2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 4

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

TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: In Committee A, I call continued estimates of the Ministry of Health, and in this chamber, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 20.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On the subamendment to section 21.1 (continued).

Subamendment negatived.

Amendment approved.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:37 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 20 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 20, Election Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete with amendments.

Madame Speaker: When will the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Polak: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

A. Weaver: It is with a mix of frustration and desperation that I rise to table a hoist amendment of this Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act. The hoist amendment is this:

[I move that the motion for third reading on Bill 20, The Election Amendment Act be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting the words “6 months hence”.]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the member was on his feet, and I apologize.

Please proceed.

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: I feel that this bill is fundamentally at odds with what is in British Columbia’s best interest. We’ve seen amendments brought in at the last possible moment to address concerns of the Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner’s concerns have been public knowledge for over a month. Yet the government’s amendments are circulated the day before the final debate on this bill is due to take place, preventing a proper view of the proposed changes.

[1340]

The Privacy Commissioner first wrote a letter to government regarding Bill 20 on April 13, 2015, expressing serious concerns with aspects of this bill, and urged the government to withdraw sections which amended section 51(2) of the Election Act. These provisions would give political parties the ability to receive information on who voted at the end of an election.

Her concerns were related to how this information would be used, especially since making the information available after the election runs contrary to the government’s stated purpose that this information was to be used for getting out the vote. Far from providing new tools for political parties to increase voter turnout, in my view, there are legitimate concerns that provisions in this legislation could be used to do the opposite.

The members of the official opposition have spoken at great length during committee stage about the importance of our democratic reform and the need to reinvigorate our democracy.

Over the course of this session, for example, as well, they’ve introduced the Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2015; the Legislative Standing Committee Reform Act, 2015; the Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act, 2015; the Youth Voter Registration Act, 2015; the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2015; the Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2015; the Open Government Act, 2015; the Lobbyist Registry Reform Act, 2015; the Electronic
[ Page 8738 ]
Petitions Act, 2015; the Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2015; and the Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2015.

According to the members who tabled these bills, each is intended in one way or another to help enhance our democracy by, for instance, improving how we finance our elections, hold our governments accountable and engage British Columbians. Over the course of the debates on Bill 20, carried through to committee stage, the members of the official opposition have raised several concerns.

I would like to take a moment to dial in on one in particular, because it is of the utmost importance for the point I am about to make. The members of the official opposition have spoken substantially about the declining voter turnout that we have seen over the past several decades. To quote the member for Vancouver-Fairview: “When many of us were growing up, it was not uncommon to see voter turnouts in the 70s and 80s. When we now see voter turnouts of 54 percent called an increase in voter turnout, we should be alarmed.”

Similarly, to quote the member for Port Coquitlam: “I think all of us in this chamber — and in fact, people outside this chamber — have expressed concern about the decline in voter participation over the last few decades. There’s a constant desire to look at how we can increase voter turnout and how we can encourage voter turnout.” They are not alone. Almost every opposition speaker who stood up to speak to this bill and who raised questions during committee stage spoke about this concern.

One of the key solutions that members of the official opposition proposed was to register youth as voters as early as 16. This came up several times, both through official opposition questioning and my own questioning to the minister during committee stage. I, of course, have been actively promoting this idea also for quite some time. However, I think there’s an important point here. The members who spoke in favour of this solution also generally recognized that on its own, it’s not enough. It’s certainly a step in the right direction, but increasing voter turnout requires much more. It requires giving voters something to vote for.

In fact, the three ridings with the highest voter turnout in the 2013 provincial election were, one, Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the riding that I represent; two, Saanich North and the Islands, the riding that the member behind me here represents, and a riding that my colleague Adam Olsen ran in, in a very close three-way race; and third, the riding of Delta South, where 68 percent voter turnout existed. The member is just to my left here, sitting off camera. I welcome the member for Delta South.

What these three ridings have in common is that all of them had a strong, credible and viable third candidate who inspired people to get out to the polls, who gave them something to vote for, as opposed to vote against, traditional in our vote-splitting arguments.

This brings me to the point at hand. In its current form, Bill 20 would make a significant change to laws surrounding the voter list. This came out time and time again during questioning in the committee stage. Time and time again, it appeared that this bill had not been thought out to the level of detail that we had expected for a bill like this to be brought before us. This bill would give political parties and any candidates access to information about who votes and who does not vote.

The opposition has spoken about the privacy concerns surrounding this change. They have, as I have, highlighted the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner.

[1345]

In fact, the member for Saanich North and the Islands quoted the Privacy Commissioner specifically by saying this: “There must be clear limits on the use and disclosure of this personal information by political parties. For example, permitted uses of this information for ‘electoral purposes’ as set out in section 275 of the Election Act should be clearly defined, and political parties should be prohibited from using the information for commercial purposes or disclosing this information to any other organization or public body.”

During questioning during committee stage we were certainly unsatisfied that the steps have been taken to ensure that this would be the case. Now, while I agree with these concerns, I believe that both government and the official opposition have missed a key point. There has been no consultation about whether a political party or candidate should even have the right to know if somebody has voted or not. Until such a time that that question is actually asked and discussed, in my view, the information is the purview of the voter and the Chief Electoral Officer and no one else.

Putting aside the questions of privacy that I’ll discuss a little later, I want to turn to a separate issue that is the core of the government’s stated purpose of bringing this bill forward — voter turnout, a statement that we explored in great detail during committee stage. We’ve seen very clearly from other jurisdictions where voter turnout information is already available that more often than not, it’s used to slice and dice voter lists so that political parties can get more bang for their buck.

They do this by focusing more of their resources on targeting people who have a tendency to vote, because they know, as we do, that one of the biggest indicators and predictors of whether or not a person will vote in the next election is if they voted in the last election — a question I explored in some detail during committee stage. Contrary to all of the talking points about how this change will help increase voter turnout, the evidence shows quite clearly that it will actually support political parties to focus more than ever on the subset of registered voters who actually vote.

Non-voters will run the risk of being neglected, as parties focus their limited resources on those people deemed
[ Page 8739 ]
most likely to be worth the investment. This isn’t idle speculation. It’s found in study after study into how political parties in North America compete in elections. This is especially relevant in our first-past-the-post system where, rather than seeking a majority, parties only need to seek a plurality of voters, greatly reducing the number of voter contacts some parties feel are necessary to win.

It goes even further. Once parties know who actually votes, they can then layer their own support data on top of this and ascertain who their opponents’ supporters likely are. We saw this very clearly in the last election. In fact, we see this in almost every election — the use of tactics that border on voter suppression, in trying to convince your opponents’ supporters to stay home and not vote.

We saw this when the B.C. NDP phoned voters in my riding telling them that if they voted for me, they would split the vote and elect a Liberal, despite no evidence at all to back up that claim. We saw the same message when Liberals blanketed B.C. with messaging designed to undermine voters’ confidence in the NDP so that those voters who would never vote Liberal would perhaps be less motivated to vote at all.

In second reading of this bill, and explored further at the committee stage, the Minister of Justice dismissed suggestions that parties might use this information to “essentially badger non-voters through repeated and unwanted communications” by saying: “…why would a party do that? The goal for any political party is to gain voter support. The last thing you want to do is to alienate voters through unwanted contact.” Oh, the naivety of the minister for quoting such fine, fine words that I obviously agree with. But in practice, they do not play out, as the evidence I showed before suggests.

It’s clearly seen in the above two examples. This claim that political parties would never act in abusive ways is simply not borne out by the evidence. A more publicized example, of course, is the robocall scandal in the last federal election. In this instance, supporters of certain parties were called and told that their polling had changed. The caller purported to be from Elections Canada but was in fact a partisan attempt to suppress votes from other parties.

Now, the relevance of that, of course, is that, as I raised in committee stage, the sections that were being brought into the Election Act here in British Columbia mirror those sections that were brought into the Elections Act federally as an attempt to actually find ways, I would argue, to skirt around the election financing requirements that were brought in by successive governments federally. We’re seeing the trend here as well. That was clearly evident from the questioning during committee stage.

[1350]

By giving political parties and candidates access to the voters list, including information on who voted, we will be allowing those parties to run more targeted and effective voter suppression campaigns. No longer will they need to waste resources blanketing a riding or an entire voters list. Now they would be able to target just that subset of voters that they know for a fact are more likely to vote, and they can throw even more resources at them, thanks to the savings they receive from not spending resources on non-voters.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This change is not about increasing voter turnout or reinvigorating our democracy. If the members of this House truly care about this goal, they will agree with me that we need more time to consider the changes we are about to make so that we can find other ways to truly increase voter turnout. For example, we could read again the report provided in the fall of last year from the Chief Electoral Officer, which clearly outlined his top two priorities: (1) voter registration of youth at the ages of 16 and 17; and (2) introducing, on a trial basis, innovative ways of actually conducting election voting.

The member for Vancouver-Langara also rose courageously in this House to speak against the provisions of the act that she feels “do not improve our democracy and do not improve our ability to increase voter turnout nor produce better oversight of election results.” This is not a common occurrence to see a government MLA speak out against a piece of legislation, and I believe it demonstrates the seriousness of what we are considering here.

The member laid out an elegant critique of these provisions. “I stand to speak out,” she said, “against these changes because I know that they do not have anything to do with improving voter turnout or improving our democracy. Quite simply, these changes are in the interests of political parties, not in the interest of individual British Columbian voters.”

The member for Vancouver-Langara talked to her constituents, listened to her constituents and recognized that her constituents did not support this bill. I wonder if others in this House, on that side of the House, have done the same.

There are a lot of ways to improve voter turnout, and the member noted that these don’t involve violating people’s privacy. The member went out and talked to the constituents, as I said. She discussed it with them. Again, to quote from her speech: “Voters do not want political parties to have more information about them, including whether or not they voted. When asked, people mistrust political parties and politicians and believe, in the majority, that political parties, if they could, would manipulate election results.”

Wow. Is that not a testament to the reason why voter turnout is actually declining — the increased lack of trust, the increased belief by people that politicians are not trustworthy, that if they could, they would manipulate election results? This is why the member for Vancouver-
[ Page 8740 ]
Langara spoke out against it, and it’s why I have spoken out against it. It’s why the member for Delta South has spoken out against it. It’s why the members in the official opposition have spoken out against it.

The member for Vancouver-Langara’s concern was that this change would only make people more cynical, more guarded and more skeptical about their relationship with politics. It was not the commercial uses that worried her constituents but the use of the information for targeted political pressure.

I would not for one moment presume to know whether the member for Vancouver-Langara feels that the government’s last-minute amendments address her concerns. What I do know is that I listened closely to her speech and found myself sharing many of her original concerns, and these last-minute amendments that we discussed and explored in committee stage only amplified my concerns for the political occurrence of abuse.

Despite claiming that these amendments address the Privacy Commissioner’s concerns, the Minister of Justice “did not feel it was necessary” to run the amendments past the Privacy Commissioner when asked if she had consulted with the office. This has as much to do with the content of the amendments as the manner in which they have been introduced into the Legislature. They have been slipped in at the last possible moment.

Before the break, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner issued a statement on these amendments. While acknowledging that an attempt had been made to address her office’s concerns, I reiterate that in her original letter she commented that the best course of action would be to withdraw the provisions of this bill related to providing voter turnout information.

As I stated earlier today, I do not think this is a thoughtful manner for government to propose amendments to legislation, especially when it concerns fundamental issues of privacy. I feel that this is a clumsy attempt to put political interests ahead of what is best for British Columbians.

[1355]

It’s in our own best interests to postpone this debate and gather the necessary information from the public, those who are affected, and from a variety of experts, those who have explored other jurisdictions, before proceeding with this bill.

I now wish to turn to addressing a secondary concern of this bill that was revealed extensively during committee stage and why I believe it’s in our best interest to hoist it.

The debate has so far centred primarily around what the government’s stated intentions are with this information — namely, the claim that these provisions are to facilitate “get out the vote” efforts. There is, of course, another area of concern: privacy.

In order to properly evaluate the privacy concerns that exist within this bill, I think it’s important that we understand how British Columbians feel about their privacy and whether political parties are acting responsibly to those concerns. Through thorough questioning at committee stage, it became clear to me that government has not sought input from British Columbians.

Let me give you such input. In the 2014 Survey of Canadians on Privacy, a report that was prepared for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, nine in ten Canadians expressed some level of concern about the protection of their privacy, with 34 percent saying they are “extremely concerned.” This is an increase from 25 percent in 2012.

Furthermore, 73 percent of Canadians, the largest proportion since tracking began, feel that they have “less protection of their personal information in their daily lives than they did ten years ago.” A third statistic that is relevant to this debate: 56 percent do not feel they have sufficient knowledge about how new technologies affect their personal privacy.

This is the context in which we must evaluate Bill 20, as explored in detail through committee stage — a massive majority feeling they have less control over their personal information, a growing number of people expressing serious concerns about their level of protection and a majority feeling they do not possess sufficient knowledge to evaluate how new technology affects their privacy.

What’s fascinating is that this study found that those people with low knowledge tended to be highly concerned, compared to 16 percent who were unconcerned. That is, the highly concerned percentage was 33 percent, compared to 16 percent who were unconcerned. However, gaining knowledge about the privacy implications did not make these people less concerned. Those with knowledge still were overwhelmingly “highly concerned” — that’s 26 percent — as opposed to being unconcerned, 6 percent.

Within this larger Canadian study, British Columbians as a group were the least informed about how technology affected their personal privacy, with only 34 percent saying they feel confident that they “have enough information to know how new technologies might affect my personal privacy.” That’s compared to 48 percent in the Atlantic, 46 percent in Ontario and 41 percent in the Prairies.

We have heard in this session the Minister of Education tout repeatedly — and I concur — the exceptional nature of our education system. Yet these statistics are very revealing. Only 34 percent of British Columbians feel confident they have enough information to know how new technologies might affect their personal privacy. That’s very troubling, and it suggests that the government has not engaged British Columbians, has not informed British Columbians. This is why this bill must be delayed through another six months — to give the government a chance to actually consult with the people of British Columbia.

Let’s have a look at how Bill 20 fares when looked at through this lens of privacy. Bill 20 would provide political parties with a complete set of data on who in the province is voting. It would also, due to the last-minute
[ Page 8741 ]
amendments moved by the government and passed at committee stage, allow candidates in an upcoming election and people who were candidates in a past election to receive the information about who voted in the riding. That certainly constitutes more information about British Columbians that may be used in unforeseen ways.

As I stated above, despite the government’s suggestion that the information would be used responsibly, I think it’s imperative upon us that we consider the possible abuses permitted by the legislation. It’s my opinion that the legislation before us contains a number of areas of such possible abuse, which is why we need time to explore this further and to actually close any loopholes that would allow such abuse.

[1400]

This, then, may rightly feed the growing number of Canadians expressing serious concerns about their level of protection. This is an important point. There is nothing in this legislation that outlines any enforcement regime to ensure privacy rights — that they are not violated. Certainly, we have the government’s new addition of a privacy policy requirement. But with such a lack of detail about how this will work, with no legislated enforcement and with no clear involvement of the Privacy Commissioner in the legislation, it’s hard to assess the level of protection afforded British Columbians.

In response to a specific subamendment to actually replace the Chief Electoral Officer by the Privacy Commissioner, to actually approve the policy requirements, I was given an answer that essentially said: “They work together. Trust us.” Well, there has been too much of this trust-us in this Legislature for quite some time. Sadly, trust-us just is not working.

We want to see the details. We want to know that the details have arisen from consultation with British Columbians. We want to see the evidence behind those details, not a trust-us approach, as this government is taking on this particular bill and everything else of late, it seems, to be coming through this House, whether it be the education amendment act or whether it be LNG and the fantasy that British Columbia lives in as to its wealth and prosperity for one and all.

This approach may rightly feed the growing number of Canadians expressing serious concerns about their level of protection. Again, this is an important point. There’s nothing that outlines any enforcement to ensure the privacy rights in this bill. I re-emphasize that.

Another important point is the total lack of consultation concerning the change. Providing voter information was not recommended by the Privacy Commissioner but was instead expressed by political parties as worthy of exploration. At no point has there been any attempt to properly assess whether British Columbians support this change or, indeed, whether they are even aware this change is taking place. Looking at privacy concerns, then, this legislation only feeds feelings of a loss of control by the electorate. It constitutes a change whose full implications we cannot rightly assume British Columbians are aware of.

To sum up this argument, then, this legislation is being considered without addressing the overriding privacy concerns that are being expressed by British Columbians. It does not clearly lay out a regime that British Columbians could feel confident about and, in fact, is being brought forward in a rushed manner where amendments and subamendments are brought to bear at the last possible moment. I think it’s important that we consider additional evidence and analysis of privacy considerations for political parties as I make my argument that this bill needs to be hoisted.

What else does the evidence tell us about privacy? A critical concern for political parties should be that Canadians feel more confident giving personal information to organizations when they feel confident in or trust that organization. As the member for Vancouver-Langara pointed out, “trust” in political parties from the electorate is depleted. We regularly see the reports of cynicism about politics.

The minister’s own talking points cite the lack of engagement in political parties as a key reason this is being brought forward. Yet the manner in which it has been brought forward would refute this, as amendments have appeared at the last moment, appearing to have skirted a proper review from the Privacy Commissioner. Is this the best way to bring legislation forward concerning privacy, when transparency and expert opinion are so critical in building trust? I think not.

I want to look at this bill from another angle as well. This is the angle from the Canadian Standards Association’s model code for protection of personal information. It’s particularly important to look at it through the lens of this model code in light of the evidence that arose during committee stage.

There are ten principles in this code: (1) accountability; (2) identifying purposes; (3) consent; (4) limiting collection; (5) limiting use, disclosure and retention; (6) accuracy; (7) safeguards; (8) openness; (9) individual access; and (10) challenging compliance. After going through committee stage, it’s clear to me that there are provisions in Bill 20 pertaining to privacy that do not fare well according to these standards, and I’ll expand here.

For accountability. The government’s last-minute amendments that require a responsible person to bring forward a privacy policy may go a small way in addressing this area certainly. But the manner in which it was brought in and the questions that still remain suggest there’s still a large gap that needs to be filled.

For identifying purposes. In my view, Bill 20 fails to align the stated purpose, which was increasing voter turnout in an election, with the manner in which the information is gathered by “request” after the election has taken place.

[1405]

It seems like a stretch to link this to voter engagement, for the reasons I have given earlier, during committee stage. We don’t today, as of this date, have an invention called a time machine to use such information to increase the voter turnout in an election that has already happened.

For consent, Bill 20 fails spectacularly. Not only are the provisions related to privacy advanced by the political parties and not Elections B.C.; there have been limited attempts to actually inform or educate British Columbians as to what information may become available. This is one of the more important issues concerning privacy, in my view.

As politicians, we are in a unique position to legislate ourselves access to more information. It is shocking that we’re taking advantage of this. I feel it’s therefore our responsibility to ensure that we have adequately consulted with the public. While we cannot expect everyone to take time from their busy lives to read up on the privacy policy and inform themselves about Bill 20, we, thankfully, have created an independent office to look after these concerns. However, if we skirt around this office, limiting its ability to do its job, I feel we are failing to ensure the consent for this change.

With limiting collection, I have similar concerns to identifying purpose. The collection of this information is not limited in such a way that it is clearly used only for increasing voter turnout. The fact that this information is gathered by political parties after an election limits the applicability of the data to its stated purpose — to increase voter turnout. I retract all of this once a time machine is invented and we can actually go back and use this data in an election that has already occurred. But as of this point, such a machine does not exist.

For limiting use, disclosure and retention, I feel that we can legitimately question the retention aspect of the voter information. I attempted to address this with amendments to earlier sections of the bill during committee stage to require the destruction of this information once the election was over. Not to belabour the point, but if the purpose is to drive voter turnout up, why are we receiving this personal information after an election, and why would parties need to retain this information?

They wouldn’t. They wouldn’t need this information. That became very clear during questioning at committee stage. For accuracy, this bill would ensure that parties can keep this information up to date, although I’m not sure that that is exclusively a good thing, as I think there are legitimate concerns this information could be misused.

With regard to safeguards, I’ve spoken earlier about my concerns that this bill does not lay out a legislative regime where information is being adequately protected. This really comes down to two points. The Privacy Commissioner does not have a legislated role in the act, despite the clear triggering of her jurisdiction and despite the fact that we tried, in amendments, to get that legislated role included.

Two is that there is nothing in the legislation that speaks to enforcement of the “privacy policy” that must be created to access this data. We’re left with a “trust us; it’ll work out” kind of approach to this. We’ve given examples — in committee stage, and here I’ve given others — to show that “trust us” simply is not good enough.

In looking at openness, it remains to be seen whether these privacy policies will contain a requirement that they be made publicly accessible. I don’t know. You don’t know. We haven’t been told. “Trust us” is the answer we get.

With individual access, British Columbians should expect to be made aware of the existence, use and disclosure of their information. To a certain extent, technology is changing the rules about data acquisition, but we must be careful that we don’t swing that pendulum too far.

Finally, with challenging compliance, I feel that Bill 20 provides no guidance except that a privacy policy must be accessible to the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections B.C. There is no guaranteed specificity about how compliance can be assured, and this was ever so evident during committee stage.

The Canadian Standards Association’s model code for protection of personal information may or may not be the appropriate tool to use in analyzing this piece of legislation. It is certainly one that would look favourably upon certain provisions in this bill. However, without an ability to adequately consult the Privacy Commissioner to ascertain whether amendments that are tabled at the last minute address all of her concerns or whether other amendments that were put forward by members of this Legislature would have addressed them even better or completely or not at all….

[1410]

Without this information, I am left to find whatever other tool I can. It is the use of the Canadian Standards Association’s model code for protection of personal information.

In conclusion, it’s fitting to conclude this section by quoting directly from the Privacy Commissioner’s letter to the minister on Bill 20 so that it is clearly on the record what it is that we are voting on.

“The amendment to section 51(2), however, extends beyond the objective of increasing voter turnout. This is because it authorizes the release of voter participation information to political parties after an election or by-election.

“Unlike the disclosures discussed in the previous paragraph which codify an existing practice and are directly tied to getting out the vote on voting day, the purpose of this disclosure is for political parties to receive personal information in a comprehensive and accessible format after voting day in order to perform analytics and other uses.

“This disclosure was not recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer, and the purpose of this disclosure is not directly tied to getting out the vote. It is also not a disclosure allowed by most provinces in Canada.”

These aren’t my words. These are the words of the Privacy Commissioner. These are words that should have
[ Page 8743 ]
been adhered to. Yet “Trust us. It’ll work out” is the answer that we get.

The original reason the Legislature authorized Elections B.C. to compile a list of voters was for the purpose of administering elections. I’m deeply concerned that the proposed amendments allow for other uses and expand the already broad ability of political parties to collect information about voter participation.

It would also certainly exceed what British Columbians anticipate when they provide their names to Elections B.C., given that I do not believe there has been any public consultation on this expanded use of the voters list. If this act were to proceed, Elections B.C. would be disclosing personal information that is likely to be linked with other information in political party databases and elsewhere.

This linking and the associated analytics can be used for creating voter profiles, targeting voters, fundraising, sharing data across systems for secondary purposes, collecting non-consensual information, inappropriate communication from parties and other intrusive uses. This became absolutely apparent during committee stage as members in the opposition probed the minister on various sections in the proposed bill.

I’m not persuaded that any of these uses are consistent with the foundational purpose for which the compilation of the list was originally permitted. Given the above, I urge government to withdraw the proposed amendment to section 51. Personal information compiled for efficiently administering elections should not, from a privacy point of view, be provided to political parties for their broader use. People are not data points, and they should not be treated as such.

I urge members on all sides of this House to recognize that this bill was brought in prematurely and that additional time — six months in particular — is required and necessary to actually go to British Columbians, the voters of our province, and ask them what they think, whether they support this and what they believe the role of the voters should be in terms of enhancing, or not, voter turnout.

Hon. Chair, with that, I thank you for your attention, and I certainly hope the hoist motion is supported.

V. Huntington: I rise to support the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head’s motion to delay third reading of this bill for six months.

We received the amendment to this bill that attempted to resolve one of my very deep concerns. That was the lack of a level playing field for all candidates in an election. The minister, I think, expected the motion to be successful. However, it did not resolve that problem, and it did contain the provision that the Chief Electoral Officer be required to provide a list of individuals who voted during the election, a requirement which I have consistently felt is a direct invasion of British Columbians’ privacy.

We examined the proposed amendment from the minister and felt that it was lacking. I did go and speak with the minister and was grateful that she was receptive to my concerns.

[1415]

Nevertheless, my staff and I drafted subamendments to the proposed government amendment and delivered those subamendments to the minister’s office about six o’clock on a Wednesday evening. At seven o’clock we received the revised amendment, the one that was ultimately tabled by the minister in this House and which did, to my satisfaction, address at least the issue of a level playing field for all candidates.

My point in laying out this timeline is that there are a lot of problems with this bill as it was initially presented. The Information and Privacy Commissioner, IntegrityBC, the members for Vancouver-Langara and Oak Bay–Gordon Head, myself, the official opposition, constituents of mine and others all outlined our concerns with Bill 20. At the 11th hour, before committee stage, we still had the government proposing amendments and then amending its own amendments.

I appreciate that the minister and her staff responded to my concerns about levelling the playing field. I am very grateful. But that does not excuse a lack of adequate time devoted to considering this bill.

The member for Saanich North and the Islands said earlier in the debate that this was a sign of government doing legislation on the fly, and I completely agree. The bill as a whole is rushed. The change allowing political parties to access a list of voters was subject to consultation only with six or so political party operatives. The public never had a chance to comment.

The bill has been dissected to a certain extent by the media in recent weeks, and British Columbians have had a modest opportunity to inform themselves about the contents of the bill. But they haven’t been consulted on it, and many of those who did find out about the changes aren’t happy with them.

Here are some comments from an individual who was watching Hansard as I spoke at second reading. This individual is not a constituent of mine, just a concerned British Columbian. “I caught your speech about the identification of who does or does not vote. I totally agree with you. It’s just voting info today, the names tomorrow and how we vote after that — small increments so that the stupid public doesn’t notice.”

Is that the way we want the public to believe an amendment to our Election Act goes forward? They don’t trust it. They don’t want the amendment. They want us to stop it. And I agree wholeheartedly that this act deserves more attention and more study by this House and by the public.

I am confident that the more the public learns about this bill, the less they will like it. The motion to delay third reading of Bill 20 by six months would allow the government to go out and consult, to find out what people really think about these changes and to stand down or modify its legislation accordingly.

They could take a meaningful look at the opposition’s proposals to preregister young voters. They could take a second look at spending totals in the pre-campaign period. And they could do a proper analysis of the components in this bill that threaten both voters’ and non-voters’ privacy alike.

There is also the issue of the latest government amendments, which we as legislators and, certainly, the public have had even less time to observe. Did the privacy amendments address the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s concerns? Has her office had an adequate amount of time to analyze the government’s newly proposed amendments?

Let’s look at what the Information and Privacy Commissioner had to say when presented with the government’s amendments to its own bill on May 14.

“I acknowledge the efforts of the Minister of Justice to make amendments to Bill 20 to address the privacy concerns of citizens and those of my office. I also wish to acknowledge members of the Legislative Assembly for their contributions to the debate and their commitment to the protection of privacy rights with respect to voter information.”

The Information and Privacy Commissioner acknowledges the efforts of the Justice Minister. She didn’t say that she approved of the new changes or that she’d had time to analyze them in detail.

Earlier in her statement, she outlined what the new changes were, not that she agreed with them. The commissioner went on to say that she would “pursue discussions with the Chief Electoral Officer to offer her perspective as to how new regulations can protect the personal information of B.C. voters should this bill pass.” I’m glad that the commissioner has volunteered her expertise, because we need it.

What we see here is another example of the government leaving important legislative changes to regulation. What will the proposed new privacy plans look like, the ones that government will require before anyone can access this new information?

[1420]

Not a single person in this House knows what that will look like. We don’t know. It’s yet another reason why the House should support the motion to delay third reading of this bill.

Six months would give the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer a chance to sit down and work out what these new rules might look like. It would let them identify any outstanding privacy concerns and any procedural concerns. Maybe what they find in their study will warrant withdrawing the legislation as it stands.

With a six-month break, we could come back in the fall to debate a new and better bill. Any additional protections or changes suggested by our independent officers could be incorporated into the text of the legislation instead of rushing through an incomplete and problematic law.

This bill was introduced without public consultation. It has been opposed by the public and many members of this House, the Information and Privacy Commissioner and by IntegrityBC. Important details will be left to regulation.

Let this House take another six months to examine the proposed legislation and come back with a bill that truly amends the concerns expressed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the public and the Chief Electoral Officer. I wholeheartedly support the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head’s motion to delay third reading of this bill for six months.

G. Holman: I want to express our support, the support of the official opposition, for the hoist motion. I couldn’t agree more with many of the points made by my colleagues from Delta South and Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Also, I do want to mention the MLA for Vancouver-Langara, a member of government who actually stood with us, voting against section 6 because of very deep concerns that she had about the privacy implications of this legislation.

I don’t want to take too long, but I just wanted to summarize quickly the approach of the official opposition to this legislation. I do want to say I very much appreciate working with the independents and with my colleagues in opposition on this legislation. It’s not that we agreed entirely on every aspect of the bill, but fundamentally, we are on the same page: that this legislation is taking us in exactly the wrong direction that we need to go in British Columbia.

Our approach to this act, which is so fundamental to the workings of our democracy in British Columbia, has been to try and introduce amendments, subamendments, working with my colleagues in opposition to try and improve the legislation — albeit on the fly, but doing our best to try and make amendments that would at least address some of the concerns around privacy and other issues.

That’s been our approach. We have tried with respect to this piece of legislation to be as constructive as we can and, despite some minor disagreements around specific aspects of the bill, to work as constructively as we could with our opposition colleagues.

There are two reasons why we can’t support this bill and feel so strongly that it needs to be hoisted, that it needs to be put out for public consultation and also consultation with the independent offices of the Legislature — for two reasons.

One reason is for what’s not in the bill in the first place. What’s not in the bill and what we find surprising is that two of the top three recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia, who reviews elections legislation after every provincial election in B.C., were completely ignored by government — namely, the youth voter registration and also the pilot testing of new technologies in voting. Both of those recommendations ignored.

Early voter registration. On this side of the House…. And I do appreciate, again, the member for Oak Bay–
[ Page 8744 ]
Gordon Head summarizing some of the private member’s legislation that we brought forward in the House.

[1425]

We are trying to turn this ship. We do feel there are a number of very important legislative amendments that need to be made to strengthen the effectiveness and the accountability of this place and also to make elections fair. I very much appreciate my colleague’s summary of some of that legislation that we presented in the House. One of them, of course, was a private member’s bill brought forward by a colleague in the opposition around early voter registration for students. The Chief Electoral Officer indicated, recommended, this approach, which has actually been implemented in a number of Canadian provinces, in a number of jurisdictions in North America and elsewhere.

The reason the CEO recommended it is because research indicates that it does work. It does increase voter turnout among young people. That’s why we presented a private member’s bill to initiate this process — of course, completely ignored by government in Bill 20.

As pointed out, we’ve proposed another private member’s bill to make elections fair, including the banning of political donations from unions and corporations to try and take big money out of elections and address concerns that the public have that large organizations and the funding they have available to them have undue influence in the electoral process. That is why we presented that legislation as private member’s legislation. This bill takes us in the exact opposite direction — 180 degrees opposite.

Of course, we are proposing to put electoral reform to voters again to ensure that no votes are wasted, that voter preferences are reflected in this place, to ensure that the Green Party gets its fair share of MLA representation in the House — we feel very strongly about that — and to encourage a more collaborative dynamic in the House. These are all of the initiatives we’ve proposed to try and make elections fair, to try and make this place more accountable. Bill 20 takes us in exactly the opposite direction.

In good faith, and working with the independents in the House, we proposed a number of amendments and subamendments to the legislation. For example, we tried to strengthen the privacy provisions applying to voter turnout information. The legislation does not address the deep concerns expressed by the Privacy Commissioner — who, in fact, was only consulted after the fact, as pointed out by the member for Delta South.

This again points to the fundamental problem with the approach to this legislation, which is that it is being done willy-nilly. It’s being done, we fear, for partisan gain, quite frankly. It’s being done without appropriate public consultation and without appropriate consultation with independent offices of the Legislature.

We proposed amendments, particularly to section 6, to try and strengthen the privacy provisions. As read out by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the Privacy Commissioner basically did not support section 6. If we were to go ahead, if government was determined to go ahead, she recommended that the uses of that voter turnout information be restricted quite significantly. We proposed amendments to section 6 that would have done exactly that. The amendment was supported by my independent colleagues but voted down by government.

For example, this bill would allow any individual who requests voter turnout information, as long as they provide a so-called privacy policy to the Chief Electoral Officer…. It also provides voter turnout information to candidates in previous elections, even if they’re not running in the current election. This seems absurd and bizarre to us, and again reflects the ill-considered nature of this legislation.

The most serious problem that the official opposition has with Bill 20 is the elimination of spending caps in the 60-day pre-election period. This would allow political candidates and political parties to have unlimited spending available to them running up to the dropping of the writ.

[1430]

This moves us closer to a U.S. style of politics, where it takes millions of dollars for candidates to run at the state and higher levels to even be competitive in elections. Rather than constrain the undue influence of big money, this will actually exacerbate it. It will make it worse.

To the minister’s credit, I would say that she has tried to respond, at least to some degree, to the privacy concerns and has introduced amendments in this House — albeit on the fly, albeit with very little, if any, notice to this side of the House or to the Privacy Commissioner. But I do give the minister credit for at least making some amendments. There haven’t been many pieces of legislation in this House in this session that have been put forward by government in response to opposition concerns. This is an exception.

It didn’t go far enough. We still can’t support the section 6 amendments brought forward by the minister, but I do give her credit for at least trying that.

In summary, Bill 20 does not address public concerns about undue influence of big money or about the integrity of the political process. It does not address two of three of the Chief Electoral Officer’s primary recommendations, his top priorities. It does not address two of three of those. It does not address the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner, who wasn’t even consulted before this legislation was presented, despite obvious, very deep concerns by the public and ultimately herself, when she reviewed the legislation, about this issue.

Again, as indicated by my colleagues in opposition, we find it unbelievable that legislation of this importance, that’s so fundamental, is being brought forward, being amended on the fly, without consulting adequately, never mind the public, even with the independent offices of this Legislature. That’s their job. That’s why they’re there. This legislation could have been so much stronger, might even
[ Page 8746 ]
be, ultimately, supportable by this side of the House but for a lack of that.

Rather than address concerns about big money in elections, the elimination of pre-election spending caps actually makes it worse, drives us to a U.S. style of politics, and it’s simply not supportable.

In conclusion, this legislation has been ill-considered. It takes us in the opposite direction that we need to go. The public was not consulted. I doubt that any member of this House has received correspondence from the public supporting Bill 20 and, certainly, supporting the privacy concerns raised by Bill 20, the provision of voter turnout lists.

I certainly have been getting e-mails. I know my colleagues have. I suspect that members of government have also been receiving those e-mails. There’s no public support for this legislation, and there was absolutely no consultation with the independent offices. The Chief Electoral Officer was essentially ignored in his recommendations. The Privacy Commissioner — ignored and only given the legislation after the fact.

For all of these reasons, the official opposition will be supporting the motion made by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Hon. S. Anton: Just a couple of short remarks, because I think that everything that has been said was said several times during the committee debate.

The general purpose or the overall purpose of the changes to the act is to increase voter turnout and to give the public confidence in the election process. So we have increased the advance voting days. Those two advance voting days…. We’re proposing with the bill to increase the advance voting days to the Saturday and Sunday prior to the previous advance voting days. These advance voting days are very popular with the public. We are confident that they will encourage people to vote.

So it’s increasing voter engagement and formalizing the process that is already in place, by which scrutineers and candidates can get information about who has voted, by allowing the Chief Electoral Officer the ability to give that information to candidates, to political parties.

[1435]

At the same time, listening to the concerns raised here and elsewhere, there are obviously significant privacy concerns, significant concerns about how that information may be used. Therefore, we have tightened up section 275 of the act to allow for those concerns to be addressed.

I am, of course — as I’m sure everyone in the House is — very confident in the Chief Electoral Officer and his ability to make sure that there are privacy policies in place and make sure that the information is treated with the respect which it deserves.

We are dropping the 60-day pre-writ period, which was really of no great value any longer, given that the courts have determined that it was not appropriate — twice when we tried to limit the ability of third parties in the pre-writ period. Given that we have tried twice to do that and have not succeeded, we are proposing that everybody have equal access to spending in the pre-writ period, just like people can in the rest of the country. We are like the rest of the country in this.

We are proposing some other changes which are perhaps less controversial and less minor, but as I said, we have listened to the second reading debate. We made changes in response to that debate. And at the same time, overall, our goal is, as I think everyone’s goal is, to increase voter turnout to make sure that voters do vote, to increase the fairness of the process, to increase the public confidence in the process so that we do, in British Columbia, have an excellent voting process through our Election Act and through the office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

With that, Chair, I am proposing that the motion be defeated and that we move to third reading.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the amendment to the motion is, and I will read: “I move that the motion for third reading on Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act, be amended by deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting the words ‘6 months hence.’”

[1440-1445]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Bill 20, Election Amendment Act, 2015, read a third time and passed on the following division:

Hon. T. Stone: I now call Bill 25, intituled the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 25; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

On section 1.

The Chair: Minister, do you want to make introductions before we start?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you, Chair. I’ll just take the opportunity to introduce the staff that are here with me: Adria Fradley, who’s our manager of legislation and regulatory reform; and Shawn Hedges, who’s our senior manager with B.C. Timber Sales.

H. Bains: Thanks to the minister. I think there will be a number of questions as we proceed through this act. The first question to the minister would be if he could outline the main theme behind this bill. What is the purpose of this bill? Why are we making the changes, and who asked for them?

Hon. S. Thomson: The main purpose of the amendments to the legislation…. The member opposite will know that there are a number of aspects to the legislation. There’s the Forest Act pieces, the Land Act, Land Title Amendment Act.

With respect to the forestry changes, which I think is where the initial part of the discussion and questions are going in the first part of it, these are to…. Primarily, the changes result from the effectiveness review of B.C. Timber Sales, which was asked for by industry. It was a process that we went through, a two-phase review of the effectiveness of operations at B.C. Timber Sales.

The changes are to help increase the competitiveness of the sector, support the accurate pricing, improve the marketability of lower-quality beetle-kill timber. The changes will generate revenue for B.C. Timber Sales by allowing them to recover unamortized value of Crown assets and provide forest management services to licensees and to government organizations, and support sustainable forest management and market access through B.C. Timber Sales certification programs.

All of these changes that are essentially captured in the amendments have come through as a result of the effectiveness review and requests from industry to ensure that we can continue to have B.C. Timber Sales be an effective operation, contributing to the market pricing system in an effective way to preserve the key goal of B.C. Timber Sales.

H. Bains: Thank you to the minister. I would also like to welcome the staff, and I neglected in my first introduction here. So thank you very much.

I think the question, then, as the minister said it was the industry that asked for this, was there any consultation? There are a number of stakeholders out there. These forests belong to the people of British Columbia, and those are the people who expect a return on their assets. Those are the people who will be expecting the govern-
[ Page 8748 ]
ment to show some leadership so that we make these forests, which are one of the key economic drivers for the last 150 years in this province….

What is there for the benefit of the public? Which stakeholders were consulted? Was the public at large consulted? Were the workers who get affected by these changes consulted? And who in the industry was consulted that said that these changes are needed?

[1455]

Hon. S. Thomson: Through the effectiveness review — as I said, most of the recommendations result from that review — there was an extensive consultation, a broad consultation with industry, with key stakeholders, with groups like the professional foresters, Community Forest Association, woodlot associations, First Nations Forestry Council. There was a broad process of consultation input. From that process developed the recommendations.

Once the recommendations were received, then there was further consultation as we looked at the response to those recommendations with the majority of those organizations and with additional organizations that may not have had as much consultation in the initial part of it as needed — community forests, for example, the professional foresters association, woodlot associations and First Nations — in the process. So extensive consultation in generating the recommendations and our response to them.

H. Bains: I did not hear, among the list of those who were consulted, the workers — the unionized workforce and the non-union workforce. Was there any process where they were officially or formally consulted, and what was their reaction? That would be one question.

The second question is: the process of consultation — how did that take place? How did that unfold? Was that in some of the boardroom meetings? Who attended those meetings? Can the minister elaborate how this consultative process was managed, where it took place and who all was involved?

Hon. S. Thomson: The consultation process through the review, as I said, was extensive. It occurred in a number of different ways, and that was through direct meetings and engagement, through telephone consultation, I understand, at times, depending on the ability of the organizations to meet with elected representatives of the associations.

I can recall through the process that in many cases organizations and groups who knew that the process was underway contacted our office to ask for the opportunity to provide input into the process. Those requests were provided to Mr. Allan, who was leading the process, and he followed up on all of those requests for opportunity to provide input.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could specifically answer some of the questions that I asked. Who on the workers’ side, which unions representing these workers, were consulted?

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: I don’t have the specific detailed list with me of all the organizations, all the groups, all the individuals that would have had input into the process. As I said, everybody who asked for an opportunity to provide input…. That was conveyed to Mr. Allan, who is carrying out the review, and I know that he made every effort to contact every organization who asked for input.

In terms of specifics, I would have to be able to get that list and look all the way down through that list to see whether or not, with respect to those organizations, and at what level they had input into the process.

H. Bains: But I think that if there was a consultative process to arrive at this bill, there’s got to be some prescribed process which would include contacting the stakeholders. I mean, did that take place? Were all stakeholders contacted that there was a process — that if they had anything to say about this process, about the changes that are being looked at, they asked for their input?

Is there any list? Was there anyone the minister could name from the industry side or from the workers’ side who was contacted? How were they contacted? The minister in his opening said that the industry was consulted and that the industry asked for these changes. So perhaps the minister could say who on behalf of the industry asked for these changes and what the input from the workers’ side was.

There is the industry, there are the workers, and there’s the community. These are the key stakeholders, and within those communities there are a number of different subgroups. But I think those are key — the workers who depend on their paycheques and the communities that depend on the forestry in their community as far as economic activities are concerned. Then the industry that depends on their investment, to get a return on the investment that they have on behalf of…. What was the real process, and then who was actually contacted? If the minister could give us some names from the industry, from the workers’ side and from the community side.

Hon. S. Thomson: The review process and the fact that the review of BCTS was being undertaken was well known. It was part of the mandate provisions that were provided to me as minister.

It was undertaken for a number of reasons and a number of circumstances that B.C. Timber Sales was encountering. One was to clarify the role of B.C. Timber Sales, to ensure that the mandate and the role that was established for it were confirmed and maintained — that was the outcome of the first phase of the review — and then to look
[ Page 8749 ]
at operational effectiveness aspects of B.C. Timber Sales — customer confidence in it, reliability of the market pricing system, maintaining compliance with the legal and trade obligations, as the member opposite well understands, and to increase direct and indirect revenue from the sector.

[1505]

There was an extensive consultation process. All in the industry knew that it was underway. As I said, anybody who wanted to provide input and contact in the review process had the opportunity to do so. Our timber supply advisory committee was consulted extensively. Our TSL holders — over 1,100 TSL holders in the program — were consulted. Many of those took the opportunity to provide input. Organizations like the Truck Loggers Association, Interior Lumber Manufacturers — all organizations that represent contractors and workers in the industry — had provided input.

Again, an extensive consultation process in which all parties in the industry knew the review process was underway and had the opportunity to provide input.

H. Bains: Was Coastal Forest Products Association consulted? Was COFI consulted? Were those the two organizations that asked for these changes?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, those two organizations — along with, as I’ve said, many, many others — provided input into the process. The rationale and the basis for the review being undertaken were broadly supported and broadly requested by the industry, by participants, by registrants in the program across the sector.

Everybody understood the important role that B.C. Timber Sales plays in the industry, the significant volume that they have within the BCTS mandate, the important role that it plays in our market pricing system, the important role it plays in our trade and legal obligations. In an extensive process, those two — along with many, many other organizations — provided input into the process.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

H. Bains: Was United Steelworkers consulted?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said earlier, I don’t have the complete list, an extensive list, of organizations and individuals that provided input. I advise that I would need to provide that information subsequently to the member opposite.

H. Bains: I think the minister would be surprised to hear this. The United Steelworkers Local 1937, the local that largely represents all of the coastal forestry workers in logging and in manufacturing…. The first time they heard about this was when myself and the member from Cowichan approached them. They didn’t even know that these changes were contemplated.

I guess the minister…. I just want to put it on record that you may have consulted — and the minister confirmed that they consulted — COFI. They consulted the coastal forest employers association and, perhaps, many other employers associations and the business side of it. But the government did not feel any obligation to the workers or their representatives to consult on some of the changes that are being recommended here that will affect their jobs.

Can the minister explain why they were neglected and why they were left out of the consultative process when you’re talking about a piece of legislation that will affect them, their communities and their jobs?

[1510]

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, I have indicated that we’ll undertake to provide the list of everybody who inputted into the review process. I would be surprised that during that process all in the industry were not aware — all in the industry knew — that the review of B.C. Timber Sales operations was underway. It had extensive communication and information that the process, including the fact that it was in the mandate….

I know we will go through the changes. These changes are primarily technical in nature and implement recommendations coming from the review and, first of all, confirm and strengthen the role of B.C. Timber Sales operations in meeting its mandate, which is of benefit to all of the industry.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could tell us now if anyone from the First Nations community was consulted on this, and who.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, as I indicated earlier in my comments, the First Nations Forestry Council was consulted in the elements of the legislation. In terms of the specific input into the review process that led up to the recommendations — again, an extensive consultation process. As I said, we’ll undertake to provide everybody who provided input into that process. It occurred in many ways, as I said, through meetings, through outreach by Mr. Allan to interested parties. Anybody who wanted to provide some comments or some input on how they thought BCTS was operating had the opportunity to do so through his work.

H. Bains: I don’t think Mr. Allan should be brought into this discussion. Of course, he conducted the review of BCTS. Of course, he went through a process that he had to go through. That report will never be available.

I think the question here is this. When we put this piece of legislation together, it’s the government who did this. It’s the ministry who did this. It’s their responsibility, considering the Tsilhqot’in decision; considering that there are workers who will be affected; considering that there’s
[ Page 8750 ]
a community who will be affected by these changes; considering that there is a number of community forests — and those communities, as a result — that will be affected.

If I could summarize this from the answers that the minister has given us, very little consultation, if any, took place outside of the industry. I clearly understood from the beginning that the minister went directly to the industry. It was the industry who asked for this, but there are a number of other players.

[1515]

People who actually own these forests are left out of the consultation process. The communities that are dependent on forestry — there are so many of them in B.C. — are left out and the First Nations.

Again, the consultation that Mr. John Allan may have taken place…. Well, where was the government? Did the ministry or the minister’s office consult the First Nations that would be affected by these changes? I could assume that very little consultation took place outside of the industry.

I think I’m going to leave it at that, because I think this whole process to arrive at this Bill 25 is flawed. I think it’s not the right approach, considering all those court decisions that we have. I think, at the same time, the workers who depend…. Their livelihoods and their paycheques are dependent on the forestry industry. Those are the people who care about the forests that they work within and they live around. I think those are the people who will be affected by many changes that we will talk about specifically, as different changes are being proposed here.

Had you consulted the workers and those communities, you may not have had some of the provisions that are in there. I will leave it at that.

We’ll go, as the Chair asked, to section 1. Perhaps the minister specifically could explain. This is a section that “is amended by repealing the definition of ‘allowable annual cut available,’” and there are some different meanings given to it.

Can the minister explain what it was before, what the intent would be and what the outcome of the changes that are being proposed is compared to what was already in the act?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section repeals but reinstates, essentially, the definition for the annual allowable cut available but adds in the First Nations woodland licences and community forest agreements where there may be in the future, based on a future section here, by agreement and by cooperation, a volume reservation on a community forest or a First Nations woodland licence.

What it means is that the annual allowable cut as defined for that First Nation woodland licence or that community forest would be less the volume reservations that have been agreed to in that process. It simply brings those two type of licences into the definition of annual allowable cut available.

H. Bains: If I understand this, then, allowable annual cut applied to tree farm licences, forest licences of different kinds, now is expanded to community forests and to the First Nations and the woodlots. Is that the whole purpose behind this?

[1520]

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s important to point out that under this change there are no changes to how the annual allowable cut available is defined for TFLs under…. As the member opposite will know, they can include reservations for timber sales, for pulpwood agreements, for woodlot licences, for free use permits. Then the holder of the TFL does not have access to the AAC associated with those reservations.

This simply moves those volume reservations to an area-based licence, a community forest agreement or a First Nation woodland licence to provide those same provisions of having those reservations recognized in the allowable annual cut for those specific licences. It’s consequential to changes that are being made in further provisions of this bill that provide for those opportunities for those volume reservation arrangements to be made between the community forest holders and First Nation woodland licences with B.C. Timber Sales.

H. Bains: Again, I’m just trying to understand this. AAC, for short, has been around for a number of years, for decades. But now to change the definition, is it covering the area that would be talked about later on under the reservation? Is that what we are trying to do — to bring them under AAC? Or what is the purpose, then?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is not the definition of AAC. This is the definition of, for these purposes, “allowable annual cut available” for those forms of area-based licences, including TFLs, community forest agreements and First Nations woodland licences. It is set for the entire area of the licence.

The available amount to the holder of the community forest agreement First Nation woodland licence would be calculated by subtracting from that amount set for licences the allowable annual cut available of BCTS reservations and any other reductions that the chief forester under section 70 of the act might make on those area-based licences. It simply extends…. It’s consequential to changes that are coming forward further on in this proposed legislation.

H. Bains: I’m looking at the old act and the definition and what’s being proposed here. The old act talked about how “‘allowable annual cut available’ means the portion of the allowable annual cut in respect of a tree farm….” That’s the wording being changed to “in relation to a tree farm” — so “in respect of” versus “in relation to.” Is it, again, as we go forward in this bill…? The tree farm licence holder,
[ Page 8751 ]
for example, will be allowed to sell back to government or through BCTS the unused portion of their AAC.

Is the intent here to adjust that AAC, because the unused portion now is bought back by the government to adjust back, reflecting what they actually would be harvesting? Is that what we’re talking about here?

[1525]

Hon. S. Thomson: I’ll see if I can explain this. First of all, this definition provides no changes as to how it is defined for TFLs. Currently under TFLs there are the existing provisions for a B.C. Timber Sales reservation in a TFL. This simply takes those same provisions consequentially, as a result of proposals in the legislation to apply those same provisions to a community forest agreement and a First Nations woodland licence.

H. Bains: Maybe we’ll go clause by clause here, then. I thought there would be an answer that would fit this entire section.

Perhaps the minister could talk about (a)(i) — 1(a)(i). It talks about “a reservation referred to in section 35 (1) (h) or (n).” Can the minister explain? What does that mean?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section, 1(a), when the reservation referred to in section 35, those sections…. I can just refer to the act. That provides the reservations: “…having regard to reservations made by the minister for (i) B.C. timber sales enterprises, (ii) pulpwood agreements, or (iii) woodlot licences….” And (n) refers to: “reserve to the government the right to enter into a free use permit on the tree farm licence area with a person other than the holder of the tree farm licence….”

H. Bains: Is there a definition of “reservation”?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is provided for in section 35. This is the content of the tree farm licence, and this can require that the timber on a tree farm licence be “an amount directed by the minister, having regard to reservations made by the minister for,” as we’ve listed, Timber Sales enterprises, pulpwood agreements, woodlot licences or reservations for free use permits. The definition simply means that when you have those reservations, the annual allowable cut available is less those reservations.

[1530]

H. Bains: Does that reservation mean some volume, or is that a percentage of the overall?

Hon. S. Thomson: This reservation, I believe, has been around for a long time. My understanding is that it goes back to 1988 or 1989 with some of the takeback provisions. With respect to B.C. Timber Sales, it’s been a volume reservation.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

H. Bains: It again, I think, is used as consequential to the amendments made, but can the minister explain what is being changed when you change the words “a lump sum dollar value” and substitute “an amount of money”? What’s the difference?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section is a technical change. It relates to future provisions again. This clarifies the ability to pay bonus offers by instalments and provides opportunity for smaller businesses, which comprise a very high percentage of B.C. Timber Sales clients, to compete on cruise-based timber sale licences. It simply clarifies that the payment can be by installments rather than a lump sum.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

H. Bains: Under section 6, section 22 is amended. The explanation that was given to us during our briefing session with the ministry…. It was explained that, through these changes, it will allow better enforcement of the environmental and compliance. Can the minister explain: what was not working that you were forced to make these changes to make the environmental enforcement and compliance better?

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s particularly in section (e)(iii): “specifying the manner in which the holder of the licence must conduct operations….”

This was a provision that was suggested and flagged during the review by legal counsel as providing greater clarification and greater authority in terms of specifying the standards in the program that was in place. It’s not a reflection of the fact that things weren’t working or needed. When the review process went through in terms of the operational effectiveness, it was one of the ones that was flagged as: “When you get the opportunity to strengthen the provision, you should do it.” It doesn’t reflect the fact that there were significant problems in implementing the environmental or sustainability systems in BCTS, just legal advice that says strengthen your ability.

H. Bains: If you look at what’s happening there, the primary certification body used by B.C. Timber Sales is the sustainable forestry initiative, SFI, which certifies — my understanding is — about 80 percent of BCTS volume. There are also some reports by ForestEthics which accuse SFI of “greenwashing.” Is that the concern that the minister has?

We do have a couple of others which are used for cer-
[ Page 8752 ]
tification. The Canadian Standards Association certified about 19 percent, and the Forest Stewardship Council certified about 1 percent. Was there some issue with those certification bodies — that through these changes you could actually monitor and do a better job than what those agencies were doing?

Especially considering when you look at ForestEthics saying to the agency that certifies about 80 percent of BCTS volume…. They call it greenwashing. Was that the concern, or was there something else?

Hon. S. Thomson: No. As I pointed out, this was an internal review of the legislation and advice from legal counsel to strengthen the provisions. It was not at all in terms of a response to a report or assertions around certification bodies. It was simply a strengthening of the provisions of the legislation.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

H. Bains: Section 7, 22.1(1) talks about: “The holder of a timber sale licence for which a bonus offer was tendered is not required to pay the bonus offer if the licence is surrendered or expires before any Crown timber is harvested under the timber sale licence.”

My understanding is that…. Under the current system there was a bonus offer. Based on the bonus offer and other requirements, the licence is awarded to the successful bidder. Now my understanding is that they don’t have to put a bonus offer. As a result of that….

[1540]

My concern there would be that if there is no bonus offer, then anybody could abuse the system — put an offer, be successful and then feel that they don’t have to harvest that timber and walk away from it. And there’s no penalty. How is that going to benefit the system here and benefit British Columbians and our forest industry?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section is to align or to make the provisions between a scale-based licence and a cruise-based licence the same. What’s important to point out is that in both respects the penalty remains: if there is not harvesting or if the licence is surrendered, the full deposit is kept or required to be paid. So the incentive is maintained for the harvesting to take place. It simply aligns the policies that are applied to a scale-based licence to be the same as those applied to a cruise-based licence.

H. Bains: Would it not have made sense to bring both of them under the bonus bid rather than removing it for both? Now there’s room for abuse. I mean, that’s what the big concern is. Somebody could frivolously put a bid in and be successful, knowing that they could walk away from it.

Rather, bring both scale-based and cruise-based under the old system, which means that they would be required to put in a bonus bid, and if they chose to walk away and chose not to harvest, they held on to this timber.

Now, others who otherwise could have harvested it, who weren’t successful because this one entity was able to put in a bid, thinking that they would be harvesting it….

Don’t you think there’s the chance for abuse with this? Now they could just walk away, and that timber will be just standing there.

[1545]

Hon. S. Thomson: No. What the provisions, the amendments here, do is equalize the risk associated with both cruise-based and skill-based timber sale licences. This enhances the competition for both. It potentially leads to higher bonus offers on average for the cruise-based lump sum timber sale licences.

It’s also important to point out at the same time, as well, that with changes to the B.C. Timber Sales regulations now — not done in the legislation but in the regulations — if a person allows a timber sale licence to expire or surrenders it, they pay a higher deposit in the future. That’s the disincentive to undertaking the kind of speculation that the member opposite is talking about. If you operate in that way, you pay future higher deposits.

H. Bains: My question still remains: what was the need to change this? I mean, you bring them both together, both of them on the same level playing field. I understand that. But why go to the lower standard than bringing them both to the standard that had existed? That would keep those who would choose to bid and then had no intention of harvesting…. I think that’s the real concern.

Before I sit down, hon. Chair, I’d like to get your ruling — my co-critic is sitting with me — if it’s permissible to have him ask questions from this chair, or does he have to go back to his own chair?

The Chair: With leave of the committee, that would be possible, although Hansard would have to make a quick change on the fly. If we could arrange for that, I will….

Leave granted.

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: The rationale for this, as I pointed out, is to balance the risk; to treat both symmetrically or equally; to maintain the marketability, particularly of the more value skill-based, to make those more attractive; and to make sure that both systems get the best potential for supporting, through the offers, our market pricing system. That’s why the decision was made to balance and to equalize the risk.

I have just been advised, too, by staff that I should correct the record. I talked about the provisions for in-
[ Page 8753 ]
creasing the deposit on surrender or allowing a TSL to expire without harvest. The surrender process is a no-fault process. If you allow it to expire, that’s when the higher deposit is applied to any future opportunities for that person who allows that TSL to expire.

B. Routley: Yes, there is clearly some confusion with this section. Going back, we’ve already talked about an amendment to the bonus bid to allow it to be paid at different times or in different manners. I gather that’s to allow people to pay over time. But the trouble that we’re having with this section 22.1 is….

Let me use this example. Down in the United States, they don’t have all of the Crown timber, and they don’t manage it in the same way that we do here. The U.S. Forest Service puts ribbons on an area of land. As I understand it, we actually went down and talked to, at one point, some Weyerhaeuser employees. We had Weyerhaeuser employees from Canada go down and talk to Weyerhaeuser employees in the United States. We were talking about tenure and the way that it works.

One of the differences in it — and as you may know, this becomes an issue for the softwood lumber dispute — is that the American model is to have people bid. They section off an area, have a group of contractors come in, and everything is done on this bid basis.

There is some history in the U.S. Forest Service where the market changed dramatically. People would go in. They would bid so much a cubic metre. Let’s just, for the sake of argument, say that they bid 80 bucks a cubic metre for something. Suddenly, the market crashed, and now you can only make money at $35. So they would forfeit their timber licence. But in any case where there was some kind of bonus bid or anything like that, that would potentially be forfeited.

We’re trying to struggle with and understand what it is you’re trying to accomplish by having words that say: “…for which a bonus offer was tendered is not required” — not required — “to pay the bonus offer if the licence is surrendered or expires before any Crown timber is harvested….”

Maybe you could describe the problem we’re trying to solve. Is the problem that we’re trying solve the market conditions that I just related? Is this about dramatically changing market conditions, where they bid and suddenly there is no value in harvesting? In fact, if they go out and harvest, they’re going lose money. Is this to avoid those kinds of circumstances?

Maybe a better example yet is: could the minister tell us how many times this problem has come forward in the past? You’re obviously saying that you’re trying to deal with cruise versus scale. Has this been an ongoing problem? How many times has the minister offered letters to allow people to do what you’re now trying to deal with in legislation?

Maybe you can try to clear up some of the grey area of what it is exactly you’re trying to resolve, because there is a difference between trying to resolve market conditions….

[1555]

One of our concerns is: why would you have a system where people go and bid? You can’t even go to the community auction and bid and then say: “Well, you know, gee, I put in a bonus offer, but I don’t want to do it anymore.” So you forfeit and don’t have to pay anything. That’s going to defeat, in my mind, the whole purpose of a bid process if somehow you can walk away from any challenges.

Maybe there are some other penalties, in another section of the act, that you believe apply. I guess, back to the question, could you kind of describe what problem it is we’re trying to resolve? How often was this a problem in the past?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to advise or to provide the rationale for the change that is being proposed here, as I pointed out earlier, it is to balance the risk between the two systems, to have a consistent process for both types of licences.

We’ve heard through the Timber Sales Advisory Council that having the additional risk is a burden of risk that does impact the bid. Therefore, that potentially flows through to the market pricing system. We, in reviewing all of this, felt that it was best to balance the risk between the two systems.

There still are, as we pointed out earlier, significant disincentives to surrender or to let the licence expire. You lose the deposits, which can be significant. If you allow them to expire without harvest, as we pointed out, the deposit rates go up in the future for that particular operator.

This was all about recommendations that came out of the review process to strengthen or enhance the market pricing system by balancing off the risks.

H. Bains: I think what we’ve heard so far is that there hasn’t been any problem, and the cure that is being suggested here would be worse than the problem, if that ever existed. The minister hasn’t convinced anybody in this room that there was a problem. No examples given — nothing.

[1600]

I want to say this. What this change will lead to is that if the amendment would establish that if a timber licence is surrendered or has expired before any Crown timber is harvested, the licence holder is not required to pay the bonus offer.

When you put this side by side with section 6 that we just talked about, no lump sum money is asked to be paid up front. It could be installments. Then you look at this — that no bonus offer is required. What it could lead to are adverse selection problems. It means that it would give people incentive to put in a high bonus offer in order to win an auction, with the knowledge that they can aban-
[ Page 8754 ]
don the licence without penalty if they never get around to actually harvesting the timber because it is not profitable or for whatever reason.

So it could be a race to the bottom in business practices if the higher bidder thinks that they can afford the high bonus offer, because they don’t pay their workers well, for example, or don’t treat the environment with care.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

When you read this along with section 6, which we talked about, what does this mean? It means that they don’t pay, because they don’t pay up front. If they never get around to actually using the cutting rights, they can abandon the licence without consequences. Meanwhile, they may be putting a more responsible company out of business by preventing them from using those harvesting rights. Those are the consequences of these changes in section 6 and section 7.

I don’t see what is the purpose behind these two and what you are trying to fix. We don’t see that anywhere here. It may be a recommendation that came from John Allan’s report. But where is the problem? We don’t see that, and the minister has not convinced anyone so far with his answers.

We have identified the problems it could bring. There’s a potential of putting some real responsible companies, leaving them out of business. In the meantime, those with no intention of harvesting could put in a high offer because they don’t have to pay the offer, the bonus bid, up front. I think it’s a serious problem the minister probably should seriously think about and see what the minister’s reaction is to that.

Hon. S. Thomson: The ultimate rational reason for doing this, and it comes out of the recommendations, is to ensure processes are in place that strengthen the market pricing system. The analysis has shown that there is, with respect to the risk that that…. Because of the risk premium, it does have an impact on the bid process, which can flow through to the market pricing system.

We have, as we point out, a number of policies that create the incentive to undertake the harvesting — the forfeiture of the deposits, future increasing in deposits. This is all designed, coming out of the recommendations, to ensure that we support B.C. Timber Sales in getting the volume out by balancing the risks between the two systems and supporting the market pricing system.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

[1605]

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain section 8. In a nutshell, what does this section mean, and what is the minister trying to achieve by making these changes?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section provides the authorization for the minister to enter into disposition agreements. It sets out the framework for those agreements.

All of this is a streamlining process to provide a more effective way of achieving these disposition agreements. They are already provided for in section 61 of the Forest Act and under the BCTS account regulation. What this is designed to do is to have this provision be more streamlined, to be more effective. It will provide incremental volume through the BCTS program to get more volume out, increase revenue and increase the pricing points for the market pricing system.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could go back here. In a number of the sections following, the words “BCTS disposition agreement” are used. It says it means “a BCTS disposition agreement referred to in subsection (2)”. What does that mean — BCTS disposition agreement?

Hon. S. Thomson: This disposition agreement refers down to section 22.2(2) where it talks about how you can enter into a disposition agreement. As I pointed out, these are provisions that were in place under section 61 of the Forest Act. They have been called different things over time — called incremental fibre agreements previously.

Again, this is a provision that currently exists both in section 61 and in the account regulation. This brings it into a more streamlined process to provide the opportunity for the minister to enter into those disposition agreements, which provide that incremental fibre through agreement with TFLs, with First Nations woodland licences, with community forest agreements. It provides that incremental volume to BCTS to support both revenue and market pricing objectives.

[1610]

H. Bains: What it is, in a simpler form, is that this section will allow the minister to enter into an agreement with those with a forest licence, tree farm licence, community forest agreement, First Nations’ woodland licence and woodlot licences, which will allow the minister to purchase back the unused portion of their AAC. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is a process where, by agreement, a portion of the volume in that can be released back to B.C. Timber Sales for auction and for providing both revenue volume and market pricing capacity for B.C. Timber Sales. It’s important to recognize that when that volume, by agreement, is released back in, in the form of a licence, the entity providing or releasing that volume can’t bid on the timber sale licence option that would be provided by B.C. Timber Sales.

H. Bains: Let’s use, as an example, if Western Forest Products decides…. Well, let’s see. Their total AAC is six million cubic metres. They want to enter into agreement with the minister, and they decide that two million cubic metres is available. Then that two million will become part of the BCTS system, through which they would put that two million cubic metres up for auction, and the successful bidders will bid on the two million cubic metres. It could be bidder or bidders, plurally.

Then they will be harvesting and entering into agreement with the BCTS, and the regular system of the BCTS will apply. Then that volume is harvested under the BCTS system by successful bidders. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: The process is that the holder can, through agreement, through voluntary arrangement, provide volume to BCTS through that agreement. BCTS would then competitively auction that volume as part of their operations and process.

As I pointed out, the holder — whether it’s a community forest, a TFL holder or a First Nations’ woodland licence — would not be able to bid on that competitive auction process.

[1615]

H. Bains: I think that’s what I asked, and the minister is basically agreeing with what I suggested.

My question then is: under the BCTS system, can the minister explain that the successful bidder…? When that portion that is entered into an agreement from a tree farm licence holder through the ministry and made available to BCTS so it becomes part of the BCTS system…? Is a successful bidder then awarded that licence for four years? Isn’t it a minimum of four years?

Hon. S. Thomson: The maximum — and it is the maximum — term is four years. The term is set by the timber sale manager, and that is set taking a number of factors into consideration — size, location, season. I guess the average or the general term is usually 14 to 18 months.

H. Bains: When you are talking about, Minister, this section giving the minister the right to enter into an agreement with a tree farm licence holder…. So if they have six million cubic metres, their AAC, can they enter into with the government for the entire six million cubic metres?

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, this is some of the volume. It’s voluntary. From BCTS’s perspective, this is incremental fibre source. BCTS still has the mandate to sell their full AAC over the business cycle. That’s where the focus of their operations are. In circumstances there are opportunities for some incremental volumes — certainly not in the kind of volumes that the member opposite is asserting or referring to.

[1620]

Just for example, we’re currently in discussions on Haida Gwaii with the Misty Isles Development Society around this kind of an opportunity there. Volumes in those kinds of discussions are in the range of 25,000 to 80,000 cubic metres.

H. Bains: The concern is: is there a cap? Is there a floor? According to the minister’s answer, if the BCTS is willing to add on an incremental volume — as the minister put it — whatever that amount could be, then government can enter into an agreement with a tree farm licence holder. So there’s no cap. There’s no cap as far as….

What percentage of AAC of a tree farm licence holder can be made available to the government through this system? Is there any cap or is there any limit to how much of their AAC can be made available? If the minister could answer…. Technically, if all the circumstances are right and everything works well, they can actually, under this section, make the entire AAC available through the minister to BCTS. Is that not correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the provisions required and, as we pointed out, some of the volume for…. Through a voluntary process, the process has been designed. Quite frankly, this is not designed for the type of circumstance that the member opposite is using as an example.

This has been designed to provide opportunities primarily for community forests, for First Nations woodland licences, for First Nations who have TFLs where there are opportunities to provide that on a voluntary basis, that incremental volume. B.C. Timber Sales would not have the capacity to deal with a volume in the magnitude or the approach that the member opposite is referring to. This is designed to provide those opportunities in those kinds of arrangements.

It’s also designed for when we have a constrained land base, when we’re looking for opportunities to have additional community forests, additional First Nations woodland licences placed in regions and in communities where there are constraints. In many cases the only way to do that is impacting BCTS volumes by having these voluntary agreements and arrangements with BCTS.

[1625]

Providing that approach through the pricing system actually gives us a future opportunity to expand opportunities for those kinds of opportunities in communities.

H. Bains: The problem with that answer, Minister, is this. If it was only mentioned — community forest agreement, First Nations woodland licence and woodlot licence — we probably wouldn’t have such a serious problem with this. But under “non-BCTS licence,” this section, it includes forest licence and tree farm licence as part of the non-BCTS licence, in addition to the community forest agreement, First Nations woodland licence and woodlot licences. I think that’s where the concern is.

Technically, a tree farm licence holder can make the entire AAC available, and if the minister is willing and the BCTS says, “I’ve got a capacity to sell,” then the entire AAC under this section can be sold back to the government. That’s the concern here.

I think the next question that I have is…. These are the forests that belong to British Columbians, through the government. Tree farm licence holders are given the right to harvest, to have economic activities. What is the purpose of buying back assets that belong to us in the first place? What is the purpose behind that?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I’ve pointed out, under section 61 we already have this authority, section 61 in combination with B.C. Timber Sales account regulations. What we’re doing here in these amendments is providing a more streamlined process to undertake this to provide B.C. Timber Sales the option to access additional incremental volume.

It is those opportunities where there are those incremental volumes arranged. As I said, the capacity — because B.C. Timber sales still has the obligation to market its full AAC across the business cycle. That was one of the other key recommendation that came out of the process.

This is providing a more streamlined process for where there are opportunities to get that incremental volume to be able to provide additional data for the market, for the pricing system, to help build capacity, particularly in community forests, in First Nations woodland licences, in First Nations TFLs, where there is the opportunity to get additional volume, make that volume available to mills, getting that fibre available.

This provides a more streamlined process to do that for provisions than the cumbersome process we already had previously. The member opposite’s concerns that this is going to have large licence holders, large volumes, brought into this process — from the perspective of those organizations, it wouldn’t make sense.

[1630]

BCTS retains a portion of the revenue generated. The monetary consideration will be less than the revenue that the company would be able to generate from their stand-alone operation.

It really is about a process that is already there and about being able to get incremental volumes into the BCTS system, which helps strengthen both market pricing and making fibre available and provides those opportunities in communities where we are, at this point, constrained. When we have those situations, we’re looking for ways to help strengthen the process in those communities, in those regions by being able to have these disposition agreements in a more streamlined manner than currently is the case.

H. Bains: There’s that concern. There’s no limit. There’s no cap. If all the circumstances are right, the entire AAC can be purchased back. That’s concern No. 1.

The government is saying that we’ll buy back something that belongs to the government in the first place. That timber does not belong to those companies. It belongs to the people of the province, through the government, and the companies are given the right to harvest to create economic activities. That’s concern No. 2.

Concern No. 3 is that even if a portion of the AAC is made available to the government, the question that the unions have — and I would agree with them — is that they could easily make the area that is normally harvested by a unionized contractor…. The company could decide they do not want to harvest that portion now themselves and make it available to the government, and it goes to BCTS. Now a non-union contractor could bid successfully.

It means that the unionized jobs are being transferred over to a non-union company. How do you fix that problem? There could be a contractual obligation that the union has with that company. This could also be seen to be a deunionization process through this bill.

Can the minister assure those unionized workers that their work will not be transferred through this process to a non-union contractor?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I’ve tried to provide assurances to the members opposite that this is in situations where there are incremental volume opportunities in a voluntary process, by agreement, to help support communities and First Nations woodland licences, First Nations TFLs and TFLs generally, by being able to provide a portion or some of the volume.

It’s a voluntary arrangement. B.C. Timber Sales is not obligated to accept any offer to enter into an agreement. As you know, B.C. Timber Sales maintains…. They’re an integral presence throughout our communities. They would be sensitive to the concerns and needs of those local communities, the local labour force in those communities, and would not knowingly put a strategy in place or participate in a strategy that was designed to circumvent those labour agreements.

I’m confident that given the intent of what we want to achieve here in terms of strengthening the BCTS operations that came out of the review process…. We need to make sure that BCTS maintains those levels of volume and contributes to the market price system. To meet our trade obligations, we need to make sure that we have those data points. These provisions here in the legislation provide for those incremental opportunities that will assist in that.

[1635]

As I said, the discussions we’re having to date…. A number of opportunities are there in those smaller volume ranges in communities and with First Nations. On a go-forward basis, I believe that this will help us look at additional opportunities for community forests, addi-
[ Page 8757 ]
tional opportunities for First Nations in the province and, at the same time, make sure that we can strengthen and support BCTS’s important role in our industry.

H. Bains: For me and many of my colleagues here…. I can’t speak for them, but for me to support this particular section, the minister has to do better than what he has given us. You’ve got to assure those unionized workers employed by major tree farm licence holders, on the coast especially, that their jobs, the unionized jobs, will not be transferred through this system to a non-union workforce.

Can you give that assurance to the unionized workforce on the coast, that their jobs will not be shifted, transferred, through this section, to a non-union workforce?

Hon. S. Thomson: I’ve indicated the intent of the provisions here. I’ve said that B.C. Timber Sales is not obligated to accept an offer to enter into a disposition agreement. The member opposite knows the role that BCTS plays throughout the province — integral presence in the communities.

I’m confident that they would not knowingly be part of any strategy or process to circumvent labour agreements. I think the concerns of the member, in this case, are unfounded.

In addition to a number of the other provisions, the person putting the disposition opportunity forward on that incremental volume is not able to bid on those. It has to work from a financial perspective for B.C. Timber Sales. It has to contribute to the market pricing system.

I’m confident that the scenario or the circumstance that the member opposite is asserting here would not take place under BCTS operations.

H. Bains: I think the minister could have easily said that the BCTS will not enter into agreement to allow a tree farm licence holder to have the unionized workforce work transferred over, through BCTS, to a non-union workforce. Can the minister give that assurance, that BCTS will not enter into that agreement?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, what I’ve said is that BCTS, given their role in the communities, would not knowingly be part of a strategy that would circumvent those agreements. BCTS’s role is to provide auction and opportunities and price data for the market pricing system to make fibre available. They don’t dictate to the people bidding to the process — the independent contractors, companies — how they manage their labour requirements for those.

[1640]

But again, I’ve said I’m confident that they would not knowingly be part of a strategy that the member opposite is asserting, which would see these opportunities being utilized to circumvent those labour agreements or circumvent union opportunities. Again, given the nature of the opportunities that are being provided through how these amendments are designed, I’m confident that that would not be the case.

H. Bains: That was my concern No. 3 that hasn’t been addressed by the minister.

If I may ask the minister…. The next one, (4)(b), talks about: “…must specify the consideration to be provided by the government to the holder of the non-BCTS licence for the value of the rights released to the government.”

How will the government set the price for the rights that are released by the tree farm licence holder, First Nations agreement or woodlot agreement? How would you set the price for your consideration?

Hon. S. Thomson: The process is a negotiated monetary consideration that’s determined through the normal processes. The normal considerations that B.C. Timber Sales would go through would take into account the economic viability of the harvesting opportunity, the development costs and others — you know, road construction, harvesting costs, timber grade species, values that are in the opportunity. It is a negotiated process.

Based on the voluntary nature of the arrangement, we would enter into those. It would be senior timber sales managers that would undertake that discussion and determine the appropriate process, recognizing their need to provide that consideration but then also, from B.C. Timber Sales’ perspective, needing to assure that the volume that is part of that disposition agreement can be put into the auction process and both contribute to the market pricing system and make sure that that timber can be made available through harvest opportunities.

H. Bains: What the minister is saying is this: government will offer or specify consideration. No one knows what that price is going to be. It’s all up to negotiations. Again, we are putting a system in place — it may be available before — to purchase back something, to purchase back the right to that timber, the right that belongs to us in the first place.

[1645]

Something’s wrong with that picture. If they do not want to harvest the timber licence or the volume that they are authorized to under AAC, what is the purpose of buying it from them? The whole purpose of awarding them the AAC or the tree farm licence is for their use. I’ll get into that later. It used to be to process that timber in their own facilities. That is no longer the case now.

Now, in my view, you’re saying that they are not required to utilize that timber, to process in their facilities or to harvest and make that available to other operators. We’re saying: “We’ll buy it back from you.” Something’s wrong with that. Why would you even consider that? As
[ Page 8758 ]
a result of that…. I gave you my reasons why I cannot accept those three or four serious concerns.

I have amendments to propose to section 8 of the bill, placed under my name, to amend as follows:

[Section 8, 22.2(1) is amended by deleting “forest licence, tree farm licence,” from the definition of “non-BCTS licence”.]

On the amendment.

The Chair: Member, do you want to speak on it?

H. Bains: I think this amendment is in line with what the minister has been saying. The minister has said that, largely speaking, it wasn’t to apply to the tree farm licence holders or to the forest licences, that the whole intent here was to make incremental volume available to BCTS from community forest agreements, First Nations’ woodland licences or woodlot licences.

If that’s the case, that’s what this amendment will do. If the minister does not agree, if the government does not agree to go along with this amendment, what we see here is that this is a final nail in the coffin of what used to be the social contract that existed for 150 years in the province of British Columbia.

[1650]

If this bill was to pass without this amendment, what it means is that it does everything that goes against the grain of the intent that was placed in the Forest Act for 150 years: the social contract that required that the government will make tree farm licences — and through tree farm licences, the forest — available to the companies so that they could process them in their own mills to create economic activity in those forestry-dependent communities, provide jobs for the workers who live there and make contributions to the well-being of British Columbia.

That was the whole purpose behind tree farm licences. There’s a history behind it going back to 1800 to 1911, when we started to formally utilize our forests for economic uses. The early regulations of 1912 to 1946 established the system that we call forest reserves, an area officially designated for timber harvesting.

Then we moved on. In 1943 the forest industry expanded the limits of its timber supply under existing tenures and sought greater access to Crown timber. In response, the government appointed a royal commission to analyze the tenure system. We go back over 100 years.

Then the next era started, from 1947 to 1978. It basically was the implementation of the Sloan commission’s recommendations that led to the major changes in the tenure system, including amendments to the Forest Act of 1947. The key among the changes was the establishment of forest management units that would be managed for long-term sustained yield of timber through the use of regulated harvest rates.

When you continue to look at the new forms of tenure and the forest management licence, it gives companies long-term harvest rights, but with a critical difference. These were the area-based lots, not the volume-based licence at that time. This provided a single licensee with exclusive rights and responsibilities over a specific area. These licences were only issued on the condition that the companies who held the tenure invested in processing facilities and took on forest management obligations such as reforestation.

That’s the basic tenet of how we manage our forest for the benefit of British Columbians. That went on to…. You know, it was a very successful system.

Then we brought in, in 1976, integrated forest management. Up until that time the tree farm licence, through the appurtenancy clause, was tied to a sawmill or a processing facility. But in 1982-83, I believe, the previous Minister of Forests, Mr. Tom Waterland, watered down — no pun intended — the appurtenancy clause by making it that the tree farm licence must utilize the equivalent volume in their own facilities or facilities owned by their affiliates. That was the change.

Again, there was a requirement. There was a social contract that existed, including cut controls. Cut controls mean that a minimum of 50 percent of the AAC must be harvested in any given year — a minimum of 50 percent — or 150 percent, depending on the market conditions. But over a five-year cycle they must be within 5 or 10 percent. That made a lot of sense. That kept all those grocery stores, the gas stations and many other businesses in those smaller communities operating.

There were some forest activities in those communities. The workers had jobs to go to, although at a lower scale, and the businesses had someone who would come in and invest in their businesses. That system worked.

Then, in 2002-2003, the government brought in the so-called Forestry Revitalization Act. I call it so-called forestry revitalization because that was the beginning of destruction of our forest industry. As a result, we had 30,000 jobs lost in the forest industry. Over 150 mills shut down since that piece of legislation was brought in. It’s not because of the economics of British Columbia or the world market. The companies now had a licence. Basically, it was a blank cheque written to them. They could do whatever they wanted to do with the assets that belonged to British Columbians.

[1655]

As a result, they didn’t just shut down their mills here. That would be understood if there was the market condition to shut down a mill. What they did was they shut down mills here in British Columbia, and then they opened up mills in the United States.

In one instance soon after the forest revitalization was brought in — because the social contract was cut, gone — one company, Interfor, moved their operation from the Fraser Valley only about 20 kilometres south of the border, and they established that operation. McDonald Cedar, I might add, was the name. It still exists.

Since that time, you look at West Fraser, Western, Canfor and Interfor. They had, in 2003, maybe two or three mills south of the border. Now it’s in the dozens, each one of them. And more investment is going south of the border.

That clearly shows that the Forest Revitalization Act benefited the companies and their shareholders, the CEOs. It did not benefit — in fact, it hurt — the B.C. economy. It hurt B.C. workers because they had no more jobs to go to, and British Columbians paid dearly because this government wanted to give everything that the CEOs of these big companies asked for — plus some.

As a result of that, here is a final nail in the coffin of the social contract that existed. Now the companies are not even required to harvest the AAC that they are given. Although they harvested and exported largely on the coast, Western Forest Products’ capacity is only four million cubic metres, but they have over six million AAC. What do they do with the excess two million? There are mills here in the Lower Mainland that are dying to get some extra fibre to get their mills to full capacity. They cannot do that because the timber is not available to them.

In the meantime, companies like Western and others are allowed to export the extra timber that they have over and above their milling capacity — 6.7 million cubic metres in 2013 was exported; last year, not much different, and this year probably the same again. In the meantime, we have operators saying, “We need those logs,” so that they can put their workers to work. They cannot do that.

That’s why this amendment makes sense. I think we made a very good case for the minister to say yes to this amendment. By deleting those words, the major tree farm licence holders and the forest licence holders…. Now, if you remove those, and “non–BCTS licences” means only the community forest agreement, First Nations woodland licences or woodlot licences, then those are the only ones that could continue on, with the agreement the minister talked about, giving BCTS the incremental volume if they choose to get into an agreement through the government. It makes sense.

I hope that the minister will agree with this amendment. Then we can move on, and then we could, hopefully, based on what answers come for the remainder of some of the sections here, get on and maybe agree to vote in favour of it.

Hon. S. Thomson: On this side of the House we will not be supporting the amendment that has been proposed here.

[1700]

As I pointed out earlier, under section 61 the provisions currently exist. The provisions here of what’s being proposed in the proposal that’s before us in this bill is to streamline the process, to provide these opportunities. The amendment takes away opportunities for First Nations who currently have tree farm licences. It takes the opportunities away from a range of tree farm licences that are in place.

Again, we have talked about the provisions here around the objective — incremental volume, supporting BCTS, contributing to the market pricing system and making fibre available, where those opportunities exist. In my view, the provisions here are achieved — the objectives from the recommendations of the review — and provide that streamlined approach to providing the opportunities that will strengthen B.C. Timber Sales operations in the province, which is a critical objective in meeting our trade and SLA obligations. We will be opposing the proposed amendment.

B. Routley: I, too, stand in support of the amendment. Without going through the entire history, I do want to add the point that when they first proposed the notion of tree farm licences — and, for that matter, any kind of licence — in the province of British Columbia, the purpose was to link communities and to have forest activity promoted, basically, by the province of British Columbia. In fact, over the years the Americans have argued that our model is somehow broken, that the only way to really get the value of timber is to put it all up for bid. Yet I would argue….

I stand here today in defence of the notion that the forests of British Columbia should be promoted by the government of B.C. to create jobs here in British Columbia. Sadly, this government has abandoned that task. They’ve walked away from the notion of creating value-added jobs, of promoting more manufacturing in the forests of British Columbia.

We’ve got what used to be talked about as a trillion-dollar asset. Now I hear some say it’s a quarter-of-a-trillion asset. In any case, it’s extremely valuable to the good people of British Columbia — a large land base that is the public asset, the public land.

You know, you look at the Timber Tenures agreements in the province of British Columbia, and it’s fascinating that the front page says: “Managing public forests in the public interest.” Really? Really?

Have we gone so far away from the path that we’re no longer managing the forests of British Columbia for the good people of British Columbia? No. What we hear is that we’re managing the forests for a select group of individual companies who…. Apparently, the minister is at their beck and call. They call up and say: “We want to amend the legislation, and we want to do it in favour of the big forest companies in some way.” It makes no sense that we’ve seen the history go from a tree farm licence that had an appurtenancy clause that actually tied the timber to manufacturing plants.

The first tree farm licence I read…. We had a whole list of sawmills attached to TFL 46. It had a management
[ Page 8760 ]
working plan. Guess what one of the first few paragraphs talked about. It was going to be managed in a sustainable way — sustainable for the communities in British Columbia. That was going to be the purpose — to manage the forests of British Columbia in a sustainable way. And here we are today. It’s hard to believe that we’ve off-loaded the rights of the good people of British Columbia.

[1705]

First of all, they said to the tree farm licence holders: “No more cut control. No more appurtenancy.” This government did that in 2002. It abandoned the principles of connecting the forests to the good people of British Columbia altogether and basically said: “Oh, it’s okay.”

And they took the private land portion of a tree farm licence…. I still remember the old tree farm licence 46. A quarter of the land base was private land that was owned by the company. Originally, that was the purpose. If you were going to be awarded a tree farm licence, you were going to put some of your own private land in. In order to be awarded a licence, that was almost a prerequisite.

Think about the value. If you had a licence, if any one of us in this room had a licence to cut timber in the province of British Columbia — millions of cubic metres in some cases — you could run down to the bank with your piece of paper and just show that piece of paper, and you could say, “I want enough money, millions, to build a pulp mill,” or a sawmill or buy logging equipment. Guess what. The bank would be happy to hand over the cash so that you could go into business and do that. A wonderful thing.

The quid pro quo used to be that there were jobs for British Columbians. They talked about sustainability, stability in community. I remember, when I was a much younger man, going to the community of Youbou. Every time I drove into the mill parking lot there was a great big banner that said: “Community building, community sustainability.” Wow, what a wonderful thing. Isn’t that a wonderful thing? We were building community sustainability, and that was going to really mean something.

But no. It got thrown under the bus. Gone are the days when we had the right to connectivity to communities. This is the final straw. Now we’re saying, in this legislation: “Not only did we give you the timber rights, but now we want to offer to pay them back. Would that be okay, boss, if we pay you a little cash to get a little back?” We’ll go into negotiations, backroom negotiations, and cut some kind of a deal that even the people of British Columbia…. We’re going to have no idea, no idea at all, what goes on in those back rooms. I’m very troubled by what I see here.

In closing, I want to say that I firmly support this motion. It’s the right motion that we should do. All sides of the House should agree. Let’s get rid of this proposed legislation as it is and support this amendment.

[1710-1715]

The Chair: Hon. Members, it’s an amendment proposed by the member for Surrey-Newton to delete the words, in section 8 of Bill 25, “forest licence, tree farm licence” from the definition of “non-BCTS licence.”

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Section 8 approved on division.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

H. Bains: Here I just want to show…. As the minister said, there was a consultation that took place. But I want to read you a portion of a letter that was sent to us by Jennifer Gunter, executive director of B.C. Community Forest Association.

[1720]

Basically, what was said at the end here is that “while a voluntary agreement and business-to-business partnership with BCTS are of interest to our members, at this point we do not see the benefit to be gained by the communities through the volume reservation concept. However, if Bill 25 passes, we will work with the ministry on the related policy” to ensure that the interests of the community forest are included in the discussion.

I think that is a concern here for section 10. I hope the minister will explain to us: how will this not dilute the rights of community forest owners to continue to have the right to harvest the entire volume that is awarded to them, rather than having a reservation where the government can keep a portion of their licence and have the right to go and harvest in there?

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the member opposite raising the concern and the letter. I have met with the Community Forest Association with respect to this. I’ve met with a number of individual community forests in discussion just to confirm that this is looking at providing opportunities for new community forests. It would not be applied to existing community forests, unless there was an agreement to do so.

In fact, I’ve got a letter from the Cowichan Lake Community Forest Co-operative, saying: “The Cowichan Lake Community Forest appreciates that government has the good reason to bring in the above-noted amendments. We see the proposed amendments may present opportunities as we work with the ministry to identify a secure land base for a new community forest agreement. We are jointly working with the Pacheedaht First Nation.

This is designed, as we were talking earlier, to provide those opportunities. Just to assure the member opposite, we will continue to work closely with the Community Forest Association — I’m attending their annual meeting — to ensure that as we move forward with this, it is done in a cooperative manner and by agreement, where those opportunities may present themselves.

Sections 10 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

H. Bains: Just a question here. It seems to me that this section allows BCTS to sell property other than logging roads. Can the minister explain what property belonging to BCTS does the government want to sell?

Also, the government press release says that it will allow BCTS “to recover unamortized value of Crown assets.” What does this “recover unamortized value” mean? If the minister can give one or two examples.

Hon. S. Thomson: This section, as was pointed out, authorizes the disposal of property that’s previously purchased from the B.C. Timber Sales account. Currently there isn’t any explicit authority for us to do that through that account. During normal business activities, Timber Sales, on occasion, may determine that it has certain assets — for example, portable bridges, or plans or assessments — that are no longer needed. In some cases, if there has been an exchange of areas, there are assets that may be of use to the licensee.

[1725]

This allows us an efficient, effective process to dispose of those assets that are of use to a particular business entity without having to transport those assets to central disposal or auction sites. It really is just putting in authority to allow for more effective business operations of B.C. Timber Sales.

Sections 22 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

H. Bains: Just a question here. The process that is listed here for public input on potentially controversial land…. The process for public input into potentially controversial Crown land applications seems to me very seriously watered down here. Section 63 and section 64 of the Land Act, which have been repealed by section 40 of this bill, spelled out a process where the minister, at his or her discretion, could require a hearing over a Crown land application.

My question to the minister is: why is government watering down the opportunity that the public has to be heard when they have objections to land use applications?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, this is not watering down the process. Section 63 — this is the section that is being repealed — was designed and set up to deal with homesteading, which doesn’t currently take place, to any degree. What we’ve put in is a new section, made it consistent with provisions of the act and brought in a public comment process on notice of application to ensure that the appropriate consultation takes place.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Sections 38 and 39 approved.

On section 40.

H. Bains: My question here is: why is the government repealing these two sections? It seems to me that section 63 is disputed applications and section 64 is appeals. So my question is: why are these two sections repealed?

Hon. S. Thomson: The current process in section 63 states that before a disposition is made, the public may object to an application. If the notice is filed, there may be a hearing. The hearing requires a report to be provided to the minister, who must review, etc.

The process outlined here no longer reflects current practice. There is no hearing body as described in the provision, and one has not existed since the 1980s. Objections are rare. When they do arise, they’re handled at a regional level. The risk of duplication and receiving public comments exists due to the disputed-application procedure set out in section 63. That’s why we’re repealing these sec-
[ Page 8762 ]
tions and have replaced them with the public notification process that was referenced earlier.

[1730]

Sections 40 to 50 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 5:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 25, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 5, intituled Government Information Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 5:35 p.m.

On the title.

The Chair: There is an amendment on the order paper proposed by the minister to amend the title, and given that many of the other amendments on the order paper deal with the amended title, I feel that, while normal practice is to deal with the title last, we’ll deal with the title first.

I recognize the minister to move the amendment to the title.

Hon. A. Virk: The bill before us, subject to, as you note, a title change, would affect subsequent sections as well. I’d first like to move the amendment to the title of the bill standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[In the Title, by deleting “GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ACT” and substituting “INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ACT”.]

Amendment approved.

Title as amended approved.

On section 1.

D. Routley: I propose an amendment, and I have copies of the amendment here. The amendment I am proposing:

[To amend the definition of “government body” in section 1 of the Act as follows:

“government body” means

(a) a ministry of the government of British Columbia or,

(c) a government agency designated as a government body by regulation,]

On the amendment.

D. Routley: This amendment aims to ensure that Bill 5 applies to government agencies by default rather than by the designation of the cabinet through regulation. Government agencies are part of the government, and they should automatically be included. As the bill stands now, in its current state and proposed amendments, it is possible that some agencies — for example, B.C. Hydro — could be excluded from having the same records retention obligations as government.

I move that amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 1 of Bill 5 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Definitions

1 In this Act:

“archive” means to transfer government information from a government body or court to the digital archives or museum archives of government;

“court” means the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court or Provincial Court;

“court information” means recorded information held by a court that is

(a) filed in a court proceeding, or

(b) about a court proceeding,

but does not include

(c) information stored in or recorded on a judicial administration record, or

(d) information relating to matters of court administration assigned to the Attorney General or government by law;

“court information schedule” means a court information schedule approved under section 16.1 [court information schedules];

“digital archives” means the digital archives for government information established by section 13 [digital archives established];

“digitize” means to record in digital form information originally recorded in non-digital form;

“dispose” means to destroy, or render impracticable to decipher, recorded information;

“government agency” means an association, board, commission, corporation or other body, whether incorporated or unincorporated, if

(a) the body is an agent of the government,

(b) in the case of a corporation with issued voting shares, the government owns, directly or indirectly, more than 50% of the issued voting shares of the corporation, or

(c) a majority of the members of the body or of its board of directors or board of management are one or both of the following:

(i) appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by a minister or by an Act;

(ii) ministers or public officers acting as ministers or public officers;

“government body” means

(a) a ministry of the government of British Columbia, or

(b) a court, or

(c) a government agency designated as a government body by regulation,

but does not include

(d) a person who is a member or officer of the Legislative Assembly, in the exercise of his or her functions as a member or officer of the Legislative Assembly;, or

(e) a court;

“government information” means recorded information created or received by a government body in connection with government business, including

(a) information that must be held by the government body by law,

(b) information that documents a decision by a government body respecting a course of action that directly affects a person or the operations of the government body,

(c) information that documents or supports the government body’s organization, policies, procedures, transactions or operations, and

(d) information created or received by a government body that has archival value, and

(d.1) information relating to matters of court administration assigned to the Attorney General or government by law,

but does not include

(e) constituency information held in the office of a minister, or

(f) court information created or received by a court other than information stored or recorded on a record filed, registered, recorded or kept in an office of the court;, or

(g) information stored in or recorded on a judicial administration record;

“head”, in relation to a government body, means whichever of the following applies:

(a) if the government body is a ministry or office of the government of British Columbia, the member of the Executive Council who presides over that ministry or office;

(b) if the government body is a government agency designated as a government body by regulation, the person designated as the head of that government body in that regulation;

“hold”, includes

(a) in relation to government information, includes to place the information in the custody of a volunteer or a person retained under a contract with the government body or a volunteercourt if the government body or court retains control of the information;, and

(b) in relation to court information, to place the court information in the custody of a government body charged with the custody of court information on behalf of the court;

“information schedule” means an information schedule approved under section 5 [approval of information schedules];

“judicial administration record” has the same meaning as in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

“museum archives of government” has the same meaning as in the Museum Act;

“publish” means to make generally available to the public, and includes posting on the internet;

“transfer”, in relation to information, does not include disclosing information if the original body continues to hold the information.]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

Hon. A. Virk: I wish to advise the committee that an amendment to delete section 2 to Bill 5 is standing in my name on the orders of the day.

The Chair: Substantially, that’s a vote to defeat that section. Any further discussion on section 2?

D. Routley: Since the establishment of a chief records officer has been a recommendation of the office of the information officer of the province, an independent officer of the Legislature, could the minister explain why, having proposed this section and having gone through the trouble of detailing all the definition and responsibilities of a chief records officer, the government would now seek to defeat their own section?

[1740]

Hon. A. Virk: Could I ask the member opposite to clarify, as we are requesting that this particular section…? Section 2 is going to be deleted.

D. Routley: The Chair made the comment that it was, in effect, defeating the section if the section were to be deleted. I was actually referring to the comments made by the Chair that this would, in effect, be defeating the section.

If the minister would prefer to talk about deleting the section, that’s fine with me. The question just simply is: why would the government seek to delete the role that they were creating of chief records officer when it has been a recommendation of the chief information officer of the province to establish such a position, and the government went to the trouble of defining and including in the bill this position?

Hon. A. Virk: The role of the chief records officer is defined elsewhere. It’s not contained in this. As such, as I mentioned before, due to the amendments that come later on in the bill, this section is unnecessary. Therefore government will be voting against section 2 to effectively have it deleted.

Section 2 negatived.

On section 3.

D. Routley: I would like to move the following amendment.

[To amend section 3 of the Act by adding the following:

(5) The objectives mandated to the Chief Records Officer under section 4 of this act are subject to review by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.]

On the amendment.

D. Routley: I move this amendment in order to attempt to place this act under the oversight of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The amendment will provide a check and balance between the chief records officer to ensure that the government-appointed official is meeting all of their mandated responsibilities.

The province of British Columbia has been well served by its various officers of the Legislature through their independence and their willingness to advocate on behalf of the public interest when it comes to legislative change and behaviour and practice of government. It seems prudent that government would accept this amendment and offer the Information and Privacy Commissioner the ability to oversee this act.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

D. Routley: Can the minister explain section 5(1)? “The chief records officer may approve an information schedule….” The word “may” — does he intend that there be information schedules applying to government information in the possession of all ministries?

[1745]

Hon. A. Virk: As the section reads, the chief records officer may approve an information schedule if the conditions in parts (a) and (b) are met. But I draw the member’s attention to section 12 as well. If no information schedules are in place, then that information must be retained.

D. Routley: Then would it not be prudent for the government to substitute the word “may” with the word “must” approve an information schedule?

Hon. A. Virk: The semantics are such that the chief records officer may, if the conditions are met. Hence, the use of the word “may” such that conditions (a) and (b) must be met. So “may” is the correct semantic to be used.

D. Routley: Under subsection 5(4): “The minister may establish an information management advisory committee to advise the chief records officer in relation to the approval of information schedules.” Can the minister describe the composition and the method of forming an information management advisory committee?

Hon. A. Virk: The establishment of an advisory committee will have representation from multiple disciplines, not unlike the Public Documents Committee. It will have terms of reference attached to it as well.

D. Routley: Is there any constraint on the minister as to how many people would be appointed to such a committee, either a minimum or a maximum? What would their roles be? Would these people be recruited from the private sector, or would they be recruited from within the bureaucracy, within the ministry? What is the intention of the minister in terms of how these committees would function?

[1750]

Hon. A. Virk: There are no minimum or maximum thresholds. As I mentioned, it will be multidisciplinary — for example, drawing from legal, financial, archival backgrounds.

D. Routley: I’d like to move an amendment to section 5 of this act. I move that Bill 5, intituled Information Management Act, 2015, be amended in section 5(4) of the act as follows:

[To amend section 5 (4) of the Act as follows:

(4) The minister may must establish an information management advisory committee to advise the chief records officer in relation to the approval of information schedules.]

On the amendment.

D. Routley: The position of chief records officer as described in the act lacks the independence of an officer of the Legislature. It is my contention in this and my proposal, through this amendment, that greater diversity of viewpoint and perhaps greater capacity and ability be added to the chief records officer and that there be a continuity to the function of the chief records officer and that the minister then must establish an information management advisory committee to advise the chief records officer.

I make that motion.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

D. Routley: On section 8: “The chief records officer may request information from a head of a government body in relation to the government body’s management of government information.” Could the minister describe what powers the chief records officer will have in ensuring that such a request is answered?

Hon. A. Virk: The section supports the chief records officer’s ability to promote efficiency and effective
[ Page 8765 ]
management of information. The CRO can inquire into information practices of a government body, make inquiries where appropriate and make recommendations for improvement as well.

D. Routley: Would the information that the chief records officer may request include information related to the destruction or disposal of documents?

Hon. A. Virk: It could, in terms of the preservation of government information.

D. Routley: Is there any power granted to the chief records officer to insist that information be released should there be a reluctance to share information from any head of a government body?

Hon. A. Virk: I’ll draw the member’s attention to 17(3) of the act. That suggests that the head of a government body must respond to the request, under section 8, of the chief records officer.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

[1755]

D. Routley: Section 9: “If requested by a government body for the purpose of this Act, the chief records officer may access information, including personal information, held by the government body.”

Does this act, in this section, supersede the arrangements and contracts between citizens and the government in terms of opting out of information collection? Will people be given notice that their personal information has been accessed?

Hon. A. Virk: The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act permits the disclosure of personal information if it is authorized by another enactment.

D. Routley: In several instances in acquiring and negotiating government services people are asked to give consent for the collection and storage of their personal information. Where people have denied consent, will there be an access to information that would otherwise not be accessed by any other government agency?

Hon. A. Virk: The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as I’ve noted before, permits the disclosure of personal information if authorized by another enactment, and consent is not required.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

D. Routley: Section 10(a): “the government body is exempted by the chief records officer.” What will be the powers of the chief records officer to exempt a government body? It seems all-encompassing power, as defined in the act. What will be the limitations on that power by the chief records officer, and how will the public interest in the proper archiving of information be defended, given such a sweeping power of exemption?

Hon. A. Virk: This is meant as a transition and to allow government bodies to transition to a digital environment. It may exempt a government body that, for example, operates in a paper-heavy environment and needs more time to come in compliance with this act when passed.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

D. Routley: I’d like to right now thank the minister and his staff for the promptness of their answers. We have very little time, and I do appreciate how quickly this is moving. I want them to know that I appreciate that.

[1800]

In this section, 11(2): “…information may be transferred between 2 government bodies whether or not an information schedule applies to or addresses that transfer.” Could the minister describe what limitations there would be on the transfer of information between bodies, given that this seems to open the door to data transfer across government without restriction?

Hon. A. Virk: The purpose of this section is to ensure that there is enabling legislation, as government bodies may shift and the government organization may change. It allows the information to go along with that change in organization.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 13 of Bill 5, standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 13, in the proposed section 13 (1), by deleting “for government information”.]

Amendment approved.

On section 13 as amended.

D. Routley: Section 13(3): “The chief records officer may enter into contracts for, or otherwise provide for, the carrying out of any activity or service relating to the management, security and preservation of the digital archives.”

Could the minister explain the scope of this power to
[ Page 8766 ]
enter into contracts and what he envisions that would look like?

Hon. A. Virk: This section clarifies that the chief records officer may engage service providers as required to perform some of the activities as relating to the management of the digital archives.

D. Routley: Would the chief records officer be limited by provisions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that require the storage of information inside Canada and personal information not to be stored outside of Canada?

Hon. A. Virk: The answer is yes.

Section 13 as amended approved.

On section 14.

D. Routley: Section 14(1): “Government information in non-digital form must be digitized before it is archived.”

Does this subsection of section 14 prevent the archiving of physical documents that are now in storage by government?

Hon. A. Virk: It does not prevent the digitization of records that may exist right now in paper form.

D. Routley: In fact, my question was more: does it prevent the archiving of the physical documents that are in storage? Must they be digitized before archiving, or can archiving proceed in cases where perhaps it might not be practical to digitize information that is currently physically stored in a warehouse?

[1805]

Hon. A. Virk: I must clarify this. As the act stipulates, when it’s passed, moving forward, all new government records must be digitized. However, this doesn’t affect those records that are currently in storage that are slated to be sent towards archives.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

D. Routley: In this 15(3): “For certainty, subsection (1) does not apply to records in the museum archives of government.”

What records would be referred to as being in the museum archives of government?

Hon. A. Virk: This allows the paper archives at the museum to be exempt from having to be digitized — the documents that are already there in paper form.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

D. Routley: So 16(a) suggests that a copy of the record “is admissible in evidence without proof of the official character of the person appearing to have signed the copy.” Can the minister explain exactly what that subsection means?

Hon. A. Virk: This section is about ensuring the authenticity of information admitted into evidence in a court proceeding. Normal court processes would have to have that person that authored that record to testify to its authenticity. But in some cases of the records in archives, this person could, in fact, be deceased. In these cases, the chief records officer could certify that the record is authentic and that the copy provided to the court is indeed a true copy.

Section 16 approved.

The Chair: Minister, the additional sections 1, 2 and 3 — if you want to move them separately.

On section 16.1.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendments to section 16.1 of Bill 5 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 16.1, by adding the following heading and section:

PART 4.1 — COURT INFORMATION

Court information schedules

16.1(1) The Deputy Attorney General and the chief judge or chief justice of a court may approve a court information schedule applying to a class of court information if they are satisfied that the court information schedule

(a) is consistent with the effective administration of justice and the independence of the court,

(b) promotes the preservation of valuable court information for current and future use,

(c) promotes effective information management by the court, and

(d) provides, with as much specificity as practicable, for the disposal of all court information required to be disposed of by law and for the holding of all court information required to be held by law.

(2) Court information to which a court information schedule applies must be held, transferred, archived or disposed of in accordance with the court information schedule.

(3) A court information schedule is not an enactment.

(4) If more than one court information schedule applies to court information, the court information schedule most recently approved prevails in the event of a conflict.

(5) The Deputy Attorney General must publish all approved court information schedules.

(6) For the purpose of advising the Deputy Attorney General and, if requested, the chief judge or chief justice on court information schedules, the chief records officer is deemed to be a member of any advisory committee established under section 5 (4) [information management advisory committee].]

Amendment approved.

Section 16.1 as amended approved.

On section 16.2.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 16.2 of Bill 5 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 16.2, by adding section 16.2:

When no court information schedule applies

16.2 (1) If no court information schedule applies to court information, the court information must be held by a court until the Deputy Attorney General and the chief judge or chief justice of the court

(a) approve a court information schedule applying to the court information, or

(b) approve the transfer, archiving or disposal of the court information.

(2) The Deputy Attorney General must publish an approval under subsection (1) (b).

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), if another enactment or a court order requires that a court hold or dispose of court information, that enactment or court order prevails in the event of a conflict.]

Amendment approved.

Section 16.2 as amended approved.

On section 16.3.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 16.3 of Bill 5 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 16.3, by adding section 16.3:

Archiving court information

16.3 (1) Court information that is scheduled to be archived under a court information schedule may be transferred

(a) to the digital archives if the court information is recorded in digital form consistent with directives issued under section 7 [directives for digitizing and archiving government information] in relation to the form of archived information, or

(b) to the Royal British Columbia Museum established under the Museum Act.

(2) The chief judge or chief justice of a court may transfer a judicial administration record of the court

(a) to the digital archives if the judicial administration record is in digital form consistent with directives issued under section 7 [directives for digitizing and archiving government information] in relation to the form of archived information, or

(b) to the Royal British Columbia Museum established under the Museum Act.

(3) The chief judge or chief justice of a court may enter into an agreement with the chief records officer or the Royal British Columbia Museum regarding the management, security, preservation and, where applicable, confidentiality of court information or judicial administration records of the court archived under this section.]

Amendment approved.

Section 16.3 as amended approved.

On section 17.

[1810]

D. Routley: On section 17 of the act, I would propose an amendment. The amendment to Bill 5, intituled Information Management Act, 2015:

[To amend section 17 of the Act by adding the following subsection:

(1.1) (a) The head of a government body is responsible for ensuring that every officer and employee of that body creates such records as are reasonably necessary to document key government deliberations, actions, and decisions.

(b) The head of a government body must ensure that all relevant records related to real or apprehended litigation, audit, investigation, court or archival order, or special organizational requirement are created and maintained.]

On the amendment.

D. Routley: This amendment legislates a duty to create records of key deliberations, actions and decisions of government as recommended by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. It further requires that records related to investigations, court cases, audits, litigation and archival orders are created and maintained.

At risk of upsetting the friendly tone of debate to this point, I would have to refer all the members of the House to what has become a problem of this government, and that is the practice as described by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of no-records government, of government without documentation.

We have seen a rapid and widespread increase in responses to FOI requests — from opposition members, from media, from organizations in the province — that have come back with refusals explained by the fact of no records existing.

We have, in fact, on the opposition side made numerous FOI requests to similar, parallel communications for disparate, separate purpose and upon review have found that one FOI request will be returned as no records existing and another one returned with the records that were requested by the first request, clearly showing that there’s a failure of government to adequately document decisions, that government is either failing to provide documentation and mistakenly referring to an absence of documents when documents do in fact exist or, more negatively, insisting that documents don’t exist when they actually know that they do.

The people of the province need to have confidence in their democracy and in their government. They need to have the confidence that the government is insisting that records be kept. We’ve seen numerous examples where high-ranking officials in government have referred to their unwillingness to keep records, their preference to pick up a phone and have a conversation. The Information and Privacy Commissioner described it as oral government, that we’re developing an oral government where the records of government are not being kept.

We had a previous Information and Privacy Commissioner, going back ten years, describe this practice as putting the historical record of B.C., of the province, in peril. It seems foolhardy and dangerous for government
[ Page 8768 ]
to exercise its business in such a way that would put the historical record of the province at risk.

There’s a quote from James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, who said: “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”

With that wisdom kept firmly in front of us as a guiding principle — that democracy must, in order to function properly, be supported by a well-informed populace, that people must have confidence that government is willing to share important information — I think the government should support an amendment that would create a duty to document and show by example and by statute and direct the actions of all its ministries, all of its public bodies, that there will not be a tolerance of the further development of an oral culture within government.

[1815]

The government would refer back to its own support of the original Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act in British Columbia in the early ’90s, which both sides of this House unanimously supported on the principle that freedom of information would be a backstop to the development of an open government culture. We cannot possibly have faith in that if government is failing to document its most important and key decisions, particularly when they relate to investigations, audits and accountability measures.

With that, I hope the minister will support my amendment, and we can reinforce the notion of open government in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Virk: I thank the member for the history lesson.

The proposed amendment, as suggested by the member opposite, will not be supported. The proposed information management act already requires the retention of any records that document key decisions, actions or documents on the government’s organizations, policies or procedures. These records must be retained for an appropriate period of time as set out in information retention schedules. So I refute the member’s suggestion.

These requirements are already set out in program-specific legislation and in supporting policy. In fact, there are over 400 B.C. statutes that contain such requirements, which is 80 percent of all legislation. These program-specific statutes are a more appropriate place to place such requirements. They allow for a level of detail that could not be achieved in a single overarching act, such as what records must be created, for what purpose and by whom. Trying to duplicate these requirements in the act, even if such a thing was possible, would only create confusion and potential conflict with these other statutes. As such, the amendment by the member is not supported.

D. Routley: I think it would be very difficult to retain a record that doesn’t exist. The notion that the act will direct that records must be retained makes an assumption that records exist in the first place. The problem that this government has had is that records have not been created in the first place. We’ve seen the development of an oral culture within government.

We can have all the rules that we want when we discuss and direct the retention of records, but we make an assumption that there is a record. When people just simply pick up the phone or an oral culture develops or e-mails that are determined by staff or by ministers to be transitory in nature are deleted…. You cannot archive a deleted e-mail. You cannot archive a document that was never created.

While I respect the minister’s intention to create a format for the retention of documents, I suggest that an amendment such as the one suggested would further backstop this government’s openness. It is a provision that exists in other jurisdictions and would easily be adopted by this government to ensure that we have the actual creation of records rather than simply discussing the retention of documents and, in many cases, documents that don’t even exist.

Hon. A. Virk: Once again, the Information Management Act as proposed does contain and require the retention of any record that documents key actions and decisions and also the retention of documents that speak of government’s organizations, policies, changes, transactions or operations. Those records must be kept. That’s very clear in this act. There are 400 B.C. statutes that specify, that require and then very clearly lay out what records have to be kept, for what purpose, by whom and for how long.

[1820]

As I said, this is a duplicative effort. I’ve suggested…. I appreciate the member’s suggestion, but it’s very much a duplicating process that he’s suggesting. There is no other jurisdiction, for that same purpose of avoiding duplication, in Canada, that has included a general duty to create records in its information management legislation, and we’re no different.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

D. Routley: Section 18 is a very simply worded section. It says: “Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act.” So it removes penalties for a failure on the part of a government body or an employee of government for mishandling information.

This seems like a backward step at a time when the government is attempting to define the responsibilities,
[ Page 8769 ]
the roles and the expectations of government to maintain and preserve records. It seems a very backward step to minimize the consequences of disobeying or failing to administer the act.

I would move an amendment.

[To amend section 18 of the Act by deleting the text shown as struck:
18 Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act]

The Chair: As the amendment is a direct negative in substance to section 18, as the previous section, simply defeating the section itself would substantially cause the same thing.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

D. Routley: I would move to amend Bill 5, intituled Information Management Act, 2015.

[To amend section 21 of the Act as follows:

21 (1) Section 10 [government information must be digitized] does not apply if

(a) the government information is created by a government body before the date this section comes into force,

(b) the government information is not created by a government body and is first received by a government body before the date this section comes into force, or

(c) the government information is created or received by a body before the body is designated as a government body.

(2) For certainty, a government body may digitize government information to which subsection (1) applies.]

The Chair: As per my previous ruling, simply a defeat of the section would substantially be the same as the amendment proposed.

Amendment ruled out of order.

D. Routley: I think that defeating this section would be in the public interest of British Columbia. Defeating the section would ensure that retroactivity of section 10 and section 14 applies to those documents that need to be digitized, filed and archived. As it stands, section 21 allows the discretion of the government body to decide to digitize past information. This is directly contradicting the purpose of having sections 10 and 14 act retroactively.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 22 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 22, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Transition – records schedules under Document Disposal Act

22 (1) A If a records schedule approved under the Document Disposal Act before that Act is repealed applies to government information, the records schedule is deemed to be an information schedule approved under section 5 [approval of information schedules] of this Act, unless the chief records officer has approved an information schedule under this Act that replaces the records schedule approved under the Document Disposal Act.

(1.1) If a records schedule approved under the Document Disposal Act before that Act is repealed applies to court information, the records schedule is deemed to be a court information schedule approved under section 16.1 [court information schedules] of this Act, unless the Deputy Attorney General and the chief judge or chief justice of the court have approved a court information schedule under this Act that replaces the records schedule approved under the Document Disposal Act.

(2) SectionSections 6 [approved information schedules must be published] and 16.1 (5) [approved court information schedules must be published] do does not apply to records schedules deemed to be approved information schedules or deemed to be approved court information schedules, as the case may be, under this section.]

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

On section 25.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 25 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 25, in the proposed section 29 (1) (d) of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

On section 26.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 26 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 26, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

26 Section 96.1 (1) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 60R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 46, is repealed and the following substituted:

(1) Despite sections 11 and 12 of the Government Information Management Act and subject to the regulations, a director, in writing, may transfer records to another director.]

Amendment approved.

Section 26 as amended approved.

On section 27.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 27 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 27, as it amends section 74 of the Coastal Ferry Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting
[ Page 8770 ]
“Information Management Act”.]

[1825]

Amendment approved.

Section 27 as amended approved.

On section 28.

Hon. A. Virk: I move an amendment to section 28 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 28, as it amends section 23 (1) of the Community Living Authority Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 30 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 30, as it amends section 14.1 (4) of the Community Services Interim Authorities Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 30 as amended approved.

Section 31 approved.

On section 32.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 32 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 32, as it amends section 26 (1) of the Destination BC Corp. Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 32 as amended approved.

On section 33.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 33 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 33, in the proposed section 275 (5) and (6) of the Election Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” wherever it appears and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

On section 34.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 34 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 34, as it amends section 9 of the Electronic Transactions Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 34 as amended approved.

On section 35.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 35 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 35, as it amends section 16 (1) of the Emergency Health Services Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 35 as amended approved.

Sections 36 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 40 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 40, as it amends section 76 (2) (m) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 40 as amended approved.

On section 41.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 41 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 41, in the proposed definition of “digital archives” in Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 41 as amended approved.

On section 42.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 42 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 42, as it amends section 3 (3) of the Heritage
[ Page 8771 ]
Conservation Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 42 as amended approved.

Section 43 approved.

On section 44.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 44 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 44, in the proposed section 91 (2) of the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” in both places and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 44 as amended approved.

On section 45.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 45 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 45, in the proposed section 210 (3) (d) of the Motor Vehicle Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 45 as amended approved.

On section 46.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 46 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 46, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

46 Section 1 of the Museum Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 12, is amended by repealing the definition of “archives of the government” and substituting the following:

“museum archives of government” means

(a) the archival records transferred from the government to the corporation under section 26 of this Act, and

(b) the archival records transferred from the government, a court or a government body under the Government Information Management Act or another enactment;.]

Amendment approved.

Section 46 as amended approved.

On section 47.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 47 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 47, by adding the underlined text as shown:

47 Section 4 (b) is repealed and the following substituted:

(b) to preserve and manage the museum archives of government; .

(b.1) to preserve and manage information archived with the museum by the courts; .]

Amendment approved.

Section 47 as amended approved.

On section 48.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 48 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 48, in the proposed section 5 (8) (a) of the Museum Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 48 as amended approved.

Sections 49 and 50 approved.

On section 51.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 51 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 51, in the proposed section 168 (7) and (7.1) of the Recall and Initiative Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” wherever it appears and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 51 as amended approved.

On section 52.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 52 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 52, in the proposed section 2 (1) (f) of the Safety Authority Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 52 as amended approved.

On section 53.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 53 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 53, as it amends section 38 (4) of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 53 as amended approved.

Section 54 approved.

On section 55.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the amendment to section 55 of Bill 5 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 55, as it amends sections 21 and 45 (1) of the Youth Justice Act, by deleting “Government Information Act” and substituting “Information Management Act”.]

Amendment approved.

Section 55 as amended approved.

On section 56.

D. Routley: I would like to move an amendment. The amendment would read:

[To amend section 56 of the Act as follows:

56 This Act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council on royal assent, and retroactively for the purposes of section 10 and 14 to January 1, 2003.]

Amendment negatived.

Section 56 approved on division.

Hon. A. Virk: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:30 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 5 — INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ACT

Bill 5, Information Management Act, reported complete with amendments.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ACT

Bill 5, Information Management Act, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:32 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Morris in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $17,297,183,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good afternoon, everybody. Committee of Supply, Section A, is now in session.

[1335]

Hon. T. Lake: If I might, I believe it was yesterday there were questions concerning the Northern Health Connections bus utilization. We now have those figures here. I could read them into the record or just file them with you for the members to peruse at their own leisure.

The Chair: That would be good.

J. Darcy: We’re going to return to the issue of the health firings. Then I have one more question related to pharmaceuticals, and then we’ll move on to the PHSA.

A. Dix: Yesterday I asked the minister specifically about a binder at the Blanshard Street office, at the front desk of the Ministry of Health, that allows security guards to familiarize themselves with people who are not allowed inside the ministry. I understood that he was going to get an answer for me about that.

Hon. T. Lake: When an employee leaves the ministry of their own volition their building access is revoked, and
[ Page 8773 ]
then no further action is required. When an employee is terminated their building access is revoked, and in addition, a security notification may be issued to the security guards at 1515 Blanshard or another location where the employee was working.

This system alerts the guards to watch for any type of activity that the individual may be engaged in around the ministry building, and it is actually to protect the safety and security of employees who continue to work in the building.

As we all know, and no one more than people who live in Kamloops know, there have been numerous incidents in Canada, the U.S. and around the world where terminated employees have taken action against their former employer, and these types of security notifications are actually normal practice.

I believe it was about ten years ago in Kamloops in the Ministry of Environment where we had a terrible incident. I know some of the people involved personally and the impact it had on their lives.

It is to protect the employees in the building. It doesn’t mean that terminated employees cannot enter the building. If they’re on legitimate business, they can enter the building in the same way that any visitors would enter the building — sign in at the security desk. There is a legitimate reason to ensure the safety and security of employees that are working in the facility.

A. Dix: Yes. The fact is, I understand. And the minister will agree with me that Mr. Hamdi — his firing was revoked. Mr. Scott — his firing was revoked. Mr. MacIsaac — his estate was sent a cheque by the ministry for $482.53. Dr. Maclure’s firing was revoked. He’s back working in the ministry. Mr. Hart’s firing was revoked. Mr. Mattson’s firing was revoked.

I understand your picture goes in the book when you’re fired, if that’s the position that the minister is explaining to me, for the reasons he explains it, and people didn’t forget to do that in these cases. What they failed to do in the case, for example, in the last month of the late Mr. MacIsaac, in the case of Mr. Scott, in the case of Mr. Hamdi and so on…. They failed to remove it.

[1340]

I think the minister will understand the stigma associated with that is not inconsiderable. My question is: were those pictures in the book — I understand they were — and why weren’t they removed after the ministry, which sought to put them in the book, was forced to revoke their firings?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to assure the member and the public that that list and the pictures are not public documents. However, the member makes a very good point. I can, on behalf of the ministry, apologize today that they were not removed earlier. It was an administrative oversight, and it’s something we should have done. They have been removed now, and I thank the member for bringing this to our attention.

A. Dix: I want to speak about a few other oversights with respect to this matter, in particular with the issue of the decision by the ministry. There was a ministry press release that led with two paragraphs about the RCMP.

We spoke about Mr. MacIsaac. He was a co-op student. His term had expired. The ministry saw fit to fire him four days after his term has expired and then to put on the front page of the Vancouver Sun, through a leak, and in a ministry press release that the whole issue involving these individuals was going to go to the RCMP. That’s what happened.

The people involved in that, just to be clear…. The FOI information — the McNeil report and so on — says that the following people were involved in that. Ms. Tarras, the Deputy Minister for the Public Service Agency. Mr. Whitmarsh, the Deputy Minister of Health. He signed the letters. Ms. Tarras’s agency developed the letters. Mr. Fyfe, the Deputy Attorney General. His ministry was involved in writing the letters. Mr. Dyble was involved. Mr. Whitmarsh has stated in many meetings on this subject….

Ms. McKnight was the acting deputy during the summer when the individuals were suspended, and Ms. Mentzelopoulos was involved in the numerous meetings with GCPE that were held on this matter, as detailed in the McNeil report and in FOI. These are the people we’re talking about.

The minister will recall because he’s read the McNeil report…. The McNeil report writes: “Although the deputy minister signed the letters of dismissal for each of the employees, no one has taken responsibility for making this effective recommendation to dismiss the employees. Instead, those most likely to have made the effective recommendation all pointed to somebody else.” That’s the list of the people involved, and that was their conduct with respect to the McNeil report.

Now, we know and the minister will know that the position of the Ministry of Health has changed. Let me describe this change through quotes from the Deputy Minister of Health and from government officials.

In February 2015 when we asked the minister about an email from the RCMP, which is still waiting for information from the government about this matter a couple of years later, here is what the ministry said.

The government official told the Globe and Mail that, from the province’s position, the request to investigate was tacitly rescinded when the cases were settled last summer. “We are no longer asking them to pursue it. We consider the matter closed and that we have given all the information that there is to the RCMP and we are not pursuing it any further.”

Further, the deputy minister, in e-mail notes to some of the employees in question, said: “I am writing to you to-
[ Page 8774 ]
day to alleviate concerns you may have regarding recent media reports regarding the Ministry of Health’s request to the RCMP to investigate data management practices. I want to assure you that the Ministry of Health is not seeking a police investigation into this matter.”

So September 6, 2012, the ministry was seeking a police investigation, so much so that they announced it in a press release and in a media leak that was on the front page of the Vancouver Sun. That’s what they did. On February 23, we have the letter from Mr. Brown.

At what intervening point did the ministry decide there was no longer any use for a police investigation?

[1345]

Hon. T. Lake: Our current deputy minister was appointed, as the member is aware, in June of 2013 and was asked by the head of the public service to review the matters, to go over material and information related to the privacy breach and the investigation that had taken place up to that point. The deputy took stock of where things were within the ministry and turned his attention on moving forward.

That’s when there were efforts to reach legal settlements with three employees and to look at contracts with therapeutics initiative and access for data-sharing protocols to restore access for researchers. That would have been June 2013 through the fall of 2013.

After those actions had taken place and through the review by the deputy minister, his review of all the material, and working through with the employees with whom we came to a settlement, the Ministry of Health, with the appropriate legal advice, made the determination that the cases were settled, that the settlement was appropriate and that, in fact, based on that, there was nothing from that part of the investigation and workings of the ministry that required the further interest of the RCMP.

That was the deputy’s, I think, very well-intentioned effort to put people at ease. In terms of the Ministry of Health issues around data access, there was no continued interest in the Ministry of Health pursuing any kind of action with the RCMP.

A. Dix: I mean, I think it’s extraordinary that the Deputy Minister of Health, in making such a thing, would only be talking on behalf of the Ministry of Health and not the government of British Columbia. If that’s the distinction that’s being made here, I think it’s an extraordinary one.

[1350]

In any event, I’m referring to the chronology the minister put out under his name. “June 2013: Stephen Brown was appointed Deputy Minister of Health and was directed by the Deputy Minister of the public service, John Dyble, to review the matters related to privacy breach and ongoing investigations by the ministry. Upon review, Mr. Brown finalized the investigation, took steps to restore frozen contracts and initiated a process to address terminations of former ministry employees.”

Was Mr. Dyble’s instruction made…? I just want to bring the minister’s attention to this conclusion in the McNeil report, which did not deal with this period because, of course, Ms. McNeil was not allowed by the government to deal with this period. She said: “This case is lacking the reports, briefing notes, meeting notes or other documents which are frequently prepared in situations where discipline may be contemplated. This dearth of documents has granted the decision-makers, whoever he or she may have been” — and we have the list there that includes the now Minister of Finance, who was Minister of Health during the investigation — “an opportunity to avoid taking ownership of the decision.”

When Mr. Dyble instructed Mr. Brown, did he do so in writing? Remember, RCMP investigation, comptroller general’s investigation, legal cases. Did Mr. Dyble make the request in writing to Mr. Brown, and did Mr. Brown produce a scrap of paper by way of a report pursuant to that request?

[1355]

Hon. T. Lake: In terms of instruction from Mr. Dyble to Mr. Brown, deputies do not receive a written mandate letter, as is the case with ministers, from the Premier. So this was verbal instruction in a briefing that the deputy minister, the head of the public service, would have had with the Deputy Minister for Health, looking at a range of issues in the ministry that Mr. Brown was taking over. One of the instructions was to review the investigation and chart a path forward.

Mr. Brown reviewed internal documents that had been created before his assumption of the leadership role in Health. Some of those internal documents were being updated over the summer of 2013. Mr. Brown worked with a lawyer, who reviewed that material on a case-by case-basis. The lawyer provided advice to Mr. Brown in terms of settlement of each individual case. That process occurred over 2013.

There was no written material that Mr. Brown produced. It was on the advice of legal counsel, who reviewed each individual on a case-by-case basis and then provided advice to Mr. Brown as to a potential settlement with each of those individuals. Of course, there was material produced in response to the Privacy Commissioner’s report and the Deloitte report, and those have, of course, been in the public realm for some time.

A. Dix: So on a case involving people’s lives…. They have been smeared, in this case, with an RCMP investigation that the Ministry of Health now says isn’t required — but the one they announced. It was GCPE and Ms. Mentzelopoulos and her team that did the leaking, I presume. It was leaked on the front page of the Vancouver Sun.

I have some experience with writing to the RCMP about these matters, and I think that not leaking them is kind of the appropriate course. But that’s what they did. It could never have been advised by lawyers to engage in those practices.

In June 2013 Mr. Brown gets an oral request on this issue from the Deputy Minister to the Premier. It’s described here. This was intended to defend the government, to lay out the thing. Upon review, he “finalized the investigation” — nothing on paper — “took steps to restore frozen contracts and initiated a process to address terminations of former ministry employees.”

Presumably, this was over by October 23, 2013, when they restored the contract to the therapeutics initiative, the data access for ADTI and for the Centre for Excellence for AIDS having been done sometime earlier than that. The question, I guess, about this…. Mr. Brown draws this conclusion and, it says here: “Initiated a process to address termination of the former ministry employees.”

At the end of his investigation, which we presume is October 23 — it says here the fall, that that’s when the therapeutics initiative was restored — he had drawn these conclusions. He did not call the RCMP and say: “We called the cops on these folks,” including Mr. MacIsaac and Mr. Scott and Mr. Hamdi. We called the cops on them, and we’ve concluded the RCMP investigation is unnecessary.”

They didn’t call in October 2013 when they initiated and settled with Mr. Hart. In March of 2014 they didn’t phone up the RCMP and say: “We don’t need an investigation.” They didn’t do it in June, when Dr. Maclure…. They didn’t do it in August, when Mr. Mattson…. They hadn’t done it in November, when the RCMP sent an e-mail to the government. Only in February of 2015.

You announce an investigation on the front page of the Vancouver Sun. You put it at the top of your press release. I’ve been following provincial governments for some time. I don’t recall any occasion like it. They never corrected the record. They never called them up and said: “We don’t think this merits a police investigation anymore.”

[1400]

They called the police on them publicly. They didn’t tell them. They called the police on them publicly, and then they didn’t, on all these occasions…. Mr. Brown finishes his report and doesn’t tell the police about it. They settled. They didn’t tell the police about it, even though they claimed, when the media finally asked them about it, that the request to investigate it was “tacitly rescinded when the cases were settled.” And: “We consider the matter closed.”

In retrospect, they said that the settling with Mr. Hart and Dr. Maclure and Mr. Mattson was the end of it, but they didn’t tell the police. We know this because the police were e-mailing the government in November, saying: “What’s going on?”

Is this not just a little bit disgraceful? Is this not just a little bit wrong, for the Ministry of Health to treat employees — some of them are current employees again — of their ministry this way?

If Mr. Dyble gave his oral mandate to Mr. Brown and Mr. Brown did his oral report subsequent to that and started restoring contracts or something, didn’t he have an obligation, given that the Ministry of Health…? The press release says, “Ministry of Health,” at the top of it. Didn’t he have an obligation to say to the RCMP: “We’ve reviewed this”?

People will say: “Oh, well, the Minister of Justice said that you can’t intervene in an RCMP investigation.” Well, they were, by not telling them that. The RCMP was waiting for the government to tell them, and they knew by that point. In fact, they knew in January of 2013, when the Minister of Health briefed the media and said there was no evidence that the material had been used for improper purposes — January, 2013.

Why didn’t that happen? Why didn’t anyone tell the police that it was off, that the Ministry of Health didn’t believe it any longer? Why didn’t anyone do that? Wouldn’t that have been the decent thing to do?

[1405-1410]

Hon. T. Lake: Firstly, dating back to the original 2012 events, the Ministry of Health found at that time that a significant breach of personal data had occurred. It felt it had an obligation to notify the RCMP when government property has essentially gone missing.

We’ve been through the chronology since that time. The deputy did a review of all the information on a case-by-case basis and accepted advice from legal counsel in terms of settlement with the individuals involved. It was his, as I say, tacit understanding that no further action from the ministry was contemplated.

When the McNeil report came out and there were concerns expressed from former employees that, in fact, the ministry was still working with the RCMP in terms of the Ministry of Health investigation, I asked my deputy to communicate with those individuals and assure them that as far as the Ministry of Health was concerned, there was no need for RCMP involvement.

It was an act of omission, I suppose, rather than commission, that at the time when these settlements occurred, they were not directly informed that as far as the Ministry of Health was concerned, there was no further action required by the RCMP. Once we were made aware of those concerns through the McNeil report, then we took explicit action to assure them that the ministry was not pursuing any further RCMP investigation.

J. Darcy: When was the RCMP informed?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: The RCMP ultimately determine wheth-
[ Page 8776 ]
er an investigation should continue or not. We wanted to assure the people that had been affected that we were not pursuing any more inquiries with the RCMP, but it’s ultimately the RCMP who make a decision whether to continue an investigation or not.

J. Darcy: I think we’ve asked some very, very specific questions. Has the RCMP been notified, and when were they notified? That’s pretty simple.

Hon. T. Lake: In terms of the Ministry of Health, I can say that the RCMP makes their own determination as to whether or not to continue. We informed the employees that were affected that we were not, as a ministry, pursuing any further work with the RCMP.

J. Darcy: So that’s a no. The Ministry of Health has not informed the RCMP.

Hon. T. Lake: I have had no discussions with the RCMP.

J. Darcy: I have one further question related to pharmaceuticals. I’m going to read it into the record and ask for a written response in the interests of time. It concerns Ranbaxy.

The government announced in February that it had made single-source deals with generic pharmaceutical manufacturers for seven drugs, seeking to save as much as $2 million annually. One of those drugs was escitalopram oxalate, better known as Lexapro or Cipralex, an antidepressant used to treat depression and generalized anxiety disorder.

I flag this drug in particular because Ranbaxy, the supplier based in India, has had huge supply chain problems in the past, been subjected to significant scrutiny by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over quality issues and a number of other problems. I presume that the ministry has taken measures to guard against any disruption to the supply chain for this drug.

I’d like to ask the minister if he could outline, in writing, measures to guard against disruption and what backup plan there is in case of a supply chain problem, given this company’s past difficulties and controversies and given that this is a very widely used pharmaceutical.

Hon. T. Lake: We work very closely with Health Canada. We do have a mitigation plan for such supply chain disruptions. I will be happy to outline that in written form for the member.

J. Darcy: Good to see the folks here from the Ambulance Service and PHSA. My first question has to do with ambulance workload and delayed response times in urban and metropolitan communities.

I think we are all aware of the severe workload issues at the B.C. Ambulance Service as a result of a steadily increasing population and aging demographics, resulting in higher call volumes with little or no corresponding increase in ambulance resources.

My understanding is that the industry standard work levels for ambulance paramedics are about 0.6 unit hour utilization, meaning that for 60 percent of the shift, the ambulance is delivering patient care. That’s the industry standard, but most metro ambulances in B.C. are well over that.

[1420]

Some are actually in the 100 percent range, which means no time to adequately clean cars and equipment, debrief from prior responses, take meal breaks, and so on. It results in higher levels of workplace injuries, PTSD occurrences, burnout, and so on.

Not only that, the extreme workload is also, I understand, a direct factor in delayed response times to both urgent and non-urgent 911 calls. The national standard, I believe, is to have an ambulance on scene in 8.59 minutes for the most urgent calls. But according to figures that I understand are circulated, published internally, to employees of the B.C. Ambulance Service, the B.C. Ambulance Service averages are about 13 minutes in larger centres and 20-plus minutes in smaller communities.

Routine response times are now even longer. We’ve discussed that. We’ve canvassed that issue many times in question period and elsewhere. Some reports have 20- to 60- and even 120-minute waits for ambulances for a number of reasons, including routine responses being diverted because of higher-acuity calls, and some, on occasion, reported as being diverted up to four or five times when ambulances are sent elsewhere.

From everything that I’ve been led to understand, the resource allocation plan changes simply changed the priority on some calls, with a goal to get to the most urgent calls a little faster while dramatically increasing response time for lower-acuity responses, without actually increasing the resources to the Ambulance Service overall.

We’ve talked about the wait times that it often means in urban centres. It also means smaller communities in urban areas…. Ambulances are often called into the larger centres, and then there are less ambulances available to backfill in that smaller community, so they suffer even longer delay times. We canvassed that issue, as it relates to Mission in particular, recently.

We’ve also canvassed the issue of the downloading of responsibility, effectively, onto municipalities, with firefighters being the first responders but not being able to provide the medical care and expertise that paramedics deliver.

I have two questions to begin. What are the B.C. government’s ambulance response targets? And what is the government’s plan to address the extreme ambulance workload and delayed response times in urban and metropolitan areas?

[1425]

Hon. T. Lake: I want to dispel a couple of things off the top. The B.C. Ambulance Service budget has risen in the past 11 years from $148 million to $318 million. That’s an increase of 115 percent at a time when the population of British Columbia has increased approximately 14 percent.

[S. Hamilton in the chair.]

The member said that B.C. Ambulance Service wasn’t keeping up in terms of the population growth. An increase of 115 percent in resources in terms of budget is certainly greater than the population increase of 14 percent or inflation, which runs about 30 percent over that period. Even when you combine the two, we’re still seeing three times the rise in the budget for B.C. Ambulance than the effect of population growth and inflation combined. So there’s that. Since that time, B.C. Ambulance Service has added 76 ambulances and 39 support vehicles to the service.

In terms of response targets, the member mentioned national response targets. Actually, there are no national response targets, so I want to dispel that. And it’s important to note there are only a very small number of calls in which time actually makes a difference. That’s about 1 percent of calls.

There are three conditions, essentially: cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest and total airway blockage. That is when you need your emergency room on wheels there as quickly as possible. That’s really why we review the allocation plan on a regular basis. We are making sure the right resources are at the right place at the right time so that we can make sure that….

The member mentioned ambulances that were running routine, or code 2, were sometimes diverted to a higher code, a code 3. That’s correct, because our obligation is to get to the most urgent cases as quickly as possible.

[1430]

Now, having said that, we are doing a review of the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley, and we are looking at the response times and looking at the need for resources to make sure they are appropriately placed. Operational Research in Health is an organization from the United Kingdom that are experts in emergency management. They are going to do a deep review of response times, demographics and population needs in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley. That work is ongoing.

This group has provided similar advice for ambulance services in New Zealand, the U.K., Australia and elsewhere in Canada. That will help B.C. Ambulance to make sure that they can strategically adjust service levels and make future investments.

Response times are really critical for those three particular conditions. And we want to make sure we rationalize resources to make sure we’re getting to the people that need an ambulance quickly and we’re getting to them as fast as possible.

J. Darcy: I had asked a very specific question, as well, about the ambulance response targets in B.C. If the minister could please answer that.

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, there are no response-time targets. The target is to get to the most urgent cases as quickly as possible. For Metro Vancouver, for instance, our response times of under nine minutes occur 68 percent of the time. It does depend on the part of the province.

If you are looking at the Fraser Valley, for instance, over the last three years in Abbotsford the number of calls is up 13 percent, and the code 3 response times are the same over that three-year-period. Admission — the number of calls up 5 percent in the last three years. Again, median response times have not changed.

Part of what we’re doing with this review is to look at different areas of the province. You can imagine that it is a lot easier to get an ambulance to somewhere in an urban, densely populated area than it would be in more remote, more far-flung areas of the province. That’s what we are doing with this group — making sure that we are operationalizing the resources of B.C. emergency health services to an optimum level.

J. Darcy: The minister has certainly heard from ambulance paramedics. Ambulance Service has heard from paramedics. The minister has heard from firefighters. He’s heard from municipalities. We’re going to come to rural and remote in a few minutes, but he’s heard from municipalities in the Lower Mainland. We’re all deeply concerned about response times and about downloading onto municipal governments and the extent to which that ties up their resources.

Is the minister actually saying that there is not an excessive workload problem in the Ambulance Service?

[1435]

Hon. T. Lake: I had the opportunity to do a ride-along with a couple of our B.C. emergency health services paramedics in downtown Vancouver a number of months ago and then was able to talk to some of our advanced-care paramedics later in the day. They do an amazing job.

The B.C. ambulance system is a dynamic deployment model, so they’re not waiting in a station for a call. They’re, essentially, on the road or restocking, refilling, or on calls. They work hard, no question. When you think about the daily activity of a paramedic, they’re working.

The preliminary results from the study that ORH is doing for us indicate that in metro areas, if you’re a basic life-support paramedic, you’re being deployed, you’re on a call, 53 percent of the time. If you’re an advanced-care paramedic, you’re on a call 32 percent of the time.

[The bells were rung.]

Again, 47 percent of the time for a basic life support, you are doing the ancillary duties — stocking, cleaning. For an advanced-level paramedic, more of that time — 68 percent of the time — you’re not on an active call.

With that, I hear the bells calling to us another House, so I presume we will adjourn for a little while.

The Chair: The committee stands in recess for approximately ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:37 p.m. to 2:55 p.m.

[S. Hamilton in the chair.]

J. Darcy: In discussions that I have had with folks who work in the B.C. Ambulance Service — no doubt, the minister has had these conversations as well — they pointed to several possible solutions to addressing wait times in ambulance service and workload issues. One is clearly the issue of providing more ambulances and more ambulance paramedics.

Some of the others that they have discussed with me, and I expect with the minister, are adding new types of resources, like paramedic response units, which allow single paramedic non-transport units to respond to 911 calls, triage the situation and ensure that the correct further resources are sent, which could result in reduced response times and better use of existing resources. As the minister is probably aware, these PRUs, as they are referred to, are used in many other large Canadian cities.

Also, there’s the possibility of change of regulation, allowing paramedics to determine if patients need to, in fact, be transported to emergency departments or not, thus reducing unnecessary transport and emergency room congestion, potentially.

Finally, the implementation of other primary health initiatives to provide care in patients’ homes: namely, things like the community paramedicine program, which certainly, from my understanding, at this time is only being contemplated in rural and remote communities, not in urban centres.

Can the minister please indicate if those other possible solutions are under consideration at this time?

Hon. T. Lake: Very good questions — three areas of interest to B.C. emergency health services and to the Ministry of Health. On the paramedic response unit, this is essentially sending someone in a faster-moving vehicle with a little more agility to get to a scene faster to do triage.

We were doing an event in front of the Legislature today for the Heart and Stroke Foundation about learning the signs of stroke, F-A-S-T — which is printed on the side of our ambulances. Is there any facial drooping? Can you lift your arms? Is there any slurring of speech? Then time — time to call 911 if you see any those signs. I’m saying that, because if anyone is listening at home, that is really critical and can save lives.

Interestingly enough, we had a Porsche 911 out there advertising it, and I asked the young paramedic that was with me: “Would you like to have a Porsche for an ambulance?” She told me they do in Dubai as part of a paramedic response unit, as the member suggests. It certainly is used in other areas, and it’s something that we have been looking at.

[1500]

In fact, we’ve done some initial costing of what that would look like, and we are looking for the work that ORH is doing to help inform those decisions. The work they’re doing will basically tell us where the resources should be deployed, where the calls are and the response times. Once we get that data, we’ll be able to then look at these paramedic response units and implement them if it makes sense based on that report.

In terms of changing regulations to decide whether or not to hospitalize — this is the so-called treat-and-release approach — it has been discussed in the past. It is, again, something that we are working on at the moment. The regulations would need to be changed, but we’re probably going to need to do that anyway for the community paramedicine model to make sure that they have the authority in the regulations to be able to make those decisions.

In terms of community paramedicine, the member acknowledged that we are moving on community paramedicine in rural British Columbia. Those are the first steps. We have three communities in Northern Health that will be pilot communities that will inform decision-making going further.

It’s nice to hear that the member is supportive of community paramedicine, whether it’s in rural areas or whether it can be used in urban areas too. I’m glad to see her interest in that. It is a model that we are working with the paramedics union on. They’ve been very enthusiastic and cooperative as we work towards that model.

J. Darcy: I don’t think the minister should be surprised, albeit pleasantly surprised, that I was supportive of community paramedicine. I’ve been closely associated with ambulance paramedics who have been advocating for exactly that for some time, as the minister is aware.

On the issue of the review that’s being conducted by Operational Research, a couple of things related to that. Perhaps the minister can clarify. Is it strictly looking at using existing resources, or will it also be identifying areas needing more resources? It is, I understand, only looking at metro and air operations and not urban, rural or remote deployment, although I understand that it has been stated that the results will be used to make system changes across the province. I’d like some clarification on that.

I also understand there have been a number of previous reports and reviews that have made significant recommendations which have not yet been implemented.

Basically, the question is: is the mandate to spread existing resources more thinly, or does the mandate include recommending more resources? Why is it only looking, as I understand, at metro and urban areas and not the whole province?

Hon. T. Lake: The ORH work is centring on the metro area and lower Fraser Valley initially. That is where the work is being done now, as 80 percent of ambulance calls are in this area. Obviously, optimization in that area…. It makes the most sense to start with that area. We have had preliminary discussions with Northern Health about doing similar work in the rural areas, but we’re starting where most of the ambulance calls are initially.

[1505]

The work is over 20 weeks, and it will deliver a five-year projection for B.C. emergency health services which will help to identify inefficiencies in the current service, identify inconsistencies in resources and demand matching and also identify potential to optimize resources and see how, with optimization in the current system, we could improve those response times. But it is looking at incremental service and costs to look at response times as well.

We will wait for this report. If it demonstrates that we can achieve a reduction in response times within existing resources, that would be one thing, but we’re not limiting the work to just that. If the business case is made for incremental resources to have the desired effect, then we would have to take that business case through the ministry and through the normal ministry processes of having that business case looked at by Treasury Board to make sure that it can fit in the fiscal plan.

The work is not designed solely to limit it to current resources. That would be ideal. I think the taxpayer always wants us to be able to do more without taking any more money from them. So that would be the main goal, but we are not limiting it to that if, in fact, there are gaps identified that do require a consideration of more resources.

J. Rice: We’ve heard much about the community paramedicine program. I, too, am a supporter of the community paramedicine program, but it appears that we are long ways off from having any sort of concrete, robust plan in place.

My question would be: what are we doing in the meantime? We know that BCEHS has recently put out a request for staff transfers into Fort St. John, Prince Rupert, Quesnel, Cranbrook, Nelson, Port McNeil, Trail, Castlegar, Sparwood, Dawson Creek, Smithers, Chetwynd, Bear Lake, Clinton, Burns Lake and Hazelton.

Most of these communities previously had a long line of staff to transfer in. As we’ve already addressed, the review of B.C. Ambulance Service is currently not looking at rural and remote deployment. My question is: what’s the government’s plan to address the inability to attract trained paramedics to many of B.C’s rural and remote communities?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, we have outlined our plan for community paramedicine, and that is one of the key ways in which we can encourage people to enter the service as a career. As it stands now, and the member will be aware of this, many paramedics or people who want to get into the career of paramedicine will start in a smaller community.

In a smaller community the call volumes are low, and so they are not paid on a full-time basis. They are paid to carry a pager. Once they are called to go out on a call, then they’re paid at the higher wage. That makes it difficult. We understand that. It makes it difficult for sustainability in the rural communities, because what happens is after gaining a little bit of experience, they want to transfer to a community where they will get more hours and earn the ability to have a full-time career as a paramedic. We totally understand that.

That has two important effects. It’s difficult to go through that process if you are a young paramedic and want to get into the service. But importantly for smaller communities, it doesn’t really provide that continuity, that sustainability of the service in their community.

With community paramedicine, what we are doing is looking at ways of utilizing paramedics on a full-time basis so that when they’re not out on a call…. And in some of these communities there will only be one call every seven to ten days in which they have to be called out. The rest of the time, they could be utilizing their skills to be helping in the community with other health care–related duties.

The first phase of the community paramedicine program has rolled out in three rural communities: Chetwynd, Fort St. James and Hazelton. They were selected based on a recognized health need in the community, and they had the infrastructure and the capacity in place to enable a successful start.

[1510]

The unit chiefs in the three communities are working with BCEHS leadership and local health care providers currently to define the scope of services required and to participate in the development of a local service plan. The emphasis will be on prevention, health promotion and primary health care.

We see this as a very exciting opportunity to provide extra or supplementary health care in communities that perhaps are underserviced at the moment and to provide full-time jobs for paramedics.

The member may be skeptical about the program. It is being rolled out. We will evaluate the program in those three communities. I know from my UBCM committee meetings last year that there are an array of commun-
[ Page 8780 ]
ities, particularly in Interior Health, Northern Health and Island Health, where they are very anxious to have their communities participate in the paramedicine program.

J. Rice: I would just like to put on the record that I’m not skeptical about community paramedicine. What I’m skeptical about is the lack of work being done to address issues right now in rural and remote B.C. from the past year.

On August 8 last year, 2014, Godfrey Williams died in Skidegate, waiting nearly an hour for an ambulance, and he lived and was at a location ten minutes away from a paramedics — ten minutes away from an ambulance station that wasn’t staffed.

I don’t need an explanation on community paramedicine. I need an explanation on what we’re doing now to address the needs of rural and remote British Columbia.

In response to community uproar on Mr. Godfrey Williams’s death, the B.C. Ambulance Service created a working group and has sent up, I believe, eight different unit chiefs to address some of the issues on Haida Gwaii. I think 13 is the new number of part-time paramedics that have been hired since last year, but the issue has still not been resolved.

Some of the issues that community representatives, area directors and local politicians have been asked to have addressed are persistent problems with the ambulance coverage still, despite the new hires — an ambulance being dispatched from the wrong unit; a patient being medevacked from Vancouver being taken on a circuitous route instead of going on the ferry from Sandspit to Queen Charlotte or Skidegate.

Furthermore, there have been quite public displays of aggression between senior management and local representatives on Haida Gwaii in their attempts to try and deal with the issue. To quote Bill Beldessi, who is the area E director and lives in Sandspit, the senior staff at B.C. Ambulance Service are employing tactics to “keep the paramedics silent on issues of policy affecting patient care.” And in my last visit to Haida Gwaii, paramedics told me that they were instructed to not talk to me.

My question is twofold to the minister. One, can he confirm that there is direction to have paramedics and community members not speak to their MLA about issues of paramedics on Haida Gwaii? Two, what is he going to do with the ongoing problem that has still not been resolved on Haida Gwaii as far as paramedic service goes?

[1515]

Hon. T. Lake: There’s been a tremendous amount of work done, not just in Haida Gwaii, but around rural B.C. in terms of recruiting and encouraging people to enter the paramedic service. In fact, in the last year 269 paramedics have been recruited throughout rural areas of British Columbia. B.C. emergency health services has a sponsored EMR training for those new recruits.

In terms of policy to not talk to media or other people, this is not a policy of B.C. emergency health services. We understand that there was someone in the service that had instructed others in this manner. That has been addressed, because it is not a policy of BCEHS We want to be open and transparent. Certainly, in terms of the public representative for that area, we would not block anyone from talking to their elected representative.

In terms of other things that have been done in Haida Gwaii, a full-time unit chief is a new position. Having a full-time unit chief living in Haida Gwaii…. That has been implemented. That unit chief now mentors new recruits.

The working group did a lot of work with the business community to ensure that if a paramedic was on call, on standby with a pager, when they were called out, they would be able to leave their place of work and attend the 911 call.

[1520]

Also, in that very, very unfortunate situation one of the gaps that was identified was a lack of availability of automatic external defibrillators. Those have been purchased and placed around Skidegate and Queen Charlotte to ensure that people have access to an AED, which, in many cases, is a lifesaver. So a lot of work in Haida Gwaii, and I’m optimistic that we will see the service improve and that more people will come in to support the service with the mentoring of our full-time unit chief there.

Around rural British Columbia, we are getting new recruits. I think 13 new paramedics in Haida Gwaii have been recruited. That brings the total staff to 46 among the four ambulance stations. Again, these are mostly on-call paramedics, but the working group, through the business community, now has given the assurance that those paramedics can respond to a call when necessary.

J. Rice: In regards to that unit chief, I’m unclear if that is…. Is this a permanent staffed position, or is this part of the pilot project of a rotating unit chief from the Lower Mainland? Like I mentioned earlier, we’ve cycled with eight. So if the minister would like to get back to me on that, I’d look for clarification on that. I understand it’s not a local person. It’s a rotating position.

My question is: what criteria were used in determining the three community paramedicine pilot project locations?

Hon. T. Lake: The communities were selected based on a recognized need in the community and that they had the infrastructure and paramedic capacity in place to enable a successful start. So those were the main criteria in working with local governments and making sure of the resources that were necessary to have a successful start.

Obviously, when you’re starting something like this, you want to give it the best chance for success. So those
[ Page 8781 ]
are the reasons those communities…. I’m sure there were many other communities that would have been able to fit some of those criteria as well. I know in communities in my riding, like Clearwater, they would be very happy to have a community paramedicine service in their community. But we wanted to start small and get the best chance for success, so these three communities were chosen on that basis.

J. Darcy: I’d like to come back to the Lower Mainland.

In February 2015 — and this is an issue that has been canvassed in question period as well — the government sold the property which has the only downtown Vancouver ambulance station. The government committed that they would find an alternate location to house paramedics in the West End, but that has not yet happened. Now we have plans to eventually move St. Paul’s Hospital, which will further deplete the area of ambulances and paramedics, specifically in the downtown and West End.

So my question is: what is the plan to provide ambulance coverage to the residents and the significant commercial workforce in Vancouver’s downtown core?

[1525]

Hon. T. Lake: The Richards Street station was sold as part of the government release of assets for economic generation program. There are three other ambulance stations within minutes of that location — station 261 at Cambie; 243 at 13th and Arbutus; and 248 at Cordova, which is, I believe, about 12 blocks from the station on Richards Street.

We certainly understand the concern of the paramedics. As I mentioned, it’s a dynamic deployment model. So they’re not sitting in a station, but they do need to have a facility for cleaning, restocking and rest options.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Renovations are ongoing at the Cordova Street station to make sure that there is capacity there. We’re just about to sign an MOU with St. Paul’s Hospital that would provide an area where rest, cleaning and restocking can take place.

With the eventual move of St. Paul’s Hospital to Station Street, certainly we will work with Providence Health Care and make sure that there are opportunities to ensure that paramedics have the ability to restock and clean the ambulance close to the West End as well.

[1530]

J. Darcy: My next question concerns post-traumatic stress disorder. This is certainly a subject that has generated considerable attention recently as it affects military personnel, police, fire, ambulance paramedics, first responders.

As the minister is no doubt aware, in the case of ambulance paramedics and many other first responders as well, including firefighters, workplace-related illnesses like PTSD are often denied coverage from WorkSafe. We too often have workers forced to return to duty and, in the case of PTSD, not sufficient recognition of this as it affects first responders. Certainly, I have heard, and I know that the minister has heard, and my colleague the spokesperson for labour and WorkSafe issues has raised this issue.

My question to the minister is: does the minister support changes in WorkSafe B.C. regulations to address the issue of presumptive disability claims for post-traumatic stress disorder in the same way as there have been changes in WorkSafe B.C. regulations as they affect various other presumptive conditions that have come before the House or have been done by regulation?

Hon. T. Lake: I think it’s recognized that paramedic services across Canada are working to find effective strategies to address operational stress. Certainly, having spent just a little bit of time with paramedics, I know that that is certainly a concern. When you think about the types of incidents that paramedics respond to, it’s something that can have the potential to have short-term or long-term effects in terms of their stress levels and their mental health.

We are working hard. We did a recent review of the psychological supports of B.C. emergency health services that we do provide to front-line staff. We’ve taken steps to improve the critical incident stress management program, so when there is a critical incident, we reach out to the paramedics involved. Improvements also include a comprehensive approach that consists of prevention, education and more effective intervention when employees need it the most with those critical incidents.

There’s also more support for education and training. Dr. Georgia Nemetz, who is a clinical psychologist, is the program’s new clinical adviser. Dr. Nemetz has specialized training in post-traumatic stress, crisis management and vocation-related stress management. She has worked with VPD, B.C. Transit and the RCMP to develop psychological support systems for employees that combine critical incident stress management and specialized therapy. In fact, Dr. Nemetz began seeing referred B.C. emergency health services staff in late 2014.

We are doing a lot to help manage operational stress for paramedics, both prevention and education as well as intervention when needed. There are also currently 30 paramedics trained to be part of peer defuser teams around the province. The new program is going to work towards getting professional certification with the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation. I want to acknowledge the efforts of CUPE 873 in providing peer support to its members. We are looking forward to working with them to implement this enhanced program.

As the member may know, WorkSafe B.C. has a specialized mental health claims unit to manage PTSD claims with efficiency, thoroughness and compassion. Their staff have also received special training, and they have psychologists, mental health specialists, physicians and nurses with community mental health expertise added to the claims team. Any worker who has medical evidence about their PTSD that is being caused by work can be entitled to workers compensation benefits.

J. Darcy: The minister speaks eloquently about prevention and intervention and supports and so on. The fact of the matter is that there are still ambulance paramedics who are suffering from PTSD. Sometimes, we know, these incidents build up over time. It’s not always a reaction to a specific incident that’s just occurred. It can be cumulative over a long period of time with a precipitating incident.

[1535]

The minister is no doubt aware. I certainly am. They’ve come to me. They’ve come to other MLAs. I’m sure they’ve come to the minister — workers, ambulance paramedics, whose claims have been denied or who are not getting the support they need.

I’m asking if the minister is prepared to commit to go the extra distance and to look at what changes are needed, as far as WorkSafe B.C. regulations, in order to ensure that these people — who put themselves on the line every day at huge, both physical and psychological, risk to themselves — get the supports they need when they are not able to work.

Hon. T. Lake: The adoption of presumptive diagnosis is something that has been done on occasion, specifically related to firefighters. That process relies on a thorough examination of the science behind the evidence. Presumably, if there was a case to be made, it would go through that same process.

However, the Minister of Health is not responsible for WorkSafe B.C. I would encourage the member to put that question to the appropriate minister.

J. Darcy: Just one last question as it relates to the Ambulance Service, and that has to do with electronic patient care records.

My understanding is that current paper-based practices mean that patient care records are sometimes insecurely stored in garages, closets, etc. Sometimes records go missing. An EPCR project — electronic patient care records project — I understand was abruptly cancelled, and the B.C. emergency health services stated that they would be revealing a new plan for patient care records within 90 days. I understand that commitment was made about a year ago, but that has not yet happened.

My question is: why hasn’t a new EPCR system been put in place yet, and how will the government address the issue of secure handling of patient care records and general information handling since the cancellation of the EPCR project last year?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to assure the member opposite that patient records are not stored inappropriately. They’re kept in locked filing cabinets at B.C. Ambulance stations.

[1540]

However, there is definitely a need to go to electronic patient records, so the EPCR project was to deploy tablets to ambulance paramedics to keep patient records in. We had a vendor, and we got the hardware. We had some concerns around the performance of the vendor and decided to change course.

However, in that process there is a basic level of patient care records that is being piloted on tablets. There are 30 crews that have these tablets, and so they are testing out and making sure that the system is robust. That will expand out to all paramedic crews by October.

In the meantime, we are pursuing another vendor so that we can put an enhanced layer of service onto the system so that we have the full scope of recordkeeping that we want to have. Meanwhile, the project is still moving forward, testing the hardware and the sort of basic level of software that we have available at the moment.

J. Darcy: I was going to move on to a new topic. I don’t know if this is a good time for a break or if you’d like me to keep going.

Hon. T. Lake: Sure.

The Chair: This committee stands recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:41 p.m. to 3:58 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

J. Darcy: I want to ask some questions now related to the B.C. Cancer Agency. There has certainly been considerable attention in the last number of months, especially in the fall, about problems at the B.C. Cancer Agency, with wait-lists for treatment being the most worrisome of those.

These are stories and cases that we have highlighted sometimes in the Legislature, but many people have had no choice but to go to the media in order to get attention and in order to actually then get appointments — not the way, I think, that we want our health care system to have to function.

The stats also show that too many people are waiting too long for new patient consults — for instance, after referral. As the minister knows, this means that people who have been told that they need cancer treatment are
[ Page 8783 ]
then left waiting.

In 2013-2014 the number of patients getting a new patient consult for radiation therapy within two weeks was, I understand, 39.8 percent, which is 20 percent below target. And the number getting a new patient consult for radiation therapy within four weeks was just under 80 percent — again, below target by over 10 percent. That’s my understanding of the numbers for 2013-14.

[1600]

Can the minister please give the numbers for 2014-15?

Hon. T. Lake: In the numbers we have systemwide for 2014-15, for those patients waiting less than two weeks, it’s 40.1 percent, so that’s a small improvement over the prior years. However, for those patients getting their referral in under four weeks, it’s 72.4 percent, so we have fallen a little bit on that target.

Primarily, there are two centres that have had challenges due to staffing issues. That includes Abbotsford and Victoria. We have announced that there are 11.2 FTEs being added around the province. Each of these sites, Abbotsford and Victoria, will each be getting two FTEs. We are confident that that will address some of the issues in those two sites and will bring the aggregate average down as well.

J. Darcy: My next question has to do with shortages of oncologists. I won’t refer to the media stories that have been written on the subject. They will have their sources. But I understand that Ms. Krystal as well as the interim Cancer Agency head, Nick Foster, have acknowledged that 20 new oncologists could be needed to help address wait times. Is that, in fact, the number? If not, what is the number? Can the minister still speak to what led to this shortage?

[1605]

Hon. T. Lake: The figure that the member refers to, in terms of 20 vacancies — 7.8 of those vacancies have been filled by locum oncologists, so those have been backstopped. We are now in the process of hiring 11.2 FTEs, and that’s where the 20 comes from.

The 7.8 — we had vacancies due to retirements and other decisions to move. Some of the oncologists were recruited from places like the U.K., and they may have made a decision to move back. That was the gap of 7.8, but now recognizing the need, the increased demands, 11.2 FTEs are being added.

Interestingly, though, our new president of the B.C. Cancer Agency, who will be joining us in September, comes from Ontario. Ontario has, actually, a different model of care that I’m sure he will be discussing with B.C. Cancer. Our understanding is that that model of care looks to diversify the team a little bit more, so it’s more an interdisciplinary team.

Our current model is very reliant on oncologists. The Ontario model branches out a little bit more, using nurse practitioners, using GP oncologists and broadening the care team. That will make the oncologists more…. It will free up their time to do the work that they need to do.

Already we’ve sort of gone down this road. We’ve hired about half a dozen nurse practitioners who are in the survivorship program, working with patients post-treatment to ensure that they are connected to the services they need. Again, that increases the amount of time oncologists have to devote to patients.

There certainly was a challenge that was met by the use of locums. Now we are increasing, and those locums will be offered full-time positions, and then, of course, 11.2 more positions will be added to bring that up to the 20 that the member refers to.

J. Darcy: One of the regions that the minister referred to was Island Health, where I understand that the only oncologist north of the Malahat has been moved to Victoria — does some weekly hours in Nanaimo, but he’s retiring — and it is my understanding that there are no plans to recruit for Nanaimo.

Can the minister confirm that there are no plans to provide oncology services outside of Victoria, where else are oncologists now located, and if new oncologists are brought on stream, as the minister has indicated they will be, where will they be located?

[1610]

Hon. T. Lake: We have six cancer centres throughout the province of British Columbia, as the member is aware: Vancouver, Victoria, Surrey, Abbotsford, Kelowna and Prince George. When a person receives a cancer diagnosis, in most cases they would visit one of those six cancer centres, see an oncologist and have a detailed treatment plan designed. Some of that treatment would be, out of necessity, done in one of those six treatment centres. For instance, radiation therapy is only available in those six centres.

[1615]

If they are able to have chemotherapy alone, systemic therapy, then they may have a treatment plan that allows them to return to other centres, like Nanaimo, like Kamloops, where they would undergo their chemotherapy, often under the supervision of a GP-oncologist, of which there are two in Nanaimo.

They have the ability to have a telehealth link with the oncologist at the regional cancer centre, so there is continuity of care and follow-up with the GP-oncologist and with the patient in their home community.

Most of the oncologists would be located at the six cancer centres, because they specialize typically in one or two, or a small handful, of tumor types. Most of their work would be at the six cancer centres.

The member, I think, asked where the newly recruited oncologists will be placed. They will be placed at five of the six oncology centres throughout the province of
[ Page 8784 ]
British Columbia. Northern Health currently are meeting their targets. So they will not see any of the new oncologists at this stage of the game.

Only three clinics — Nanaimo, Vernon and Kamloops — outside of those six cancer centres have oncologists that work out of a clinic location. In this case, Kamloops has two, Vernon has two and one in Nanaimo. But I mentioned there are two GP-oncologists working out of Nanaimo as well.

J. Darcy: I want to go back to some of the stats affecting real people, of course, that I asked about a minute ago. I have here a copy of a briefing note that we FOI’d, briefing notes for the minister on this issue from last November.

The minister will recall that this is a topic on which I asked him a number of questions. The minister was certainly reluctant to share information or concede that we were falling behind in a number of areas.

But in this briefing note from six months ago, it says that when we’re talking about new patient consults — in this case, national comparisons — only Ontario and Nova Scotia published this data, but both are faring better than British Columbia. Ontario is faring much better — 83 percent seen within two weeks — versus B.C. As we’ve just confirmed, it’s 39 percent in two weeks.

Can the minister explain why he thinks that we are doing so much more poorly than Ontario?

Hon. T. Lake: I don’t have all the answers. But I can speculate that we have a population that is older than Ontario’s, and so cancer prevalence will be higher.

But as I mentioned earlier, Ontario has a different model of care. And the new president of B.C. Cancer, coming from Ontario, I’m sure will bring some of those practices that have given Ontario those results here to British Columbia. So we’re anxious to have him join us and to lead a team that wants to make sure we regain a leadership position.

As the member knows, B.C. Cancer is world-renowned, both in research and treatment. We have experienced, I would say, a challenge in meeting targets over the last year. We are doing a lot of work to address that. And I’m very optimistic that we will, in fact, meet those targets.

J. Darcy: Well, certainly, the new CEO of the cancer agency comes very well recommended. I understand he’ll be here in September, and I’m sure that he will bring a lot of very valuable experience with him.

But it’s not as if this is a new challenge. We have known for some time about our aging population. That’s not a new phenomenon. People have been writing about it for at least a decade, if not longer. And we know that there is an increased incidence of cancer that is associated with aging.

I note that in the minister’s briefing notes from November 5, 2014, it says that PHSA and the B.C. Cancer Agency started a review in July 2014 of the B.C. Cancer Agency’s evolving role in the expanding demand for cancer care. I was wondering if the minister would be prepared to provide a copy of the results of that review.

[1620]

Hon. T. Lake: My comments referred to the work that was ongoing at the B.C. Cancer Agency addressing the concerns about workload. A working group was formed, with a physician group, to look at workload. Phase 1 identified the current gap, and that’s where the 11.2 FTE number came from. That was identified as the initial need.

Phase 2, which is ongoing — I’ve talked about this before — is looking at the model of care and ways of increasing productivity — making life, I guess, more efficient for oncologists by providing additional support, whether that’s nurse practitioners or clerical support or other things. That review is ongoing.

There was a strategy document that was created by B.C. Cancer Agency in 2006. With the arrival of our new president in September, there will be a refreshment of that strategy document. All of the work done to date and the work that was done in 2006 will be reviewed, and a new strategy document will be prepared with the arrival of the new president of the B.C. Cancer.

J. Darcy: But it says that there was a review that was begun last July. It’s now May of 2015. Surely there must be a document, results, a report from that review. Seemingly, in the briefing note, as a separate issue, it refers to a workload committee that was established.

The review committee, it says, was charged with looking at the evolving role and expanding demand of cancer care in this province. So it seemed like it was pretty broad-brush. It also referred to, specifically, a workload committee, to include cancer oncologists, to develop a long-term model to address workload concerns.

Are those one and the same thing, or are they two distinct? They sound in this document as if they’re two separate documents.

Hon. T. Lake: They essentially are one and the same, the review and the workload committee. The work was ongoing. Of course there would be material that is produced through that work, looking at the current gap in workload, resulting in the figure of 11.2 FTEs that are needed. Then the phase 2 is looking at models of care and the other things that can be done to better support oncologists and create efficiencies in the system.

That work is ongoing. It’s all part of the same work, looking at what the gaps are today and then taking a look out into the future.

[1625]

We heard from a B.C. Medical Association journal about the oncoming increase in cases that we expect to
[ Page 8785 ]
see with B.C. Cancer. That was co-authored by the former lead of B.C. Cancer Agency while he was still with the agency, recognizing that there’s a wave of cancer prevalence that is coming to British Columbia, as in many jurisdictions that have aging populations.

That work has been ongoing and continues on, and with the refreshment of the 2006 strategy, it will become more comprehensive. But it’s best, in our opinion, to wait until the new head of B.C. Cancer arrives to lead that new work.

J. Darcy: Still on the B.C. Cancer Agency and on human resources, at the hearing of the Select Standing Committee on Health last week we were receiving presentations on palliative care as well as end-of-life care — not the same thing, obviously.

Speaking of palliative care, about relieving pain and improving quality of life for patients who are living with cancer — not necessarily patients at the end of their lives — we heard some pretty compelling testimony from Dr. Pippa Hawley, whom you’re no doubt familiar with, from the UBC Division of Palliative Care and herself a palliative care specialist with the Cancer Agency. She spoke quite passionately about the large number of patients who have to wait too long to get palliative care. Many are not able to get it at all because of a shortage of palliative care specialists or of physicians or other health professionals with palliative care training.

She indicated that up to 80 to 85 percent of people will in fact never see a palliative care specialist, and if they do, it’s when they’re dying, not sooner. And if they don’t get proper palliative care, not only do they, of course, often suffer excruciating pain, but they also develop other problems, other medical conditions. They are sometimes given the wrong medications if they’re not dealing with the proper specialists, more hospitalizations, more doctors’ visits — in short, more costly.

Can the minister tell us how many palliative care specialists we are short, to serve the needs of cancer patients in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: The B.C. Cancer Agency is not directly responsible for palliative care, but they do a lot of work in survivorship, and so there’s an overlap, for sure — people suffering from cancer with palliative care needs. But palliative care is extremely important. Premier Clark has given me a mandate to look at palliative care and end-of-life issues. Palliation doesn’t necessarily mean end of life. It doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand. But it is something that each British Columbian should have access to when needed.

We have created a centre for excellence in compassionate care and supports for those living with advanced illness of all types. The B.C. Centre for Palliative Care was created in 2013 with $2 million in funding. I’ve met with Dr. Doris Barwich, who is the lead of the B.C. Centre for Palliative Care. We also have supported a number of organizations throughout the province in palliative care. That includes hospice societies. It includes Canuck Place, Peace Arch Hospice and also the Communitas Supportive Care Society.

[1630]

So it is something that we are certainly aware of and, with the Supreme Court of Canada case, something that all provinces are certainly turning their minds to in terms of end-of-life issues.

In terms of palliative care and pain management — these are issues that we are working on with Doctors of B.C. to ensure that practitioners throughout the province have the necessary training to help people manage through their pain and through the side effects and sequelae of their disease, whether it be cancer or other serious illnesses.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

J. Darcy: Let me just continue with the new CEO to arrive in September. It would appear that he’s going to have an awful lot on his plate. I must say that one of the frustrating things about asking questions of this minister is that we’re always talking about the next report, the next review, the next person who’s going to come to save the day.

Dr. Malcolm Moore is quoted recently as saying:

“B.C. was considered to be one of the pre-eminent cancer systems, and I think the sense is that in the last five years or so” — I notice he says “the last five years”; the minister said “last year” — “things have slipped, while other jurisdictions, like Ontario, have moved forward during that period. And they’ve done so particularly around developing metrics on how the cancer system is performing, ensuring quality goes through all aspects of the patient’s journey. I think those are the sorts of things we can introduce in B.C.”

I want to just express some serious concern that these are not new problems. For us to say: “We’ll wait for the new CEO now….” Oncologists spoke out about this in the fall. Research scientists have spoken out. Former CEOs have spoken out about it. We see in today’s Vancouver Sun similar figures about the aging population and the rising incidence of cancer in other jurisdictions like Alberta, the United States.

This is not something unique to British Columbia. In fact, in those other jurisdictions they’ve already drafted strategies that anticipate rising cancer incidence rates going into the future. And we say this new CEO is going to address all of these issues.

I guess my question is…. Since we already know these problems, it doesn’t take a new CEO of the Cancer Agency to identify them. He’s coming in with great expectations on his shoulders. What budget increases has the minister made in this year’s budget to address new resources that are needed by the B.C. Cancer Agency so that we can restore its world-leading role, which has indeed slipped over the last number of years?

[1635]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the debates.

I just wanted to comment before answering, because the member made a comment that this particular minister was always waiting for a new study or a new person to ride in on a white horse. It’s true that you can never fix all of the problems in health care. It’s a continuous challenge, and we are continually looking at ways to do things better.

I’d like to remind the member that for ten years her party said they would build a cancer centre in Abbotsford. It was this party, this government, that actually built that cancer centre in Abbotsford. And a perusal of the member’s party’s campaign platform from 2013 does not have anything about B.C. Cancer in their platform.

I just wanted to point that out before I say that since 2001 the budget for B.C. Cancer has more than doubled, to $617.1 million. Year over year for PHSA, the budget over the next three years is increasing 10.8 percent, which includes 3.5 percent this year, 3.2 percent the following year and 3.8 percent the year after that.

We are trying to break that down specifically to B.C. Cancer, but of course, B.C. Cancer is one of the larger agencies within PHSA. It would probably have similar increases, but we will confirm that once we get that information.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister. I would appreciate having those figures for the B.C. Cancer Agency and if the minister could also provide in writing, not verbally, a breakdown of staffing in the major categories of cancer care for the B.C. Cancer Agency over the last five years.

My final question has to do with the issue of reporting relationships. Certainly, one of the issues that I’ve heard from people who work at the B.C. Cancer Agency and that leading cancer specialists and former CEOs have spoken out about is that they believe there are some real challenges in getting the attention of the minister and — what shall I call it? — a direct relationship, direct face time, direct input with the minister over recent years, especially with the B.C. Cancer Agency coming under the Provincial Health Services Authority. There are several layers to get through in order to have the ear of government directly.

[1640]

I’d like to ask the minister what he thinks about that critique that has been made by former CEOs and some leading doctors at the Cancer Agency and whether he envisions any change in that reporting relationship.

Hon. T. Lake: I want to just have a bit of a preamble about the organization within PHSA. The Provincial Health Services Authority is responsible for the B.C. Cancer Agency as well as Children’s and Women’s Hospital, B.C. Renal, B.C. Transplant, a number of provincewide organizations. It certainly has the strength of a provincial organization. B.C. Cancer is a beneficiary of some of these strengths.

The move of B.C. Cancer Agency to PHSA has enabled cancer care to be expanded throughout the province. That’s a very good thing. Provincewide access, with Abbotsford and Prince George opening since that move, has meant more people can access a high level of cancer care.

It also has reduced expensive corporate overhead, redirecting those dollars back to patient care. It’s also enabled provincewide protocols and guidelines to be deployed consistently throughout the province.

I think, in this discussion about B.C. Cancer and PHSA, we have to recognize that the PHSA structure has actually brought some very positive benefits to agencies like B.C. Cancer. The fact is that all of the leads of the different agencies within PHSA have unfettered access to the ministry.

If there’s an issue with PHSA in terms of mental health, the lead in that case, Leslie Arnold, talks with our ministry folks all the time. I’ve met Leslie on many occasions and had conversations, and so access to the minister certainly has been there.

[1645]

The head of B.C. Renal, Dr. Adeera Levin, I’ve met on many occasions. She has access to the ministry when she needs it. So this idea that the leaders of each part of PHSA don’t have access to the ministry, I think, is really not the case.

In terms of B.C. Cancer, we recognize that B.C. Cancer, given (1) the size of it and (2) its international connections and its international role, is something that does have some unique properties to it within the family of PHSA. But we want to make sure that it is in fact a family in the Provincial Health Services Authority.

To recognize that — particularly when the head of B.C. Cancer will be interacting with peers around the world at international conferences, doing research — to use the title of president of the B.C. Cancer Agency would be appropriate because that is more commonly used among his peers in the international community.

In terms of access to the ministry, he will have unfettered access to the ministry, and I will sit down with the president of the B.C. Cancer Agency at least yearly, if not more, to review the work that he’s doing. I look forward to being able to do that.

J. Darcy: Moving on, I have a couple of questions about PET scanners.

Interjection.

J. Darcy: Not of the veterinarian variety. Positron emission tomography — an important diagnostic tool, as the minister is aware. I have a number of questions. Perhaps I’ll ask a few of them at once in order to save time in between questions.

How many are presently running in B.C.? I understand
[ Page 8787 ]
that we got a second machine running in 2011. Are there only two in the public system? Are there plans for more? Can the minister provide staffing levels and amount of time in operation for those machines — the time that they’re idle, the wait-list for use? Have there been interruptions in service? Are the machines working now? Does the government track use of private PET scanners?

If you don’t have all of that information at this time, then perhaps we can put that as notice on the record for you to be able to get back to us.

[1650]

Hon. T. Lake: The PET-CT is a diagnostic test. It provides detailed information on anatomical structures and organ and tissue function, and is used in the diagnosis and management of cancer, as the member is fully aware.

They’re used to determine the full extent of a cancer diagnosis and avoid the unnecessary use of surgeries if the disease has spread to other areas of the body. They can also test for the efficacy of chemotherapy treatments and help with decision-making about radiotherapy treatment. They give the type of imaging that really does help to pinpoint where cancer is in the body.

The B.C. Cancer Agency operates two PET-CT machines at its Vancouver centre for people in B.C. and people in the Yukon as well. There’s also one private PET-CT scanner that we’re aware of, based in Vancouver.

Approximately 6,200 PET scans are provided each year. That’s twice the annual average number of scans per scanner compared to other jurisdictions, so they’re well utilized.

B.C. Cancer recently expanded the operation hours to increase the annual capacity to 7,775 scans per year. One of the results of increasing hours is that one of the scanners had a 2-week shutdown for maintenance, and that caused some wait-time issues.

Currently, only 45 percent of priority 1A patients have been seen within the two weeks. With the maintenance, we’re hoping to get that back on track. They have been operating the two machines on extended hours for a year now and recently have been operating on Saturdays in February and March of this year to address those wait-time issues that we’ve identified.

On top of that, B.C. Cancer has just submitted to the ministry and to our capital branch a five-year provincial plan for PET-CT scanners. We are reviewing that plan at this moment.

J. Darcy: The minister is no doubt aware that there was a February 2012 study done, prepared for TRIUMF, a UBC-based particle and nuclear physics research lab. It said that B.C. should have at least six machines performing a minimum of 10,000 scans. That was three years ago.

I wonder if the minister could clarify the numbers that he referred to. Does the government dispute that study and the need that was identified there?

The head of nuclear medicine at Lions Gate Hospital was quoted back then saying that “buying the machines is not the problem since hospital foundations can raise the money for that; it’s the ongoing operating dollars that are so hard to come by.” I wonder if the minister could also comment on that.

[1655]

Hon. T. Lake: I’m unfamiliar with the TRIUMF report. My staff is not familiar with that TRIUMF report that the member refers to.

However, using the numbers that she quoted — six machines doing 10,000 scans a year — we’ve got two machines doing over 7,000 at the moment. I would say that the current two machines we have are performing at a very efficient level, and certainly, in terms of operating time and operating costs, we have been investing in those operating costs.

I mentioned that PHSA has submitted a five-year business plan to the ministry to look at the needs and potential expansion of PET-CT scanners throughout the province. We will be examining that plan and, with B.C. Cancer and probably B.C. Cancer Foundation, making a decision on whether to move forward if that business plan recommends increased use of PET scanners.

As I said, when you look at the machines we have now, they are being used at twice the utilization rate of any other province in Canada, so we’re getting great value for money. We are putting in the operating dollars. We will look at the business plan and make a decision for the future once we’ve had a chance to analyze that plan.

J. Darcy: I’d like to move on to the issue of wait times for colonoscopies. This, again, is an issue that we have discussed on many occasions in the past year, in particular in the House.

The minister has indicated that ministry and health authorities are very concerned about wait-lists, as are we. This is an issue, as the minister is aware. I’m sure he hears from patients all the time, and I certainly hear about them very regularly. Some of them, as we know, have also gone to the media in order to get attention.

As the minister is aware, we’re dealing with two categories of patients, if I can put it that way, who are waiting for screening: some patients who are waiting following a doctor’s recommendation for follow-up screening after surgery after previous cases of colon cancer and others who are referred for a colonoscopy following a fecal immunochemical test, known as FIT.

I wonder if the minister could provide a breakdown of the numbers of people, of patients in those two categories and if he could provide a breakdown of wait times between those referred from a FIT test and non-FIT patients.

[1700]

Hon. T. Lake: We’re talking about colonoscopy wait
[ Page 8788 ]
times. There are different paths to a colonoscopy, as the member has indicated.

If someone has a fecal immunochemical test that’s positive, the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology recommends that a colonoscopy be performed within 60 days. When we look at FIT-positive patients in the colonoscopy screening program to date, if we look at Interior Health, 92 percent are being completed within 60 days, so within the guidelines; in Fraser, 95 percent; Vancouver Coastal, 97 percent; Island Health, 96 percent; Northern Health, 91 percent. Across the province that’s 95 percent.

In terms of the non-screening colonoscopy, that really is an individual decision based on the clinical signs and condition of the patient. If someone has a condition where they’ve had surgery, they may be advised to go for a routine colonoscopy every set number of years. If someone is showing symptoms and their physician and their specialist feel that they need an urgent colonoscopy, then they have the ability to put that person at the head of the priority list.

There really are two different paths, depending on which stream you’re in — the FIT stream or the non-FIT stream. With the non-FIT stream, it really is dependent upon a clinician’s judgment and the condition of the patient as to the wait time that they would experience — with the more urgent cases, obviously, being done as soon as possible.

J. Darcy: Well, there were two parts to that question. The minister referred to the people who had FIT-positive results and the wait-list there. I was also asking for wait times for the non-FIT patients and also if the minister could give total numbers in each category.

Hon. T. Lake: I don’t have it broken out into FIT versus non-FIT wait times. We have the wait times for the FIT but not for the non-FIT.

[1705]

I can tell the member that in terms of the number on the wait-list for colonoscopy — combining the colonoscopy screening program, the FIT program, versus the non-FIT program and symptomatic patients — in Interior Health there are 11,599 patients currently waiting. Fraser Health has 12,444; Vancouver Coastal, 5,872; Vancouver Island, 6,599. I don’t have a number for Northern Health as to the number on the wait-list.

I also have numbers for the total number completed between September 1, 2014, and February 28, 2015. In Interior that’s 12,261; Fraser, 19,533; Vancouver Coastal, 12,005; Island Health, 10,175; and Northern Health, 3,952.

Overall, 219,000 patients have been registered into the colon screening program since the program began in 2013. Of these, around 1,800 have been diagnosed with high-risk polyps, and over 130 patients have been diagnosed with colon cancer and are currently being treated.

I want to make that point because these 130 people…. When you think about November 2013 to today, which is about 18 months, 130 patients that may not have been diagnosed with colon cancer, with high-risk polyps and cancer, have been diagnosed and are being treated. They may not have been identified, their lives may not have been saved, without this colon screening program in place. I just want to point that out.

While we have had challenges in terms of volumes and switching over to such a broad-based program, the result is 130 patients that have been treated that may not have had that opportunity without this screening program in place.

J. Darcy: Certainly, on this side of the House we have been strong advocates — and the previous Leader of the Official Opposition and previous health spokesperson was certainly a strong advocate — for the FIT test. That is not in question.

The minister does not have a breakdown of FIT versus non-FIT patients on the wait-list. Can he provide that breakdown…? I know he doesn’t have it now, but he….

Hon. T. Lake: I think we’re trying to get that.

J. Darcy: Okay, thank you. And the wait-list for both categories as well. The breakdown of total number of patients in each category and the wait-lists for each category.

Hon. T. Lake: I will endeavour to find that information. I know that with the health authorities there is a challenge in getting those numbers. But that’s one of the goals that we would like to have with this new colon screening program — to have better metrics to identify those in the program versus those not in the program that are having colonoscopies and to be able to report those metrics. I will endeavour to get those and provide them to the member.

J. Darcy: A final question on this.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: We’ll call a short recess for the vote.

The committee recessed from 5:08 p.m. to 5:21 p.m.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: I have some information that the hon. member was inquiring about earlier around B.C. Cancer Agency and their budget over the last number of years. So I have that information now.

B.C. Cancer Agency in 2010-11 received $524.624 million. In ’11-12, $564.208 million. In ’12-13 it was $593.405 million. In ’13-14, $617.156 million and in ’14-15, $645.529 million. In this current year, ’15-16, $666.847 million. That represents a 27 percent increase
[ Page 8789 ]
over five years with an average increase of 5.4 percent and an increase from last year to this year of 3.3 percent. So it actually closely mirrors the numbers for PHSA that I mentioned earlier in terms of increases.

J. Darcy: Let me just conclude on colonoscopies. The minister said in the House on February 25, when we were discussing this issue: “We’ve created a burden on the system that we need to correct.” I’ve already made it very clear that we strongly support the FIT test, but we also have seen a situation develop, a very serious situation in some cases, of other patients who also very much need colonoscopies who have sometimes felt that they’ve gone to the back of the line. Mr. Michael Goldman of Qualicum Beach waited two years. This is a former colon cancer patient.

My question to the minister is…. It was completely predictable, and I’m sure any study of other jurisdictions would indicate that when a test like this is introduced — a good test, a good screening program, absolutely — the demand was going to increase many, many times over. That was completely predictable.

What work was done by the ministry to assess capacity and expected uptake on this screening before it was made available? It was announced on the eve of an election. Surely, it was not a surprise that the expanded screening program was going to put severe pressure on the system. What planning and additional resources were put in place in advance, anticipating, as the ministry surely should, that there would be expanded, increased demand for colonoscopies?

[1725]

Hon. T. Lake: The FIT program was piloted through PHSA, through two different sites in the province — one in Penticton and one at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. There were patient navigators as part of that infrastructure that was created through this pilot. Health authorities then took the information that was gathered from that pilot and then were to implement FIT in the various health authorities.

Vancouver Island Health Authority was the first to launch into the FIT program. They certainly had some challenges early on. The information gathered from the Vancouver Island Health experience helped health authorities that came on board later to modify their programs and try to accommodate as many patients as possible within the existing budgets they had.

The member is correct in that there was an anticipated surge of demand. The challenge for any government is to increase services within the fiscal realities of the budget they have. So that was a challenge for health authorities. Vancouver Island led the way. We learned some important lessons from Vancouver Island. Those were incorporated by other health authorities.

Since then, all the health authorities have taken the information and adjusted their plans. So for instance, Vancouver Coastal is currently looking at the ways of reducing the backlog and wait-list. They have committed significant funding to the program. They’re working with physician leaders to develop, pilot and implement a plan to improve and streamline the assessment process, and they have a goal of doubling the number of screening colonoscopies performed each year.

Interior Health Authority committed more than $2 million to new infrastructure, including new endoscopy suites in Kamloops, Vernon and Kelowna. With new equipment — which is not washing machines but actual endoscopes — we’ll support the goal of completing 6,300 colonoscopies in Interior Health.

[1730]

Island Health has hired additional nursing staff, increased operating hours for colonoscopies and hired a new gastroenterologist to address the demand. They’ve also streamlined processes and systems, resulting in an increase of 2,000 non-screening endoscopy cases annually.

[D. McRae in the chair.]

The reality is when you implement a new program like this, as much as you can plan, things don’t go quite as smoothly and there are, potentially, impacts in the system that are unanticipated. Change management is something that’s always important, and VIHA experienced some of those change management issues. Their lessons learned were used by other health authorities, and we continue to see investments in both resources and in terms of streamlining processes to reduce the backlog of people on the FIT program.

J. Darcy: I wonder if the minister could please provide — but not at this time — any documents that the ministry may have about studies that were done in advance of this commitment being made by his government on the eve of an election about assessing capacity and expected uptake. What studies were done on that? Were other jurisdictions that have this FIT testing program studied before a decision was made to go forward?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I just said that there was a pilot program that was undertaken in Penticton and Vancouver. That was the information that was gathered before we rolled out the program in the various health authorities.

J. Darcy: I was referring to other jurisdictions. My apologies if I wasn’t clear. Was there any assessment or analysis done based on other jurisdictions that have this program, about capacity, expected uptake? If the minister could provide those, if such studies were done. If the minister could please indicate, get back to us on it and provide those.

If I could move on to Island Health and a recent request for proposal that was issued for 55,000 procedures over five years. The minister can clarify, but let me put my question so as not to slow us down here, since we are racing against clock now with several topics to go that I’m sure the minister will want to provide full information on.

Island Health, it’s my understanding, has issued an RFP for as many as 55,000 procedures over five years, not all surgeries. It’s surgeries and other procedures, a mix of day surgery and other procedures, including endoscopic procedures. I know this is not something new and that Island Health has certainly contracted out similar procedures in the past, but it is certainly a drastic expansion, if those numbers are in fact accurate.

Can the minister explain why the government is going in that direction? This is a government that is in the midst of a court case that, dare I say, addresses the issue of reliance more and more on a private system. Should we not be moving in a direction that involves less reliance on private clinics and focusing instead on innovation and cost-effective investments in the public system? And should we not have engaged in that work before issuing another — and in this case a very, very big — request for proposal?

Hon. T. Lake: Island Health has an RFP to carry out between 3,000 and 4,000 daycare procedures each year over five years. Those procedures include general surgery. It might be hernia repairs, gallbladder removals. It could be, in orthopedics, arthroscopies, ligament fixation, shoulder procedures, rotator cuff repairs. In plastics, it could be fasciotomies, breast reductions, rhinoplasties. In vascular surgery it could be ligation and varicose vein procedures. And in dental, pediatric dentistry procedures.

The goal is to reduce wait times. The member says that we should surely be looking at the public system. What we do look for is the patient, because the patient, quite honestly, wants to get their service, their medical treatment, as soon as possible.

[1735]

The health care system in Canada is not entirely a public system in terms of the provision of care. In fact, in the health care system in Canada 70 percent of health care is paid for publicly; 30 percent is paid for privately. That’s been that way for some period of time.

Among the 70 percent that is provided for — and paid for, I should say — publicly, much of that is provided by the private sector. Your physician, which most people go to see, is a private business person. Anaesthetists, surgeons and specialists have their own corporations, and they bill the health care system.

I am not an ideologue in terms of where the procedures are performed. It is important to uphold the principle of public pay and the public administration of medically necessary procedures for physician and hospital services as outlined in the Canada Health Act. But I’m agnostic in terms of where those procedures are done.

In fact, if we can cause disruption in the system and create a level of competition and efficiency through the use of private surgical centres paid for by the public, I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all. In fact, we can point to other areas of Canada that have demonstrated how efficient this is.

The Shouldice clinic in Toronto does hernia repairs, and they do hernia repair after hernia repair after hernia repair on a daily basis. It’s a private clinic. It’s paid for publicly. Patients are in and out within three days, and they have a high rate of success.

As long as the quality is there and people are getting their surgical services in appropriate time…. I think that’s what patients in British Columbia are concerned about.

J. Darcy: Can the minister comment on the issue of shortages of health professionals and the way that the private clinics and private health care have been shown in other jurisdictions — and I think it’s fair to say in British Columbia as well — to draw valuable health care professionals out of the public system into the private system, in turn creating more challenges for the public health care system?

We have, as the minister has often noted, shortages in his own home community and elsewhere of anaesthesiologists. We have shortages of specialty nurses. We have orthopedic specialists who have real challenges getting OR time. Certainly, there is evidence in other countries of health professionals being drained out of the public system into the private system and reinforcing the problems that exist as far as wait-lists.

Has the minister studied that issue? Does the minister not think that perhaps a short-term solution to a problem in fact is creating bigger long-term problems for health care?

Hon. T. Lake: The member raises a subject of great debate on two-tier health care. Proponents of two-tier health care will say that it will reduce wait-times by allowing people who want to pay more to get services directly and that would take pressure off the public system. That is one theory.

I don’t subscribe to that theory. I believe that it should be a public system in terms of being paid for by the public, being administered by the public, by government. But the reality is there are some things that the private sector can do under the Canada Health Act and under the Medicare Protection Act which will actually prove efficient. It can provide a shorter access to care without draining resources from the public health system.

For instance, there are orthopedic surgeons in this province that don’t have access to OR time in the public system. They, essentially, are not using all of their abilities. In a private surgical centre, that would create opportunities, paid for by the public, where these orthopedic sur-
[ Page 8791 ]
geons could do more work. Therefore, actually, we would optimize the health care resources available to us rather than draining resources from one system to another.

It is true, as the member has pointed out, that there are some areas that need to be strengthened. Specialist nursing is one.

[1740]

We just reached an agreement with the B.C. Nurses Union on increased training. I believe $5 million was put toward increased training for specialist nurses. So we are working on that area.

In terms of anaesthesiologists, we have worked with our partners at the Doctors of B.C. to make sure there is a fund to support specialist services that are in demand so that we can look at recruitment and retention issues for areas of need like anaesthesiologists.

We are not blind to the weaknesses that are apparent in some areas of the system, but that doesn’t mean that private surgical centres paid for by the public can’t offer a strengthening and optimization of the current resources we have available.

J. Darcy: We could, obviously, discuss this issue for a long time, and we don’t have the time to do it today. I would ask if the minister could please provide any copies of analysis that’s been done of specialized surgical clinics, highly specialized ones within the public system, such as the ones that have been used extensively at certain times when additional resources have been put in to shorten wait-lists for knees and hips, for instance, for cataract surgery.

I think the issue here is not whether or not we need to shorten wait-lists and spend the money to do that. It’s why we can’t do it as efficiently in the public system by investing. So I would ask if the minister could share any reports and any analysis based on experience already, because we have some great pilot projects in that regard.

Hon. T. Lake: I don’t want our staff to spend a lot of time without being specific. If the member could, in writing, be specific about the information she’s looking for, I would be happy to have staff work on that.

J. Darcy: Certainly. I will do that.

Let me turn to the issue of Lyme disease, briefly, which falls under PHSA as well. Is that a shift change?

I really just have one question about Lyme disease but just a few comments by way of preamble. According to Health Canada, Lyme disease is a serious illness, as the minister knows, caused by the bite of an infected tick. Symptoms can include fatigue, recurring arthritis, paralysis, cognitive dysfunction and can be debilitating, to say the least. I’ve certainly had the opportunity to meet with many people who are affected by Lyme disease.

It’s estimated by the Public Health Agency of Canada that the true number of infections is “at least three times higher than has been reported today,” said Steven Sternthal, speaking to Parliament in Ottawa last year during deliberations about a bill calling for a national Lyme disease strategy.

The minister is well aware that there has been considerable controversy surrounding the complex chronic diseases program at PHSA that deals with patients with Lyme disease as well as with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. There is grave concern that’s been expressed, I’m sure, to the minister — and publicly on many occasions — about the Lyme Disease Foundation, about their needs not being properly addressed and lack of attention to the kind of treatment and care that they believe they deserve.

We could spend a long time on this issue, but really, my question boils down to this. A bill was passed in the Parliament of Canada last year calling for a national Lyme disease strategy. My understanding is that that was to include an action plan by every province and territory in the country.

[1745]

Can the minister please speak to what his ministry is doing to put in place a comprehensive action plan for Lyme disease patients in British Columbia and what kind of consultation is happening with Lyme disease patients in developing that strategy?

Hon. T. Lake: Lyme disease is certainly controversial and a conundrum for many. Certainly, for those who suffer from complex chronic diseases, you can imagine the suffering that goes on. The desire to find an answer, to find a treatment, is enormous. While we did not support the preamble of the bill that was passed in the House of Commons, because of some of the statements that were made in the preamble, we certainly support the conclusion, which was the call for a national strategy on Lyme disease.

The Public Health Agency of Canada is charged with doing consultation on this national strategy. We are taking part in that group with the Public Health Agency of Canada.

I would say that in terms of addressing the issue, British Columbia has been very active, with the complex chronic diseases program. In March of 2011 $2 million was invested to support the establishment of the program which, again, is geared for patients with diseases that are often unexplained, that are difficult to diagnose and with a multitude of multisystemic conditions and clinical signs.

We’ve made some changes to that clinic. This was in recognition of the fact that we had a wait-list of over 850 people and that not enough people were being seen on a weekly basis.

We worked with the existing leadership at the time to try to address those issues and then made a decision to go with a new leadership team, which is working to increase the number of patients that are being seen, to support a
[ Page 8792 ]
more integrated, interdisciplinary, comprehensive and sustainable approach to the assessment, care and follow-up of patients. A clinical advisory committee is providing guidance on clinical protocol development through the review of all best available evidence.

The reality is that there is great controversy. There are advocacy groups that will disagree with experts with the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, with experts at the Centre for Disease Control here in British Columbia, in terms of the type of testing that should be used to diagnose Lyme disease.

What we know is that the incidence of Lyme disease in British Columbia is quite low, especially when you compare it to the eastern seaboard of North America, where in fact the disease was first recognized in Lyme, Connecticut, and thus the name.

The disease occurs when a tick that is capable of carrying the organism Borrelia burgdorferi bites a human and produces a reaction that can cause acute symptoms and then go into a chronic state and can cause multisystem effects throughout the body.

[1750]

The only ticks that carry that in the province of British Columbia are Ixodes pacificus, which are found in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island. The ticks in the interior of the province have not been found to be capable of carrying this particular organism. That doesn’t mean the people in the Interior wouldn’t get that organism from a tick bite outside of that area, but in British Columbia, because of the distribution of the particular tick capable of carrying the organism, the incidence is actually quite low.

In terms of diagnosing, if you see the bull’s-eye rash and the symptoms and you have a history of a tick bite, physicians in British Columbia are certainly very aware of that and can have a test done that the Centre for Disease Control here in Vancouver will perform. But they can start treatment right away with appropriate antibiotics.

If the initial symptoms are not seen, it becomes more problematic, but physicians always have the ability to put people on antibiotics if they have a strong suspicion that, in fact, the patient is suffering from Lyme disease.

J. Darcy: I would like to turn to the Fraser Health review. There was a major review done of Fraser Health in 2014, and as the minister knows, report cards for each hospital are now being put on line. Of specific concern are two stats: measuring alternate-level-of-care bed-days and emergency patients admitted within ten hours.

I want to read into the record a couple of things: alternate-level-of-care days, which are above target in ten of those hospitals; and emergency waits, which are also above target at ten hospitals. Let me just put those on the record.

Abbotsford Regional Hospital. ALC beds, April to November 2014: 10 percent was the target; actual, 11.5. Emergency patients admitted to hospital within ten hours, time frame January-February 2015: target, 55 percent; actual, 33.27 percent.

Burnaby Hospital. ALC beds, April to November 2014: target, 10 percent; actual, 14.4 percent.

Chilliwack General Hospital. ALC beds, April to November 2014: target, 10 percent; actual, 21.8 percent.

Delta Hospital. ALC beds, April to November 2014: target, 10 percent; actual, 20.5 percent. Again at Delta, emergency patients admitted within ten hours, January-February 2015: target, 55 percent; actual, 18.82 percent.

Eagle Ridge Hospital. Alternate-level-of-care beds, April to November 2014: target, 10 percent; actual, 22.2 percent. Emergency patients admitted to hospital within ten hours, January-February 2015: target, 55 percent; actual, 31.61 percent.

Fraser Canyon Hospital. ALC days, April to November 2014: target, 10 percent; actual, 15.1 percent.

Langley Memorial. ALC beds, April to November 2014: target, 10 percent; actual, 20.4 percent. Emergency patients admitted to hospital within ten hours, January-February 2015: target, 55 percent; actual, 29 percent.

Mission Memorial. ALC beds, April to November 2014: 10 percent; actual, 27.5 percent. Emergency patients admitted within ten hours, January-February 2015: target, 55 percent; actual, 43.66 percent.

Peace Arch Hospital. ALC days, April to November 2014: target, 10 percent; actual, 21 percent. Emergency patients admitted within ten hours, January-February 2015: target, 55 percent; actual, 34.36 percent.

I am nearing the end.

Ridge Meadows. ALC beds, again same time frame: target, 10 percent; actual, 17.7. Emergency patients admitted, again same time frame: 55 percent, target; actual, 25 percent.

[1755]

Royal Columbian Hospital. Emergency patients admitted within ten hours: target, 55 percent; actual, 46.2 percent.

Surrey Memorial. Admitted within ten hours from emergency: target, 55 percent; actual, 32.86 percent.

The ALC beds are above target in ten hospitals. Emergency waits are above target at ten hospitals. What is being done? Why is this still a problem?

Hon. T. Lake: The member was reading off of public documents posted. That is an indicator of the transparency that we are demonstrating so that we can — and the public can — judge the performance.

The member is talking about two metrics that are of concern. Let me just, first of all, note that that same report that is publicly available notes that Fraser Health has met or exceeded seven out of eight quality and safety indicators. Their public health measures are aligned with their targets. Accountability processes and public reporting of performance indicators are in place. Three out
[ Page 8793 ]
of six staff and physician engagement targets have been met or exceeded. And Fraser Health reports a year-to-date operating surplus. Those are positive things.

The member points to ALC beds and getting people from the emergency department into beds in the hospital. The period that she is quoting is the period January to March, which is the heaviest time for flu infections, and that undoubtedly will play a role — not to make excuses. Those targets are there, and we need to try to meet them. It will be instructive to look at further quarters now that we’re out of flu season to see if those numbers come down.

One of the large strategies in order to bring those numbers down is to provide more space in community in terms of residential care beds. As the member mentioned, alternate-level-of-care beds are essentially people that are waiting in hospital for placement in community, mostly in long-term residential care. There are plans over the next number of quarters to add a total of 145 residential care beds in Fraser Health.

With that, combined with the abatement of flu season, I am hopeful we will see some positive trends, as we had seen in previous quarterly reports. We had seen positive trends in those indicators. During the heavy flu season we saw a backward trend occurring, and we want to make sure that we move in the right direction. We’ll look for that in the next quarterly report.

J. Darcy: I have one last question. It’s a question I want to put on the record. Since I have MLAs waiting to ask individual questions, I’d like to ask the minister to please respond in writing.

[1800]

I’ll just preface it by saying I had the opportunity in the week that we were not sitting, last week, to meet both with nurses who work in community and Fraser Health, in particular in home nursing, as well as with home support workers from Fraser Health and across the province. They shared with me their pretty disturbing experience about the length of waits, for instance, for home nursing in Fraser Health — as long as three months for referral through the centralized intake system — and about new plans to hire more nurses for communities but the plan for the majority of those not actually for them to be in front-line nursing.

With home support workers, talking about stories that I hear across the province…. I have no doubt the minister hears them as well, about people literally having time schedules in home support of four minutes for this, three minutes for that, ten minutes for that and really not doing justice to the kind of support that our vulnerable seniors need and deserve in their own homes.

I would like to ask the minister to please provide in writing a breakdown of home care and home support hours over the last five years from each health authority, both in the area of home support and in the area of home nursing. Certainly, the minister’s discussion papers say that we need to be shifting direction and that we need to be investing more in community.

That has certainly been the language that we have…. It’s certainly something I agree with, and it’s something the ministry has said for a number of years, and yet we still see people who need home nursing and home support going without or getting insufficient hours. So if the minister could provide a detailed breakdown of that, it would be greatly appreciated.

With that, I will turn, first, to the member from Delta.

V. Huntington: I appreciate the opportunity. I know that the critic has had a long haul at this.

We were looking, in my office, at the Fraser Health strategic operating plan and noted that the corporate budget for Fraser Health had grown by 33 percent over the next three to four years — close to $60 million growth in the corporate budget.

When we looked a little further, it was a $27 million growth dedicated to the corporate budget, and $35 million was designated to a one-time adjustment for long-term-care disability plan.

I wondered if the minister could discuss that a little bit — what that one-time adjustment is expected to be doing and, perhaps, why $2 million of that $25 million that’s left over couldn’t go to Delta Hospital’s surgical plan.

Hon. T. Lake: The member is referring to fiscal ’13-14, which was when I became minister. I remember that Fraser Health was at risk of not meeting their budget that year. And then there was an adjustment to the long-term disability plan. This is because of improvements to long-term disability management. So there was a one-time adjustment of $35 million.

[1805]

This wasn’t a cost to the Fraser Health Authority. It was essentially a savings to Fraser Health through the long-term disability plan adjustment. Without that, they would have had real difficulty meeting their budget that year. So this wasn’t $35 million that was available for other services.

In terms of administration and support, all health authorities have a target of 10 percent, which, for large organizations, indicates a very lean administration and overhead costs. Fraser Health in 2010-11 was at 8.8 percent; 2011-12, 9.1 percent; ’12-13, 9.2 percent; ’13-14, 9 percent; ’14-15, 9.3 percent. So they’re well within the target of 10 percent.

If we look at some other health authorities, Vancouver Island has varied from 10.9 percent as a high to 9.6 percent as a low; Vancouver Coastal, 9.1 percent as a low to 9.6 percent as a high. PHSA varied between 8.9 percent and 9.4 percent.

Northern Health, because of their distinct nature, has a higher administration cost, ranging from 12.2 percent up to a high of 13.6 percent. Interior Health, again over a diverse area, a low of 9.9 percent to a high of 10.3 percent.

All of the health authorities actually are very, very lean when it comes to administration and support, Fraser Health being one of the better performers in that regard.

V. Huntington: I understand our time has been cut short today. If the minister won’t mind, I’ll pursue a few other questions in writing, if I can get some responses.

Interjection.

V. Huntington: I know. I just thought I could ask them today.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask about…. Maybe I’ll just put this on the record as well, if there’s a quick response or anything further in writing, just so that I don’t take much time here.

I am asking this question because I’m concerned about dental care in long-term-care facilities. The information I’ve received particularly relates to Fraser Health Authority long-term-care facilities. The concern is that there’s basically no dental care going on at all in long-term-care facilities unless families pay for it. But for those that don’t have families that are able to pay, which is a fairly large proportion of people in long-term-care facilities, there is no plan in place whatsoever to have any kind of dental screening.

There was, until about four years ago. There was a clinic at Queen’s Park Hospital. That was closed down. It served not only Queen’s Park, but also there were referrals from other hospital facilities. That is now gone, and I believe a plan was being worked on, but there has been no plan put in place.

One example that was given to me was of an 83-year-old woman who this dentist had to admit and treat. The 83-year-old had dental infections that extended to the soft tissue around her throat. She had to have all her lower teeth removed. She has dementia so she will not tolerate a lower denture. She will go through the rest of her years eating softer, pureed foods. She will have a poorer quality of life during her last days, and it could have been prevented.

The question, and the plea, is…. The question to the minister: is there a plan for providing any kind of dental services in long-term-care facilities in Fraser Health? That’s the question. The plea is to certainly provide those kinds of services. Perhaps if the minister wants to respond, or in writing.

[1810]

Hon. T. Lake: As the member is probably aware, dental care is generally not covered by public health care. When medicare was started in Canada, it was to cover physician and hospital services. Different provinces, obviously, have expanded in different ways, but it doesn’t form the core of health care in Canada. Having said that, people on income assistance do receive dental benefits in the province of British Columbia, and there certainly are efforts to try to address the needs of vulnerable patients and people in the province.

In long-term residential care the care that is given would address oral hygiene in terms of brushing teeth and helping patients with that. Different health authorities have different approaches. Some may have different approaches to dental screening. As the member mentioned, there might have been a program within Fraser Health at one time.

I will endeavour to do a little more research for the member on the different health authorities to understand better what kinds of services are being provided. But as I said, it’s one of those services that generally is not covered under the public health system in Canada.

It’s part of the body. It is certainly part of being healthy — having healthy oral health. But again, this is the limit of…. The fiscal challenge of providing health care to Canadians is what can and can’t be included in health care. I will endeavour to find more information and note the member’s concern about people in long-term residential care that need dental care.

G. Heyman: My question has to do with what appears to be some anomaly or inconsistency or odd exercise of discretion in the provision of some home care services. I note the time. It may be that the minister, in order to give a fuller answer to my question, may want to deliver it in another manner at a later time.

A daughter of one of my constituents raised an issue with me about her frail elderly father. He’s near the last stages of his life. His medical care requires a monthly appointment at Vancouver General Hospital to get an injection to help keep up his bone strength. He requires an escort to get to these appointments because he’s unable to get in and out of the cab on his own.

The home support agency will not approve an escort for his monthly hospital trip even though that is one of the things they have the discretion to do. They say that the family needs to…. They’re not able to escort him themselves. They have one volunteer agency they use, but it’s not always able to provide a volunteer, and the home care agency says they haven’t explored enough volunteer agencies.

The family is having some trouble understanding this because they understand that home care service does have the option to approve somebody to escort him. There have been a couple of instances where he has missed his appointment because there wasn’t a volunteer at the last moment. The family lives with some considerable stress, as does their father, about whether…. Sometimes they don’t know till the day before that they’ll have somebody to take him to the appointment.

My question to the minister is whether the minister considers this form of service to meet medically neces-
[ Page 8795 ]
sary monthly appointments, where assistance is needed to get there, as a service that should be provided by the home care system?

Hon. T. Lake: Home care, home support services are services to support activities of daily living. As I’ve said in the House, the spending on home care, home support has increased 146 percent since 2001, and the number of clients receiving home health services has increased 23 percent over that period of time.

[1815]

There is an appeal process, so if a client or their family has concerns about the care that is being provided, they may contact patient relations of the health authority and, if still unsatisfied, may contact the patient care quality review board, which will review the matter and make recommendations. I’ve seen cases where families have done just that, and the health authority has readjusted the number of hours and supports available. I’d encourage the member to use those services.

I know we’re getting close to the hour. Yesterday I mentioned a number of people that have been enormously supportive over the six days of Health estimates in the core ministry. We also have other partners within the ministry: Ryan Jabs and Sarah Plank from GCPE; our partners from PSHA, Carl Roy, Arden Krystal and Linda Lupini.

We’ve also had lots of other staff like Ashley Wolsey, Kurstie Somner, Heather Murray, Tamara Casanova and Wendy Murray. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank my staff in my office. The inimitable Sabrina Loiacono, Kyle Marsh, Kellie O’Brien, Eric Wallace-Deering, Shaina Jukes, Rhiannon Martin and Debbie Wade. I want to thank them for all their support over the six days of estimates.

J. Darcy: I’d like to extend my thanks to the minister and to his staff for all of the hard work that they’ve done over the past six days. Sometimes I’m not sure why I asked for six days. But now that we’re at the end of the six days, we could do another two, and I don’t know if a motion is in order to that effect. Probably not. But I do want to thank the minister and all of his staff for everything they’ve done to answer some of the questions the minister has answered.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank — I can’t refer to them as an army of staff, because they’re not — my researcher Derrick Harder, who works on health issues, among others; Kristine Parker, our intern who has been working on estimates with us this session; and my legislative assistant, Chelsea Williams. Thank you also to the Chair and to the Clerk’s office.

Vote 29: ministry operations, $17,297,183,000 — approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I want to thank the member opposite for the really, I would say, informative and reasonable debate that we’ve had over the last six days, and all the members of her team that have asked questions as well.

With that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:17 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada