best quality of mental health in this

province. Let me remind this member that for the last seven months we have done

more for mental health than was done during the last ten years.

As far as

my qualifications as a mental health advocate are concerned, this member should

simply phone the mental health organization in this province. They give her a

failing grade. They are giving us a passing grade. They are saying that we are

fulfilling all the promises we made during the campaign; that we are fulfilling

the mental health plan promised that will improve the quality of life and that

will help this patient and many more patients; and that, basically, we are

providing quality care and also paying respect to the families and the patients

in this province.

[ Page 1500 ]

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I'm not actually sure what the Minister of State is talking about

because the family, who we talked with yesterday, has a completely different

version.

Mental

health advocacy is a very, very difficult job. The former advocate conducted

problem-solving, mediation, research and education strategies. She offered

independent — and I stress independent — assistance to mental health

patients and their families when the relationship with the health system became

strained.

In this

case, the minister's office, when pushed to action, simply flipped the family

back to the system, offering zero — no advocacy and no help. Can the Minister

of State for Mental Health advise this House if it's common for families to be

treated this way by his office? Will he admit that he dropped the ball with this

family, and will he now agree to fund an independent mental health advocate?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Let me just explain to this member again. As of June 5 we have been

able to do a lot more for mental health than she was able to do for the last ten

years. The office of mental health advocate has done a good job in the past. We

fund a lot of mental health advocates in this province. We are funding up to

$2.1 million for various organizations, and they're doing an exceptionally good

job.

[1425]

The most

important thing for mental health in this province was that a promise made by

that government failed three times. Let me say it. Let me make clear to that

member again that we made a promise during the campaign to fully fund and

implement the mental health plan. We made the promise, and we are fulfilling

that promise.

Mr.

Speaker, let me also explain to her the broken NDP promise for mental health.

She made the announcement three times, and that announcement was never

fulfilled. I shall read one

article of….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

The Leader

of the Opposition with a further supplementary.

MacPhail: When this government fired the independent mental health advocate,

the Premier said specifically that that minister was going to be the new mental

health advocate. He can make all the excuses he likes, but his record speaks for

itself, and in this case his record is abysmal. After repeated pleas for help,

the Premier told the family that the Minister of State for Mental Health would

contact them and provide assistance. They never heard from the Minister for

Mental Health. Two weeks ago the family had an ambulance and four police cars on

their front lawn. We took this issue directly to the minister himself, and he

still did nothing. The family hasn't heard a thing from this so-called advocate.

Can the

Minister of State for Mental Health tell this House why he ignored this family's

plea for help? And will he agree to an audit of the work his office does to

advocate on behalf of families, so this drastic, abysmal situation doesn't

happen again to any family in this province?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Let me just explain it to this member again. First of all, she must

stop misleading this House. She is not telling the truth. We have been in touch

with this person.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, please temper your comments with parliamentary

language.

Hon. G.

Cheema: I will withdraw the words "not telling the truth," but I

will say that this member is still not telling the facts.

Let me just

explain it to this member. We have been in touch with this family.

Let me just

explain what we've been able to do for the last seven months. We made a promise

to fully fund and implement the mental health plan, and we are fulfilling that

promise.

The

previous administration broke their promise on mental health. They promised $125

million, and they delivered only $10 million. They promised 30 new day-hospitals

for 1,800 patients. Zero were delivered. They promised more community-based

psych treatment. Zero was delivered. They promised 2,900 training spaces for

rehabilitation; 50 were delivered.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. G.

Cheema: The NDP promised respite care…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. G.

Cheema: …for 12,000 families. Zero was delivered.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Cheema: We don't need to learn from her about mental health.

J. Kwan:

The minister did not make contact with the family, and he knows it. He did

not do his job.

In the

secret new-era document released yesterday, British Columbians learned, by this

government's own admission….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

J. Kwan:

British Columbians learned by this new government's own admission that

wait-lists will grow, hospital beds will close, and patient care will be com-

[ Page 1501 ]

promised. We also learned that this Minister of State for Mental Health has

abdicated his responsibility to be an advocate for mental health patients at the

cabinet table. Nowhere in the estimates or in the secret Health budget document

is there any funding directed for mental health services, other than $15 million

in operating costs. Whatever else patients receive is up to the health boards,

who are being forced to cut services — just like education.

[1430]

Will the

Minister of State for Mental Health stand in this House and admit what everyone

now knows: that he is washing his hands of mental-health-services patients and

their families?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Let me just explain it to that member now. She should read the

stolen document properly. We have made it plain that we will be having $17.8

million in new funding for mental health. We are going to have $15 million for

community mental health services in this province. We are going to have $2

million for community-based psych treatment. We will be spending over $19.6

million for capital projects for mental health. We are delivering.

This will

provide more community-based mental health. This will provide the housing for

mental health. This will finally deliver what the Premier and our cabinet

promised: the real plan for mental health in this province. We will not fail our

patients. We will not cheat our patients. The NDP administration cheated the

public on mental health.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

We know from the estimates book that the $400 million base funding for mental

health is now gone. The only thing that is revealed in the secret document that

was released yesterday is a $15 million dedication to mental health.

We know

that this minister's record as the advocate for patients is ineffective. He

doesn't bother to phone back the families who are seeking his assistance. Thanks

to this government's secret briefing books, we now know that he is not an

effective advocate at the cabinet table either.

The

Minister of State for Mental Health is ignoring the needs of mental health

patients at every level.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Please

proceed. Please put your question now.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister just admit he's not up to the job and

commit today to re-fund the independent office of the mental health advocate so

that mental health patients and their families don't have to rely on help solely

from an ineffective and incompetent Minister of State for Mental Health?

Hon. G.

Cheema: She should read the stolen document in the proper way. It's very

clear that we will be spending over $17 million on a new community-based mental

health…. We will be spending over $19 million for new capital projects. We

have 76 advocates in this House. They are all working for patients.

We care

about the patients and their families. We made a promise during the campaign,

and we are fulfilling that promise with action. We will be spending $125 million

in our mental health plan. They failed the patients. We are giving them the due

respect and the care they deserve.

TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BETWEEN

ALBERTA BORDER AND REVELSTOKE

McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As my colleagues

know, I have a very dangerous stretch of highway through my constituency from

the Alberta border through Revelstoke. Today the provincial and federal

governments announced $122 million in new funding for B.C. highways. I would

like to address the question to the minister and ask her to tell us how this

funding will benefit Columbia River–Revelstoke.

[1435]

Hon. J.

Reid: That

section of highway is extremely important to the economy of

British Columbia — an extremely important transportation route. It's proven to

be very, very dangerous and to have severe safety concerns with it. As a result,

we've made it a priority with the funding. There is joint funding between the

federal government and provincial government for national Trans-Canada Highway

system projects.

The first

two projects are on that

section of highway. There is the Five Mile Bridge

project. A very significant safety concern is being addressed there. The second

one is the Victoria Road intersection in the city of Revelstoke. That will

alleviate the safety and access issues as well.

DISABILITY BENEFITS FOR

EMPLOYED DISABLED PERSONS

Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. People in my

community and right across the province who have disabilities are concerned

about the changes that are coming about in that particular support by the

government. They're worrying particularly about those who wish to work

full-time. How will the changes that have happened and will be happening affect

their ability, with disabilities, to work full-time?

Hon. M.

Coell: Many people with disabilities in British Columbia aren't able to work

full-time and receive continuous assistance from the province. We're going to do

a number of pilot projects that will help develop a strategy for people with

disabilities to find employment, whether it be full-time or part-time. In

[ Page 1502 ]

the spring we'll also be changing the earning exemption, where people can

earn up to $200 a month and keep that on top of their income assistance. We'll

be moving that to $300 per month, allowing them to keep an extra $100. That

should help those people working part-time. As I said, the strategies we're

going to develop will be there around an easy access in and out of income

assistance for people with disabilities so they can attempt to work full-time if

they can. If they can work part-time, we'll allow them to keep more money and

work with them to find a balance between the two.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Collins: I have the honour to present the report of the Crown Proceeding Act

for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, in accordance with

section 15(2) of

that act.

Hon. S.

Santori: I have the honour to present the Public Service Benefit Plan Act

annual report for the year ending March 31, 2001.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:39 p.m.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

On vote

9: office of the Premier, $49,727,000 (continued).

[1440]

MacPhail: I'm going to continue. I wasn't going to pursue this questioning

much further, but I'm going to pursue it a little bit more in light of the

legislation that was tabled today to take away arbitration from the doctors. I'm

sure we'll be getting some reaction to that. I won't be discussing the actual

legislation, because, of course, that would be inappropriate. What I do want to

go back to is to pursue the appointments to the health authorities that we were

exploring before the noon break.

I think the

Premier misunderstood me when I said what the communication had been to his

office about the appointment of physicians to regional health authorities. It

wasn't a matter of the physicians complaining about there not being a designated

spot. They were saying that under the previous government, a designated spot

wasn't enough. What they were complaining about was the absolute bar to being

considered as appointments to regional health authorities — that health care

professionals and health care workers were going to be barred from appointment.

I'm

wondering whether the Premier has had a chance to look at that letter and

whether he's had a chance to reply and/or reconsider that point of view. It was

received quite a few weeks ago — I think about six weeks ago. I'm just doing

this from memory.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm sure the member opposite will appreciate, because I know she

spent some time on this, that one of the things we're concerned about in

appointments to boards and commissions in the province is potential or perceived

potential for conflict of interest. One of the things we have said specifically

is that someone who is a practising physician within an authority would not be

on the health authority board. However, someone with a medical background is not

precluded from serving on a board. They, as other British Columbians, will be

considered, and the boards will be appointed.

MacPhail: My apologies. I just missed that very last part. Could the Premier

just repeat that very last part about how they will be considered?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Someone with a medical background who is not practising will be

considered, as others will be considered. You are not precluded, because you

have a medical background, from serving on a board. There are hundreds of people

that have been brought forward as potential people to sit on those boards.

They're going through review.

The member

asked today how quickly that would be done. I would expect that those

appointments will be made within the next two weeks in the province. It has been

a very detailed review that's gone on. Someone with a medical background is not

precluded from serving on a board.

MacPhail: So it is the government's position that someone who is practising

— whether that be practising medicine, practising nursing or practising

physiotherapy — is precluded through a potential conflict of interest. This

actually gives physicians less representation in the new structure than they had

before. Is that correct?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Each region has a medical advisory committee. That medical

advisory committee reports, by bylaw, through to the board.

MacPhail: Yes, I understand that. That was in place before, as well, but

let's be clear. From '97 through to 2001 or whenever the boards were fired —

yes, December of 2001 — physicians had a designated spot on every regional

health board and community health council. They said that didn't work for them.

It wasn't because of the designated position; it was the fact that they didn't

have autonomy over saying who was going to be in that position. Their concern,

in writ-

[ Page 1503 ]

ing to the Premier, was that they would be precluded from being considered at

all. The Premier is now confirming that their worst fear is true: practising

physicians will no longer be eligible to sit on any regional health boards, so

they have even less representation than they did before.

[1445]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'll reiterate what I said this morning. Indeed, the boards are

not constituency boards. They are boards that are there to make some decisions.

There are a number of ways that physicians can make their contribution, that

nurses can make their contribution, that administrators can make their

contribution to these boards so these decisions are made. Indeed, in terms of

physicians, we are in the midst of appointing a new assistant deputy minister

specifically with the task of building relationships between our Health Services

ministry and the physicians of British Columbia. There is little concern on

behalf of physicians that they won't be included — they will be, as will our

nurses and our workers throughout the province — in trying to make sure that

we deliver the best possible services to patients in British Columbia.

MacPhail: I wonder whether that message has been communicated to physicians

in whatever organizations. Do the physicians now know that they are barred from

sitting on the regional health boards? They wrote to the Premier. I'm wondering

whether they now know that.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I can't answer the question specifically, but we certainly have no

trouble dealing with either the BCMA or physicians generally with regard to the

structure of the regional health authorities. I should say, generally, that we

have had very positive comments from physicians across the province with regard

to the new structure, which will allow us to focus resources on patient care.

MacPhail: I would appreciate knowing. I can actually get the Premier's

office a copy of that letter. My staff can get that, and perhaps the Premier

could track down the reply to that letter as we go through estimates so I can

see that reply, please.

In terms of

the relationship with physicians — not to address the legislation that was

introduced today; I'm sure we'll have lots of time to discuss that — the

Premier said in a question earlier last month that he had met with physician

representatives in terms of trying to resolve the implications of the

arbitration. Since that time, what meetings has he had with the physician

representatives, bargaining representatives or any physicians dealing with the

compensation for physicians?

Hon. G.

Campbell: None.

MacPhail: Is the Premier aware of any of his ministers or staff…? I know

that we have to be very careful on these kinds of matters to ask very specific

questions. Has anybody in the government met with physician representatives to

discuss compensation, subsequent to that meeting that the Premier had and prior

to the introduction of the legislation today?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The Deputy Minister of Health Services and Deputy Minister of

Health Planning, who is the same person, has met with representatives of the

BCMA. The deputy minister of the Premier has spoken with representatives of the

BCMA. We have been very forthright in the concerns that we have, and they have

been very forthright in their responses.

[T.

Christensen in the chair.]

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. Please be aware that I'm happy to have others

participate in the debate, and I'll try to look around and see members who wish

to participate.

Then

between that time and the introduction of this legislation, has the BCMA been

aware of the changes that were being contemplated and were introduced today in

the legislation?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The Deputy Minister for Health Services has kept the BCMA informed

with regard to the issues that we are dealing with in the arbitration. I don't

believe they've seen the details of the legislation. Clearly, the policy issues

that we were concerned about are ones that the Minister of Health Services and I

have identified in the House.

MacPhail: What was the reaction?

[1450]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm glad to give general comment. The meetings were held with our

staff. They were positive on some issues and not as positive on other issues. We

will have an opportunity to hear the reaction from the BCMA and other doctors in

the province, I'm sure, over the days ahead.

MacPhail: We could probably explore these matters later on, but the order of

estimates says that this is when we ask these questions.

In terms of

the timing of this matter, I'm trying to get a sense of how the Premier sees the

reform of health care going. I hear him stand up and say, "We're putting

patients first," and I expect that is his sincere commitment, but there's

no question that there's worry out there amongst British Columbians about the

future of our health care system.

Some of the

anxiety, though — not all of it, because there is universal anxiety amongst a

certain age group about the future of our health care system — has arisen as a

direct consequence of the announced changes that this government is making, the

unannounced changes that the public finds out about and legislation that's been

introduced to change our health care system. Like these discussions between the

BCMA and the govern-

[ Page 1504 ]

ment — I was curious to know the nature of them, whether there was hope

that this would bring calm. This is a fairly substantial change in terms of how

physicians relate to the government, their paymaster.

The timing

of this legislation, the timing of refusing them access to regional health

boards and the substantial changes in the way health care is going to be

delivered in this province…. I was just wondering whether the Premier or the

Premier's staff or the deputy ministers — public officials — discussed that.

What was the feedback on that, on all of this happening at once? A subsequent

question to that is: was it discussed in the context that there was some urgency

to changing the way physicians determine their compensation?

I'll tell

you why. Disruption, at the best of time, in our health care system is

troubling. I'm curious to know how all of this prevents disruption. That's all.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I think, number one, the member opposite, the medical community

and the health community in British Columbia know that our government's goal and

objectives are to transform the health care system so it starts to meet the

needs of patients. One of the things that was clearly on the arbitrator's mind

— if the member opposite has read the arbitrator's report — is the

effectively dysfunctional relationship that existed between physicians and the

government over the last decade. I felt, and I do feel, it's important that

physicians know that they are a critical part of our health care system and that

we respect the contribution they make.

Not just in

the time since I've been Premier but prior to being Premier, I've spent a

considerable amount of time working with physicians, listening to their concerns

and trying to discover ways we could respond that were constructive, useful and

thoughtful. There is no question that the changes we have to make in health care

are significant. They're significant, because the health care system as we know

it in British Columbia is simply not sustainable. One of the first groups to

identify that was the physicians in British Columbia. One of the first groups to

identify the dysfunction that existed within the management of the system was

the physicians of British Columbia. One of the first groups to tell us that we

had to create some accountability in the system was the physicians of British

Columbia. We have tried to respond to that.

I think the

issue the member raises is a critical one. Obviously, we would like to be able

to try and say to people: "Believe me."

Let me go

back. If we could have said, "There will be no changes, and things will

just get better," I think, number one, that would have been false, and

because it was false we were in a position where we couldn't.

It's not

that we want the work. It's not that we want to be put in a position where we

have to transform the system, but the facts are…. The member, I think, was at

the provincial congress with us where we had a very strong presentation from a

demographer pointing out the challenges we face in health care. The member

knows, having been a Minister of Health herself, that these are not challenges

that are just here in the province of British Columbia. They're across the

country.

[1455]

What we've

tried to do is build some accountability into the system. What we've tried to do

is build some responsiveness to patients' needs into the system, which

recognizes the vast size of the province of British Columbia, the variety of

geography and dispersion of population. What we're also trying to do is give the

people of our province a sense of the challenge we face in health care.

Health care

today takes 41 percent of the provincial budget. While I recognize that there

won't always be agreement on how we try and meet those challenges, I believe

there has been a significant effort to transform how government deals with

health care, so that we do focus on patient needs. I can tell you that whether

I'm travelling to Prince George or to Vanderhoof, whether I'm going to Fort St.

James or to Creston, people have told me for some time that there was a

challenge.

There was a

blueprint laid out for health care reform in 1991. Unfortunately, it was not

followed. Therefore, we still have intermediate, long-term and home care

deficiencies in the province. We still have mental health care deficiencies in

the province. We still have physician deficiencies in the province in terms of

the distribution around the province. We are going to do everything we can to

transform that system. We will do it with our nurses, with our doctors, with our

administrators, with our community leaders and with our patient groups in this

province, so that as we move forward — I certainly can't guarantee there will

be no mistakes — we will make progress towards better patient care for British

Columbians.

MacPhail: Yes, I was there for that very interesting presentation. I think

the Premier's probably referring to the presentation by David Baxter of Urban

Futures, I think his company is called. It was very interesting.

The Premier

at the end of the provincial congress sort of gave a: "I hope Roy Romanow

is going to listen to David Baxter in terms of…." That's assuming Mr.

Baxter's presentation led to…because costs were growing all the time, that

meant — ergo — that health care was unsustainable and that somehow Mr.

Romanow needed to have that message put to him.

I actually

went back and accessed some of the information available in the Ministry of

Finance and B.C. Stats about sustainability of health care. Actually, I was

curious to have this discussion with the Premier about why his view is that it's

unsustainable in terms of percentages of GDP, health care costs as a percentage

of GDP, and the trends across the country about health care as a percentage of

GDP. It is true that in certain sectors of the country, as governments

dramatically cut back on health care, they then had to increase funding for

health care in subsequent years, but on average, health care spending as a

percentage of GDP was relatively flat.

[ Page 1505 ]

That's true

of British Columbia, as well, with one exception, and that was starting in the

year 2000 when the previous government put in massive funding increases to take

care of factors such as hospital expansion, etc. That was the exception.

Is the

Ministry of Finance doing that kind of work? Has the Premier's office asked the

Ministry of Finance to answer questions about sustainability of health care? Has

the Premier or his staff or anybody in this office made a request to anybody in

the Ministry of Finance? The question could be — I wouldn't be surprised if

the Premier actually said this: "Give us some numbers to show that health

care is unsustainable." Or maybe just the question of what the real

determination of sustainability of health care is.

Hon. G.

Campbell: First, the increase in health care spending in British Columbia

from 2000-01 to 2002-03, over two years, is actually $2.2 billion. As health

expenditures were growing at 13 percent, our economy was basically flat. In

British Columbia, indeed, additional dollars were added to the health care

ministry as we went through.

[1500]

The member

opposite is probably aware of the fact that finance ministers meet across the

country. Finance ministers themselves — I can't recall which ministry the

member opposite was holding at the time — from all of the provinces, actually,

asked for a report to be done on sustainability of health care. I think it was

presented….

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Well, I'm sorry to hear that.

Having said

that, because of her interest in public issues, I'm sure she would be aware of

the fact that the finance ministers across the country had asked for this

report.

It was

prepared and brought forward. There has been no question that the increase of

health expenditures is going to continue. I think everyone recognizes that. We

have to look at different ways of delivering services. We have an aging

population. We have growing and increasingly expensive technologies, both hard

and soft technologies and pharmaceutical technologies.

What we

want to try to do is take advantage of all those benefits for the needs of

patients. We are going to see investments in telemedicine so that you actually

can connect a patient to the caregiver or the professional they need in a direct

and responsive way and in a timely manner. We are going to take advantage of the

regimes that are available to us to improve the quality of patient care.

When you

look at the costs we face, I believe that this is one of the most important

generational shifts we are going to have to come to grips with in government.

Human resources are the critical component in the delivery of health care.

I don't

hold this member responsible — only for about ten years of this. There is a

vacant building in Vancouver that was initiated in 1983 by a very, very previous

government. That building is still not complete. That building by itself,

without doctors and nurses and health care providers in it, does nothing for the

health care system. What it's done is cost taxpayers literally tens of millions

of dollars with no benefit to patients.

What we

have said we want to do is make sure the resources we have focus on patients. I

can tell you as a patient myself — and I assume the member opposite — that

if you're sick, you'd like to visit with a health professional. You'd like to

hear from a doctor. I can tell you, there is no end of the positive stories you

hear about nurses and the contribution they make to individual health care in

the province.

We have

made a decision as a government to put resources behind the human resource —

behind the caregivers, the physicians, the nurses and the people that make the

health system work. The fact of the matter is that those people are in demand.

Today we have top salaries for nurses. Today we are going to be in a position

where our doctors are going to be compensated at the top level in the country.

Our health employees have the top compensation in the country. We have built the

infrastructure now in terms of the human resource that says we can move forward.

I believe

that helps to stabilize the system. At the same time we're doing that, we have

to ask to those people: how do we move forward so we're meeting the needs of

patients? How can we deliver services differently so that we start to watch as

wait-lists reduce and as you as a patient get the care you need in a timely way?

That's the initiative we've undertaken.

I do not

believe, in terms of the dollars that have been put in place, we've seen from

finance ministries from across the country, as well as our own, that health care

is sustainable. We know ourselves that you cannot continue to increase health

care spending at 10 to 14 percent with an economy that is growing at 1 or 2

percent and say to people with any kind of honesty that that's sustainable in

the long term. People still want to have other services. They still want

policing services, education services, transportation services, human resource

services and community services. We can't continue to consume as much as we have

of the dollar from health care spending. We have to look at how we can deliver

those services in a more cost-effective way, and that's what we intend to do.

MacPhail: I understand the need to compare public health expenditures with

government expenditures. Maybe the Finance ministry has already done this work.

If one actually compares public health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP,

I'm sorry to tell the Premier that it's less than 8 percent. It fluctuates

between 6.5 and 8 percent of GDP. That's been constant throughout the eighties

and nineties.

[1505]

I'm sure

the Ministry of Finance has that information available. Here's my concern. If

health care isn't sustainable… Does the Premier really mean health care

[ Page 1506 ]

with public expenditure isn't sustainable — that somehow if it doesn't come

out of the public purse and is distributed equitably and according to need and

income, then that's okay. That means it's good to stop that kind of lack of

sustainability, but it's okay to say that the expenditures on health care can

come out of the private pocket, and that's fine.

I don't

think people in British Columbia wake up and say: "Oh, damn. I've got

breast cancer. Well, that's my problem." I don't think people create health

care needs. I simply don't. I know there's some trend — I happen to believe

that the Premier himself doesn't believe in this trend — that only health care

problems that aren't self-induced should be paid for. Well, that's a slippery

slope — right? — getting down that the public will only pay for health care

costs that aren't due to lifestyle, for instance. God forbid that we go down

that slippery slope.

What I see

in the trend of this government's thinking in saying that the health care system

isn't sustainable is that what they're really saying is the part of the public

health system that we're going to distribute according to need rather than

income isn't sustainable. It's okay to have a health care system where you can

pay private dollars for a needed health care service, but the public purse isn't

going to pay for that. I don't see any other way of interpreting it, frankly,

unless the Premier is saying that the lack of sustainability is because people

are abusing the system.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I want to be very, very explicit on this. The lack of

sustainability is because of the political imposition of systems that do not

meet the needs of patients. They meet other needs than patient needs.

I'm not

going to deal with the example that the member across the way used, because I

don't think these things are frivolous. The fact of the matter is that if

someone has cancer, that person wants service. I've talked to cancer patient

after cancer patient in this province who has said to me: "Excuse me, Mr.

Campbell, but the health care system is failing me. It is failing my mother. It

is failing my father. It's failing my children." Our responsibility is to

listen to what that person says and say to them: "Let's see how we can have

a publicly funded system that actually meets your needs." Wouldn't that be

a change — to put patients at the head of the list? That's what we're going to

do.

There are

British Columbians today who, because our public system has not responded to

their needs, are required to use their personal resources to get the care that

they need. You know what? They'll go anywhere to get it. They'll go south of the

border. They'll go east of the border. They'll go wherever they need to go to

get the care they need.

What we

want to do is have a publicly funded health care system that thinks about those

patients, whether they're living in Smithers or in Saanich. We want those people

to know that we're thinking about those patients. We know that the connection

between patients and care is actually the caregiver — the doctors and the

nurses and the people in the system. We're trying to find ways that we can close

that distance between patients and those people as well.

I will

assume that the member opposite was not suggesting that I said it's people who

are causing the problem. It's the system that's not responding to the needs of

patients and people in this province that has created the problem. Our job is to

change the system so that patients actually do get the care they need in the

communities where they're living, so that children get the care they need in the

communities where they're living.

I think

those are the things that everyone in this assembly, regardless of their

political party, are actually committed to. What I believe everyone should

understand is that the costs of the health care system are expanding rapidly.

The member

opposite is correct. I don't think the 6.5 percent is correct; it's

significantly higher than that. The challenge that we face — and her

government, as well as our government, has been dealing with this — is to

recognize that if you talk with Canadians, they will say to you that one of the

primary services they want is health care. All of the Premiers have gone to the

federal government and said: "We need you to reignite the partnership that

you used to have on health care. We need you to contribute some of the dollars

that you take out of Canadians' pockets back to create the support you need for

the health care system."

[1510]

Having said

that, we still believe that you're going to have to change the delivery methods

we have, whether it's for aboriginal Canadians — which is an issue across the

country that we've raised every time we've met as Premiers — or whether it's

for people living in rural and remote Canada. We want to provide those, but we

should all understand there is one agency that is constitutionally responsible

for delivering health services in this country, and that's the provincial

government. We intend to do that, and we have to do that in a way that's

thoughtful, considerate of the needs of patients and also financially

sustainable over time.

MacPhail: Actually, I'm finding this discussion — it's not a debate —

very interesting. I actually do grapple with the issue about what part of the

health care system isn't sustainable then. There are pressures; there's no

question about it. What I'm trying to get at is the specifics of the change, the

plan that the Premier has in mind for health care change, that deal with the

issue of the unsustainable parts of the health care system.

We know the

biggest cost-driver to date is drugs, but I don't think there's abuse of

prescription…. Or certainly I don't see where there's abuse. I don't see

anything in the plan to deal with abuse of Pharmacare costs. It's merely

downloading those Pharmacare costs onto the individual. The public will no

longer pay for it, but the individual will pay for it. That's a huge

cost-driver.

[ Page 1507 ]

Our

population is aging, God forbid. It comes as a deep blow to many of us how we're

aging. That's a factor that's…. I mean, we can't say that dealing with an

aging population isn't sustainable. Maybe you'd like some specifics. What part

of the system isn't sustainable?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The part of the system which is obviously not sustainable is the

financial components of the system that we must support. We have to look at

delivering the service in a more cost-effective way to patients. I think the

member opposite should take the time to go through the details with the Minister

of Health Services and the Minister of Health Planning, and I think there will

lots of opportunity to do that. But let me finish this discussion, at least from

my perspective, by saying this: we have asked, for the first time, for the

government to set standards for regional health authorities. We will be holding

those health authorities to account for the standards that are met. Those

standards are not developed yet, not finalized yet, but they will be in place.

We will be

holding authorities to account for how they deal with the communities they

serve; how they deal with the patients they serve; and how they deal with the

workers, the health care providers, who are a critical part of the health care

system. We are committed to a publicly funded system. I think the member

opposite will find that the discussions that she has with the Minister of Health

Services and the Minister of Health Planning will be more than enlightening on

the challenges that we face and the ways we intend to approach them.

From my

perspective, it is clear that this government has given a direction that we want

a high-quality public health services system that meets all patients' needs

where they live and when they need it. We have to do that in the context of an

overall budget. Currently, 41 percent of that budget is consumed by health care,

and it's growing at a rate that is clearly not sustainable.

MacPhail: Well, that's an interesting statement. I fully expect to explore

all of these issues with the Minister of Health Services, but that's why I'm

curious as to the reverse in doing estimates. I'm very curious about it, because

in the past we would have been able to clear away many of these issues and then

only deal with the questions to the CEO. Unfortunately, we're not afforded that

opportunity because of the early aspect of the Premier's estimates.

I am trying

to limit my questions solely to the area that the Premier himself has raised

publicly. That's all. And the Premier is leading the charge on the lack of

sustainability in the health care system — absolutely leading the charge and

directing parties to deal with this question as a result of the provincial

congress, as a matter of fact. It's very current.

[1515]

If the

system is not financially sustainable, I go back to my original point. The

Premier is not saying it's not sustainable for a matter of the services that are

delivered. I fully accept his sincerity, nor was I accusing him of saying there

were unneeded services being delivered.

So it's

financially unsustainable. Well, what that means is that the government, by

privatizing and off-loading costs, is merely saying: "Sorry, we're not

going to pay our share. The provincial government isn't going to pay our fair

share. You, taxpayer, are going to pay the same amount of money — maybe more

— for health care, only you're not going to do it through the taxation system.

You're going to do it out of your own pocket." Therefore, it becomes

regressive.

Because

it's not sustained financially, as has been the case to date, through a publicly

funded system and a progressive taxation system, it now becomes the

responsibility of individuals through a combination of a tax system and

regressive user fees, MSP premiums, privatization and increased drug costs paid

personally. It may be unsustainable for the Premier, who doesn't want to commit

public dollars to those services, but I don't think people who are ill or are in

need of health services get a choice about that. They're going to pay one way or

the other.

Financial

sustainability. The Premier's inability to figure out a way for the publicly

funded system to be sustainable out of public dollars means that individuals who

can ill afford to pay the costs of privatized health care will either do away

with the services or pay more out of their disposable income than they would

have previously. That's the consequence of what the Premier is saying in terms

of it just being financial — lack of sustainability in the financial regime.

It's what

the public thought the Premier's intimation was then. He keeps saying the system

is not sustainable. They believe they were promised something different, but the

Premier is now saying: "Sorry, I'm not going to do that out of a publicly

funded system. You, Sally and Gurmeet Singh, are going to be paying for it out

of your own pockets, and I'm getting out of the business of sustaining the

system."

That's very

unfortunate. I just wish we could have that discussion instead of some

discussion that's completely, in my view, manipulated about whether the system

is sustainable or not. Doctors don't actually say it's not financially

sustainable; they say to look for resources elsewhere. The doctors go and say:

"Look to user fees; look to increased MSP premiums." The doctors are

fine to fund the system through a regressive method, but that's not what our

leadership in our provincial government should be saying.

I expect

that will conclude this particular discussion. Actually, I want to do one more

thing on that basis. I want to ask one more question. I wasn't going to ask this

question. If the system is financially unsustainable but services will continue

to be offered — I hope the Premier is saying this, although some of the

government documents floating around go against that — then I guess not only

will people, in a very regressive way, pay more for their health care. There

will be different kinds of delivery of health care. Yesterday we

[ Page 1508 ]

learned that there will be privatization. The document we had said there'll

be $700 million of privatization in the health care system. How does the Premier

expect that will make the system more financially sustainable? Has he met with

organizations that deliver private health care elsewhere to figure out whether

that is a cheaper way of doing business?

Hon. G.

Campbell: First, I think one of the challenges we face here is that…. Let

me just phrase the member's argument. If we keep doing everything in exactly the

same way, if we agree that we are going to reimburse the people in the health

care system at a level that will not just not make us competitive but will make

us attractive to them so we have that critical asset available, will the cost of

health care explode? The answer is yes.

[1520]

What we're

saying is that we'll do things differently. Let me give the member just a couple

of examples. MSA Hospital in Abbotsford has been there for a number of years.

There were six operating theatres built 17 years ago. One of them has never,

ever been used as an operating theatre. The member opposite will know that when

you make those sorts of commitments, that costs significant additional capital

from creating a hospital bed. It has never, ever been used.

I mentioned

the building at the corner of 12th and Oak in Vancouver. Tens and tens and tens

of millions of dollars never did anything to meet the needs of any patient in

the province.

One of the

things we've said is: let's make sure that when you make capital investments,

those capital investments have operating commitments behind them so that we do

use those facilities to meet the needs of patients. That's a change in what's

happened. That means that those capital dollars, those tax dollars, are going to

be used more productively. I think one of the challenges we face is to make sure

that our health care system is productive. What do I mean by productive? I mean

that it meets the needs of patients. Health care is there for patients, and our

job is to make it as productive as we can so that each dollar we put into the

system does as much as it can for patients.

We are for

a publicly funded health care system. We believe in it. We believe we have to

change some of the methods of delivery to make sure that patients get value for

the dollars they put into the system, so that people can depend on it. As the

member stated earlier, we know that we are going to go through some changes in

that transition, but we believe it will provide for long-term stability, a

long-term increase in the quality of care and a long-term increase in the

standards that we face in health care. That's our goal, and that's our

objective.

MacPhail: I hear the Premier saying "a publicly funded system."

I'm not quite sure how that jibes with the discussion we had when Bill 29 was

being introduced and passed. The Minister of Health Services admitted that there

would be contracting-out of things like emergency wards and any services that,

if you step a foot away from the bed, can be privatized and/or contracted out

— a foot away from the acute care bed.

Then, of

course, we know that there is $700 million worth of privatization in the works

this coming fiscal year in health care. It's not a secret. We don't have to beat

around the bush. The Premier doesn't have to say to me over and over again:

"We're committed to a publicly funded system." Great. Set that aside.

I'm not sure what he means by that, but that's his responsibility to explain.

We know

that they brought in legislation to contract out services. We know that there's

$700 million of privatization ready to go. Has the Premier met with any

organizations that are in this business? In the United States there's Humana

Inc., for instance, that specializes in delivering private health care services.

What is in the mind of the Premier to say that that would be a more productive

way of delivering those services? Has he met with these people? Has he got

evidence that it's more productive? Has he got evidence that privatization

works?

I'll be

frank with you. During the debate on Bill 29, the Minister of Health Services

had no evidence, not one single study to table, to show that privatizing health

care produced better value for your dollar. I'm just wondering whether the

Premier or his staff have met with people — U.S. companies, European

companies, anybody — to show that your direction is….

I've got a

13-year-old. You've got to ask the question very carefully, or you find out the

homework is due tomorrow but not today.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Again, if the question is whether I have ever met with anybody on

health care, the answer is yes — including my staff. Have I met with Humana

Inc.? No. Have I heard of examples of where perhaps the private sector delivery

of non-clinical services would save taxpayers money? Yes. I think the member

knows from the debate we had earlier that the Vancouver Hospital and Health

Sciences Centre, which I used to call the general hospital, had to pay an

additional $1 million for security services. That's $1 million that didn't go to

patient services. There is a whole range of things.

[1525]

I don't

accept the member's suggestion of $700 million. I understand it's in a briefing

book. Let's be clear about what we've said. What we've said to health

authorities for the first time is: "We expect you to deliver results. We

expect you to do that in a financially responsible way. We expect you to work

with your workers, with the people and communities across the province to make

sure you're delivering those services cost-effectively." I think that's a

responsible position to take. There are some flexibility tools there so that

they can make decisions that are in the best interests of patients.

That's what

we've said. There have been no final decisions made. There have been no

conclusions made except: let's make sure we have the flexibility for those

[ Page 1509 ]

who we charge with administration, for those who we charge with the delivery

of the services so that they can actually deliver those services in a

cost-effective and thoughtful way for taxpayers, so patients get care and

taxpayers are considered.

MacPhail: It's speculative, Mr. Chair, so if it's out of order, please tell

me.

Given these

changes in the health care system that the Premier is contemplating, who is he

meeting with to discuss these changes? If it's not organizations that do

alternate delivery — the private companies — who is he meeting with to

determine what the…?

The Premier

had that forum, I know, on health care. It was in the fall. What's been the

follow-up since that forum, then? There were some pretty specific suggestions

then. Is the Premier meeting with the chairs of the regional health authorities

or the CEOs? Where is the vision coming from, if not from private health care

companies and what they have to offer?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Have I met with all of the CEOs? I'm not sure if I've met with all

of them at once. I have met with groups of them on occasion.

I guess

maybe this is as good a place as any to deal with this. As the Premier, I

actually delegate responsibility for leadership for managing the health services

of the province to the Minister of Health Services. I am glad to articulate the

goals that we have as a government. I'm glad to be informed by people of

different responses that we may have. I think we have some very good people in

the Health Services ministry who are working on developing not just standards

but accountability measures.

All of

those things are directions which I have tried to give to every minister. I say

to each minister: "You're responsible, and I'm going to hold you

accountable for the goals." Those letters to each of the ministers are

available on the website not just to the member opposite but to the public. My

deputy minister to the executive council, as we mentioned today, has agreements

with the deputy ministers in various ministries, and they will be held to

account for the actions that they take.

I think the

service plans that we've laid out do lay out, in more detail than I have

certainly seen before, the direction we hope to go in. They will be three-year

rolling plans, so next year there'll be another group of three years out, which

will be there for ministries. We will continue to strive.

I think

what's critical for the member to know is that I don't come with a bias that

says: "You have to deliver the service this way or that way." I come

from the bias that says: "How do we get the service to the patient in as

timely and cost-effective a way as we can, so the patients are cared for

regardless of where they live in the province?" That requires some change.

I understand that institutionally those changes are sometimes difficult to

manage, but that is, in fact, the task that we've given the Minister of Health

Planning and the Minister of Health Services: to establish a long-range plan for

the province, to look at ways that we can measure the success of that plan

through their service plans.

I would

encourage the member opposite to look at the service plan, to look at

performance measures and to suggest better ones if she or others feel that

they're better. We've certainly been doing that with people across the province.

We will continue to do that. As a government, we have said to British Columbians

that we want to hear their voices on health care. We have a Health Committee of

the Legislature that spent the fall travelling and talking with British

Columbians, trying to engage the public in the discussion about how we can

improve health care.

I think

that's what's critical. That's the direction I've given the minister. I think

that the service plans of Health Services and Health Planning will give the

member opposite a chance to delve more deeply into those matters.

[1530]

MacPhail: Yes, and the Premier is referring me off to the Ministers of

Health Planning and Health Services. So be it. Just so he's aware, though, I

have confined my remarks and questions to him solely on matters that he's raised

publicly. Regardless of the change in the way we're doing estimates, I have

completely limited my remarks to his view of the way the health care system

should be delivered.

Actually, I

wish the Premier well, because there is huge unprecedented change taking place

in the health care system. While the Premier may say that's needed because of

everything that happened in the last ten years, I'm not quite sure what the

outcome is. It's all very well and good for the Premier to say that there's a

problem, but then to provide solutions to the problem is a very big, giant step

that this government committed they would achieve for the public. That's exactly

what they did.

To date, I

think it's safe to say that the highest anxiety level in this province — and

there is a high anxiety level across the province — exists within the health

care delivery system. It doesn't help when there are mixed messages coming out

about health care delivery and the supposed logic that's driving those very,

very mixed messages.

One of the

reasons why I wanted to be very careful about exploring with the Premier,

himself, his views on private health care is because there were no answers

coming from the Minister of Health Services in the debate around that very issue

under Bill 29. We spent a great deal of time exploring that — a great deal of

time. I guess what we have to do is just wait and see whether this great, grand

change — what's been both revealed publicly and disclosed through documents

that probably weren't meant to be made public — is going to work or not.

We are only

two members, though somehow the public thinks that we represent the part of our

great parliamentary system called opposition. I know the Premier doesn't

recognize that, but the public seems to

[ Page 1510 ]

be — ever-increasingly so — demanding that of our time.

We get all

of these stories from around the province about the effect of these massive

changes, and we get them in a way that only when pushed do we go public — for

instance, today — with the consequences of the change and the lack of

attention given by the government to these matters.

The public

is flooding us with letters, and the Premier is constantly making reference that

if there are positive suggestions forthcoming, he would be happy to receive

them. I hope that he can actually and that when a positive suggestion is put

forward about changes that may be a misstep or avoiding problems in the future,

he won't just reject them because of where they came from. We are trying to do

our best to bring attention to the problems across the province of people who

are perhaps in disagreement with the direction of the government.

colleague will be back to deal with other social policy areas that the Premier

has addressed directly. She's in a committee meeting, Mr. Chair, so with the

Premier's okay, I think I'll move on to some other matters, for a change of

pace.

The

Technology Council is the next one I'd like to deal with. I've got the Premier's

website. It's a couple of pages, and perhaps the Premier could update me on what

the Technology Council is doing. I have a Times Colonist report of

February 20. It's a small one, but that's from the councillor himself. What is

the Premier doing specifically with the Technology Council?

[1535]

Hon. G.

Campbell: The Technology Council was appointed last summer. They appointed a

president of the Technology Council, Dr. Gerri Sinclair. They provided a first

quarterly report — which is available on the website, so the member, I'm sure,

has it — with regard to the issues we had to deal with in terms of bridging

the digital divide.

The council

has decided to pursue…. They have toured across the province. Just so the

member opposite knows, there were public consultations and meetings in Prince

George, Fort St. John, Nelson, Terrace, Nanaimo, Kelowna and Kamloops. I have

had discussions here, as well, with representatives of the technology industry.

They have

broken themselves into four task groups. The first task group is going to look

at access and opportunity. That's to identify the challenges we face with the

digital divide in the province and to suggest ways that we can bridge it, and

the training and skills development necessary so that those British Columbians

who wish to participate can have the opportunity to do so.

The people

who sit on that task force of the Technology Council…. They are

representatives of the Technology Council, so we're clear about this. They then

go out, and there are larger groups that have input with regard to these items

in the council. Paul Lee is the acting chair. He's joined by Greg Aasen, who is

the chief operating officer of PMC-Sierra Inc; Victor Ling, a vice-president of

research for the B.C. Cancer Agency; William Koty, who is the director of the

division of applied technology for the University of British Columbia; David

Sutcliffe, who is the chair and chief executive officer of Sierra Wireless Inc.;

Doug Manning, who is the chief executive officer and president of Bridges.com;

and Barb Alexander, who works with Microsoft.

There is a

task group on government operations and services, which includes Mike Calyniuk,

who is from PricewaterhouseCoopers; Barb Alexander; Jim Yeates, who is the chair

of Burntsand Inc.; and Sharon Byrne, who is the chair of Paradata Systems Inc.

There is an

industry growth and development task force, which is chaired by Norm Francis of

Pivotal Corp. He is joined by Greg Kerfoot, who is the chief executive officer

and president of Crystal Decisions; Don Rix, who is the chair of Cantest Ltd.;

and Paul Lee. Paul, by the way, is the senior vice-president and worldwide

studios chief operating officer for Electronic Arts.

Finally,

there is a task group on marketing and public awareness, which includes George

Hunter, who is the executive director of the B.C. Technology Industries

Association; Ian McBeath, who is the president and CEO of Inflazyme

Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Firoz Rasul, who is the chief executive officer of Ballard

Power Systems; and Amos Michelson, who is the chief executive officer of Creo

Products Inc. They are in the midst of public discussions.

We've had

many, many people who've said they want to be included as we build a technology

future in British Columbia, so the coordination, the development of policy

recommendations and the advice comes through the public, up through those task

groups, into the Premier's Technology Council so that we can become, as we

identified, one of the leading-edge technology jurisdictions in the world.

MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the Premier can just say how the council

works. I understand the task groups, but does the Premier meet with the

Technology Council?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?

MacPhail: I said I appreciate…. Yes, I do have the report from the

Technology Council, so I'm aware of the information the Premier just gave. But

does the Premier himself meet with the Technology Council on a regular basis?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Quarterly.

[1540]

MacPhail: The task group on government operations and services. Can the

Premier just explore that a little bit more with me — about the work of the

council?

[ Page 1511 ]

Hon. G.

Campbell: The specifics from the perspective of the council are that they

want to identify government services which may be able to benefit from improved

telecommunications, improved networking, or what we call e-government. As the

member opposite will know, we have a chief information officer who also has a

service plan that is moving forward to try and expand services throughout

government. One of the things I felt was necessary with the Technology Council

was to make sure that we were constantly kept up to date about what was

happening in the private sector, the world outside of government. They are doing

that. They make recommendations on how we may be able to reduce costs, expand

services or increase operational efficiency throughout the government.

MacPhail: My understanding is that — I don't want to use the lingo — in

the January downsizing of government, 200 information technology workers were

displaced. Most of them are junior enough that they are laid off. Is that the

Premier's understanding as well?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I do not have the specific number. There may well have been

decisions that were made throughout ministries with regard to that.

MacPhail: Unless I'm being advised incorrectly, it is 200 information

technology workers.

We and most

governments spent the 1990s competing for information technology workers in the

context of the private sector, so recruiting information technology workers was

an incredibly hard task. I remember the Deputy Minister of Finance convincing me

quite ably that there had to be special treatment in order to recruit

information technology workers, because the government was having to spend way

too much money contracting out those services. In fact, we had presentations as

part of the budget consultation hearings about that very issue.

When I saw

the Technology Council dealing with this issue of government operations and

services, I wondered whether they had the mandate to actually recruit in order

to be much more effective and efficient within government in dealing with

information technology. Is that part of the mandate?

Hon. G.

Campbell: No.

MacPhail: Unless this has changed in the last nine months, there is no

question that contracting for information technology work is far more expensive

than doing it in-house — no question about that. I'm just curious as to why

that isn't part of the government operations and services, if it's part of the

mandate of the council to figure out how things can be done in a more productive

and efficient way.

Hon. G.

Campbell: If the question is, have I asked the Technology Council to look at

how we can recruit into the government? the answer is no.

If the

question is, in looking at government operations, do they look at creating an

environment where people in the technology industry may be interested in

working? the answer is yes. Indeed, one of the challenges we faced was that many

people, we heard, were leaving government because they didn't feel the

government was responsive to the changes that were necessary. There have been

significant changes in the technology industry in the last year and a half.

Frankly,

whereas before there was a real dearth of opportunity, and it was

difficult to hire people into government, today there is potential to bring

people into government if we are committed to changing service delivery models

to take full advantage of the opportunities of new technology.

[1545]

The chief

information officer is currently working across ministries to try and make sure

we are applying these new technologies and to show some leadership with regard

to that. One of the challenges we faced was the plethora of platforms that was

necessary to be used across government, which made it a very archaic system in

terms of anyone who wanted to be up front and on the leading edge of technology

development.

The second

thing I would say to the member opposite is that the whole concept of shared

services allows us to provide technology services across government in a way

that is, hopefully, cost-effective, exciting for our staff and innovative. We

believe it will make a huge difference in terms of delivery of services to

people.

Those are

issues that the Technology Council may well raise, or they may not. The

Technology Council may raise issues about how we can use new telemedicine or how

we can deal with payroll. In reviewing the government operations, one of the

encouraging things for us should be to know that they feel there are many areas

where we in fact are doing a good job in British Columbia. They're encouraging

us to build on those.

We want to

create a culture here where new technologies are available and are used to the

benefit of the citizens of the province of British Columbia. The Technology

Council will provide us with suggestions and perhaps best practices that are

available in other parts of the world. Most of these people are travelling a

substantial amount of time. They have created companies in the province of

British Columbia that have lifted up our visibility in the technology industry

around the world. They can come and be a huge asset to us in providing

information, assistance and advice. But we don't ask them to actually recruit on

behalf of the government.

MacPhail: Well, it's a funny way of creating an environment for people to

want to join the government service when you're laying off 200 information

technology workers.

What's the

budget of the Technology Council?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The budget for 2001-02 was $500,000.

MacPhail: What's the budget for '02-03?

[ Page 1512 ]

Hon. G.

Campbell: It's $500,000 for '02-03, going down to $425,000 in '03-04 and

$350,000 in '04-05.

MacPhail: There was a very small story on February 28 about the payment to

the president of the Technology Council. Gerri Sinclair is being paid the

equivalent of an annual salary of about $200,000.

It's

$10,000 a month, and apparently Ms. Sinclair is contributing 60 percent of her

time. That works out to an annualized $200,000. I wasn't aware that council

members were being paid.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Council members are not being paid. All the council members are

volunteering, as we said in the New Era document. We would also have a

president of the Premier's Technology Council. The council members were asked to

recruit their president. They recruited Ms. Sinclair, who has a very strong

technology background and is recognized across the country and across the

continent for her expertise.

She took on

the task and said that she'd be willing to take on the task as long as she

wasn't restricted from doing other activities. The council felt that that was

good value. It turns out the council was right, because Ms. Sinclair is working

between 70 and 80 hours a week on the Premier's Technology Council. I think most

people would say that's not part-time. That's more than a full-time job.

MacPhail: There's nothing personal in these questions. These are public

funds that are being spent, though. The information is that she was hired

part-time. I just go with what the information is.

What is the

role of the chief information officer in relationship to the Technology Council,

then? Why is it that the Technology Council needs a separate staff?

Hon. G.

Campbell: There is no direct relationship between the chief information

officer and the Technology Council. The reason the Technology Council was

established was to try to create an opportunity for government to learn from

those outside of government. We wanted to create a focus here, because we think

there's a huge opportunity to build the technology industries in the province to

take full advantage of technology in British Columbia.

[1550]

The member

is correct with regard to Ms. Sinclair. She has said that she will spend a

minimum of 60 percent of her time. As I say, Ms. Sinclair is currently working

what is effectively double time compared to what many people would spend in

terms of their week.

The chief

information officer is responsible for initiating activities throughout

government and for coordinating those activities. I think it's critical that

there's strategic leadership and direction within government and across the

broad public service that currently takes place. He is responsible with his

staff for delivering government services on-line. He's responsible for managing

and establishing both information management and information technology

governance frameworks for the government. So he is part of the ongoing

day-to-day operations of government. He's spending all of his time trying to

make sure that we get our government's infrastructure up, that we create a

consistency of platforms across government so that government can start talking

with itself back and forth easily. I think those are critical things.

The chief

information officer works with the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise. They are looking at creating strategic alliances that link important

situations: business to government, business to business,

government-to-government connections. All of those things are part of what the

chief information officer has undertaken to do.

The chief

information officer's budget for this year was $2.5 million.

MacPhail: Perhaps the Premier could outline the growth to date of the tech

sector for this decade or whatever — I don't have up-to-date information on

that — just in terms of how British Columbia has fared in comparison to the

rest of the world. We all know that the rest of the world has faced some pretty

difficult circumstances, particularly in California and Washington and Oregon.

How is B.C. faring in comparison to those particular areas?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Washington, Oregon and California?

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Campbell: British Columbia had significant technology growth. We actually

were doing a relatively good job of starting companies, but companies that got

started and that moved to the next generation of growth were finding that their

employees were leaving the province of British Columbia. In fact, the technology

industries association's report of 2000, I think, suggested that 50 percent of

all new job growth was happening outside of British Columbia.

We think we

will stem that because of the changes that have been made. We believe that there

are major opportunities in biotechnology, in entertainment technology, in

communication technology and in wireless technology for us to take advantage of

in British Columbia.

We have

generally lagged behind Washington, Oregon and California. I can't tell you

specifically the level, but it was by significant numbers. Where we might be

growing at 40 percent, they were growing by 60 and 70 percent. We do think there

is a huge opportunity for us here. We think the quality of life in British

Columbia works for the technology industries.

Since we

last met, we had BCIT, UBC and Simon Fraser University come together with

Finning on a new technology campus in Vancouver, which I think will have a huge

positive spinoff benefit to the industry. We are starting to build a critical

mass in Burnaby with companies of the nature of Electronic Arts, Creo, Pivotal,

PMC and Wireless. All of these companies have a

[ Page 1513 ]

very solid base for us to move forward with, and we think we've created a

framework that will allow them to prosper even further and add more jobs to

British Columbia's economy.

MacPhail: I fully agree with the Premier that many companies are moving from

entry level to mid-level expansion. One of the issues that the companies face is

access to capital for expansion. There was discussion in the 1990s about lack of

access to venture capital at the mid-level. Venture capital funds tend to be

offering money — $5 million or less to companies. Has the Premier got any

plans, or is there any discussion at the Technology Council, about access to

venture capital for mid-level and beyond?

[1555]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I can't tell you what their next quarterly report will say, but I

can tell you that in dealing with people in the technology industry in the past,

one of the challenges that we have to try and deal with is the whole issue of

venture capital and how you can create it so that it's available for people. I

haven't been aware of the Technology Council's specific concerns with regard to

that. I have asked questions with regard to that on the occasions when we've

met.

The first

issue that the Technology Council wanted to deal with was the tax regime —

income tax and how their options were treated. Options are a critical part of

this. We have undertaken and worked with…. The previous government, indeed,

worked with the federal government to try to get how Canadian companies' options

were dealt with more in line with how American companies were. That's critical

in the new era of open trade, back and forth, and free-flowing information.

We're continuing to do that.

The

Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise is responsible for those issues.

I'm sure he may have some comments that he can give the member opposite directly

with regard to that.

MacPhail: I was just curious, because I saw some speculation in the

newspaper about expanding access and giving a greater number of tax benefits to

a larger number of labour-sponsored venture capital funds. I wondered whether

that had formed part of the discussion of why there was the necessity to expand

access to labour-sponsored venture capital funds.

In the

quarterly report — the Premier mentioned this as well — it did talk about

skills access and that the goal of the council is to educate a world-class

technology workforce. What's the status of graduates from post-secondary

institutions in the field of technology? Are there specific seats still

designated? I think that at some point there was an announcement made by the

Premier, in the New Era or something, about dedicating a certain number

of seats. Sorry, I can't remember. I can't remember whether it was the previous

Premier or whatever.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Yes, we did, actually; we dedicated 500.

I'm

serious; I can't remember. What is happening to the access to post-secondary

high-tech seats?

Hon. G.

Campbell: In the New Era document we did indeed talk about increasing

the number of technology graduates — engineering, computer science,

engineering sciences, etc. That is part of the three-year service plan that the

Minister of Advanced Education is putting forward. We will be working not just

through that but with our colleges, our institutes and our universities to make

sure we meet that human resource need.

MacPhail: I gather that the Technology Council will be monitoring that.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm sure they will have interest in it. It was one of the issues

that they raised with their first quarterly report. The member opposite should

know that I'll be monitoring it as well.

MacPhail: What does the Premier…? In terms of the development of the

technology sector as a contributor to the growth in our economy, is it through

the Technology Council that the citizens of the province will be monitoring

that? Are there other areas of government that work with the technology sector

in terms of economic growth?

Hon. G.

Campbell: In terms of our goals of expanding the technology industry, we

have set some goals for ourselves. The Technology Council has recommended those

goals. They will review that. The Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise also will be looking at creating policy frameworks that allow us to

meet that. Certainly, our goal remains to become, as I think it's defined, one

of the top ten places in the world for the technology industry within the next

ten years.

MacPhail: On the Technology Council, I couldn't see whether — because I

don't recognize some of the names…. Is there a representative on the

Technology Council that's from established industry? There's new industry and

then established industry. Who is that?

[H. Long in the chair.]

[1600]

Hon. G.

Campbell: If you're thinking of the resource-based industries, no, I don't

think I could look at any of these and say they were from that established

industry. We have representatives from established institutions. We have

representatives, for example, who have been here for some time. One of the

issues I think that we're dealing with in terms of technology is to recognize

— and the council has recognized this — that indeed it is the application of

new technologies to our resource-based industry that will make us more

competitive.

[ Page 1514 ]

I was

visiting a mill in Smithers where they pointed out that their productivity had

increased by 21 percent because of a technology program developed in Salmon Arm,

combined with a technology program developed in Fort St. James, and then

applied. Obviously, the 21 percent productivity increase meant more people were

at work and meant they were far more stable for the long term. We want to make

sure we are giving those opportunities and opening up those opportunities across

the board.

In terms of

the appointments to the Technology Council, we felt it was important to have a

range of backgrounds and a range of technology interests — academic as well as

on the ground. I think we have a council here that, not just by their dedication

in terms of volunteer time but also the product that they've come with, has been

very worthwhile for us as government.

MacPhail: Just to finish. I've actually lumped together the chief

information office and the Premier's Technology Council. It was only at the

Premier's prodding that I remembered he was responsible for that. I thank him

for that.

Just to

conclude, then, on the area of the chief information office. Is the chief

information officer at the status of a deputy? Does he attend Technology Council

meetings with you?

Hon. G.

Campbell: He has. His attendance isn't required. I normally have one of my

senior staff with me, the deputy minister to the executive council or the chief

information officer, but that is not a requirement. In fact, what we want to do

is make sure they know about the reports, and the chief information officer is

certainly cognizant of the reports. It would be nice for him to be there on

occasion, because they often say nice things about what's happening in the

government.

MacPhail: The Premier mentioned e-government. What are the barriers, if any,

to expanding e-government that exists now?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I think it's fair to say that some of the barriers we've had have

been technological. They have been how the systems — what they call legacy

systems — that have been in place don't communicate back and forth with one

another. Probably the largest single barrier we have is cultural, meaning people

within government getting comfortable with the use of technology infrastructures

and how they communicate.

Let me use

myself as an example. It's not unusual for me to read something on a screen and

say that I better put that on paper so I can read it even better. The words

actually are exactly the same. You just have to get comfortable with how that

communication works and how that paperless flow works.

I think

there have been barriers with regard to people's concerns about security —

security of public information. Health care information is clearly a big issue

that people are concerned about. When we talk about creating common platforms

across government, it wouldn't be unusual, for example, for health care

information to be available without the proper security in place to flip over to

Competition, Science and Enterprise — just to pick one — or Water, Land and

Air Protection. How we make sure we protect people's privacy is a barrier.

I think

there are some barriers in access to the public accessing services. It seems to

me that the strategy we should be employing is a strategy of choice, allowing

the public to choose to use the system. I think there is a certain amount for

all of us, in looking at new technologies, of saying to ourselves that that's

fine for someone else, but I don't like it. That's a challenge in terms of a

public service that's 30,000 strong as well. Those are some of the barriers that

we face.

I think

that the more we train people, the more we develop expertise in the use of that

and comfort…. Training is a huge thing. Just to use a simple example of using

e-mail, you can tell people to use e-mail, how easy it is and how good it is.

Then you say to them that they've got to be careful with it, and they're not

particularly comfortable with it yet.

[1605]

The average

age of our workforce…. I don't know exactly what it is, but my bet is that

it's somewhere between 40 and 50. We're asking people who've been at work for some time

to actually develop new skills and new tools. That's a significant barrier we're

working with.

What the

chief information officer has tried to do is lay out a program which says:

"Let's try to make sure we're adding new electronic services over time.

Let's recognize that when we bring those services in, you have to get used to

and comfortable with the use of them, but let's be persistent in our pursuit of

providing those." I think that's probably the most significant thing. In a

few months I don't expect there will be very many barriers in terms of the

technology — the hardware, if you want. There probably will always be problems

with software, and for some time I would expect there will be some cultural

problems in terms of how we deliver the service.

MacPhail: Two final questions. One is: does the e-government initiative go

across Crown corporations and agencies? Secondly, I was curious to know whether

the legal aspect of e-government in terms of a legal signature has been

resolved.

Hon. G.

Campbell: First, with regard to Crown corporations, we will be endeavouring

to try and make a better connection between Crown corporations and the

government. We are in the midst of developing what they call a portal for

British Columbia, which provides access to the whole range of government

services. Hopefully, they'll be plugged into that.

The second

question was with regard to the legal signature. I think, actually, the issues

revolving around the legal signature have fundamentally been resolved, and the

issue is now bringing it forward for legislation, which will allow it to take

place. I think we heard a

[ Page 1515 ]

little bit today, with the introduction of the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002 that was recommended by the

Parliamentary Committee from the previous government. We're moving down that

road as well.

MacPhail: Next on my list is the core services review. I think I'll move to

there. One of the changes that has occurred since our last set of estimates was

that the Premier himself assumed the chair of the core services review and, I

guess, the deregulation task force. Those are separate things, as I understand

it — the core services review and the deregulation task force. Is…?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The core services review and deregulation task force are the same

thing.

MacPhail: And the Premier is the chair now?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Yes.

MacPhail: Throughout the service plans there is reference to…. Almost

every service plan has a reference to further action by core services review. We

talked about it a bit this morning, in public affairs bureau, etc. Perhaps the

Premier could just update us on the work of the core services review, the status

of various reviews.

I know that

the last I heard was that the core services reviews of the Crown corporations

and agencies were not yet completed, certainly not public. I will be dealing

with that under the Crown agencies secretariat, because I know you have a

separate deputy for that. Can the Premier give us an update on the whole plan?

Hon. G.

Campbell: All the ministries have been completed in terms of their core

services review. The implementation plans they brought forward are, in fact, the

implementation plans you have seen, and their service plans were presented on

January 17 and then again on February 19 as part of the budget. I believe the

member has those plans.

Interjection.

[1610]

Hon. G.

Campbell: And evidently she has the briefing books that go with them. That's

right. That's good, because it makes it public, and we can get on with this.

There are

some Crown agencies that are now complete. We have dealt with B.C. Buildings and

B.C. Lotteries already and made decisions with regard to Fisheries Renewal B.C.,

Forest Renewal B.C., the Job Protection Commission and the Pacific National

Exhibition. The remainder of the major Crowns — Insurance Corporation of B.C.,

B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries and B.C. Pavilion Corporation — will be dealt with

over the next number of months.

B.C. Hydro

will be reviewed after the government has adopted an energy policy. The energy

policy — I hope I get this right — was put out in first-draft format in

December, a preliminary format. It was asked for comment. The public said they'd

like more time. We've extended that time frame till, I think, February 15 for

public comment back, and we haven't yet received that. In fact, we haven't made

those decisions yet as government. We won't be reviewing B.C. Hydro through the

core review and deregulation task force until that's complete.

Finally,

another major project which we talked about last August was the administrative

justice review, which is reviewing all of the administrative justice parts of

government. I don't remember the number off the top of my head, but there are

dozens. That is being proceeded with incrementally and will be continued over

the next four to five months.

MacPhail: My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant will be addressing

the issue of the administrative justice review.

I want to

deal with the energy policy review separately, because that's a new item that

has occurred since we last met in this chamber, so I'll deal with that in a

moment.

On the

issue of the Crown corporations review, has the Premier had a chance to look at

the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations report as it relates to

goals and objectives?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I haven't actually read the Crown Corporations report, so I should

start there. All of the Crown corporations will be meeting with the Crown

Corporations Committee. What we expect the Crown Corporations Committee will do

is not carry out a further core services review but look at what the Crown

corporations have been asked to do, look at what their plans are and ask them

questions about how they're delivering the services that we've asked them to

deliver.

MacPhail: I'm aware of that. I sit on that committee. I haven't had an

opportunity to attend any of the meetings, but the Chair has done excellent

service to keep me in the loop. Also, then, I did have a chance to review the

report of the select standing committee. The reason why I raise it is if the

Premier hasn't had a chance to read it, it would inform him of what may need to

be incorporated into the core services review. Let me just put him on notice, if

I could, that the select standing committee has done a very good job of

performance measures and performance targets.

As the

Premier rightly notes, it's not going to be a core services review, but it is

going to be an annual review. I don't know whether it's annual; I don't know

whether I'm right on that. The committee — and I can't take any credit for

this — has put together a checklist of questions for regular review and a set

of performance targets as well. Certainly, what I'll be examining is the

co-relationship between that report and the results of the core services review.

It's a good guide, from the work on it. I'm not sure; I think it's the Chair….

Interjection.

[ Page 1516 ]

MacPhail: I can't remember his riding.

An Hon.

Member: Ken Stewart.

MacPhail: My apologies. There are so many Stewarts in the chamber. The

member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows….

Stewart: Not nearly enough.

Hon. G.

Campbell: As a Campbell, I can tell you there's far too many Stewarts in the

chamber. But who's talking? You're on that side; I'm on this side.

Let me just

say, first, that….

MacPhail: And I hate you all. [Laughter.]

Hon. G.

Campbell: It's helpful to know that.

All of the

Crown corporations submitted their service plans on February 19. All the Crown

corporations have goals and measurements that they're using. I would expect —

and this will be annual; certainly I'm expecting if I'm in government it will be

annual — there will be annual reviews with the legislative Committee on Crown

Corporations with those Crown corporations.

[1615]

As I tried

to say this morning, we don't pretend that these service plans are the end of

this task. It's the beginning of it. We hope to improve them over time, and we

look forward to the comments of the legislative committee. Certainly, I will be

reading the legislative committee's report, and that will help inform us in the

discussions we have both at the core services committee but, more importantly,

here in the Legislature with the legislative committee.

MacPhail: Is the core services review examining the issue of governance

within Crown corporations? We examined that a little bit in the last set of

estimates.

Hon. G.

Campbell: The member opposite has identified one of the real challenges of

modernizing Crown corporations with modern government. The core services review

does not specifically deal with governance, but the Crown agencies secretariat

and the deputy minister for corporate planning and restructuring do deal with

governance. One of the major issues that we're looking at is governance

structures for various Crown corporations as we move forward. We will continue

to look to try and improve on those.

MacPhail: In the examination of governance, is there any consultation

planned on that issue — public or stakeholder?

[R. Stewart in the chair.]

Hon. G.

Campbell: To date, the Crown agencies secretariat and the deputy minister

have been reviewing with the Crown corporations themselves, doing a review of

what's taking place in other jurisdictions. They will be reporting back on the

results of those discussions.

MacPhail: The time frame for completion of the next phase of the core

services review, as I understand it then, is the next four to five months. I

think that's what I heard the Premier say. Maybe I'm wrong in that. You can

correct me.

Then what

happens? Is the process then complete?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I expect the core services review and deregulation task force's

task will be completed by the end of the summer of this year. The follow-through

of the implementation plans, etc., which are part of the service plans that have

been provided, will be ongoing. But it won't be ongoing with the core services

review and deregulation task force. It will be ongoing with the deputy minister

of the executive council and with the various deputy ministers. It will be

ongoing in terms of Crown corporations with the legislative Committee on Crown

Corporations. That's how we envisage this happening.

I do not

expect the core services review component of government to be carrying on in the

kind of way it has over the last nine months beyond the next nine months.

MacPhail: Originally, there were four stages. Phase 1 was mandate review.

Phase 2 was service delivery review. Phase 3 was implementation, and phase 4 was

continuous improvement. I'm just curious about phase 4 — whether it's changed.

It's fair enough, as this process unfolds, that there's been change. I'd be

interested in that.

We haven't

had a chance to examine the impact of the budget process on the core services

review. When cuts were determined, there were budget cuts made that affected

programs and a substantial reduction in funds to many ministries. How did that

impact the core services review?

[1620]

Hon. G.

Campbell: It's a good question the member asks, so I want to try to be clear

about it. The critical part of this, as we went through the core services review

and dealt with what we described as the first phase, was: are you doing this?

Does it need to be done? If it does need to be done, are we doing it in the most

cost-effective way? Those things came together around the first half of December

and January.

The budget

process was going down. We were going down the road with regard to Treasury

Board. Some ministries were dealt with earlier than other ministries were, so

they were able to go to Treasury Board and lay out some of their plans. In fact,

I think the core services review was an integral part of the budget process.

What's important is that the core services review, if anything, led the budget

process — not the other way around.

[ Page 1517 ]

MacPhail: The Premier is saying that there was an examination through core

services about whether or not services were needed, which may have led to budget

cuts. Like, there was a determination made that this service wasn't needed, and

therefore it was cut in the budget. Is that what he means by saying the core

services review led the budget cuts?

Hon. G.

Campbell: In the core services review as we reviewed, for example, various

activities that ministries have, and when we established what we had decided

government was going to do, that allowed them — for example, ministries — to

move ahead. Core services review makes no decisions. They make recommendations

to cabinet, and cabinet makes the decisions.

When the

cabinet decided that Forest Renewal B.C. was going to be disbanded, there was an

implementation plan put in place. That was part of the budgeting process. The

policy decisions were made by cabinet on recommendation or advice from the core

services review, and those were reflected in the Treasury Board's decisions with

regard to the budget.

In fact, I

should say that I really think that in times where there is economic constraint

— and we can have a discussion about whether we're concerned about those

things or not — and when we were facing the deficit that we were facing,

that's exactly the time when you should be looking at what the critical services

are that government provides. You make sure that you're providing the critical

services within the affordability framework that you have.

MacPhail: I appreciate that's how it ended up, but the initial mandate was,

in my view, completely overtaken by the fiscal necessity. In fact, that question

was asked about whether the core services review was being driven by financial

constraints, and the Premier said no. It is interesting to see how the two did

eventually blend together.

One of the

aspects of the core services review that I had trouble getting a handle on —

and I will say openly that this was because it was a process that was very

internal to the government side; it was not a public process…. Was there a

systematic method by which all ministries presented to the core services review?

Was there a systematic series of questions? How did the process work? Were there

guidelines? Was there a series of questions, and were they ever made available

publicly?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Yes, there was a systematic method, and they were actually

communicated on the government website — the letters to ministers with regards

to core services review.

Here are

some of the issues we dealt with. Does the mandate, program, activity or

business unit continue to serve a compelling public interest? First thing last

summer we defined affordability to deliver the service within the fiscal

environment of government. Are we doing the right thing? Is there a legitimate

and essential role for the provincial government in this program, activity or

business unit? How would we tell whether or not, if it is the right thing to do,

we're actually delivering on that service over time?

[1625]

I would say

core services was a critical part for ministries. Without naming a ministry, let

me go back and review. It was not unusual for the first ministries to come in

and explain what they were doing and how important it was. We said: "Let's

look at what the results are, and let's see how we are actually delivering on

those things. Then we can determine whether or not the program is good." In

fact, we had a transformation that took place over the first series of meetings,

as ministries came and started to get down to the core questions we were asking.

So yes, I

think it was systematic. Each ministry came and made a presentation. Some

ministries came more than once. Actually, all ministries, I think, came more

than once. Some came a little less than others, because there were some real

challenges and public policy issues that we had to deal with. I think that on

balance, the strategic shifts that were highlighted through the series of

cabinet meetings we had in the fall were the right decisions that reflected the

concerns we had as a government.

MacPhail: Were all of the core service reviews done in-house, or were any of

them contracted out?

Hon. G.

Campbell: All of the core service reviews were done in-house. A few

ministries had some outside consulting help for strategic planning, but

generally speaking, they were done in-house.

MacPhail: Perhaps we could just explore that a bit. My information is

different than that. Perhaps the Premier could just explore with me what

ministries sought outside help and in what areas. Who were those people?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I can't answer. I don't know the information the member wants. I

don't know all the details of how every ministry pursued the development of

their core services review package — either phase 1 or their implementation

plan. I know that in fact every one was represented by the minister and the

deputy minister and perhaps a staff person. I know, because I've just heard from

my deputy minister, that perhaps a quarter of the ministries had some outside

assistance for the development of their strategic plan.

The best

way to discover how those plans were developed within a ministry would be to ask

the ministers in their estimates. That's the best answer I can give you. If

there's something else you want, I'm not sure what else I can tell you.

MacPhail: I'm asking these questions in the capacity as Chair…. I'm not

trying to catch the Premier out here. We just had information. We had some

disgruntled people who were upset that as part of the

[ Page 1518 ]

public service, they couldn't have access to the core services review. Yet

contracted agencies were being asked to participate in the core services review.

I was just curious.

It's true.

I mean, there were lots of people who were trying to get involved in the

process, both internal to government and external to government. I'm just trying

to figure out who had access to influencing the strategic planning direction of

the government through the core services review. Can the Premier provide those

agencies?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I can tell the member opposite that from my perspective as Chair

of the task force and the committee, the leaders of the core services review

were always the ministers and their deputy ministers. They may have brought an

assistant deputy minister who was responsible for strategic planning.

I cannot

tell the member opposite what outside assistance was provided to ministries. I

think if she asks ministers during the estimates, they'll be glad to share that

information.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, can I just have one moment to write a note?

The

Chair: The committee will recess for two minutes.

The

committee recessed from 4:29 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

[R. Stewart in the chair.]

MacPhail: Basically, we should be referring our next questions on the core

services review process to the individual ministers. What about phase 3,

implementation, and phase 4, continuous improvement? What are the plans for

those?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Phase 3 is effectively the implementation plan, which has been

laid out in terms of both the interim plans that were presented on February 17