2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Financial Administration Amendment

Act, 2004 (Bill 11)

Hon. G.

Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Journée de la Francophonie

R. Stewart

Role of social workers

Anderson

Resource industry workers

R. Visser

Oral Questions

Freedom-of-information request and

audit involving Doug Walls

MacPhail

Hon. C.

Clark

J. Kwan

New universities in interior B.C.

K. Krueger

Hon. S.

Bond

Disciplinary matters involving

Liberal MLAs

Brenzinger

Development of mining industry in

B.C.

D. MacKay

Hon. P.

Bell

Physician supply in northern B.C.

B. Belsey

Hon. C.

Hansen

Committee of the Whole House

Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Act (Bill 2)

MacPhail

Hon. R.

Coleman

Lekstrom

Reporting of Bills

Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Act (Bill 2)

Committee of the Whole House

Cremation, Interment and Funeral

Services Act (Bill 3)

MacPhail

Hon. R.

Coleman

Reporting of Bills

Cremation, Interment and Funeral

Services Act (Bill 3)

Third Reading of Bills

Cremation, Interment and Funeral

Services Act (Bill 3)

Committee of the Whole House

Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Authority Act (Bill 4)

MacPhail

Hon. R.

Coleman

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and

Family Development

J. Bray

Hon. C.

Clark

Anderson

Proceedings

in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. M.

Coell

Estimates: Ministry of Skills

Development and Labour

Hon. G.

Bruce

B. Locke

J. Kwan

MacPhail

[ Page 9481 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2004

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

J. Bray:

Joining us again in the gallery is somebody I introduce on a regular basis, who

has become an excellent peer advocate for people with mental illness here in

Victoria. On behalf of myself and the Minister of State for Mental Health and

Addiction Services, I'd like to again introduce Terry Colburn, whose hereditary

chief name from the Navajo nation is Iskaital. I'd ask the House to again please

make Terry very welcome.

W. Cobb:

From Houston, we have with us today Les Auston, who is the president and

regional director, and from Kelowna, Pat Whiteway, who is the executive director

of the Snowmobile Federation. I've gotten to know these two gentlemen fairly

well over the last little while. They're working to promote and develop a huge

economic and tourism opportunity to tie in our snowmobile trails with the rest

of Canada and help us develop legislation accordingly. I ask the House to please

make them welcome.

[1405]

Locke: It is my pleasure to welcome Vince and Brenda Spilak to the chamber

today. They are the parents of my very hard-working and dedicated LA, Ashley

Spilak. Would the House please make them welcome.

MacPhail: It gives me great honour to suck up to the media once again. The

parents of….

Hon. R.

Thorpe: You do that every day.

MacPhail: Listen, it's a new week. I'm here.

The parents

of the Radio-Canada reporter Philippe are here today. Dr. Paul Murat and his

wife Janine Renaud-Murat from Quebec City are here, and Philippe's cousin,

Patrick Murat, and his wife Rhonda are also here from Oregon with their children

Emilie and Nia. They were here to witness the commemoration of the Journée de

la Francophonie. Would the House please make them welcome.

Sultan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three guests. Firstly, Colin

Benner, who is the CEO of Breakwater Resources Ltd. of Toronto, a $250 million

Canadian-managed base metals producer with operations in Tunisia, Honduras,

Chile, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nunavut. He is here expecting to add British

Columbia to his portfolio, and we hope that he will. Secondly, Jim Jack, who

manages international operations for the Boliden company of Stockholm, Sweden.

Boliden is a $2.5 billion Swedish mining company which trades places with

Breakwater back and forth as to which will be No. 3 or No. 4 in the global zinc

market and which recently merged with Outokumpu of Finland, a major smelting and

refining organization.

Thirdly,

Dave Bazowski, who is the general manager of Myra Falls, a subsidiary of Boliden

in Campbell River and a mining company which pumps approximately $100 million a

year into that community and which is exploring with the Minister of State for

Mining ways and means, with these other gentlemen that I have just mentioned,

the basis upon which the Myra Falls operation can continue successfully for

another 40 years as a major economic contributor to the North Island. Would the

House please make them welcome.

Stewart: It's my pleasure today to acknowledge a visiting dignitary, M.

Jean-Yves Defay, the consul general for France, and his wife, Madame Defay.

Would the House please make them welcome. Monsieur Defay and various other

dignitaries were here today to celebrate Journée de la Francophonie.

I'd like to

introduce some others. Representing Quebec, Mme. Josée Martel from the regional

office of the government of Quebec in Vancouver. Representing the federal

government, Dean Dring, who is from the office of western economic

diversification. Mrs. Sherry Lampert, the manager for the Pacific council of

senior federal officials; Janet Jones, the manager for multicultural programs

with Canadian Heritage; and representing Victoria's francophone community, M.

Paul Deroy of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, Mme.

Diane Tremblay of the Société francophone de Victoria, Mme. Henriette Moreau

from the Association historique de Victoria, Juge Gérald Moreau from the

Celebrate Canada committee for B.C. and finally L'Abbé Benoit Laplante from the

Victoria parish of St. Jean Baptiste. Would the House please make them all very

welcome.

Jarvis: I'd like to recognize the North Vancouver high school team, the

Argyle Pipers, under their coach Glen Chew, who — just prior to the spring

break and after 22 years of allowing other teams to win the provincial high

school boys championship — have decided they would take it back. The Chew-Chew

train went into high speed, and the North Van Argyle Pipers won the provincial

boys championship. I know time doesn't allow me to introduce all the boys, but

I'd like the members here to give them a rousing "well done."

[1410]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I hope the House will welcome five students and their accompanying

five adults, including their teacher, Miss Vicki Barkman from the Pacific

Christian School in Abbotsford.

Also, I

hope members will make two friends, Jack and Jean Robertson, welcome. They're

here visiting in Victoria with some family friends.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I am pleased to introduce in the House today a member of my staff,

Lisa Grubesic. Lisa is enjoying a special day today because it's also her

birthday. She's also brought along some guests from Iceland. I'm going to do my

best to pronounce these names prop-

[ Page 9482 ]

erly. I would like to welcome to the House today Mr. Hannes Alfonson and his

wife, Halldora, and their son Mr. Alfonse Hannesson, who is acting as their

translator today. They've had an opportunity to tour through the buildings and,

no doubt, see just how beautiful these buildings are and what a great investment

the leaders at that time made in our future. So please join with me in welcoming

all of them here today.

Hon. I.

Chong: I know they've already been introduced, but I would like to

reintroduce and welcome two very special constituents of mine. They're here, as

well, celebrating their Journée de la Francophonie. That is Ms. Henriette

Moreau, who was my grade 11 French teacher, and her husband, Dr. Gérald Moreau,

who is a former university professor and now a citizenship court presiding

official. Would the House please make them welcome once again.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G.

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

intituled Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I am pleased to introduce the Financial Administration Amendment

Act, 2004, which amends the Financial Administration Act. The purpose of the

bill is to update the financial framework in government to support modern

business processes and new technology. The amendment will improve accountability

and financial control through an emphasis on expenditure initiation rather than

only on payment requisition. This ensures that accountability starts at the

beginning of the process, not just when payment comes due.

In support

of the new processes and technology, public servants will be obliged to report

to the comptroller general expenditures or payments that contravene established

policies. The comptroller general will keep reported information confidential,

and employees will not be subject to discipline or reprisal for reporting in

good faith.

The

amendment also permits reliance on a blend of people and systems controls versus

purely people controls as in the past. It will also streamline administration

and document handling.

I move the

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

of the House after today.

Bill 11

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) JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

Stewart: Each year we recognize March 20 as Journée de la Francophonie in

honour of an international agreement reached in Nigeria in 1970. This year marks

also the 400th anniversary of the arrival of Acadians at Port Royal in Nova

Scotia.

Few people

recognize that francophones were among the first non-aboriginals to cross the

Rockies into B.C., arriving in 1793, accompanying Alexander Mackenzie. I believe

that even fewer are aware that by 1805, francophones made up 60 percent of the

non-aboriginal population of this province.

Here in

B.C. we marked Journée de la Francophonie with a ceremony over the noon hour

today at the Royal B.C. Museum. I am delighted that many members of this

Legislature were able to join in this celebration today. I also want to thank

the representatives of B.C.'s francophone community, staff from relevant

ministries at the federal and provincial level, and the talented dance group les

Cornouillers, who performed traditional dances, and the many other francophones

and francophiles who joined us in this celebration.

Il me fait

grand plaisir d'annoncer, pour la troisième anneé consécutive, la

proclamation du 20 mars comme Journée de la Francophonie pour la

Colombie-Britannique.

[French

text provided by R. Stewart.]

[1415]

For the

past three years, a federal-provincial agreement has enabled our government to

develop partnerships with B.C.'s francophone community with the goal of

promoting our francophone heritage and improving access to government services

in Canada's other official language. We have achieved much, including the

translation of the B.C. HealthGuide , the development of francophone

tourism and the creation of employment and immigration aids for francophone

newcomers to this province.

Of course

there's much more to be done. Our francophone community will continue to play a

vital role in the province. During the 2010 Olympics, B.C.'s cultural diversity

will be showcased to the world. This will be especially true for our francophone

community since French is an official language of the Olympic Games.

I want to

thank the francophone community, which is well represented today in the gallery,

for their commitment to the French language and culture and for continuing to

support this important part of B.C.'s heritage. Merci.

ROLE OF SOCIAL WORKERS

Anderson: I am very pleased and honoured to mark Social Work Week with a few

comments about the important and demanding work that social workers

[ Page 9483 ]

perform every day in our province. Social workers play a vital and often

unrecognized role in helping make our communities stronger and healthier. While

many of us talk about valuing children and supporting families, social workers

make this task their life. They are front-line workers providing services 24

hours a day, sometimes under very difficult circumstances.

In many

communities, social workers are also a key part of emergency planning teams,

ready to assist with natural disasters, fires or other emergencies which have

forced families from their homes. They are there to help calm a parent, soothe a

child or find resources to help at a time of need.

There are

several thousand social workers in this province, each one helping British

Columbians to build a better life for themselves. They work wherever children

and families are at risk or falling through the cracks. For some, they are the

final lifeline in a daily struggle to survive. Often they are the difference

between a family falling apart and staying together. For social workers, facing

challenging situations and decisions is a daily activity — decisions that

require a unique combination of professional ability and personal caring.

I'm

overjoyed to say that more and more social workers reflect a great multicultural

diversity that exists in this province and bring this specialized cultural

sensitivity to their work. We all rejoice when a vulnerable child, adult or

family is able to overcome the challenges that face them.

Please join

me in honouring the social workers who work so hard to make sure our most

vulnerable citizens get the best opportunities possible to succeed.

RESOURCE INDUSTRY WORKERS

Visser: On March 21, 1994, more than 20,000 people gathered on the lawns of

this Legislature to celebrate their way of life. They were regular folks from

resource communities across British Columbia. They wanted to remind the

government of the day just how much they contribute to the fabric of this

province.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to tell you how powerful a message this is. These people are

loggers; they're truck drivers, mechanics, fish plant workers, pulp mill

workers, miners or destination lodge employees. They are the essence of what

makes our province so great, and they are a backbone of this economy. These

folks want all of British Columbia to embrace their hard work and their

dedication. They want people to understand that they make the first dollar —

the dollar that is generated when rocks from a kilometre below ground are milled

into a pound of copper or zinc; trees are harvested and sawn into lumber or

building materials; salmon that grows, is harvested and packaged and sold in the

world; sawdust and chips are cooked into pulp and paper; or a cubic foot of gas

is drilled, tapped and shipped.

When they

sell these products to the world, they create wealth. From that wealth flow all

of the other dollars that we as governments use to purchase the services that

British Columbians speak so much of — health care, education and services that

protect the most vulnerable.

It is a

simple truth here in British Columbia that we are an exporting economy, one of

the best in the world. Not only should we be proud of these people for the

wealth that they create in the bush or in the gas fields or underground or on

the range, but we should be proud of them because they're leaders in

environmental sustainability and protection.

That's why

we're wearing yellow ribbons here today: to commemorate the event ten years ago

and to celebrate those people who work so hard every day to give us all that we

have.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes member statements.

[1420]

Oral Questions

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUEST

AND AUDIT INVOLVING DOUG WALLS

MacPhail: A few weeks ago the opposition requested records from the

ministries of Finance and of Management Services and the Premier's office

related to the establishment of CareNet and the role of Doug Walls in this

endeavour. We were denied those records under

section 15 of the Freedom of

Information Act.

Section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act allows the

government to deny records only if the disclosure could reasonably be expected

to harm a law enforcement matter. Can the Minister of Children and Family

Development tell us if there is the potential for criminal charges to be laid

related to the Doug Walls investigation?

Hon. C.

Clark: All of those issues are being audited by an independent audit. All of

those issues will be canvassed thoroughly by the auditor, and that report will

be coming back, we hope, very shortly.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Well, that didn't answer my question. To date, all the government

has said is that it's conducting an audit into the financial shenanigans carried

out by Mr. Walls, a top Liberal insider. British Columbia will remember that the

government wrote off big loans to Doug Walls, forcing the resignation of the

Minister of Children and Family Development and triggering an internal ministry

audit — not a legal audit, a law enforcement audit; an internal audit. Mr.

Walls is also the principal in CareNet, a company with big government contracts.

The Financial Administration Act has been clearly circumvented, and someone has

benefited to the tune of $400,000.

Can the

minister tell us…? Given the fact that she's refusing us information under

section 15, can she tell

[ Page 9484 ]

us if she has already predetermined that the whole scandal is merely a result

of a clerical error in the bureaucracy? If not, why is she refusing us the

information, and why should we have any faith in an audit when it's being

carried out by a company that donated over $19,000 to this party?

Hon. C.

Clark: The company that's carrying out the audit is PricewaterhouseCoopers.

We will be waiting to see the results of that audit. I think some of the

assumptions that the member has thrown out on the floor today in this House will

certainly be tested and questioned by the auditors as they look at this. Our

government acted very quickly in initiating this audit, making sure the scope of

the audit was as broad as we could possibly make it, making sure we get to the

bottom of those issues as soon as we possibly can.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister isn't aware of what

section 15 of the Freedom

of Information Act says. It's highly unusual for the government to deny records

under freedom of information under

section 15.

Let's be

clear. The government denied the records to us because they said it was a law

enforcement matter. The minister refuses to acknowledge what the nature of the

law enforcement matter is that she denied us records on. Can she tell us, based

on that denial, if the police have been consulted on this matter? If they

haven't, why should British Columbians have any confidence that we will get to

the bottom of the scandal involving the Premier's relative when the judge is a

company that gave the Liberals more than $19,000? Why doesn't she now just put

the whole mess to an impartial authority or tell us if the police are now

involved?

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, I don't know. It sounds to me like the member is alleging that

PricewaterhouseCoopers is not an independent group. They certainly, I think, are

well respected. They are certainly independent of government.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: Our government certainly did act quickly in initiating this audit to

make sure…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1425]

Hon. C.

Clark: …we got to the bottom of these issues as quickly as we could. The

audit has a broad scope. It will be looking at all of the issues, including, I'm

sure, some of the issues the member has raised today in the House. When the

results of that audit come in, she, like the rest of British Columbians, will

understand how this issue arose and how it will be concluded.

J. Kwan:

From the start the government has tried to downplay this scandal, pointing

the finger first at the bureaucracy for failing to seek cabinet approval for a

$400,000 loan write-off to Mr. Walls. Clearly, this matter is just a little bit

more serious than that. The public is being denied information on the basis of

the whole affair because the government says it's a law enforcement–related

matter. If that's true, the government should then just admit it. Again to the

minister: if this matter is serious enough that charges may be laid, why is the

matter before a company that gave the Liberals a $19,000 donation and not before

the police?

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: If that member has allegations to make about the integrity of

PricewaterhouseCoopers, she should perhaps have the courage to raise some of

those issues outside the House where she's not protected by parliamentary

privilege.

As I said,

the audit is looking at a broad scope of issues. Some of the issues the member

has raised today will be considered by the audit in a complete, fulsome way, I'm

quite convinced, and certainly in a broader way than would be canvassed today

just here in question period. Like every other member of this Legislature, I

very much look forward to the results of that audit coming as quickly as

possible.

Mr.

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

J. Kwan:

It's this minister who is trying to hide the information. It's this government

that is denying the opposition access to information under

section 15 of the

Freedom of Information Act. It's this government that says it's a law

enforcement issue. It's not the opposition who say that.

On the

weekend we learned through the media that political appointees monitor FOI

requests for political sensitivity and provide ministers with advice on how to

dodge questions. They're doing a good job, because this minister is clearly

hiding something.

Let me try

again, and let me make it simple. We asked for information related to the Doug

Walls audit. The government said: "No, you can't have it. It's a law

enforcement matter." Well, that's news to the public.

Will the

minister drop the spin and tell the truth and be open and accountable to British

Columbians? Is this a law enforcement matter or not? And who has made that

determination — the police, the minister, the auditor who gave the Liberals

more than $19,000 through donations? Which is it?

Interjections.

[ Page 9485 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Minister of Children and Family

Development has the floor.

Hon. C.

Clark: Law enforcement under the act includes anything that could compromise

an external investigation. There is an external investigation. Although I know

the member questions whether or not PricewaterhouseCoopers is an external,

independent body, I think that the vast majority of the public and the private

sector would agree that they are a company of high standing and high reputation

— certainly external to government.

Section 15

of the act also includes anything that could lead to an administrative penalty.

That's the reference under the act, and that's also the reason this

freedom-of-information request was denied. I will be looking forward, though,

like everyone else in this House, to the results of that audit coming in as

quickly as possible to make sure that we can get to the bottom of all matters

related to this as soon as we possibly can.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

NEW UNIVERSITIES IN INTERIOR B.C.

Krueger: Mr. Speaker, as you know, your constituents and mine were elated

last week with the announcement of a new university in Kamloops — as were

people all down the sun-drenched Okanagan Valley south of us.

Last week

Carole James and the NDP accused the government of having its priorities wrong

by creating two new universities.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Order.

[1430]

Krueger: Carole James seems to think that creating new student spaces is a

waste of time. She would deny interior students the opportunity to study close

to home and, in turn, to save money on their education.

I wanted to

give the NDP the chance to hear from the Minister of Education, so my question

is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Could you explain why it is going to

improve students' access to post-secondary education by having opened two new

universities in our area?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Bond: Well, I think it's a pretty surprising statement when someone stands

up and says that it is not a priority to create new university seats in the

province. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, let's look at who asked us for those

seats. Actually, it was the people of the Thompson-Okanagan who said:

"Let's work together and build a new university."

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. S.

Bond: This project will create new seats so students can learn closer to

home. It's going to provide new jobs, a revised amount of money into the

economy. Which part of that good news does Carole James not want to see for the

people of Thompson-Okanagan?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Hon. members, let's have order, please, in the chamber.

DISCIPLINARY MATTERS

INVOLVING LIBERAL MLAS

Brenzinger: Does the Deputy Premier approve of and encourage the abusive

treatment this government uses in disciplining its members? I have personally

experienced and recorded the bullying and arrogant tactics intended to

intimidate members into silence. My question to the Deputy Premier is: will she,

for the sake of the integrity of government in British Columbia and in the name

of openness and transparency, call a halt to further intimidations and

disciplinary actions? And will the government submit its caucus disciplinary

process, including related activities of the party Whip, for a thorough review?

Mr.

Speaker: The question is out of order, hon. members.

DEVELOPMENT OF

MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

MacKay: My question is to the Minister of State for Mining. Our government

has gone through some extensive changes to attract international investment for

mineral exploration in British Columbia. Last year, in the year 2003, we saw

37,000 more claims filed in the province. That's a 30 percent increase from the

year previous. What I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Mining is: what is

he doing to make sure the invest-

[ Page 9486 ]

ment climate turns into job creation for people in the riding that I

represent and the rest of the province?

Hon. P.

Bell: Apparently, Carole James doesn't approve of universities in the

interior of the province. We note that she also doesn't approve of mining in the

province. Just a few weeks ago she said mining shouldn't proceed in the province

under any circumstances. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the member for

Bulkley Valley–Stikine has every reason to be excited, because with this

government we're going to see projects like Red Chris, we're going to see

projects like Galore Creek, and we're going to see projects like Tulsequah Chief

— all located in his riding — moving forward and creating wealth in the

province. We know that it requires an effective taxation regime, and we know

that it requires an effective regulatory regime, and that's exactly what we're

going to be delivering in our mining plan that we'll be presenting to this House

this fall.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1435]

PHYSICIAN SUPPLY IN NORTHERN B.C.

Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Health. It's no secret that

northern B.C. is faced with problems of shortage of doctors. Last year this

government invested $100 million in universities in B.C. to help alleviate this.

Now, I know if Carole James were here, she would take the same position as those

two members over there — that is, this is a bad, bad thing for British

Columbia. The creation of positions in universities for doctors is very

important to this province.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Belsey: Can the minister please stand and explain to my constituents…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member….

Belsey: …and the rest of British Columbia…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member. Order, please . Order, please. We'll continue

when we have order in the chamber.

Belsey: Can the minister explain to my constituents…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for North Coast has the floor.

Belsey: …how this funding is being used to encourage doctors to work in

northern British Columbia?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I had the pleasure of being in Prince George last Tuesday where I,

along with the Minister of Advanced Education, announced some of the new

initiatives towards establishing the northern medical program at the University

of Northern British Columbia. We are almost doubling the number of physicians we

are training in British Columbia as a result of the funding the member referred

to.

As a direct

result of the initiatives at UNBC, physicians will be trained and oriented

towards practice in smaller communities, and we know this is going to provide

more stability going forward. That's on top of the rural retention programs we

have, the rural education action plan we have to support physicians, and the

loan forgiveness programs for doctors, nurses, midwives and pharmacists. All of

those programs that this government has put in place will help to make sure

there is a stable supply of health care professionals to meet the needs of

northerners in the years ahead.

[End

of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: I can get you some professional help.

An Hon.

Member: You need it for yourself. Keep it for yourself.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Order, please.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I can only agree with the member opposite that she does require

professional help.

In this

House I call committee stage of Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Act. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information

of members, we'll be debating the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

BUSINESS PRACTICES AND

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

[ Page 9487 ]

[1445]

The

committee met at 2:47 p.m.

section 1.

MacPhail: Just for the benefit of those in the Legislature and also those

who may be watching or reading Hansard , Bill 2, the Business Practices

and Consumer Protection Act, is a package of three. My initial questions around

Bill 2, which is a 112-page bill that rewrites consumer protection legislation,

are general in nature. I thought I'd dispose of them under Bill 2, Mr. Chair,

and depending on the minister's answers, probably the debate around Bill 3 and

Bill 4 will go more smoothly.

As the

minister acknowledged in this act, Bill 2, this bill repeals and consolidates

six acts, and I think I've got them right: the Consumer Protection Act, the Cost

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

Act, the Trade Practice Act and the Travel Agents Act. Now, there's a difference

between repeal and consolidate, so can the minister outline what the philosophy

or the strategy was behind consolidation of parts and repealing of other parts

of those six acts?

[1450]

Hon. R.

Coleman: We're repealing the acts because what this act does is it basically

streamlines and brings similar provisions together with regard to things like

licensing, enforcement and that sort of thing. There are a number of confusions

in and around consumer laws that are in different acts with regard to what can

be enforced and what can't be enforced. The enforcement provisions will be

applied across the board, the same for all consumer transactions. By repealing

and then consolidating into

an act, we're getting rid of those dissimilar

relationships, as I understand it. It should make it easier for us to do

enforcement because we'll have one regime of enforcement.

MacPhail: Is there somewhere…? Well, let me ask this of the minister: what

areas of practice or enforcement have been deleted throughout these six bills?

The reason

why I'm asking these general questions — and the Solicitor General is

accommodating them, so that's not an issue — is that this is the new consumer

protection legislation. I have to tell you, I'm not necessarily saying the six

previous bills were user-friendly, but I'm having a little bit of trouble with

this being user-friendly. So the more explanation we can have of why some were

repealed and others were consolidated would sure help.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I will walk through this with the member, because I do realize that

the three acts go together, and I will attempt to answer all her questions as we

go through it. It's been a two-year body of work, as she can appreciate.

They're all

being repealed and replaced with this act, and the reason for that is we're not

actually, in this new act, losing any of the existing enforcement tools. What

we're able to do is apply the enforcement tools across all consumer protection.

For

instance, in the old Debt Collection Act, there used to be minimal enforcement

tools that were there. Even though the Consumer Protection Act had enforcement

tools, because they were minimal in the other act, it actually had a negative

impact on the ability to enforce the Debt Collection Act.

Now we have

all the tools in one place. We're not losing any of the enforcement tools that

were there before. We're actually expanding the tools, particularly in a couple

of areas. One of them is freezing and seizing.

Before, we

used to be able to freeze assets with regard to people that were involved in

fraudulent consumer transactions. We could freeze the assets, and then we would

actually ask permission to dispose of the assets from the people we froze them

from so we could pay money back to the people that were defrauded. This act goes

further and allows for the freezing of the assets and the seizure and then the

disposition.

[1455]

MacPhail: The Solicitor General said it was a two-year process. What

feedback has he had to Bills 2, 3 and 4 since they've been tabled?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Since the act was introduced — and the member will see that I do

have some amendments on the order paper — basically we've heard from three

groups. The Canadian Bankers Association has asked us to correct something with

regard to the cost of consumer credit. There is a body of work being done

federally and provincially with regard to the cost of consumer credit. Frankly,

it wouldn't appear that we're ever getting to a harmonized level between the

chartered banks and the credit unions and that sort of thing. So there is

something in language to clarify.

Also, the

information and privacy commissioner had some issues with some of the language,

and we've corrected that misunderstanding of the language in another two

amendments that are in both acts. But since the act, basically those would be

the three things we've heard about.

MacPhail: I have been following both the consultation and then the reaction,

and here's the list of people that I have determined it covers: funeral service

providers, travel planners, tour operators, motor vehicle dealers and debt

collection agencies. Are there any other industries that are affected by this

that I've missed?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'll try and give the answers that I can. There's some additional

whispering going on here that may give me even more information.

What the

member listed are people that are already licensed, but this generally applies

to everyone who's involved in any consumer transaction in B.C. just because

they're not necessarily listed by

an act that is being repealed and brought into

the authority as we move along. The actual Consumer Protection Act applies to

anybody.

[ Page 9488 ]

The motor

dealers are not actually in this act. There's a body of work going on with

regard to the motor dealers and an authority with regard to them. Our ability to

enforce with regard to consumer transactions to the motor dealers, like any

other consumer transaction, is here because any consumer transaction can be

dealt with by the act. But the motor dealers themselves, as I understand it,

have a different body of work in a different ministry that's taking place with

regard to whether they're going to set up an authority and how they're going to

set up that side of it from a regulatory process.

[1500]

MacPhail: Perhaps the Solicitor General could give me an example of who

could be included that is not yet licensed.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Telemarketers and tow truck drivers are actually listed in the act,

but there is still a body of work to be done, particularly with regard to

telemarketers and the tow truck industry, relative to licensing them. The

concern with telemarketing is how you manage the telemarketing that might be

done for charitable organizations versus that which is done commercially versus

that which is actually fraudulent, and how you can license telemarketers. There

is some work being done on it, and that's why they're not being brought forward

at this time. It's the same thing with tow truck drivers.

We would

anticipate other organizations that might, for example, want to come into being

able to have a licensed body with some professional development tied to it —

something similar to the Private Investigators Association of British Columbia,

for instance, who would tie to post-secondary education like the Justice

Institute for some level of basic training, like real estate people do. Because

they're not large enough to be on their own as a regulatory body or

self-managing body, they would come in and be part of the licensing scheme here,

and we would enable them to do their education process and licensing structure

so that we would get some standards in place.

It's

anticipated that over the ensuing years, other organizations who want to move to

licensing and what have you would be able to be dealt with in this act rather

than by creating a new act for them.

MacPhail: At second reading the Solicitor General said this about

consultation: "I asked a senior civil servant who had been working with

consumer protection in this province for an extensive period of time what they

would recommend to improve and enhance consumer protection in British

Columbia." Did that senior civil servant, he or she, then set up the

consultation? How extensive was the consultation?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Quite extensive, actually, with regard to a lot of the

consultation. There were rep group people not in a licensing process that

existed in the other acts that were also consulted with. As well, there were

consultations with various industries that were affected by what we were doing.

Those

consultations started as early as a review of the cemetery and crematorium

issues back in September 2001 and went through a period right through to January

2004. With the travel industry the consultation started in July of 2001, which

was shortly after I became minister. There had been some discussions prior to us

becoming government with regard to an initiative like this, and also with a

number of other agencies. There were a number of consultation processes that

took place. Some of that resulted in the third act we're dealing with today,

which deals with why we took out a piece of the cemetery and crematorium side

with regard to that — because of those consultations.

It has been

an ongoing process, like I said, for two years.

MacPhail: Was the Consumers Association of Canada, the B.C. branch,

consulted?

[1505]

Hon. R.

Coleman: There was a variety of ways that consultation was done. They were

sent the material. General consultations were done to all groups. We actually

had it up on the Web, as well, and advised people that they could give us

feedback to it. From that particular group, my understanding is that there was a

minimal response. It was sort of like it looked okay, and then we haven't heard

from them since the legislation has been tabled. There wasn't any major response

from that group.

MacPhail: Other than dealing with the people who were actually affected

directly by the legislation and therefore have vested interests, was there any

direct consultation with consumer groups that represent not one of the people

delivering the service or the product but represent the consumer? Was their only

way to be consulted through the Web?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'm going to try and get a list for the member. I don't have it

right here in front of me. My understanding is that the Public Interest Advocacy

Centre and the Consumers Association of Canada, which both have provincial

offices in British Columbia, and any consumer group we knew about that deals

with consumer issues…. We sent material to them, and then they could respond

back to us either through the Web base or directly to us.

My staff

person has actually gone to see if we can get that list now for you so that we

could clarify that for you.

[1510]

MacPhail: Thank you. I appreciate that.

I know Bill

4 sets up the new authority, so my questions around how that will operate will

be under Bill 4. After this new authority is set up pursuant to Bill 4, what

will the consumer services branch inside government now be responsible for?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The function is transferred to the new authority, and so basically

it would not exist. The

[ Page 9489 ]

function gets transferred. There would be a small body within government to

monitor the operation of the authority, but the authority…. Actually, we would

be transferring the functions of the consumer services branch today to the

authority.

MacPhail: What's that saving for the government, then? What's the budget

reduction for the consumer services branch, then?

Hon. R.

Coleman: If the member would just be patient for a minute. Because we're

going to broadly deal with the three acts, I'm going to have the person

responsible with regard to that third act come into the House so that I can

ask…. That way, they can answer these questions as we go through or give me

the information. We won't have to sort of dance around and go ask the question

later when we get to Bill 4. He'll be here in a minute so if we could just….

Basically,

my understanding is that there's not a substantial saving to government either

way because the branch itself is actually quite well self-funding, and so the

funding that would be in the branch would move over to the authority. It may not

be substantial either way, but I'll get you the numbers.

[1515]

In year

one, there's a $500,000 grant to the authority; in year two, there's a $500,000

grant to the authority. Presently we bring about $800,000-plus in dues and what

have you into government that go to general revenue, but they don't get applied

to the budget of the branch. Right now the branch's total operations are around

$2.5 million a year.

The

authority would be receiving $1.3 million a year and will also go and borrow at

market rates $1.5 million for their transition costs and for their operation

costs going forward. Their business plan calls for their cash flow to handle all

of that. Basically, government, at the end of the day, will save, we think,

around $1.5 million but not until year three.

MacPhail: While government saves that, does the consumer pay double then —

once for the fees that used to go and perhaps would still continue going to

general revenue and then have to pay for the new authority? Or will the fees

that were paid by consumers now be paid to the new authority?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Yes, the revenues that would have been paid to government for

licensing fees will now go to the authority.

Sections 1

to 40 inclusive approved.

section

Lekstrom: A question on

section 41, which is based on funds exempt from

seizure. These are funds for people that have prepaid for a preneed cemetery or

funeral services contract that aren't eligible to be, under the act, seized,

garnisheed or so on. Is there a set amount or a limit on the amount that can be

put into this fund on a prepaid funeral arrangement?

Hon. R.

Coleman: There is no limit on the amount you can put into a prepaid service

under this act. To the first part of your question, whereby could those be

attached if there were a fraudulent activity taking place with regard to

consumer transactions by the host business, and would they have those moneys in

trust: no. Those funds are available for the person that put them up. They

wouldn't be something that we would go and seize to pay for other consumer

fraud, but there is no limit on the amount that you can prepay.

Lekstrom: Just to delve into this a little further, the reason for my

question is the fact that…. I will use a hypothetical situation. Somebody

foresees financial trouble in their future. An individual prepays for a funeral

to the tune of — you know, for the sake of numbers — $10,000 or $100,000,

then ends up going bankrupt down the road and owes a bunch of money to different

organizations. Those organizations come to either garnishee wages or go after

assets, but this isn't accessible to them. Years down the road, if there is a

limitation — ten, 15, 20 years — they go back to this prepaid fund, cancel

it, change things and maybe go from a $100,000 funeral down to a $3,000 funeral.

Who gets the $97,000? Is that refund paid back to the individual, or does it go

to the people that were owed money in the original claim?

[1520]

Hon. R.

Coleman: It's an interesting question, but I guess I'll try and deal with it

this way. The only thing I know that is creditor-proof is an RRSP that isn't

self-directed and that's held by a Canadian life insurance company. It's

creditor-proof — as I understand it, looking into this years ago — from

Revenue Canada, from bankruptcy, etc. That's the only place it is actually

creditor-proof. I remember that when we changed the RRSP in government, somebody

actually challenged me on that, and the people who were putting together the

plan for government said we were correct on it. This is not.

understanding is that you would have to declare it as something that you've

prepaid and that you own. When you make your list of assets, if you are having a

bankruptcy issue, you would have to list those assets. I think the courts would

determine how those assets had to be disposed of with regard to the discharge of

your bankruptcy, as it would any other asset. That would be my understanding.

They can't

be accessed by the authority. If there is an investigation on a fraud that

relates to other issues, those trust funds can't be issued and be taken away

from somebody to pay somebody else's bills, because they prepaid for a service.

Lekstrom: I guess maybe a follow-up so that I'm clear on this. As a creditor

who is owed money, part of the money that's not accessible would be through a

[ Page 9490 ]

prepaid funeral service, for instance. The way I read the act, you can't

access that money. Is there a statute of limitations on that so that ten years

down the road, after bankruptcy has been dealt with, an individual could go back

and withdraw some of this from the prepaid funds…? As I understand it, under

section 43 as we go further on — the contract issue — it has to be written

that way.

It just

seems confusing. It seems like there may be people out there that may utilize

something like this to shelter money in financially troubled times. I want to

make sure that people or creditors that are due money won't go without while

somebody's trying to shelter some money under

an act. That, I know, isn't the

intention of this act.

Hon. R.

Coleman: This act doesn't trump the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the

federal act. You couldn't do that and not declare it as an asset. What would

probably happen is…. Having never gone through the bankruptcy experience but

knowing some people that were in business when I was a consultant, you have to

list all your assets, and this is an asset. Then the courts, through the

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, can decide how those assets are disposed of, so I

don't think you would be able to shelter the money in the cases which you're

describing.

Sections 41

to 51 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 52 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

[SECTION 52, in the proposed subsection (3) by deleting “under

subsection (1)” and substituting “under subsection (2)”.]

On the

amendment.

Hon. R.

Coleman: The amendment corrects the reference in subsection (3) from a

reference to subsection (1) to a reference to subsection (2). The errors in the

draft occurred when we determined, for greater clarity, to insert the

definitional provisions that are now found in subsection (1).

Amendment

approved.

Section 52

as amended approved.

Sections 53

to 61 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 62 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

[SECTION 62,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (3) (

a) by striking out “fixed credit,” and

substituting “fixed credit or open credit that is not associated with a

credit card,” , and

(

b) in the proposed subsection (3) (

b) by striking out “open credit,” and

substituting “open credit that is associated with a credit card,” .]

[1525]

On the

amendment.

Hon. R.

Coleman: The amendment to

section 62 corrects an error in the draft, the

application of the references to — I have an acronym here — APR. The annual

interest rate in this

section must match with comparable applications in

sections 60 and 61. The amended wording accomplishes this. Basically, we're

striking out the words "fixed credit," and adding "fixed credit

or open credit that is not associated with a credit card" to this

section

to clarify it.

Amendment

approved.

Section 62

as amended approved.

Sections 63

to 107 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 108 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

[SECTION 108, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting

“any information about an individual” and substituting “any credit

information about an individual in a report,” .]

On the

amendment.

Hon. R.

Coleman: The amendment to

section 108 clearly focuses the application of

this bill to credit reports. The amended wording of this

section better

differentiates between the scope of this bill and the scope of the Personal

Information Protection Act in the protection of an individual's privacy. Any use

of personal information by a reporting agent other than within the context of a

credit card is now governed by the Personal Information Protection Act.

Amendment

approved.

Section 108

as amended approved.

Sections

109 to 174 inclusive approved.

section 175.

MacPhail:

Part 11, Administration, talks about an administrative agreement.

I'm particularly interested in appointment of director,

section 175.

Section

175(1) says: "The minister may designate as a director either or both of

the following: (

a) an individual appointed under the Public Service Act"—

that's pretty straightforward — or "(

b) the administrative authority, if

the Lieutenant Governor in Council has approved the administrative

agreement." Does that mean the director would be the entire authority?

[ Page 9491 ]

[H.

Long in the chair.]

[1530]

Hon. R.

Coleman: At the beginning we would delegate the authority to the director,

who would be selected as the interim CEO or director of the authority as we

built the board. When the ministry authority is up and running, we will delegate

the director's powers to the authority, which is the board. They then can do

what government does similarly with a statutory authority. You give the

director, as we do today…. We delegate the powers to the director, to our

director of consumer protection today, who then also has the ability to give

other powers out to people like registrars with regard to how they can operate

and have the authority to do their jobs.

MacPhail: The answer is that it is the entire administrative authority that

could be the director. If the government, by legislation, is delegating to the

administrative authority…. Isn't there some rule that you can't delegate a

second time? Isn't there some legal principle of that nature attached to that?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I'll try this again, because I may have misspoken this. We would

designate the authority as the director. The authority can then delegate powers

down to the CEO of the authority, who then has staff that he or she would hire

to carry out certain obligations and has the ability to delegate certain powers

to do their job.

[1535]

MacPhail: My question was: what legal principle permits this? I mean, I

could be wrong in my recollection that you cannot delegate more than once when

it's legal authority. Maybe I'm wrong.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Thank you to the member for her questions. I'm told that during

drafting, this came through as the legal language with regard to this section,

but I'm going to try basically to deal with the member's issues if I can.

Basically,

this

section allows a minister to designate a public servant as a director. If

cabinet has approved the administrative agreement, the minister then may

designate the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority as a

director. If the minister designates both as directors, each designation must

specify the powers, functions and duties that they can exercise as director as

well as any restrictions. The director may delegate any of his or her powers,

functions or duties under the act to a person or group of people.

understanding is that we would designate the director until the administrative

authority was up and running. Then we would take away that designation and give

the designation of director to the authority, who would then have the ability to

delegate any of their powers, functions or duties under the act to persons or

groups of people working within the authority.

Sections

175 to 184 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 185 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

[SECTION 185, in the proposed

section 185 (1) by adding "who is

engaged in the administration of this Act or the regulations and" after

"A person".]

On the

amendment.

[1540]

Hon. R.

Coleman: The amendment to

section 185 is a clarification that the

confidentiality provisions of the act apply only to those who administer the act

and not to businesses that may be in possession of personal information of their

customers. We're making this amendment to ensure there is no confusion about the

application of the province's new private sector privacy legislation, the

Personal Information Protection Act, in force since January of this year.

In short,

this latter legislation applies to personal information held by businesses.

Those who administer the act will also be subject to freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy legislation. This confidentiality provision is consistent

with those found in a number of B.C. statutes and is also consistent with

section 64 of the proposed Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act.

Amendment

approved.

Section 185

as amended approved.

Sections

186 to 238 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:41 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill

2, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, reported complete with

amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon.

S. Bond: I call committee stage of Bill 3.

Committee of the Whole House

CREMATION, INTERMENT

AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 3; H. Long in the chair.

[ Page 9492 ]

The

committee met at 3:43 p.m.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

On

section

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, this is Bill 3, the Cremation, Interment and Funeral

Services Act.

Section 5 is entitled "Control of disposition of human

remains or cremated remains." I note

section 5(1), (

a) through (k), lists

the priority of order in which control of the disposition of the human remains

or cremated remains is laid out. Now,

section 5(1)(

b) lists the spouse of the

deceased as the next person given control over remains, provided this person is

not named in a will. The first person having priority is the person named in the

will.

[1545]

Now, the

1996 Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, which is repealed by this piece of

legislation, used to give second priority to either the spouse or the common-law

partner. I'll just read it into the record. This is the act, the

section being

repealed, 51(1)(b): "…if living with the deceased at the time of death, a

person who (

i) was married to the deceased, or (ii) was living and cohabiting

with the deceased in a marriage-like relationship, including a marriage-like

relationship between persons of the same gender." That isn't spelled out in

this piece of legislation. Why not?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The definition of spouse will be added by definition, and we will

add that through regulation for common-law spouses and others. The reason we're

doing it by regulation, as I understand it, is so we would have the ability to

adjust it as society needed us to adjust.

MacPhail: It already was legislation from 1996, so society didn't have any

problem with it for the last eight years. What's up?

Hon. R.

Coleman: As the bill came through the processes, it was decided that we

would do this by regulation, and that's how it was decided to do it. That's the

best explanation I can give the member.

MacPhail: Okay, then the issue here is that the government is deliberately

denying a group rights that they've had for eight years now. Same-sex

relationships have to rely on regulation that can be changed behind closed

doors. The government is deliberately weakening legislation for same-sex

relationships in terms of what happens when a person dies. I think that's

shameful, and I think it's deliberate.

We went

through a huge amount of debate in this Legislature — I can't remember whether

the minister was part of that or not — with both the then opposition and the

then government supporting family benefits flowing to people who were in a

common-law relationship, a married relationship. Whether they were in a married

relationship or common-law relationship of the same sex, the benefits flowed

regardless. They flowed equally. Now this is a step back.

I must say,

Mr. Chair, that I'll have to watch every other piece of legislation now to see

what rights this government is removing from gay and lesbian families. I find it

shameful, and on the basis of this change — on this removal of a right that

people have had for eight years — I will be calling a vote on this

section and

voting against this section.

[1550-1555]

Section 5

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 56

Falcon

Coell

Les

Chong

Brice

Hansen

Bell

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Bray

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Plant

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Harris

Christensen

Abbott

Coleman

Penner

Cobb

Jarvis

Anderson

Hogg

Nuraney

R. Stewart

Hunter

Chutter

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

Belsey

Krueger

J. Reid

McMahon

Hayer

Stephens

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Visser

Lekstrom

MacKay

Halsey-Brandt

K. Stewart

Bloy

Suffredine

Whittred

Hamilton

Kerr

NAYS — 5

Orr

Nebbeling

MacPhail

Kwan

Mayencourt

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 6 is part of

part 3, which is "Disposition of Human

Remains and Cremated Remains." We just voted on

section 5, but I notice the

entire part, sections 4 through 13, makes no mention of the requirements for the

interment or scattering of cremated remains. Are there any restrictions as to

where cremated remains — what are commonly called ashes —can be scattered?

Hon. R.

Coleman: There is none now. There are no restrictions now, and there's no

change here. Where you put them could be affected by some local municipal bylaws

or the permission of a private land owner, but there's none now and none put in

this act either.

[1600]

Sections 6

to 54 inclusive approved.

[ Page 9493 ]

section

MacPhail:

Section 55 comes under

part 11, "Application of Business

Practices and Consumer Protection Act," which is the upcoming debate —

the act that is now Bill 4, which we will be debating in a moment.

Section 55 is

called "Application of

Part 9 — licences."

Section

55(2) states: "A director may issue a licence to an applicant and impose

conditions on the licence." The definition of director this bill uses comes

from

section 175 of Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act,

and I had questions about the appointment of a director. I was trying to find

out exactly what the delegation is. Under

section 175 of Bill 2 that we just

passed, the minister has the option of designating two directors — one under

the Public Service Act and/or one being the administrative authority.

None of the

aforementioned

section says anything about the required qualifications for

directors, so what are the specific qualifications required for directors

charged with authority to oversee death care service providers?

[1605]

Hon. R.

Coleman: The qualifications would be the same as currently, which is

basically the application of specific knowledge, skills and abilities with

regard to regulatory processes and the management of an authority or the

managing of a branch and general licensing and regulatory experience. In the

interim, whoever we put in there would have to go through the normal internal

merit hiring process with regard to government as we did the transition. Then

the authority itself would look for somebody that could obviously run this thing

and implement it properly.

MacPhail: How will directors, pursuant to this legislation, have adequate

knowledge of the unique facets of the death care profession? I've had a bit of

feedback on this, and there is concern in this area.

Hon. R.

Coleman: The intent is that the staff — presently the registrar and staff

— would be given the opportunity to move over to the authority so that we

would have consistency or no loss of corporate memory. If someone chose to

retire in transition or what have you, it would be the same thing as we would do

now in government — look for somebody that could meet the qualifications and

that could do the job.

MacPhail: What sort of criteria are going to be followed in the issuing of

licences?

Hon. R.

Coleman: It's the same as it is now. Basically, it's professional,

educational and financial standing with regard to the ability to have a licence

to conduct this function. That will remain the same.

[1610]

MacPhail: When the minister says, "remain the same," are those

criteria set out by regulation, and the regulations won't be changed?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Essentially, the qualifications and the regulation will be the same

as they move over, with some changes. The regulations will obviously have to fit

in with this act, so that will be a little different than the previous act. The

qualifications are basically the same. However, prior to even this government

becoming government, there were some consultations where the industry asked

government — the previous government and this government — to look at

licence classes and how they could be simplified. There was some agreement with

the industry prior to that. We've incorporated that so that the new regulations

would reflect those discussions. Those discussions have continued on, even in

the last few weeks since the bill has been introduced.

Some of

those descriptions will alter slightly. Overall, looking at the regulations for

the licensing and classifications and qualifications and the description of

facilities, there will be some alteration, but those alterations are being done

in consultation with the industry.

MacPhail: And is the industry the Solicitor General refers to the death care

industry? Is that the industry he's talking about?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Yes.

MacPhail: What steps are being discussed or taken so that the directors must

ensure that health standards are adequately addressed when licences are issued?

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, they have education standards they have to meet as

professionals with regard to embalmers or people operating a facility or

whatever the case may be. They have to achieve those in order to actually be in

the position to do the job. Then how to handle and carry forward, we're carrying

forward all the minimal standards actually with more detail and cooperation with

industry to even clarify a bit more for people what their responsibilities are.

They also

have to meet the regulations under the Workers Compensation Board with regard to

the handling of hazardous materials — embalming liquids, that sort of thing

—with regard to venting and what have you. They're also governed with regard

to those standards.

[1615]

Sections 55

to 57 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 58 is entitled "Application of

Part 10 —

administrative penalties and court proceedings."

Section 58(1) states:

"After giving a person an opportunity to be heard, a director may impose,

in accordance with the regulations, an administrative penalty on the person if

the person contravenes one of the following: (

a) a prescribed provision of this

Act or the regulations; (

b) a condition of a licence; (

c) a condition of a

certificate of public interest; (

d) a compliance

[ Page 9494 ]

order; (

e) an undertaking; (

f) an order of a director under this Act."

In this

section, what does "after giving a person an opportunity to be heard"

mean?

Hon. R.

Coleman: As I understand it, the principles of administrative law would

apply here. They have a right to hear from someone that is impartial as a

principle of administrative law. There could be a situation where it can be

clarified by letter and there's no suspension of licence at all — or a

conversation with the director. Or, if it goes further, there is a principle of

administrative law that is applied to it with regard to that. I've just asked if

we can further clarify that in regulation, and I'm advised that I can clarify

that further for the member. I can actually lay out the process in regulation if

the member thinks that's important.

I do have

an amendment to this

section before we pass it, though, Mr. Chair.

[1620]

MacPhail: Well, let's just go through what principles of administrative law

apply. What avenues exist for appeal for decisions handed down by the authority

right now?

Hon. R.

Coleman: If it's an error in law, it can go to judicial review today or, if

it's a question of process, to the ombudsman. This act actually does, though, in

section 60, anticipate a reconsideration process that would be set up by

regulation through the authority, which does not exist today.

MacPhail: Does that apply to appeals that may want to be had against actions

undertaken by the authority?

Hon. R.

Coleman: As I understand it, the first level of appeal would be to the

decision-makers. Second would be to the internal process that is to be set up by

the authority to be able to handle reconsiderations and appeals. From there, the

error in law would go to the next step, which would be to the courts — to a

judicial review if there's an error in law — or, on a question of process, to

the ombudsman.

Having an

understanding of how it works with regard to some of the other statutory

authorities within my ministry, that seems to be basically the standard

four-step process that we have in other areas — for instance, with liquor

licensing or whatever the case may be.

MacPhail: Well, except that it's…. I mean, liquor licensing is within the

parameter of the government. It's not a special authority that has any

independence. This is a very different model, where there is an authority being

set up that is theoretically independent of government. That's the way the

minister sold it. So who does the authority answer to?

[1625]

Hon. R.

Coleman: Ultimately, the act and the regulations are the responsibility of

government. The minister ultimately has responsibility for the administrative

agreement; so therefore the authority has an ultimate responsibility back to the

minister. The statutory decision-maker, though, is no different, frankly,

whether it be in or out — whether it be at the authority or whether it be at,

for instance, liquor.

They have

an unfettered decision-making process on licensing, for instance, with regard to

the statutory authority at liquor, where they're unfettered as far as any

influence from the minister's office with regard to issuing a licence to a

specific licensee or whatever the case may be. I think it's really important, no

matter where this is, that these people that are given the statutory authority

to do their job are, frankly, at arm's length with the unfettered responsibility

to make their decisions. I think that's an important aspect of any statutory

authority. But ultimately, the act and regulations and any difficulties with the

administrative agreement and its performance come back to government and to the

ministry.

MacPhail: The Liquor Appeal Board, then, is gone. Is that what the minister

is saying? There was a liquor licence appeal board. Is that one of the boards

that he did away with?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I believe that's correct. We looked at a number of these appeal

boards that were really doing no appeals. I think that the appeal on a licensing

issue with regard to liquor is now a judicial issue with the courts, but I will

confirm that for the member.

I move the

amendment to

section 58 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 58, in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting “an

employee,” .]

On the

amendment.

Hon. R.

Coleman: This amendment removes the word "employee" from

subsection (2) so that employees are not subject to administrative penalties in

respect to a contravention committed by the corporation for which they work. A

provision like this one is also found in the Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Act that I've also introduced during this legislation. The word

"employee" is not found in the like provisions of that act either, and

it is needed to be removed here for consistency.

Amendment

approved.

Section 58

as amended approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 59(2) states:

"

(2) Despite the power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council under

section 68…of

this Act" — which is general power to make regulations — "the

administrative authority may set a fee, charge and other amount payable for a

licence or certificate of public interest or

[ Page 9495 ]

under

section 16 (3) (b)…27 (4) (b)…or 51 (3) (b)…of this Act

if the administrative authority is designated as a director and, as director, is

authorized to carry out powers, functions and duties related to the imposition

of the fee, charge or amount payable for that licence or certificate under that

section."

question related to this is: what if a director is appointed by the ministry

under the Public Service Act as specified under

section 175 of Bill 2, the

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act?

[1630]

Hon. R.

Coleman: I just want to make sure we're answering the right question. Is the

member referring to how we would set the fees if the director were to stay in

government? If that's the case, how we would do that is the normal process with

regard to fees in government. It would have to go through a process that's been

established with regard to the setting of fees. The normal procedure would be

followed. Moving forward to the next level, which could be the member's next

question, the authority will have to meet how they do fees by regulation as to

how they're set out in regulation, which would be to try and make sure that

follows a similar procedure.

MacPhail: Well, let me…. We're almost there. I think what I was asking —

what I am asking — is this. There are two ways that a director can be

appointed: either through the Public Service Act, or it's the administrative

authority. This seems to address the setting of fees, etc., only if it's the

administrative authority that's designated as the director. What happens if it's

the Public Service Act director, and the administrative authority is not

appointed as a director?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Let me see if I can get there. If the director stays in government,

the setting of fees for that would be followed under the normal process, because

we have processes in place for government. The intention of the

section is that

if the director is delegated over to the authority, then we need to have the

regulatory process and the clear definition of how they can do fees set out. At

this point in time there would be no procedure there, but there is already an

existing procedure in government. So if it was appointed by the public service

side, we would have them follow the existing procedures. If and when it gets

over to the director there, we feel it's important that we have the

clarification and the regulation to make sure the fee structures are

appropriately handled.

MacPhail: This

section gives the administrative authority the power to set

fees and charges and other amounts payable for a licence or a certificate. Then

the minister is also saying that if there's a director who is appointed under

the Public Service Act, that person follows the current procedures for

establishing fees. What precludes both bodies from setting fees, charges and

amounts payable for a licence — i.e., double-billing?

Hon. R.

Coleman: There is no intention to have two bodies. I mean, the reason we

have introduced all three bills at one time is to get the authority to get this

transition so the authority is up and running.

These

questions sort of always lead me back to…. There's always a transitional phase

where something could happen, I suppose, but the fact of the matter is that

there's no intention whatsoever to have two directors setting fees with regard

to licensing. The intention is to have the authority as the director, and they

will be the ones responsible for that. It's not the intention to have two

authorities where we would ever get to double-dipping.

I get the

member's concern, because I think it's a valid one. I make it clear today that

that is not the intention, and that's not the direction we're going to go.

[1635]

MacPhail: In

section 59(3) the legislation states: "In setting fees,

charges and other amounts under subsection (1), the administrative authority

must comply with a fee setting process that (

a) is established by the

administrative authority, and (

b) is in accordance with criteria that the

minister may establish by regulation." How is the minister going to set up

this fee-setting process? Will it be done by consultation?

Hon. R.

Coleman: We are actually in consultation with industries now with regard to

those key requirements, and as we develop the regulation, we will do that. As we

develop the regulation, there will have to be a proper justification with regard

to any increases in fees or adjustment to fees. Because we want to do this

consultation with industry, it is the intent to keep it to where it's basically

as they've recognized in the past — some cost-of-living issues and what have

you with regard to their fees and operations. It's going to be a key requirement

that within the regulation, a process will be set out where we will work with

the stakeholders to accomplish what they see as fair and what will work for both

sides.

MacPhail: Well, I've had concerns raised through my office about making sure

that operators are included when decisions involve increasing licensing fees —

that's from one group — and also that consumers should be included surrounding

decisions involving increasing licensing fees. So I would urge the minister to

involve, at a minimum, those two groups in the process for establishment of

fees. Will there be any limits to increases in licensing fees?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The authority is not going to have carte blanche in setting fees

for regulating industries. Fees will be set in accordance with a fee-setting

process defined in the minister's regulations. That process is going to include

consultation with industries and consumers. The authority will be required to

show that any change in fees must be justified in terms of the cost of

administrating the specific regulatory schemes.

[ Page 9496 ]

This is a

non-profit operation. It is not intended for it to make profit on fees. It is

intended that it have a fee-setting process that will be done in consultation

with industry and consumers and done in such a way as to make it as cost

effective as possible for all participants.

Sections

59 and 60 approved.

section

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 61 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

[SECTION 61, in the proposed subsection (2) by adding the following

paragraph: (z.1)

section 55 (1) [application of

Part 9 – li cences].]

On the

amendment.

Hon. R.

Coleman: This amendment adds to the list of offences in the act that it is

an offence to act as or hold oneself out as any one of several types of

professions or businesses if that person is not licensed to do so. This is a

standard type of offence and is also found in its companion bill, the Business

Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Amendment

approved.

Section

61 as amended approved.

Sections

62 and 63 approved.

section

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the amendment to

section 64 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

[SECTION 64, in the proposed

section 64 (1) by adding “who is

engaged in the administration of this Act or the regulations and” after “A

person”.]

On the

amendment.

Hon. R.

Coleman: This amendment to

section 64 is a clarification that the

confidentiality provisions in the act apply only to those who administer the

act, not to businesses that may be in possession of personal information of

their customers. We are making this amendment to ensure there is no confusion

about the application of the province's new private sector privacy legislation,

the Personal Information Protection Act, in force since January this year.

[1640]

In short,

this latter legislation applies to personal information held by businesses.

Those who administer the act will also be subject to the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act. This confidentiality provision is consistent with

those found in a number of B.C. statutes and is also consistent with

section 185

of the proposed Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Amendment

approved.

Section

64 as amended approved.

Sections 65

to 67 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move two minor amendments to

section 68 standing in my name on

the orders of the day.

[SECTION 68, in the proposed subsection (2)

(

a) by deleting paragraph (

w) and substituting the following:(

w) respecting the sale of rights of interment and reclamation of previously

sold rights of interment in the place of interment; , and

(

b) in paragraph (

y) by deleting “persons are not married”

and substituting “persons who are not married” .]

On the

amendment.

Hon.

R. Coleman: The first of the amendments is to a

section which sets out the

authority to make regulations and replaces a reference of the sale of lots which

was taken from the current Cemetery and Funeral Services Act with reference to

the sale of right of interment.

The

proposed Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act speaks throughout of

rights of interment, and this more accurately describes what is actually sold.

The second of the amendments to

section 68 corrects what many of us would see as

a typographical error. The word "who" has been inadvertently left out

of the phrase, allowing regulations to be made, clarifying who is captured by

the sense of the word.

Amendment

approved.

Section

68 as amended approved.

Section

69 approved.

section 70.

MacPhail:

Section 70 is the second

section under

part 15, "Transitional

Provisions, Repeals and Consequential Amendments." Perhaps the minister

could work through for us what the transition is from the 1996 act, Cemetery and

Funeral Services Act, to this act. Is it a simultaneous repeal and

implementation of this new act?

Hon.

R. Coleman:

Section 70 is for clarification. It provides that the registrar

ceases to be the registrar on the date the act comes into force. Despite this,

the registrar may finish up any hearings or make decisions on hearings that he

or she had started before the date the act comes into force. Boards of trustees

continue as appointees under the act, and any investigators appointed by the

minister under

section 125 of the former act will be deemed to be an inspector

under the act. I think that's basically the explanation, if that helps.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

[ Page 9497 ]

MacPhail: What is the minister's anticipated date of transition from the old

act to the new act, and is there any conflict resolution dispute mechanism?

Hon. R.

Coleman: As the member knows, having been on this side of the House, giving

dates is sometimes a challenge — to know that it will actually happen. Our

hope is that we would actually move into this operation on July 4 of this year,

once we get the regulations complete. Our regulations will include a conflict

dispute process that we would put in transition.

Sections 70

to 100 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:45 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 3,

Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act, reported complete with

amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. R.

Coleman: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill

3, Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call committee stage on Bill 4.

Committee of the Whole House

BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION AUTHORITY ACT

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon.

R. Coleman: I move that the committee recess for five minutes.

The

Chair: We'll recess for five minutes.

The

committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 5:03 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 1 is

definitions, and it defines authority. This

legislation, Bill 4, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority

Act, is the legislation that implements the other two bills that we've just been

debating, Bills 2 and 3. The authority under this definition means the Business

Practices and Consumer Protection Authority established under

section 2.

Now, this

piece of legislation is very significant because it allows the government, as

I've just said, to create the authority that then is going to administer,

enforce and regulate business practices and consumer protection. In other words,

this is the bill that provides the means for the other bills to be implemented.

I asked the

minister when Bill 3 was going to be implemented, and he said July 4 of this

year — he hoped. When is the authority going to be created?

Hon. R.

Coleman: As in the debate on the previous act, our hope is to have the whole

thing up and running and done by July 4.

MacPhail: Well, is there a particular order? Is the authority created first?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Yes. My understanding is that the authority is created first. It

becomes a legal entity. Then the legal entity basically functions…. By

legislation, the legal entity would be the end of this month, but the actual

operational transition would take place on July 4 or thereabouts, depending on

getting the regulations completed.

[1705]

MacPhail: Okay. Under Bill 2 we discussed that the consumer services branch

function would be replaced in the majority — I hope I'm not putting words in

the minister's mouth — by the new administrative authority, the Business

Practices and Consumer Protection Authority. As I understood it, there would be

a $500,000-per-annum transfer grant made from the government to the new

authority and the consumer services budget would be reduced by that amount and

more. Would the minister just run through those figures again for how the new

authority is being paid by this government and how the budget is being reduced

for the consumer services branch?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Just for the member, the two-year, $500,000-per-annum loan

guaranteed by the government with regard to what the authority may need —

which is $1.5 million if they need to draw down — and the transfer of all fees

that are presently collected by the branch go to the authority versus to general

revenue.

MacPhail: Okay. That leaves a substantial…. I think the minister said the

budget now for consumer services branch is over $2 million, so that's still a

substantial budget that remains with the consumer services branch as far as I

can tell. I can't actually get clearly from the minister what the consumer

services

[ Page 9498 ]

branch budget is going to be after this. He's told me what the authority

budget will be. What is the budget for the consumer services branch, and what

will their functions be?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The budget for the branch will go down from $2.5 million this year

to $1.5 million next year, to $0.6 million the following year, down to $100,000

a year after that. The $100,000 is for the oversight of the authority. The

ultimate savings, if you use today's figures with regard to what comes into

government and what goes out for government, would be approximately $1.5

million, which we would save in year three.

MacPhail: Okay. In year three the government is admitting to an actual net

savings of $1.5 million. Is the minister somehow suggesting either that the

consumer services branch was operating inefficiently, which I doubt, or that the

consumers themselves will have to make up for that amount of money in increased

fees for the work that's now being done by the authority, which was previously

done by the consumer services branch?

[1710]

Hon. R.

Coleman: I would not say that my consumer protection branch is inefficient.

They have, however, had to live in an environment where there are a number of

different pieces of statutes with different types of enforcement procedures that

are applicable to different things. I would suggest that administratively and on

the enforcement side, we have not had the efficiencies there. Now, that was

identified by the branch to me when I became minister, which led to this process

of trying to move towards this type of a model.

As we move

forward over the period of the next number of years, obviously those economies

of scale are going to be of value to the new operating authority. In addition to

that, as we move forward with things like telemarketers and other operators that

should be licensed with regard to things in the province of British Columbia,

those licence fees would then go to the authority as well. We think that in

bringing those new industries in, along with the economies of scale, we will

actually improve consumer protection, because the consumer protection and

enforcement side is going to be the same for all consumer issues in the

province, rather than trying to dig through a particular statute or a different

statute or something over here or some regulation over here with regard to

enforcement on consumer transactions.

That's how

we intend to make this transition.

MacPhail: Well, I, along with other consumer groups, will be watching very

carefully to see whether this government is downloading $1.5 million of costs

onto consumers that they previously had the services of through their regular

taxation. It will be very interesting to see whether the cost to the consumer

rises and yet their taxes stay exactly the same. Previously they would have got

the services of the consumer services branch through their progressive tax

system — less progressive under this government. Now the government will save

$1.5 million, and this new authority has the ability to charge fees and

licences. I expect that given the track record of this government, that will

mean the consumer will be paying more for less.

Now, I have

heard from people since we discussed consultation last, and I am also reminded

of some feedback from people, particularly in relation to the implementation of

this administrative authority. Let me read that.

John Chasca,

the president of the Family Funeral Home Association of B.C., has expressed

concerns about the consultation undertaken by the ministry. He said that the

legislation that's in place already works well — hence the concern about why

the government is tinkering with this legislation. He questions whether the new

legislation will do anything to help the industry or the consumer. Or is it just

off-loading, downloading by the government?

Now, Mr.

Chasca's point of view is shared by Gordon Allert of the Funeral Service

Association of B.C. and Stephen Olson of the Cemetery and Crematorium

Association of B.C. They actually wrote to the Solicitor General, voicing their

concerns. Then they met with the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General, the staff, to discuss the legislation. They then wrote to the ministry

with their concerns.

Following

the meeting — and it's the meeting they had after the legislation was

introduced and after they had the meeting with the staff of the Ministry of

Public Safety and Solicitor General — they wrote this:

"Following

the meeting, we had an opportunity to quickly review the information covered in

the meeting. Every member of the committee expressed tremendous concern about

the lack of real consultation on the legislative content and reorganization and

strong trepidation for the potential impacts of the proposed administrative

authority. From our discussion it is very clear that considerable portions of

the new acts and omissions and their impacts,

interpretations and intentions

have not been fully considered and deliberated."

This

group then goes on to say:

"Further,

we must go on to say that nothing we heard in our afternoon session relating to

the new Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act or its related governance

and administration model alleviated any of our concerns about these proposals.

In fact, our committee members left the meeting more concerned than ever."

That was after the legislation had been introduced and after they met

with the ministry. What is the minister or his staff doing to alleviate the

concerns of these organizations?

[1715]

Hon. R.

Coleman: Those groups are now meeting with staff to work on the licensing

and general regulations with regard to it, and those meetings, I understand, are

actually going quite well. The opposition seems to be primarily coming out of

Ontario. B.C. people have actually been at the table, and my understanding is

that they've had some pretty good meetings with staff. Subsequent to the

legislation, we've actually

[ Page 9499 ]

heard from some of them, who have phoned and frankly expressed their

apologies with regard to their opposition, because they see now that the

improvement of the enforcement side — which they've been asking for, for a

year — will be more streamlined by putting this in one place. My understanding

is that all of those consultations will continue through the regulation and the

licensing, general policies and regulations, and that we actually have a pretty

good relationship going forward with these groups.

MacPhail: Okay. If that's the case, perhaps the minister could tell me when

the meetings have occurred where things are going swimmingly. I mean, I'll stop

asking questions if he can name the people who are happy now.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I am going to get you the list. Unfortunately, I don't have it

here. Basically, those that are involved in the death industry had been meeting

with the ministry over the last three to four weeks, at least a couple of times,

with regard to regulations. They feel those meetings are going well, as I

understand it. I will make sure the member has that information so she can

confirm that.

Basically,

in many cases it is the committee or the legislative side of committee of these

organizations that meets with regard to regulation. We've also had good meetings

with other people that are affected by this legislation in the last little

while. Obviously, I'm not in those meetings, but my understanding is that things

are going quite well.

I will get

the member the list of those folks that we've been meeting with to make sure it

covers the bases for her.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I want to correct the record that Mr. Chasca, president

of the Family Funeral Home Association of B.C., met with the ministry staff

before the legislation was introduced but made his comments after seeing the

legislation about still being unhappy and, of course, has since reiterated those

comments that I have been privy to.

[1720]

Now, the

minister says everybody is happy. I was going to sit down and not comment about

consultation anymore if he'd name names. But because others here in British

Columbia have expressed concern, not just death care providers…. They are not

the only ones who are upset about not being properly consulted.

The Better

Business Bureau of British Columbia, who have a mandate to promote fairness and

honesty in the workplace, claim they were not properly consulted. The Better

Business Bureau is concerned, and still remains concerned, that more people will

be coming to them with complaints and concerns now that the government is

getting out of the business of protecting consumers and businesses. I was hoping

the minister would say: "Oh well, we've met with the Better Business

Bureau, and they're fine too."

The

Consumers Association of Canada claim that they still have concerns. Bruce Cran

is still mighty concerned about the legislation. During second reading the

Solicitor General said the authority will "promote fairness and

understanding in the marketplace." I've only heard from people who are

consumers or represent consumers, and they're telling us that the process is not

one of fairness and understanding. In fact, the Canadian Bankers Association

says the same thing.

Let me ask

this: where can we find out about these emerging meetings that seem to be going

so swimmingly? Are the results of them posted on the website that consumers can

follow?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I guess you could say that people don't like change, to start with.

You could say that maybe some industry groups out there are concerned because

this legislation actually gives better and more effective enforcement provisions

so that we can actually protect consumers better, because it's not as confusing

as it is out there today. We can still step in, as government, if there are any

problems because of the way we have it structured.

Those

consultations I'm referring to.… I said to the hon. member that I would get

you the information on those consultations. I do know, from my understanding,

that the Better Business Bureau was sent the information in advance like

everybody else was, because they were one of the consumer bodies. They didn't

make any submissions with regard to the legislation. I'm sure if they understood

that there's going to be better consumer protection and better enforcement and

more effective enforcement and better understanding as to how we're going to

protect people in contracts that would hurt them within business, they would be

supportive of this. I will undertake to make sure that we include the Better

Business Bureau in our discussions with regard to the development of the

regulations.

I know the

folks in the ministry have worked hours and hours and consulted with people and

tried to meet them with regard to their concerns as best they can as they've

walked through this. As that's done, they've been building a relationship with

groups who may have at some point in time had some concerns. We're trying to

work through those concerns and at the same time find the solutions to their

concerns to make sure, in the envelope, that we are actually working towards

more effective enforcement and better consumer protection.

[1725]

MacPhail: Okay, except that I'm sure the Solicitor General knows that one

has to put one's money where one's mouth is, so his declaration that this

legislation is better probably won't cut it these days.

How are

people, ordinary consumers or groups, finding out how one is developing the

legislation or the implementation of this legislation through these consultation

meetings that the ministry staff is having? Is that information posted on the

website where people can comment upon it?

[ Page 9500 ]

Hon. R.

Coleman: There was consultation going into the legislation. The legislation

was done. It's brought before the House. There's consultation now on the

regulations, the development of those regulations and how they can move forward.

At the same time, this legislation actually allows for tougher penalties for

those people that want to actually defraud or hurt the consumers of British

Columbia. It allows for administrative penalties that can come from enforcement

actions. They get to keep the penalties from the enforcement actions and put

them into a consumer enhancement fund so they can actually do education and

enhance consumer protection as we move forward.

Basically,

it means that this body will actually be able to keep its revenues and do its

job without having concerns that somebody else will come along and say: "We

want your fees or your administrative penalties or your enforcement action funds

to come into general revenue or somewhere else." In actual fact, they can

build the administrative, the enforcement function, the administrative penalty

function and the tougher penalties and enforcement side of this thing long term

for the benefit of consumers in B.C.

Sections

1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MacPhail: I must say I'm terribly confused about this section, and it could

be I'm just not reading it properly.

Part 3, "Governance of

Authority," "Appointment of directors" says:

"6(1) The

board of directors is to consist of up to 9 directors appointed as follows: (

a) the minister may appoint one director; (

b) the directors may appoint other

directors, to a maximum of 9 directors on the board, from among eligible

candidates recommended under

section 7; (

c) the directors may appoint any

director, other than a director appointed under paragraph (a), as the chair of

the board."

That's how the directors get appointed. Okay. It looks like to me….

Is this a cascading appointment system? How do you move from one director being

appointed under (

a) to the directors listed under (b)? Who appoints them?

Hon. R.

Coleman: To answer this question, I'm going to bounce between

section 6 and

section 32. Basically, the minister appoints one director, but the minister also

appoints the chair. The chair of the initial board must appoint two other

directors from a list of candidates selected on the principle of merit using a

process designed to appraise knowledge, skills and abilities of candidates and

may set their terms of office. Then they actually pick the board of the

authority.

[1730]

MacPhail: Okay. I'm not understanding this at all. The minister is about to

set up the authority. Tell me how he's going to do that. Just what's the

process? How does it get started?

Hon. R.

Coleman: This is how I understand it happens. The minister appoints the

chair. The chair then selects and appoints two other members to the board. They

then hire the CEO. They have to go through a process with regard to a nomination

process for the balance of the board. In

section 7 we identify how that

committee must prepare the list of qualified nominees to fill the vacancies. The

first two appointees to the board that are made by the chair have a term not to

exceed one year, and the term of the chair — the chair's term of appointment

— is established by the minister, I guess, through order-in-council when we

appoint the chair.

MacPhail: Okay. Well, Mr. Chair,

section 6(1)(

c) says that "the

directors may appoint any director, other than a director appointed under

paragraph (a), as the chair of the board." Paragraph (

a) is the minister's

one director that he or she gets to appoint.

So tell me

again: where do we get the chair? Just point out to me in the legislation where

it says how we even get enough directors to nominate a chair.

Section 7 says:

"The board must appoint a nominating committee from among its

members." I can't get the board started. That's my problem under this

legislation.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Let me see if we can get through this. Let's move away from

section

6 for just a second and go to the transitional provisions in

part 8, which we

can discuss when we get there, but I may as well tie them back together.

Part 8,

section 32(1):

"Despite

section 6, the minister may establish the initial board of the authority by

appointing the chair of the initial board and setting the terms of office and

the initial remuneration for the chair.

"

(2) The chair of the initial board must appoint 2 other directors from a list

of candidates selected on the principle of merit using a process designed to

appraise the knowledge, skills and abilities of candidates, and may set their

terms of office and initial remuneration."

[1735]

Try and

think of this as two processes. The first process is the appointment of the

initial chair and the board, who will then go on and take care of setting up the

operation. Then the second is the governance of the authority, which is the next

level. It basically is the next level where we actually appoint a director to

the board, of the nine that are there. That

section says the person that we

appoint cannot be, other than a director appointed under paragraph…. Okay —

any director. It means the director that's appointed by government cannot be the

chair, in the second phase.

So the

first phase is we do a chair who then selects two people to be on the board,

based on merit. Then there is the next transition, which is the final board,

which is a board of directors that consists of up to nine directors. That one

takes place as described in

section 6. Does that help?

MacPhail: Yes, thank you. So really, the first board is all going to be

government appointed, because I assume that the government selects the chair of

the

[ Page 9501 ]

initial board pursuant to

section 32, and then the chair has to appoint two

directors from a list of candidates selected on the principle of merit. I assume

that list is given to the chair by government. Am I right?

Hon. R.

Coleman: That's up to the chair. The chair can advertise for those

appointees. I guess they could contact board resourcing to see if there are

individuals out there that might, through merit, meet the qualifications of

somebody who could sit on the board, but it's not the intention that we would be

appointing the other two members of the board.

MacPhail: So the chair of the board, who is appointed by the government

pursuant to

section 32, gets to determine his or her view of what the principle

of merit is, what the remuneration is and what the term of office is? That's

being left up to the chair of the board? No wonder the associations are

concerned about this. What's the limit on the time of their original term of

office? I don't see any limit on that.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Obviously, the remuneration of the board is going to be set out by

regulation and that sort of thing as we go forward. But under

section 30, and we

may deal with that in a second in more detail….

The powers

and the duties under the initial board are set out under

section 33. It says:

"If the initial board appoints any of its members to the board, those

persons may be appointed for a term of only one year." There is a term

appointment time, so these people can't be sat there. That's why the transition

provisions are set out, so we can actually transition the board to having a

board that is reflective of people with the skill sets and the people that are

in the industries who are affected with regard to this legislation and this

authority.

You do have

to have a transition plan, and that transition plan includes how you get the

first board, how long they can stay. They can only stay a year, and then the CEO

is obviously hired by those folks. There's a board put into place, there's a

business model that's required, and that's why there are transition plans for

business cases and stuff like that.

[1740]

MacPhail: So the first board, the initial board, cannot be in office for any

longer than one year. Can they be appointed to the permanent board pursuant to

section 6?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I don't want to mislead the member, so I want to go back over this,

because what I was advised may not exactly work out to be definitively true.

The first

chair appoints the two other directors from the list of candidates selected, as

I said, on the merit side. He sets their terms of office. If those people are

appointed to the next board, they can only serve an additional year on that

board. Let's say they were serving for six months, and then the new board was

appointed and they happened to be appointed to that board. They would only be

allowed to be appointed for a term of one year to that board. The thinking is

that it would allow for the people from the transitional board to be there for,

basically, the continuity of some expertise that's been built as the transition

is made.

What I said

to the member is that they could only serve a year. I was mistaken with regard

to how that

section was explained to me. The term of office is set by the

initial chair. The new board is appointed. If they happen to be appointed to the

new board, they would have only one year that they could serve.

The initial

chair…. Our expectation is that the term of office would be that they would

serve until such time as the nine-person board is up and running, and if they

happen to go through a process and get selected to that board, they can only

serve for a term of one year.

MacPhail: Thank you for that new

interpretation, which is one that I read on

the face of the legislation.

My initial

point was that the initial board appointments, pursuant to 32, have no time

limit on them. The initial board, which is government-appointed, can be there

forever. In fact, it says that the time limits under 6(3) that apply to the

permanent board don't apply to the initial board. What's the government's

intention there?

[1745]

Hon. R.

Coleman: In theory, the member is right. I guess the board could sit there

indefinitely because of the way we've structured it. The reason it's structured

that way, however, is that our intention is that the board is not there any

longer than a maximum of probably no more than two years. In the first year, as

we do the transition, they build towards the next board. My expectation is

they'd have it done a lot sooner and that as soon as the transition is done —

that's why it's open-ended — we want that new board in place.

It's not

our intention, nor is it our…. We will find a way to make sure that our

intentions are dealt with, I guess. It's not, as the member describes, that they

have the board sit there ad infinitum. It's to give them the ability to

transition the knowledge and base that's been there into the new board. If they

decide to select a couple of those people to sit on the new board, they can only

be there a year, and they have to be gone.

As we

appoint the board, we have a number of concerns, as with any board, and that is

to make sure we have staggered appointments, so we don't lose all the knowledge

of the board in one swoop in one particular year. We would be applying the

three-year appointment-type process that is the standard in Crowns — what we

do today — and try and stagger the appointments so that there would be that

transition. That's something they will have to do.

For the

member opposite, though, I think the undertaking in these debates, so that

everybody will understand, is that the transition is to take as soon as

[ Page 9502 ]

practicable. Given some of the issues as we go through selection with

industry groups — who may want to have different appointees versus somebody

else and may want to actually do a selection process and recommend — that

shouldn't take more than a year, but no more than a maximum of two.

MacPhail: Well, again, I guess we have to take the minister's word for it,

and of course, who knows how long he'll be the Solicitor General. It's a year

away from the election.

Frankly,

there is no legislated time limit on this initial board. That was why I was

raising those questions about what avenue of appeal of the decisions of the

board are available — I guess judicial review.

If we have

an initial board appointed, which the minister admits will be for two years, but

there's no guarantee that it won't be for longer, and the avenue of appeal is a

judicial review or to the ombudsman — who of course has had his funds cut like

crazy; he can't carry out his mandate now — then I guess people have a right

to be concerned about the work of this authority.

How is the

minister going to go about choosing the chair of this initial board?

[1750]

Hon. R.

Coleman: We're designating the board. The board delegates the authority to

the CEO, who then has staff who do the licensing and regulatory stuff. The board

is actually not the day-to-day operator with regard to the delegated authority;

the director would be. That is the CEO, who then has the ability — as I

explained earlier in the other bill — to give authorities on licensing to

employees and that sort of thing.

MacPhail: Yes, thank you for that information. My question was: how is the

minister going to go about appointing the chair of the initial board? Is it

going to be like a Doug Walls — the interim CEO of that authority?

Hon. R.

Coleman: We're actually going through board resourcing for people who

will…. We're looking for someone that has the previous regulatory experience,

who has a résumé that would fit the position. It's being done on the basis

that we're asking for recommendations with regard to the people we have in board

resourcing, as we advertise on a regular basis. It will not be made based on a

political decision. It will be made based on the qualifications of the

individual.

MacPhail: I guess that's why I asked what was the process of merit that this

government is going to use. Is the minister saying the merit that will be

applied to choosing the chair of the initial board will be as per merit

principles outlined in their agencies, boards and commissions office?

Hon. R.

Coleman: That is my understanding. That's how we're approaching this — the

merit information with regard to board resourcing.

I actually

have responsibility for two Crown corporations, and I think that process worked

pretty well with the people who were selected to those boards. My anticipation

would be that we would look for somebody of the levels of calibre that I have on

those Crowns, through board resourcing and application and résumés, to make

the decision and then bring it forward to appoint the chair.

MacPhail: What two Crown corporations is the minister holding up as an

example?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Well, I'm responsible for the Insurance Corporation of B.C., as the

member knows, and also the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

MacPhail: That's interesting. Nick Geer, the chair of ICBC, didn't go

through that process, so I don't know what the minister is talking about.

Noting the

hour, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee recess until 6:30.

The

Chair: Committee stands recessed until 6:35 p.m.

The

committee recessed from 5:53 p.m. to 6:38 p.m.

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

section

6 (continued) .

MacPhail: We were talking about how the board is going to be appointed, the

transition from the initial board appointment — which are sections 32 and 33

of the legislation — versus the process under sections 6 and 7 of the

permanent board appointment process. The minister left us with his commitment

about a sterling open and accountable process for appointing the initial board

chair. When will the minister be engaging in this process of appointing the

initial board chair?

Hon. R.

Coleman: We will get into the process of appointing that chair immediately

when the legislation is passed. There have been some people's names that I

understand have been put forward, which are being assessed. We would be moving

on that as soon as the legislation is passed to try and expedite the process, as

best we can, while trying to find the individual that we're looking for.

[1840]

MacPhail: Maybe the minister could tell me what qualifications he sees as

meeting the test of merit. Will the person be required to have experience in

part of the industry which the board will be regulating?

Hon. R.

Coleman: What I'd be looking for if I were appointing a chair would be

experience in areas like regulatory experience and board management and

resourcing and development — the ability to, frankly, have a history of

working with a variety of groups; the

[ Page 9503 ]

ability to work and build consensus with people, to work through issues.

Obviously, some strong policy-making skills will be an advantage in the position

— and certainly the management skills to be able to manage an enterprise like

this. We're going to be looking for a significantly broad set of qualifications

in the individual, because I think it's important that we do that. That's why we

will use a board resourcing process to do that, simply because I would suspect

we will get a number of résumés that would need to be short-listed down to be

able to have a look at them.

MacPhail: What is the remuneration that the minister expects the board to be

paid — chair and directors?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The remuneration would be set by the minister during the

appointment process by order-in-council. Basically, we're going to look at it

from the standpoint of what we're doing with other authorities like the Safety

Authority, the Motor Dealer Council and that sort of thing to see what would be

appropriate for us to attract the applicable individual. We will do that,

frankly, on the recommendations of the board resourcing office and

recommendations that'll be made by staff on options which will go forward to

cabinet for approval.

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could give us a range of what he's thinking

about based on the experience in these other areas. Is the chair full-time?

What's the anticipated commitment from directors, for instance, as well?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I understand there's a possible range of between $500 and $700 a

day. It is not a full-time position. We anticipate that the chair, in the first

year, would have about 20 meeting days per year, and the members of the board

would have ten to 15 meeting days per year.

Section 6

approved.

On

section

[1845]

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could just, one more time, tell us about this

nominating committee. The nominating committee clearly must come from…. Or is

this the nominating committee that will exist after the permanent board is

established pursuant to

section 6?

Hon. R.

Coleman: This process is for the first nine-member board after the first

three-person board is established. It is to establish a transparent, merit-based

nominating process. The nominating committee comprises a subset of the board and

will be responsible for preparing a list of qualified individuals to fill board

vacancies. In preparing a list of nominees, the nominating committee will base

their selection on the principle of merit and must use a process designed to

appraise the knowledge, skills and abilities of the nominees. The nominating

process de-emphasizes the importance of industry representation on the board and

focuses on selecting candidates most qualified to lead the corporation. The

board can only appoint from the list of candidates prepared by the nominating

committee.

MacPhail: Why are the initial board appointments exempt from

section 7?

Hon. R.

Coleman: On the first phase, which is the phase we talked about earlier with

the three-person board, there isn't anybody on a board to actually start up a

nominating committee — so that's why. They have to pick the other two

directors based on skill sets. That group then goes forward and establishes the

nominating process to do the permanent board.

MacPhail: It does seem to me that the initial board appointments…. There

are two other directors from a list of candidates. That's what

section 7 talks

about. I mean, the government is exempting the initial board from all of

section

7. I have to admit that the initial board appointments being so controlled by

government, and with an undetermined term, raise suspicions about just how

independent this authority is going to be. What was the thinking behind saying

that

section 7 shouldn't apply, given the fact that the board can exist for

years?

[1850]

Hon. R.

Coleman: The reason, like I said, is that we're only appointing the chair.

We're not appointing the next two directors. They're going to be selected by

using, as outlined in

section 32, the principles of merit and knowledge, skills

and abilities of candidates.

In addition

to that, there is a process, frankly, that goes outside with regard to how the

auditor general w