Issues & Community Blog - Andrew Weaver: A Climate for Hope - Page 193

Today during Question Period I asked the Minister of Health about whether or not he was willing to help with the imminent funding crisis faced by the Island Sexual Health Society. I was pleased that the Minister has agreed to work with Island Health and the Island Sexual Health Society to seek ways of alleviating their funding predicament.

Below is my question followed by the minister’s response.

A. Weaver: Island Sexual Health Society provides essential primary and public services to the lower Island, with over 26,000 patient visits each year. It fills a significant gap around basic health care needs in a cost-effective manner.

My riding has both Camosun College and the University of Victoria, with thousands and thousands of students who do not have GPs or access to GPs, who require these services.

The Island Sexual Health Society is systemically underfunded by our public health system, needing more than a third of their budget — in fact, 36.4 percent, if you wish to know, of their operational budget — from non-governmental sources. As a consequence, they are struggling to stay open. In fact, you might say they are victims of their own success.

My question is to the Health Minister: will the minister make a commitment to support Island Sexual Health in continuing to provide these essential services?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for the question.

Island Sexual Health is a non-profit organization that does provide excellent service to people in the Victoria area. They have a mixed funding model. They provide services on a fee-for-service basis. That continues so that health services are available through that model. They also provide some public health services through funding from Island Health, funding that has continued to increase over time.

I understand that Island Sexual Health moved into larger facilities and that the higher costs associated with those larger facilities have outpaced their revenue in terms of the MSP fee-for-service model. I know that Vancouver Island Health Authority is working with Island Sexual Health, and we will be involved in those discussions to look at ways of supporting this organization to maintain the valuable services that they do provide but also to maintain and stay within the budget that they have for those services.

In order to explore the matter further I followed up with a supplementary question. The Minister reaffirmed his commitment to work with Island Sexual Health Society to find solutions to their funding problems.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the very thoughtful response to that question.

I would like to add that just this week the board of Island Sexual Health met and agreed to cut their budget for this next fiscal year by $140,000, and they also made some structural changes by going to a walk-in model to increase client numbers and decrease administrative costs, but, as the minister noted, they still need long-term commitment of $235,000 per year to offset tenancy costs. This is the barrier to their continued success.

Again to the minister: would the minister be able to agree, again, to work with Island Sexual Health in order to solve the crisis, the short-term crisis that they face, in terms of meeting their monthly tenancy costs?

Frankly, the services they offer to southern Vancouver Island are simply too important for them not to remain solvent.

Hon. T. Lake: Again, I want to acknowledge the very good work that Island Sexual Health provides to residents in the Victoria area, particularly the university population. The member from Oak Bay and I share family members who attend the university and know that these services are very valuable.

However, whether it’s a non-profit organization or a private corporation providing publicly funded health care, it is important that they pay attention to the funding model and the revenue that comes in and the expenditures. In this situation, this organization decided to move into space that perhaps outpaced their ability to match with revenue. But we will work with them. We will work with Vancouver Island Health Authority to look and see if there are ways of supporting the organization while making sure they stay within their budget.

Today I spoke to Bill 19 – The Animal Health Act during second reading. This is a very important piece of legislation that is long overdue. As Nicholas Simons (the NDP Agriculture critic and MLA for Powell River-Sunshine Coast) noted the day before:

“I have to say that the basic principles of the act, in terms of the attempt or the goal to ensure that we do everything that we can to prevent disease in our animals and to ensure that the spread of those diseases is kept to a minimum…. I think that the priorities that are outlined and the purposes of this bill are essentially and fundamentally good.

I should point out, as well, that this bill actually does a few other things besides those things that the minister mentioned. They include the repeal of a few other pieces of legislation that have perhaps outgrown their usefulness, or perhaps outgrown their relevance to today — modern day and age. Those include the Fur Farm Act, the Game Farm Act and the Bee Act, not to mention the Animal Disease Control Act. Those acts will, by effect of this legislation, be repealed, and this legislation before us today will take their place.”

Below is the text of my speech. Some might be interested to skip to the bottom to see why I called division (i.e. standing vote) on moving the bill to the committee stage. A standing vote is the only opportunity you get to see how every individual MLA votes. Second Reading of Bill 19 was approved unanimously.

I would like to start by acknowledging the minister’s efforts to provide an update to this legislation pertaining to animal health and disease control, but I want to also thank his staff for the extremely informative and substantive briefing that I received a few days ago.

It’s obvious from that briefing that much effort and much passion and much hard work was put into writing this piece of legislation, and I want to personally acknowledge those who played a role in getting it to this point.

The health of animals and control of animal-related diseases and outbreaks is an important issue to address, especially in today’s society, where global travel and trade continue to expand. Given this reality, I believe in most ways Bill 19 offers an important step forward. For example, increasing the number of reportable diseases so as to include the updated understanding of the diseases that affect livestock and requiring ranchers and farmers to provide better training for employees will no doubt update and improve disease control mechanisms in our province.

I do understand there have been significant concerns raised over some aspects of this bill, particularly in its previous form a couple of years ago. Let me give a specific example. I understand right now that if I owned a poultry farm and I found a diseased poultry, it might be in my interest to send that poultry to the United States for testing, because if I sent that piece of poultry in British Columbia for testing, the results of that test might get out. And if that test was faulty, panic in the public might ensue.

If that test was sent to the U.S., I don’t have to worry about that test getting out, unless it is a reportable disease. But then the only way the B.C. government would find out about that is when border control measures were put in place between the Canada-U.S. border. This seems wrong.

I recognize that there is a problem with the freedom-of-information aspect of this. I recognize that government is trying to manage its way, to navigate this very difficult problem. That being said, I think the ministry has taken the appropriate steps to help ensure a necessary flow of information for the purpose of ensuring public safety.

First, there has been much discussion over the restrictions this bill imposes on public access to information, as has been articulated by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. There’s concern that this bill will limit the information that can be released to the public during a potential animal disease outbreak, as I mentioned in my example a few minutes ago. In particular, this bill would exempt six specific areas of information from the purview of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I understand why this has attracted so much attention, and I fully support the independent oversight that is required when we are dealing with privacy issues. However, I also feel that we must establish a system that promotes the timely reporting of animal-related diseases so that the necessary response can be undertaken and the greater public interest can be served.

Pending further analysis in the committee stage, I feel that this legislation before us may strike the necessary balance between ensuring information can be made public and providing adequate protection of personal information so as to promote the self-reporting of potential animal-based diseases.

Secondly, the amount of power that a health inspector appears to be granted in emergency situations has also received some criticism. In the event that B.C.’s chief veterinarian declares an emergency, the act seems to provide an inspector with the necessary powers for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. It’s my understanding that these powers are in line, in fact, with those already found in the Public Health Act and are simply in place to ensure the ministry is able to take appropriate action in the event of an emergency.

Finally, some have raised concerns that the maximum penalties for an offence proposed by this bill may be too punitive. It’s obvious, of course, that the previous maximum penalty of $2,000 in a case that has grave and profound public health concerns is undoubtedly lenient by today’s standards. These new maximum penalties again appear to be in line with animal health acts in other jurisdictions to which the legislation is supposed to bring us in harmony with.

While there are some details of this bill to explore further in committee, I find this to be a substantial and positive update to a critical piece of legislation, and I’ll certainly be supporting this as we move to the next stage of debate.

I would like to say now that I will be calling for division on this bill, and I’d like to say why, if I can. Too often the media only report the negative things that happen in this Legislature. Today was a very negative experience for me, listening to the discussion back and forth on issues that are of great importance to British Columbians. I recognize you’re going to call me out of order here, hon. Speaker. But I want people to recognize that there are times in this place where all parties agree on its substantial pieces of legislation. That is the important message that needs to get out there.

This is a substantial piece of legislation. This is an important piece of legislation, and British Columbians need to know that while people have concerns, all parties are supporting it and moving it forward through committee stage.

Media Statement: April 9th, 2014
Minister says “No Plan to Intervene” in Esquimalt Sewage Plant Re-Zoning
For Immediate Release

Victoria BC – In the House Tuesday Andrew Weaver asked the Minister of Environment, The Honourable Mary Polak, if the government had any intention of intervening over Esquimalt council’s unanimous rejection of the Capital Regional District plans for a sewage treatment plant at McLoughlin Point.

The reply from the Minister was – “We have no plans to intervene”

“The Minister has been consistent with her message regarding the CRD since I first raised this question in the House last year. She has no plans to intervene, and the program funding is available through to the completion deadline of 2020. “ said Andrew Weaver

Draft Transcript from Hansard, Tuesday April 8^th, Afternoon Session, Committee A.

A Weaver: As the minister is aware, Esquimalt Council voted unanimously last night to reject the capital regional district rezoning request for McLoughlin Point for the sewage plant there. This comes, following considerable public engagement — four evenings of public consultation where only one person spoke in favour of the project, and many, many, many others spoke against it. The public consultation demonstrated there’s little, if any, support for the current plan.

My question is this: considering the CRD currently has no alternative site for the treatment plant and, in fact, Esquimalt have tasked staff with putting together information to rezone McLoughlin Point to not allow a sewage plant there, will the minister reassure residents of the region that the province will not intervene on the zoning unless the CRD proves all other options are exhausted?

Hon. M. Polak: I can assure the member that our position remains the same today as it has in the past. The federal government requires that they treat their sewage by 2020. This is an obligation that falls on the local governments. It’s unfortunate that they’ve reached this kind of an impasse.

I understand that CRD is meeting this week, perhaps even tomorrow, to discuss the implications. I’m not going to speculate on what might result from that, but we have no plans to intervene. We’ve said from the beginning that this is an issue that the local governments need to grapple with, understanding that they’re the ones who are obligated to begin treatment of their sewage. We have no plans to intervene

Media Contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
1 250 216 3382

It may seem odd that I would rise today to speak in favour of The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act which resides in the riding of Chilliwack-Hope (MLA Laurie Throness), but I was contacted by a number of constituents who had summer homes in the area. This is what prompted me to examine this legislation more deeply. Below is the text of my speech.

While the member for Chilliwack-Hope is probably wondering what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is doing standing up to speak in favour of the Cultus Lake act, I will add that I had a number of constituents who e-mailed me specifically about this act because they have summer homes in Cultus Lake. They pleaded with me to support this act. I’d like to read one of the e-mails that I received from the constituents. It said as follows:

“We are two of your constituents who have a summer home at Cultus Lake. Currently the residents of Cultus Lake Park do not have a democratic election process. Residents can only vote for two of seven politicians who represent them. By you voting yes for this bill, it will make a considerable improvement in democracy and accountability for the Cultus Lake Park, thus improving the future sustainability for this wonderful area, which is enjoyed by thousands of B.C. residents every year.”

Now, of course, as soon as an e-mail mentions the word “sustainability,” my ears perk up, so I took some time to explore this bill further.

The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act takes an important step forward in the lead-up to the 2014 municipal elections to ensure that the residents of Cultus Lake are adequately represented in their government. The act would change the number and composition of representatives from the current structure of seven representatives, two of whom are Cultus Lake residents, to the new structure of five representatives, three of whom are Cultus Lake residents.

By increasing the representation of local residents, this bill will further empower those residents to sustainably manage a park that is enjoyed by so many British Columbians, including residents from the Oak Bay–Gordon Head riding here on southern Vancouver Island.

I, too, would like to thank the government and the member for Chilliwack-Hope for his work to bring and introduce this bill forward, and I very much look forward to supporting its adaptation at second and third readings and committee stage.

Yesterday I rose in the house to give my qualified support to Bill 20. While this bill is part of a two-step process to reform municipal elections financing, many, including me, wished that it had also brought in donation limits prior to the 2014 municipal elections. Just prior to me speaking, Linda Reimer, MLA for Port Moody-Coquitlam and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development spoke. She noted:

All of the [Local Government Elections] task force recommendations are being implemented in this legislation, with the exception of those expense limits. They will be addressed in the second phase and implemented for the 2018 local elections. Expense limits set a maximum amount of money that candidates, elector organizations and third-party advertisers in local elections can spend on election campaigns.

The Local Government Elections Task Force recommended that expense limits be established in local government elections but didn’t recommend what the limits should be. We fully intend to put in place expense limits, but we felt it would not be appropriate to add expense limits to the mix of the significant reforms that we already have in place in an election year. UBCM supports this two-phased approach.

The first phase is the legislation that we introduced already. The legislation, as I said previously, represents the most significant reforms to local government in more than 20 years. And of course, the second phase will be our expense limits.

Below is the text of my speech. Please note that I believe it would be in everyone’s interest i government brought in financing limits this years fall sitting (if it is after the municipal election) or, at latest, spring 2015.

I rise to offer a few initial comments on Bill 20 with a wicked cold. I would much rather be in bed today, but I felt this was an important bill to speak to as we move to municipal elections this fall.

I recognize that the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act makes many needed changes in our local elections system. I was very happy to see that the legislation included further clarity around disclosure requirements and third-party advertising sponsorship. The added authority to Elections B.C. is also a welcome step in improving our democracy.

One noticeable absence in this bill, as alluded to by a number of previous speakers, is reform to the municipal spending limit for municipal elections. Now, I recognize the arguments put forward by the previous member with respect to the fact that the committee did not make recommendations on specific amounts, but the reality is that this is what people want. It’s been an ongoing issue for many years, and my main critique of this legislation before us today is that such spending limits are not included.

The government has had many opportunities since the Local Government Elections Task Force introduced its recommendations for improving local democracy in 2010, yet it still has not acted to limit campaign expenses.

Here’s a specific example. If we look at the numbers from Vancouver’s 2011 election, we see that Vancouver’s mainstream municipal parties collectively spent $5 million. That’s roughly $12 for every eligible voter. Now, compare that with Montreal, where candidates can spend 30 cents per voter, or Toronto, where candidates can spend 85 cents per voter. I think it’s pretty clear the difference — an order of magnitude difference.

It’s important that we take steps to limit the extent to which money can currently impact our municipal election results. Just as in the provincial system, in municipal elections people vote, not unions or business. It’s really time that we follow the lead that was set by our federal government in terms of putting campaign limits and also banning the donations from union and business interests — vested interests, I might add.

Because whose interests are ultimately served? Is it the voter, or is it the person with the biggest paycheque? Sometimes it seems to me that it’s the person with the biggest paycheque, and if that biggest paycheque is unbounded, the person with the biggest paycheque is the wealthiest person.

It’s particularly important in the context of this newly proposed four-year municipal election cycle. Some have argued that extending the term lengths for elected officials without introducing spending limits further tilts the balance of power in favour of those who can spend the most. While there certainly are merits for elected officials having a longer term in office — I support that — it’s perhaps unfortunate that this proposed extension comes at a time when one of the largest issues facing local government elections is campaign spending.

Of course, I want to recognize that it would have been impractical and even somewhat unfair to introduce legislation that would change campaign spending protocol during an election year, but I come back to the fact that the government has had quite some time to actually develop this legislation.

That being said, the people of British Columbia need some certainty that this government intends to follow through with its promise and cap election spending before the next local election. To that effect, I am pleased to hear the speech by the previous member. The previous member spoke to the fact that this would, in fact, be the case.

The government has had a number of years since the task force recommendation. It’s time to act expediently to bring these changes forward. I look forward to hearing from the government regarding the timeline for bringing in these reforms and will withhold further comments until the committee stage.