[ Page 2629 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987 (Bill 59). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 2630

Oral Questions

Privatization. Mr. Harcourt –– 2631

Mr. Clark

Presenting Petitions –– 2633

Tabling Documents –– 2633

Insurance Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 48). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2633

Mr. Williams –– 2634

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2634

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 34). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 2634

Mrs. Boone –– 2636

Ms. Campbell –– 2638

Mr. Cashore –– 2639

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2640

Mr. Clark –– 2641

Mr. Mowat –– 2642

Mr. Lovick –– 2643

Ms. Marzari –– 2644

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 2645

Mr. Jones –– 2646

Mr. Mercier –– 2647

Mr. Miller –– 2648

Ms. Edwards –– 2649

Mr. Williams –– 2650

Ms. Smallwood –– 2651

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 2651

Mineral Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 51). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2652

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, after consultation with both sides of the House, I have given permission that the audio portions of the proceedings of this House be broadcast to the public.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of deep personal loss that I speak of the passing of one of the mainstays of local government in British Columbia; I refer, of course, to Mr. Jeff McKelvey. For 20 years he steered the Union of B.C. Municipalities with a firm but gentle hand and an unerring sense of the direction our municipalities should follow. Not one person can be singled out in the way Jeff can, as the shaper of local democracy in British Columbia. His character truly reflected the high stature to which our municipal governments aspire. Most recently he served this province as one of the architects of decentralization, having provided the report which created a framework for consultation.

There are many in this Legislature who owe him a tribute of thanks for helping us in our early political careers. He was instrumental in our basic training as municipal representatives of the citizens of British Columbia. The scholarship fund which bears his name will carry forward his commitment to professionalism in community service.

I ask the House to join me in sending our condolences to his wife Jeanne, son Rick and daughter Judy. We share the loss. We'll remember him in our prayers and hold his memory with admiration and respect.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the words of the Premier in honour of Jeff McKelvey, with whom a number of us here have had the honour of working with over a number of years. Indeed, he trained most of us in the understanding of what local government is about and what it can accomplish when we cooperate and work together. And he did that: he put together packages for the smaller municipalities in terms of purchasing in bulk he put together benefit packages. He worked tirelessly for many, many years on behalf of local government and made the Union of B.C. Municipalities the most effective municipal organization in this country. He and his family have contributed tremendously to British Columbia, and I would like, on behalf of the New Democratic caucus, to pass on our condolences to Jeanne and the family, and also our great sense of pride for his contributions to local government and to British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, with us today is an individual who is present only to observe the proceedings of the House. However, I know he would really prefer to be down here on the floor to participate as a member of this Legislature, and I suspect he's going to do his darnedest to bring that situation about at the appropriate time. I would therefore ask all members not to be conservative but liberal in welcoming him. He's a very social individual, and I'm sure he'll be a credit as the head of his party. Please join me in extending a warm legislative welcome to Mr. Gordon Wilson, the newly elected leader of the Liberal Party of British Columbia.

Present today as well are good friends and neighbours Mr. and Mrs. Del and June Martin and their sons Chad and Clint, and a couple of other good friends who are traveling with them, Frank and Sarah Suttles. Would the House please give them a big welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, we're honoured to have in the galleries today the royal commissioner on electoral boundaries, His Honour Judge Thomas K. Fisher. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

[2:15]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I also would like to welcome Judge Fisher and his staff to Victoria. Judge Fisher and I go back a long way together. Of course, he's considerably older than I am; he remembers me when I was young. We welcome Judge Fisher to Victoria, in spite of the fact that he would like to move our capital back to New Westminster. On the serious side, he has a big job, an awesome responsibility, and I'm sure he'll be successful because his hands are extremely capable ones.

MR. MILLER: I would like the House to join me today in extending congratulations to Mayor Peter Lester of Prince Rupert. Although many fine candidates have run in British Columbia, Mr. Lester is outstanding for the contribution he has made to public life in British Columbia. He has recently been re-elected for his sixteenth consecutive term.

AN HON. MEMBER: Think you can beat him?

MR. MILLER: I should say I had the foolishness to run against the mayor last year, and I got clobbered. Nonetheless, it is a very fine record of distinguished service. I talked to Mayor Lester after the election, and he told me the secret of his success was that he never got everybody mad at him all at once.

So it may be appropriate, Mr. Speaker — with the agreement of the other side — that a suitable message be conveyed to His Worship Mayor Lester for achieving this significant record.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I want to add very briefly my congratulations and those from all members on this side of the House to Mayor Peter Lester, and to all mayors, school board members and all who were elected last week. Certainly I think it is right to single out Mr. Peter Lester, since I don't believe there is anyone who has held office for that long in our province — at least in that particular position.

He is certainly a fine gentleman. I have had the opportunity of meeting him in a variety of capacities, and he is always firm and fair, very involved and active, and very sincere about all the things he does for the community. So from all members on this side as well. congratulations to Mayor Peter Lester and also to all others elected last Saturday.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like us all to join in welcoming to the Legislature two visitors from Vancouver who have been very active in the food bank and who expected to work themselves out of a job when they started six years ago. We hope they are successful in getting the food banks to be able

[ Page 2630 ]

to close down when we have the ability to deal with the poor and unfortunate in our society.

I think we should pay tribute to those two who are here today: the executive director of the food bank, Sylvia Russell, and the chairman of the board of directors, Arne Olsen.

MS. CAMPBELL: The Provincial Secretary has already introduced our esteemed royal commissioner on electoral boundaries. I would like to introduce two people who are accompanying him today: Mr. Terry Julian, who is working with His Honour, and also, from Vancouver-Point Grey, Professor Ken Carty of the department of political science at UBC. Will the House make them welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to introduce friends to the House today: Mrs. Chris Shaffer from Terrace, my executive assistant, and Bob Thompson of Victoria, recently appointed regional development officer for the North Coast region. Somewhere in the galleries is an old friend, Tom Waterland, of Vancouver. Let's make them welcome.

MR. CASHORE: As I look about the gallery today, I see several people with whom I have been connected in the United Church and in the church ecumenical. There are too many to name them all, but I will acknowledge Mrs. Jara Smith of Victoria, who is the chairperson of the social action committee of Victoria presbytery, and she is here today with 20 members of the Coalition for Democratic Process. I would ask the members to join me in welcoming them.

MS. SMALLWOOD: A recognition well worth waiting for: I'd like the House to join me in recognizing and welcoming the newly elected mayor for Surrey, Dr. Robert Bose.

MR. LOENEN: I'd like the House to recognize three very special guests who are in the precincts with us, Roman Herchak of Richmond, John Stashuk of Vancouver and Peter Shostak of Victoria. These three are representing the Foundation for Ukrainian Studies, and they will, later on this afternoon, make a special presentation to our cultural heritage committee of cabinet in regard to a very special project, namely the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. I'd like the House to welcome those three gentlemen.

MR. SIHOTA: I have three introductions to make, and I'll be very quick. First of all, I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming in the gallery today two well-known residents of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, Mr. and Mrs. Gibbons. Secondly, since our last adjournment, there has been a change in the command of our base here in Esquimalt. I'm sure all members of the House appreciate the important role of the military and the navy in the defence of this country, and I would like to ask members of the House to join me in welcoming Commander Beckett and Admiral George, who are now respectively in charge of the Canadian Forces base in Esquimalt and the Maritime command.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, is a birthday I should bring to the attention of all the members of the House. Last Sunday the youngest member of this House, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), arrived at the great age of 30. He is still, however, the pup of our pit bull crew in our caucus, but I can assure members of the House that his bark, as a result of turning 30, has gotten just a little bit deeper and he's gotten a little longer in the tooth. He assures me that he will now be beginning to act his age.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Like many members in the House today, we recognize a lot of familiar faces. There are two that I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming. Firstly, my son Rod Couvelier is attending, I think, his second session while I have had the honour of sitting in the House. The second person I'd like the House to recognize is an old working colleague of mine from my municipal days, Paul McKivett, who is a good public servant at the municipal level and who recently won acclamation election appointment to the Greater Victoria School Board. I welcome Rod Couvelier and Paul McKivett.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House first to join me in welcoming a constituent, Douglas Walker, who works in the hotel industry in the lower mainland and who is pleased, I know, to be at this first session of the fall. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my constituents: Judge Fisher and his administrator Terry Julian. I know that in their task that are bringing a historic perspective to their work from the first capital of our province. Welcome, gentlemen.

MR. BLENCOE: There are a number of people in the gallery today from the Victoria area. I'd like to especially recognize two people: Mr. Doug Ottenbreit, co-chairman of the Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition Society; and Mr. David Szollosy, who works with the Victoria Catholic diocese. Would the House please make these gentlemen welcome.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, visiting the House today and sitting in your gallery is a former colleague of mine, and the new mayor of Langley district. Would the House please welcome John Beales.

MR. LOVICK: I hope I may use the cliché — much as I hate them — last but not least. I would like to ask members to join me in welcoming a former research assistant of mine, now a graduate student at the University of Victoria, Ms. Jan Pullinger.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987.

HON. B.R. SMITH: This is Miscellaneous No. 4, full of little shortycoats. The most significant change in it, I guess, is a repeal of the Investment Contract Act and the future regulation of investment contracts under the Securities Act, which will provide an increased level of protection for investors. The timely introduction of these legislative changes, which implement some of the recommendations of Mr. Lyman Robinson...

Interjection.

[ Page 2631 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH: Order over there!

...in relation to the Principal Group failure, demonstrate that the government is committed to enhancing investor protection in the province.

I am pleased to bring forward also a number of housekeeping amendments. A long-awaited amendment to the Railway Act will amplify and clarify the regulatory powers of the ministry with respect to a number of matters affecting the safe operation of provincially regulated railways and ski lifts.

The Municipal Act will be amended to allow local governments to use the provincial voters list to update their own voters list.

An amendment will be made to the Public Trustee Act to enable the establishment of a schedule of fees for various services.

An amendment will be made to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act to expand the Regional District of Central Kootenay's waste-disposal functions and to allow it to enter into a 20-year service contract.

In addition to that, the Constitution Act will be amended to provide for such additional parliamentary secretaries as are necessary to support....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. B.R. SMITH: They don't want to hear, Mr. Speaker.

An amendment to the Funds Control Act will broaden the application of the First Citizens' Fund to enable the making of loans as well as grants to native-run businesses.

An amendment to the Supreme Court Act will increase by two the number of judges in the B.C. Supreme Court to assist in dealing with the increased trial volume.

An amendment to the Workers Compensation Act will enable appointment practices to parallel those for other boards and councils that are the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker, this provides only a brief sketch of the contents of the bill. I therefore move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a matter of privilege that pertains to comments previously made in this House with respect to the Coquihalla Highway.

Under the rules, one is obliged to raise a matter of privilege forthwith upon learning of the issue, and accordingly I'm standing at this time to put the issue before the House. As you may be aware, however, a commission of inquiry is currently deliberating on the matter of the Coquihalla Highway, and I certainly would not wish to upset its inquiry or its deliberations at this stage of the game; hence, it may be prudent to wait until the report of that committee is down. But having been caught between the rule and the fact of the commission, I've chosen to put the House on notice as to the question of privilege, and I ask that the question of privilege be deferred without prejudice to the earliest opportunity or until such time as the commission has completed its inquiry.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for giving me notice of his question of privilege. It is agreed.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier. Last week the Premier said he wanted to get on with privatization, that he didn't want to debate it in this House, and we want to know what he's afraid of. British Columbians are entitled to know. The Premier should know that debate in Parliament, particularly about a massive social upheaval such as privatization, is what Parliament is all about. Will the Premier permit a full debate on privatization in this Legislature, and when?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure there will be ample opportunity to debate various aspects of the privatization program as legislative changes may be required and introduced or as we begin, sometime next spring perhaps, the whole process with respect to budgets and throne speech and such. I'm sure there will be ample opportunity in the regular process.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, that doesn't deal with the fears and concerns of British Columbians. For example, the former Minister of Highways, the member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), charged that privatizing road maintenance — and I'd like to quote — "would put motorists at risk, especially interior and northern British Columbians." Can the Premier advise what studies have been undertaken to prove otherwise?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker. we are certainly satisfied that the private sector can deliver in a safe and acceptable manner many of the services presently provided through the public sector. Obviously standards are established in all of these matters and in all contracts that are permitted with respect to any facet of this. The people that build these roads. I'm sure all members would agree, should have no difficulty maintaining them.

Furthermore, we already see the private sector involved in a number of projects in provinces throughout this country, throughout many parts of the U.S. and right here in our own province. The Alaska Highway is certainly a challenging piece of road which is well maintained by the private sector. We don't have any difficulty in that regard. We're not trying to create or envisage or imagine problems in a very negative fashion where they don't exist and where we don't see any.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, if you're not going to accept the so-called negative opinions of the former Minister of Highways, how about your House Leader, who has publicly expressed his concerns about road safety if highway operations are privatized? What information has the Premier given to his House Leader to calm his fears?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have no problems with members of a good, democratic, free enterprise party expressing concerns about any matter that might be considered by us as a government or by the people of British Columbia. If there's some concern, I would like not

[ Page 2632 ]

only to hear about it but to have some details as to why there is concern.

It must be frustrating and disturbing to a lot of British Columbians when they see pictures of a train crash, which somehow must relate to the privatization of highways; when they see there is some attempt to create fear without someone explaining why in fact there should be that perception, or why there ought to be that fear. Similarly, we've seen the Leader of the Opposition making statements about carnage on the roads, all sorts of problems — in fact, creating again the problem where there is no problem, or where he can't provide any evidence that there would be a problem or why in his opinion we should have a fear about our people in the private sector carrying on their job effectively and efficiently. This country was built by individuals, built by people in the private sector. This country was not built by governments. This country wasn't created....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The prosperity that we enjoy and the things that make it possible for us to have the social programs we enjoy, the highways we drive on, didn't come about because government created this prosperity. It was done by individuals, private sector people working out there.

Again, I would go as far as to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should consider his statements and also keep in mind that when he says that because we as a party, or I as an individual, am opposed to something proposed by government, it's okay to somehow break the law, that is dangerous — as dangerous as to suggest that there will be carnage. If we have concerns, we should present the facts upon which these are based.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has just answered my question. That's why we need a debate: so that those concerns and fears can be addressed, right here in this Legislature, Mr. Premier. And if you wouldn't break campaign promises to end confrontation, to start consultation, we wouldn't have protests. If you're not going to listen to your House Leader and the former Minister of Highways, then we're in greater trouble than we all feared.

Moving right along from the highways concerns.... After lunch it's entirely appropriate to ask about the safety and well-being of British Columbians in the food and dairy area. Can the Premier confirm that with the sell-out of the dairy and food lab B.C. will be the only province in Canada without a public dairy lab to safeguard public health?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I cannot confirm that, though I'm sure that information is readily available if you wish to address the question to the minister responsible for agriculture. But frankly, I don't think we need to follow Manitoba or Ontario or Quebec. I think that in this Legislature it's British Columbians making decisions about British Columbia.

MR. HARCOURT: I don't know about following Ontario, but following the United States and Great Britain is a bit much.

Does the Premier know, and can he confirm, that 70 percent of the dairy and food lab's $650,000 annual budget is now recovered from user fees?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) indicates to me that this is about correct.

MR. HARCOURT: Last week the Premier advised the media that the privatization of ICBC was not included in phases 1, 2, 3, 4....

AN HON. MEMBER: Five.

MR. HARCOURT: Five? Well, we're waiting for the other shoes to drop. We've just heard that we've got stage 5 still being hidden — so stage 5.

Would the Premier advise the House what other public services are on the block in phases 3 and 4?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that's future policy.

MR. HARCOURT: The Premier is not being very straightforward. He hasn't sought an election mandate for this activity. He refuses to debate. He refuses an independent review. When are you going to come clean with the people of British Columbia, Mr. Premier?

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Premier. Mr. Premier, the consulting firm of Thome Ernst and Whinney was hired by the government to review the sell-off of components of B.C. Hydro, and they recommended against the sale of the research and development division to private interests. In light of this, would the Premier inform the House what new information he has that justifies the selling of the R and D division?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Fortunately, as we considered the various options with respect to privatization, there was a great deal of consultation and certainly there was a great deal of involvement by ministry people, and it wasn't just based on the recommendation of one particular firm or group. There was a large involvement.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Premier. Is the Premier not aware that a second consultant hired by B.C. Hydro has also reviewed the proposed sell-off of the R and D division, and is he also not aware that that consultant, Stone and Webster Engineering from Toronto, concluded that the R and D division has saved B.C. Hydro millions of dollars and that it doesn't make economic sense to sell it to private interests?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: For the information of the hon. member and other members, I think it should be noted as well that we as a government are working in a variety of ways to assure that diversification takes place in this province and that we have opportunities for our young people other than in those industries which we have historically in this province and for which we are grateful: forestry and mining, or tourism or agriculture.

We see in this process — and I think the member has brought forth a good example in the research and development division of Hydro — an opportunity to build upon this service a whole new industry that will provide research and development not only for B.C. Hydro, but for other companies from elsewhere in Canada, countries in the Pacific

[ Page 2633 ]

Rim, the United States — to build an industry on what now may be a small government undertaking to provide whole new opportunities to many tens and hundreds of British Columbians, young people who are looking for opportunities in this area.

I think, as we look at the privatization process, that we must keep in mind the opportunities that are here to use those services as a base to expand and to provide the service to others through a private sector company, and thereby create further employment opportunities.

[2:45]

MR. CLARK: Supplementary for the Premier. The Premier is expecting the people of British Columbia and the R and D branch to listen to that bafflegab and rhetoric, when two consultants' reports have said it doesn't make economic sense and won't fly. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Stone and Webster report also indicated that in private hands "R and D costs would more than likely escalate at a faster pace and not be as controllable as the present operation." We now have two consultants' reports that recommend against it. Can the Premier name one consultant's report that actually supports this hare-brained scheme?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Some good information has been obtained, Mr. Speaker, from various consultants. It should be remembered as well by members in this House that what is being proposed in British Columbia in the privatization process we're proceeding with is not something unique that hasn't been tried elsewhere in the world. As a matter of fact, I've spoken recently to someone from socialist New Zealand who suggested that in socialist New Zealand they similarly went through a process of consulting and looking at various reports, and considering the privatization process. This program in New Zealand has been very effective and successful and now certainly has the support of even those New Zealanders who obviously acted much like the member for Vancouver East.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to ask leave to make a motion calling for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has insisted repeatedly over the past weeks that he intends to proceed with his decentralization and privatization schemes without the support, without the consent and without the consultation of either this Legislature or the people of British Columbia. The most radical proposals for change in the way our province operates have been made — proposals that affect the public health and safety, the selling off of public assets, the quality of public services and jobs without a legislative look at that, legislation to be debated in this chamber by those elected to protect the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, I and my party are prepared to speak out and not remain silent at a time when the future of British Columbians and their families is at stake, when our traditions and our social fabric are about to be rent asunder.

We in the NDP demand an opportunity for a full and thorough debate on privatization. I move therefore. Mr. Speaker, that we adjourn for that extremely important debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. I will reserve my decision until later today.

MR. ROSE: Before proceeding to Orders of the Day, I believe I gave you a note, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that there might be a petition. May we have leave to return to petitions?

Leave granted.

Presenting Petitions

MS. SMALLWOOD: My petition is rather lengthy, so I'll speak to the intent of the petition and present the petition to the House.

To the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia and the Legislature assembled, this petition is from the chiefs of the Lytton and the Mount Currie Indian bands.

Whereas the provincial government's own select Wilderness Advisory Committee recommended that the road should not be constructed through the Stein River canyon without a formal agreement between the Lytton Indian band and the provincial government and, whereas no formal agreement by the province and the Lytton Indian band has been reached, the bands — represented by Chief Ruby Dunstan and Chief Leonard Andrew — therefore petition this House to request that it postpone the decision to initiate the road-building of the Stein River valley, that that decision be rescinded.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations for the period January 1, 1986 to March 31 1987; and the annual report of the superintendent of insurance for the year ending December 31, 1986, in accordance with section 351 of the Insurance Act.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker. I'd like to welcome back all members of the Legislative Assembly. I will advise the House now that we will be sitting tomorrow and that today is the day to have members' statements in for comment on Friday.

Second reading of Bill 48. Mr. Speaker.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, Bill 48 introduces a very significant measure for the insurance industry in the province and an administrative incorporation procedure for provincial insurance companies. The insurance industry makes up an important part of the financial services sector.

At present, a special act of the Legislature is required to incorporate an insurance company in British Columbia. This procedure has acted as an impediment to the incorporation of B.C.-based insurance companies. In fact, today over 95 percent of the insurance companies doing business in the province are incorporated extra provincially or federally.

Bill 48 is a first step in the reform and modernization of provincial legislation governing financial institutions. The government is committed to encouraging the development of the financial sector as part of its program to stimulate British Columbia's economic renewal. Industries such as banks, trust companies, credit unions, investment dealers and the insurance industry will all benefit from initiatives which promote all aspects of the financial sector, including both international and domestic financial activities.

[ Page 2634 ]

Bill 48 will make a significant contribution to the development of the insurance industry in B.C. by establishing a quick, simple and efficient administrative process for the incorporation of provincial insurance companies. The flexibility of the provisions in the Insurance Amendment Act, 1987, promote and support the development of smaller, niche-oriented insurance companies, as well as the establishment of broader-based general and life insurance companies. That is not possible in many other jurisdictions. The process for incorporation will be simpler and easier than in any other Canadian province; yet sufficient checks and balances are built in to ensure the maintenance and continued development of a viable and safe insurance industry in the province. As a major additional safeguard, to ensure a strong and stable industry, this bill ensures that greater reliance is placed on boards of directors in governing the behaviour of insurance companies.

Bill 48 represents only the first instalment of amendments to the Insurance Act. I expect to follow these changes with amendments to further modernize the act, improve the regulatory provisions and enhance the ability of insurance companies to provide other financial services. In essence, Bill 48 is an important part of the total package of measures the government will be undertaking to modernize and to encourage growth in British Columbia's financial sector. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. WILLIAMS: In response, it's a little disturbing to hear the Minister of Finance talking about quick, simple and efficient establishment of financial institutions. In a sense, one could readily agree with that. But if you were to stop and reflect for a little while, you might think about the track record in the monitoring of other financial institutions in this province. Then the goal sounds a little disturbing, because, the track record is not good.

I don't know if the minister has beefed up his superintendent's office in the last six months, but I'm not aware of that. The superintendent's office, which is responsible for the various financial institutions, has had a heavy load, and unfortunately it does not have a good track record. We have other amendments coming before us that presumably are of some help in that regard, but, you know....

The rhetoric of the right over the last few years with respect to financial institutions is a little disturbing. They talk about removing the original four pillars of financial institutions and merging them for efficiency and the like. But the separation of institutions of various kinds was really the result of problems in the past. Where you have separate brokerage houses, banking institutions and insurance institutions, you have arm's-length transactions, and the public is saved from possible — if you'll forgive the term — conflict of interest among these various institutions. When you start talking about efficiency and all the rest, and pooling these things and allowing various companies or separate institutions to get involved throughout the piece, from insurance to other financial institutions, maybe you're on the verge of trouble.

You have not shown that you have a sophisticated monitoring capability under your ministry. You have not shown that with respect to some of the credit unions in this province that have run into trouble in recent years — particularly right here in the Victoria area, where there are still problems. You have not shown that with respect to trust institutions in recent years. You have not shown that there was competence there to protect the investing public. We had people on the steps of the Legislature today, and rightly so. We had the case of the Newport mortgage institution, where there were similar problems that were inadequately monitored by your ministry. And now we're getting a kind of quick answer in terms of insurance. So it's disturbing.

We accept the principle that more insurance corporations should be housed in the province, that there is an argument for establishing more financial institutions of various kinds in the province. But now more than ever there's probably a need for separating the various groups of financial institutions so that the public is more fully and generally protected.

Again, it does seem to beg the question. This is a government that has supported free trade holus-bolus without, we suspect, as much reflection as is necessary.

You just announced a few minutes ago that 95 percent of the insurance corporations in this country have head offices elsewhere. You're the one that removed in the last budget the premium tax difference between provincially housed institutions with head offices here and those elsewhere. If you really want those institutions to establish here, then there should be some real incentives. I'm not sure that this legislation is going to provide that.

[3:00]

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, there is the whole question of consultation with the industry. Can the minister assure us that consultation has taken place with the various sectors of this industry, so that this is a statute based on a full understanding of the details with respect to this industry? It is my understanding that that consultation has not taken place. Have there been meetings between the minister or his staff and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, or the various agents' groups and the like here in British Columbia, or the other players or consumer groups in this industry?

In principle, we endorse the idea of establishing new financial institutions and expanding the insurance industry in the province. The fact of the matter is that when we reflect on the track record of this administration, it's pretty abysmal; you're in a tough competition with the province of Alberta with respect to being in the basement in this area. There is no evidence that you have the capacity and the capability under your ministry to do the full job necessary with respect to the range of financial institutions that you deal with in this province, and we're not yet assured as a result of this legislation.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I choose to respond to those remarks during the committee discussion.

Motion approved.

Bill 48, Insurance Amendment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, this bill includes a broad variety of miscellaneous amendments to various statutes administered by the Ministry of Health. These acts involve the regulation of certain health professions, issues related to public health, review of payments to practitioners

[ Page 2635 ]

by the Medical Services Commission and filing of changes of name. I would like to describe briefly the highlights of the amendments to each act.

Community Care Facility Act. With these amendments, it would be possible for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to designate a class of facilities as exempt from the provisions of the act, rather than just individual facilities. This is intended to cover such facilities as babysitting services in shopping malls or at ski resorts. In accordance with circumstances established in the regulations, the licensing board would now be able to issue a letter of permission to a person to act as a preschool supervisor without the full qualifications. This would permit the board to deal with shortages of fully qualified persons in northern and remote areas. Also the board would be able to delegate to local medical health officers the power to issue licences. At present, medical health officers can only amend licences or issue interim permits. Another amendment would give the board the power to suspend or cancel a preschool supervisor's certificate for cause.

Now under the Health Act. When some of the key amendments of this act were given first reading, they created some undue concern that the new section 5.1 and the amended section 7 were aimed particularly at victims of AIDS. To help clarify the intent of these amendments and to alleviate any public concern they may have raised, I would like to speak specifically to these two sections. I am confident that with a clearer explanation, those who may have expressed a concern will be reassured that adequate safeguards will be put in place to protect individual rights.

The new section of the act, section 5.1, has been included solely to assist legitimate medical researchers in obtaining guaranteed access to an uninterrupted flow of diagnostic data. Indeed, the Ministry of Health received a specific request from the Cancer Control Agency of British Columbia to legislate just such a provision. In further consideration of expressed concerns, I have advised my cabinet colleagues that I will be amending the bill to refer specifically to the cancer control agency as the sole approved organization for the purpose of collecting information pertaining to medical research. I am confident that this step will substantially alleviate the concerns voiced following first reading of the bill.

Of equal importance to me was the unfortunate reaction from some quarters to the perceived intent of section 7 of the bill concerning the powers of a medical health officer or a court to make an order respecting an individual with a reportable communicable disease. In order to ensure that there is no misunderstanding with respect to the powers and intent of medical health officers, the bill is being changed to specify that an order restricting the activities of a person with a serious infectious disease may only be made if the individual is likely to wilfully, carelessly or because of mental incompetence expose others to the disease.

Because of the particular sensitivity and misunderstanding expressed earlier concerning section 7, I would like to highlight briefly some of the procedures that have been included in order to safeguard against any potential for abuse of authority.

First, the medical health officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the person is both infectious and likely to expose others to the disease. Second, any order by the medical health officer requires voluntary compliance and cannot be enforced without a court order. Third, a medical health officer cannot apply for a court order without the approval of the provincial health officer, a requirement which in itself necessitates an internal review before the matter can be actioned further. Fourth, a proper hearing must be held in provincial court, where the person will be given a full opportunity to explain their position. Fifth, before the court can make an order, it must be established at the hearing that the person (1) is infectious, (2) is likely to expose others to the disease, and (3) has contravened the medical health officer's order.

I think it is important to recognize that in addition to these formal mechanisms. an individual with an infectious disease who is under the order of a medical health officer can at any time request an appeal of the order. If the person can demonstrate that they are either no longer infectious or no longer likely to expose others to the disease, the order will be cancelled. I would also like to remind all hon. members of this House that while the revision of this section of the bill was originally prompted by concerns about tuberculosis patients, these procedures are intended to apply to persons with any serious reportable communicable disease.

On a final note with respect to amendments to 5.1 and 7, I would like to point out that the ministry has consulted with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the office of the ombudsman and has been advised that they will support the bill with these amendments. With the consultation that has taken place, and with amendments made which I believe adequately address earlier expressed concerns regarding sections 5.1 and 7, I feel it is now incumbent upon the members of this House to ensure that their constituents be made aware of the value and intent of these amendments.

Now the Health Emergency Act. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will clarify that the province can establish different ambulance rates for non-residents and for employers who are required by statute to provide on-the-job emergency assistance.

Hospital District Act. Cost-sharing between the province and regional hospital districts will henceforth be on a straight 60-40 basis. Most financing is already done on a 60-40 basis, but a small number of districts are eligible for 80-20 cost-sharing after costs exceed a certain threshold.

Various amendments are proposed to the Medical Practitioners Act, which governs the practice of medicine in the province. The College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is responsible for administration of this act, requested these changes and has been consulted on the wording. The rulemaking power to generally govern the profession is expanded and a new power is added that gives the college the authority to regulate the manner in which searches and seizures are conducted. The section respecting the holding of meetings has been replaced with a new section that includes special general meetings. An investigating committee may inspect the clinical records of the members and other documents related to the investigation. Refusal to cooperate may result in a suspension. There is also a new provision to allow for auditing of members on an informal basis, in an effort to offer constructive advice to improve the quality of a member's practice. Such auditing may include inspection of records, but is intended to be used in cases where a formal investigation is not warranted. Under the amended act, Mr. Speaker, the inquiry committee would make a determination following a hearing and the matter would then be sent to the college's council for imposition of a penalty. Previously, the

[ Page 2636 ]

council had to make the determination even though the inquiry committee held the hearing. A new provision would restrict, where it is to be used in a civil proceeding, the record of a patient's testimony given at any investigation or hearing authorized by the college. It is hoped that this will help to overcome the reluctance of patients to testify in allegations of misconduct, particularly where they involve sexual matters.

[3:15]

The Medical Services Act establishes the provincial medical care insurance scheme. A number of amendments are included in this bill. The B.C. Medical Association has been consulted on these changes. One amendment would expand the authority of the Medical Services Commission to issue practitioner numbers. In addition to the procedure now established in the act and regulations, the commission would be able to issue a practitioner number where an individual first satisfies specific conditions. For example, a number could be issued where a person agreed to practice in a specified location or in a salaried capacity for a certain length of time.

A series of new amendments has been added dealing with audit committees, Mr. Speaker. These committees will be empowered to review the patterns of practice and the billings of any practitioner paid by the Medical Services Plan. Inspectors can be appointed to review records and examine the practices of individuals. A committee may hold a hearing, and if it determines that a practitioner has an unacceptable pattern of practice that cannot be justified, it may order that the practitioner repay a sum to the commission or that he be paid on a revised fee schedule for a period of time. Additional powers for the commission to collect moneys owed it by practitioners have also been included with these amendments. A new regulation-making power is added to permit limits to be placed on how much a practitioner may bill a patient from another province who receives an insured service in B.C. This change establishes reciprocity with the other provinces and will ensure portability of medicare benefits throughout the country.

Name Act. The basic provisions for change of name are being standardized and streamlined. An applicant must be over 19 years and have resided here for at least three months. A minor with custody of his or her child will also he able to apply. A married person will no longer be required to obtain the consent of his or her spouse. The requirements to change a child's name have been consolidated but are substantially the same. Both natural parents must consent, even if they are divorced. A person who marries a divorced person with custody of the child must consent if he has adopted the child or if the surname is to be changed to his surname. A child over the age of 12 must still also give his consent.

New discretionary powers for the director are included. He can waive requirements for consent to a name change where it is being unreasonably withheld. He can also waive the requirements for advertising a change-of-name application where appropriate — for example, a woman attempting to avoid an abusive spouse. The director can withhold information about a name change where it is in the public interest. Also the director is given the discretion to waive fees where appropriate. A new section will make it mandatory for all persons applying for a name change to use both a given name and a surname.

Physiotherapists Act. Mr. Speaker, I have advised my colleagues in cabinet that following extensive consultation with the Association of Physiotherapists and Massage Practitioners of B.C., I will be introducing some amendments to this bill. Educational requirements for registration will now be established by the Council of Physiotherapists and Massage Practitioners. Present provisions in the act for approval of schools by the council for the minister have not proved to be satisfactory. However, I am pleased to advise this House that the council has expressed full support of the amendment respecting educational requirements for registration.

A new temporary register is being established in an effort to alleviate the acute shortages of physiotherapists, particularly in the northern and remote areas. This temporary registration will be for a one-year term, with provision for two-year renewals. It is designed in this way in order to allow partially qualified persons to be employed while they complete the requirements to become fully registered. We feel this is a fair and equitable provision for all concerned.

Psychologists Act. With amendments to this act, the board of the B.C. Psychological Association is being enlarged from seven to nine members, and the election of members will now be staggered to promote continuity during periods of transition. The amendments to section 8 of the act will simply permit the association to use ordinary mail instead of very costly registered mail to send out notices of proposed changes to the rules. Section 18 has also been amended in order to clarify that the exemptions from this act that are now afforded to various public sector employees will include persons employed by school boards as school psychologists. This will not alter existing working arrangements, but will merely confirm the entitlement of such persons to describe themselves as psychologists in the course of employment. This provision is consistent with most jurisdictions in North America.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the consideration of all members of this House in support of amendments to this bill. For the convenience of the assembly, I now table the amendments to Bill 34, and move that the bill now be read a second time.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I will advise you that I am the designated speaker. I don't think I'll go two hours, though.

This is a very large bill, and it covers just about everything you can think of. It's a difficult bill for me to deal with at this stage, as you are supposedly dealing with the principle of the bill and the principle of the bill contains so many aspects of it. However, I am going to do my best, as the minister has covered just about all the aspects in his comments.

This bill obviously deals with communicable diseases, hospital funding, physiotherapists and psychologists. Just about everything you can think of in terms of health care is touched in some way in this bill. In this bill, I think you've seen two areas. You've seen areas where consultation has occurred, and in those areas we have some fine legislation and some fine amendments to the health acts. There are other areas where no consultation has occurred, and we've had some problems as a result.

The consultation obviously has occurred with regard to the hospital districts, some of the actions with regard to the medical practitioners and the Name Act. We really lack when it comes to the Health Act, the Physiotherapists Act and the Psychologists Act. The minister has just read changes and amendments to two of those areas, the Health Act and the Physiotherapists Act, and I am pleased to see that he has in fact listened to the physiotherapists and has brought about changes they have been asking for. I'm also pleased that there

[ Page 2637 ]

are some changes in the Health Act, but we have a little bit of confusion and concern about what is going on there.

There are no changes with regard to the Psychologists Act, even after the psychologists probably have been inundating the minister with written correspondence and telephone calls, much as I have been inundated. The psychologists have some definite concerns there, and I wish the minister had addressed those concerns in his amendments as well.

Now I am going to the area that is of grave concern and that most people have been dealing with when it comes to this act. It is unfortunate because this act covers a large number of things — many of them good — and the focus has been on the section that deals with the Health Act; that section is commonly known as the AIDS area. I think it's unfortunate because this is not just an AIDS bill; it deals with all communicable diseases.

I can understand and accept the concern of the minister and of the people in this province and the necessity to protect people from those who do not behave in a responsible manner and who wilfully — as the amendment says — cause hazards or possibilities of infection for other people. However, there are some real concerns as to what effect this is having on people that do have communicable diseases.

Mr. Speaker, we originally stated when this bill was presented that we accepted this and understood the necessity for these things, but we wanted to see some confirmation of human rights and that people would be assured that human rights would be protected and that anonymity would be protected. I do not think that the amendments we have right now deal with those things. The amendments you have in there are good and they are accepted and well received, but they do not go quite far enough, because right now, as far as I can see, human rights are not protected at all. There is information that we may see some legislation on human rights. This is the word I am getting in the community out there, that there may be human rights legislation coming to pass. But as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we don't believe we can accept anything on the basis of something that may come about or that this government will in fact put into place any kind of legislation that will protect the rights of people. Basically, the track record has not been good. I and my colleagues feel much distrust of the government with regard to human rights legislation and believe that we have to see the actual writing before us to ensure that people in this province have their rights protected.

The fear of communicable diseases, AIDS in particular, has grown to such a tremendous extent that it's one of the most fearful things people have seen in many years, probably since the polio epidemic. Because of that year, often people do things and behave in a way that is not proper or responsible. Because of a lack of information and a lack of knowledge about AIDS, they tend to treat people differently. Although we haven't seen much of that occurring here in B.C., we've certainly seen that occurring in other parts of the world. I can mention the effect it had when a house was burnt down in the southern U.S. with some children that had AIDS.

The city of Vancouver has just brought in some policies that I feel are fine policies, ones that I would like to see the government look towards to ensure that people are never discriminated against because of having contracted AIDS. We must make sure that people are not discriminated against for having contracted any communicable disease, regardless of whether it is AIDS, tuberculosis, or what have you.

The minister mentioned the section in the act that puts the information and the records in the control of the Cancer Control Agency. This is something that was asked for by the people involved, from my understanding, and it's probably a reasonable thing to do. However, there is nothing in that section — section 7 — that protects the anonymity of the people who have those records. Although the cancer agency is designated as the agency for gathering information, it also states that the information and records can be disclosed to the government. government agency or other organization for the purpose of compiling statistical information by an organization in government. That information is available to practically anybody out there, really. I have some real concerns when information that is gathered and is supposedly very highly confidential is available not on an anonymous basis. If we are interested merely in gathering statistics and gathering information for research, then surely we can do that on the basis of anonymity. There is not any reason for people's names to be attached to any of this.

[3:30]

I think that you also have to consider what will happen with regard to the privatization that is currently going on. We see B.C. Systems going off. At what later date will we see our medical services plan being sold off, or our research areas? Just where is the information that is going into these hands going to end up? I don't know. and I don't think the minister knows right now, because, really, nobody in the government has any idea of exactly where privatization is going to end up, and what areas are the next to be hit. So there are some very real concerns about this area.

There are some other small areas of this bill that I will deal with in the clause-by-clause section. The major changes that I can see are the requirements to change the amendments to the Psychologists Act, decreasing the ability of the psychologists to establish their own standards and limiting their ability to establish what educational level is required for a psychologist; in fact, it reduces that level. I know that the psychologists have been working and have suggested to the minister, and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) as well, that they come to some kind of agreement. I don't think it is an impossible task to achieve. I believe very strongly that they — the psychologists and the school psychologists — can come to an amiable agreement that would allow the psychologists to protect their title, to protect their standards, at the same time giving the school psychologists the association that they require.

In closing, I would like to say that I'm really concerned with the effect that the first section, the section that deals with the Health Act, will have on the people of this province. I fully accept, and I would like to see, legislation that protects the people from people who are behaving in an irresponsible manner, but I think that we can never make that protection at the expense of the human rights and the anonymity of other people, and that's what I believe this bill does. I believe that we will see those people who have communicable diseases driven underground, not going in for testing, not going in to make their records available, because they are very fearful as to what is going to happen to those records. I believe that you will see people not going in for testing because they are very fearful as to what's going to happen to their human rights. And I believe that these things could be adjusted — they can be protected. Some changes to the legislation to protect the anonymity and to protect the human rights of those people would make this excellent legislation and change it from

[ Page 2638 ]

something that is going to be a fear out there into a tool that could be used by everyone to protect everybody, including those communities that are more inclined to contract AIDS.

I will close at this point, and I will deal with the other small sections — because there are a lot of different areas here — in the clause-by-clause debate.

MS. CAMPBELL: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 34 as amended. It is a complex bill and the time will come to address it clause by clause, but I'd like in particular to address the amendments to the Health Act, which I think are the most significant aspect of this bill, in terms of the broad range of public policy in this province.

The day after the original version of Bill 34 was tabled in the House, it was the subject of press commentary in the city of Vancouver, and I can remember hearing the medical health officer of the city of Vancouver, Dr. John Blatherwick, being interviewed on the CBC about this bill. He spoke about it very positively and indicated how much he welcomed the bill. The reason was that that very day a tuberculosis patient had left a public facility and was at large, and he was a person who was known to be careless of the infection that he carried and his infectiousness in society. Dr. Blatherwick pointed out that Bill 34 would provide the ability for public authorities to detain that person, and he pointed out that those who suffer from tuberculosis are in fact highly infectious and highly dangerous, and that if you were to stand next to a tuberculosis patient in a bar, you would in fact be at serious risk for contracting the disease. So he spoke in great favour of the bill.

Clearly the bill also applies to people who suffer from AIDS, and there is a great sensitivity in our society to trying to come up with those programs and legislative protection that will protect the society from this fatal disease — it is a death sentence when people get it — but also respect the human rights of people, because AIDS is not in any way as infectious as tuberculosis. And the bill was welcomed from that perspective, Mr. Speaker.

But as people pondered the wording of the bill, there was some concern that, given the experience, particularly in the United States, of the kind of witch-hunts against innocent sufferers of AIDS that the member for Prince George North has referred to, there might be some use of the bill in ways that were not intended. The minister's first reaction was to be very satisfied with the bill, and rightly so, because it was not anywhere in his intention to have the bill used in any way other than fairly and with due regard for the rights of individuals of this province. But as a number of people pointed out to him that there was this concern, particularly in the community with respect to those who suffered from AIDS, the minister showed a great willingness to listen to those concerns. And he has tabled amendments in this House which answer those concerns in a very fair way.

But all of the people who expressed those concerns to the minister reinforced their support for the basic direction of this bill. They supported the legislation, but they asked him to consider making some amendments that would alleviate some of the fears of people who were concerned about possible abuses or possible lack of due process for individuals suffering from AIDS. I think it is a sign of the minister's caring that he was willing to listen, that he convened members of the civil liberties community and convened the various ministries involved, in order to come up with these particular amendments.

The member for Prince George North has spoken about the need for human rights legislation. I would respectfully submit to this House that human rights come under a different statute in this province and that it isn't appropriate at this stage to introduce amendments. But she has also pointed out that the minister has expressed a willingness to discuss amendments to human rights legislation. This is an ongoing process, and I have every confidence that these discussions will be sincere and fruitful.

The concerns about confidentiality. When we look at the wording of the statute.... The statute enables the authorities to convey the information compiled on cancer patients, and it is important to note that the bill has been amended to confine that information-gathering function to the Cancer Control Agency. This has once again alleviated the concerns of many people who are advocates for AIDS sufferers in society. It says that that information may be given to other authorities for the purpose of compiling statistical information. In other words, the act makes very clear the only acceptable purpose for communicating that information, and to communicate that information for any other purpose would be improper and not permitted under the act. I believe the act does provide considerable protection.

It is surely in the interest of all British Columbians to have adequate and full statistical information on the health of British Columbia. I would particularly point out to the member for Prince George North the importance of statistical information in understanding the health of her own area, because it was a matter of concern raised by that member in this House that in a number of areas of disease, citizens in her area of the province appeared to have a higher mortality rate than was the provincial average. The only way we can begin to understand and detect perhaps environmental agents, or other kinds of public health factors that would enable us to understand those statistical anomalies, is through the full gathering of information on some of the more serious diseases in our province.

With respect to confidentiality, there are never any absolute guarantees, and that is a great tragedy in our time. We've worked very hard to develop confidentiality. It was commented earlier today in another context that certainly people in government are aware of the difficulties in that area, since many supposedly confidential documents do find their way to other destinations. There was the recent case, discussed in the newspaper, of an employee of Revenue Canada who had stolen tax files. There will never be any absolute protection against people who are willing to break the law and violate their oaths of confidentiality, but I believe the statute goes as far as it is possible to go in this case in protecting confidentiality while still serving the research function that it is attempting, a function which is to the benefit of all British Columbians.

So I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to speak in second reading debate in support of this bill, particularly in support of the amendments to the Health Act and the amendments tabled today by the minister, and to compliment the minister on his great receptivity to the concerns of British Columbians and his willingness to listen, and on his ongoing commitment to listen to the concerns of British Columbians so that the legislation sponsored by his ministry is effective yet sensitive to the broader social circumstances in which it has to act.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

[ Page 2639 ]

MR. CASHORE: It's difficult to read, learn and inwardly digest amendments to the amendments contained in the bill and still try to have a total grasp of all the thinking that has gone into that. I do realize we will have greater opportunity during the committee stage.

Having read the amendments, I find a small degree of reassurance, but I'm not sure that the insertion of the words "wilfully, carelessly or because of mental incompetence" prior to the words "expose others" in section 7(l)(b) and section 7(3)(a) are adequate to deal with the kinds of concerns we heard expressed from wide segments of the community as the public dialogue was unleashed following the first time this bill hit the order paper.

I think people in all aspects of the community, and especially that part of the community which has worked, mostly as volunteers, among those who are victims of the AIDS disease, are people who deserve to have input into this process. I understand that the minister will probably tell us such consultation has taken place, and I'm not about to deny that. But I would like to ask that we have the quality of consultation with these people that enables us to come up with the best possible bill at this time to deal with an issue so serious for the future of health care within this province that it's phenomenal.

I would like to start by asking the question: what is the purpose or the goal in bringing forward this legislation at this time? On both sides of the House I think we agree that the goal of the legislation is to do everything we possibly can (a) to stop the spread of AIDS, and (b) to find the research capacity to enable us to eliminate this disease from the face of the earth. I'm sure we agree in terms of that goal. I also understand that the situation is urgent, Madam Speaker, to the extent that we must be preparing to take action quickly; indeed, some actions have been taken. But I would like to point out that it is still possible, in the pursuance of a goal, to take steps in haste to the extent that we actually find we have made mistakes in those initial stages which result in the denial of that goal. Were that to be the case, I think all of us would be extremely disappointed to have participated in the passing of such legislation in a state where it might in fact be a stumbling block to the goal we wish to achieve.

[3:45]

We've had assurances from the minister that the civil liberties people and the ombudsman have been consulted: he has reported to us today that those two entities have said that they feel these amendments are appropriate and therefore deal with their initial concerns and fears. I hope I'm paraphrasing adequately. However, I don't think that any of us, be we people who work in the ombudsman's office or people who work in the Civil Liberties Association, would ever say that we have had adequate opportunity to discuss this issue from the perspective of those who work most closely in the field. Therefore we come to the nub of the problem.

Madam Speaker, the nub of the problem is this: can we achieve the intended goal of this legislation if in passing it we instill a kind of fear into the community that has been affected by AIDS that will result in driving that disease underground? If that is the result of our actions here in this House, we will look back and say: "We erred; we made an irrevocable mistake; we could have gone about it a different way."

I don't want any of my remarks to be taken as saying that I am opposed to legislation or even to building on this legislation, but I am saying that the urgency of the situation is not sufficient to put us in such haste that we err in a way that cannot be reversed. Therefore I would like to point out that even with the assurances the minister has told us about from the Civil Liberties people and from the ombudsman's office, we do have those concerns out there in the community of those who work most closely at the grassroots level.

I have in my hand a pamphlet that has been put out by, as I understand it, a coalition of groups and individuals who are very much involved in this issue, the Committee for Responsible Health Legislation, and I would like to read into the record some of the concerns that they have about Bill 34. I would like to point out that I don't really believe the amendments that we have seen before us today come to terms with the fears they have expressed. These are people, let me point out, who are deeply committed to the resolution of this issue for the benefit of the future of our society. These are not people who in any way should be categorized as those who seek to be rabble-rousers, fear mongers or any of those kinds of pejoratives. These are people who are saying that they are willing to put into the public dialogue the benefit of their experience, and it's a hands-on, grassroots experience that is extremely valuable.

This is what they feel this bill will do. They feel it will let the government invade the private lives of any suspected individual in complete disregard for civil liberties. We could argue in this House whether or not that is the case, but it is the type of issue we are hearing from this part of the community. It is so serious, coming from them, that we really need to take a sober second look when this type of concern is being expressed, when this type of fear is being instilled by this bill.

This group, pointing out the powers and the definitions parts of the act, indicate a great deal of concern over the power that the cabinet would have by order-in-council to develop new definitions on the run, to be defining as they go such terms as communicable disease, reportable disease, isolation and quarantine. To think that the cabinet could decide to make those kinds of decisions on the basis of one cabinet meeting, without having the benefit of debate within the Legislature, without having the kind of consultation that would be necessary, is wrong. It's simply inappropriate.

While this is probably not the intent of this bill — I am sure it is not — it leaves the door open for excesses and inappropriate actions in the future that have nothing to do with AIDS. This is a very frightening part of this kind of legislation. Frankly, I am concerned to hear the minister say in this House today that the people he has consulted with in the Civil Liberties Association are not concerned about the definition section of this bill. I would think that, as one group that prides itself on being the guardians of civil rights, the Civil Liberties people should be extremely concerned about the definition section of this bill.

In all seriousness. Madam Speaker, this coalition also states that they fear that Bill 34 will give the government and other agencies access to medical records, and that this would destroy the trust relationship between a doctor and patient with regard to confidentiality. I know that the medical community, the doctors of our province, recognize the need for some kind of legislation. I know that this concern about the doctor-patient relationship is coming from a group of consumers, but certainly it is important to be able to judge the value of a doctor-patient relationship from two perspectives: the doctor's and the patient's. If we hear the people who have the ear of patients saying that they would fear the regular, normal consultation with their physician because of the fear that this bill would instill, then I think we really need to take

[ Page 2640 ]

notice. I think we need to take a little more time and have that sober second thought.

They also say that it will create a precedent for future government actions, which would invade personal freedoms in areas such as mandatory AIDS testing and in employment drug-testing. They further say that it will limit people's ability to fight the government. A fight would take costly legal action in the Supreme Court and threaten public exposure and ridicule. We are dealing here with a situation which could result in a kind of confrontation coming into the arena that is not necessary, that could be developed in a better way.

Here is what is suggested as an approach that needs to be found within a Health Statutes Amendment Act or, indeed, a new Health Act that would start to come to terms with this issue. I would ask the minister to very seriously consider instituting some measures that would make these points. These are positive points, and I want to congratulate the minister for having taken some steps already to do some of these things. I'm not saying that the minister is not concerned about these points, but I am saying it's a serious enough issue that it should be in the legislation.

The provincial government should be funding clear and hard-hitting educational programs. We're seeing what has been developed so far on television. We know there has been a process of consultation. We think that needs to go a lot further. A lot more needs to be done; we cannot let up. It's going to require a major portion of funding so that that educational development can really take effect.

There's also a need to fund support and education groups such as the Vancouver Persons With AIDS Coalition, AIDS Vancouver and AIDS Vancouver Island. These are the groups that can help us because of their background, their knowledge and their serious willingness to work on this issue for the benefit of all of us.

Another thing that my colleague from Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) mentioned was the need to adopt human rights legislation to end discrimination based on sexual orientation. While we may find that there are some assurances that the human rights legislation would be amended, or that an appropriate human rights bill would be brought in, it is cold comfort for those who are facing the imminent passing of this legislation without those kinds of assurances being there. Also, as this group points out, there is a need to fund counselling programs for people affected by AIDS, including research into alternative therapies and support for health care workers. There's a need to establish distribution programs for free condoms and intravenous needles. There's a need to establish in a fund adequate and indexed social assistance programs for those unable to work due to illness.

These are points being made by people who have a concept of a preventive approach that will bring people forward to consult with their doctors and to voluntarily receive the kind of testing and treatment that are going to enable us as a society to keep this disease from going underground and going into a situation where we lose the opportunity to achieve the goal that we have said we all agree on, to rid the world of this disease.

We have to ask ourselves as we look at this issue: will this legislation stop the spread of AIDS? There is a serious question about whether it will. If it forces this disease underground, then what is the value of us passing this legislation? Where is the assurance in this legislation that public education will continue? How will this legislation help those people who are already ill with this disease? Can we demonstrate that this legislation will effectively reduce the anxiety and the paranoia surrounding AIDS that exists among those people who have been infected with the disease and those people in the community? Can we say that this legislation will really help existing medical research programs? With all due respect for the amendment that has been presented here today, we realize that this could very well result in people who are needed to help with that process not coming forward.

Finally, there's a serious question as to whether this program will be effective in terms of the economic aspect of it, because the medical costs will be phenomenal if this legislation, which is not intended to do so, results in driving the opportunity to deal with this disease, and driving those people who are frightened, underground. Madam Speaker, I think that this is cause for sober second thought, and I would call on the minister to bring this matter before a standing committee of the House so that we may discuss this issue with the full benefit of those people in the community who have not had the opportunity to date, through consultation, to participate.

I just want to say in conclusion that I feel very upset and disappointed that the Premier has introduced legislation and programs that are going to lead to massive changes in the fabric of our society. Those kinds of things are taking public attention away from an issue as important as this one. This is what we really need to be putting our time and energy into if we are going to be dealing with this most serious situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 34 and to comment briefly on the remarks that have been made thus far.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about highways.

[4:00]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In a different bill.

I am encouraged to hear from members of the opposition — the Health critic, the MLA for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) and the member who has just taken his seat — that they do agree that we have had consultation with respect to this bill.

If we are going to speak to the principle of this bill — it has many, many amendments and many sections dealing with a variety of health issues — perhaps one of the principles of this bill that we can address today is the principle of wide and, in my mind, extremely good consultation. If we examine the Orders of the Day, Madam Speaker, you will note that the bill was introduced on June 7 in the spring session, and we're all aware of the variety of concerns that were expressed at that time.

I guess the debate could be characterized as being quite polarized. There were members of the Civil Liberties Association and others who saw some real fear in what had been proposed. Others, of course, thought it was the type of legislation we needed given the terrifying circumstance we have with respect to this most contagious disease AIDS, and the fact that it is to date incurable and fatal. Nevertheless, the Minister of Health, I think, did a yeoman's job, in consultation with the gay community in Vancouver, with people who are concerned with civil liberties, and many others, and did spend some serious time and consideration drafting amendments which he knew would be acceptable to those people who did express those concerns, and yet maintaining the integrity of the bill.

[ Page 2641 ]

I commend the minister and those who worked with him, and those people who expressed their concern in establishing, that. It's a language that is acceptable to those who cherish civil liberties and also maintains the integrity of the bill, given the extent of this very, very serious health situation that exists in the western world, if not the entire world.

In speaking to the consultation process.... I wish to speak briefly to the sections of the bill, and I will do this in more detail in committee stage. I now speak to the fact that the-government has been listening to health care concerns throughout the province. I would commend to all members the work of the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, which has traveled extensively throughout the province and which has done very good work and made very good recommendations.

One of them is contained in this bill — and I speak particularly as a member for the central interior — with respect to the changes to the Physiotherapists Act. I will recount for the House briefly the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy which met in Prince George in January. At that time I was a member of the committee. A variety of concerns were expressed to us. One of the most serious — and it's one I have experienced for some time now as a representative of the central interior — is the lack of physiotherapists and the inability to attract the required number of physiotherapists to our communities. It's very specialized training. We don't appear to be training or graduating enough of them, and that's another issue we can address. Nevertheless, the result has been that we. are facing an acute shortage of this type of specialty in the central interior.

The Ministry of Health has recognized that shortage and has put in place a scholarship program which rewards students who want to study the various health care disciplines and encourages them to relocate upon graduation in areas in the north. However, it's going to take some time for that process to be in place and for the students who are being trained and are taking advantage of that scholarship program to get into the medical workplace.

Therefore it was deemed essential — and many representations were made to the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, particularly from the Child Development Centre in Prince George — that we should encourage and in any way assist organizations like the Child Development Centre and the Prince George Regional Hospital in attracting physiotherapists trained in the U.K. and in western Europe. We did that by order-in-council earlier this spring. We were able to react to that concern and deliver the services and programs in Prince George. I am pleased to see that it is now contained in legislation that we can aid the immigration of those people who are so desperately needed in our communities in order to provide better service to those who need it.

For that I commend the minister and the work they have done. Also, I commend the physiotherapists' association for the input they had to our legislation. Members will also note that amendments just recently filed by the minister with respect to Bill 34 really alleviate some of the concerns the physiotherapists had with respect to their legislation and how they would govern themselves. I am pleased to see that the minister was able to do that.

The important thing is that we now have a mechanism to ensure that we have a better delivery of health care professionals in the central interior, and that will greatly alleviate some of the problems faced by our regional hospital and also by the Child Development Centre.

The other aspect with respect to consultation that the minister considered in this act — again, I will briefly refer to sections — is a reference to school psychologists. There has been long-standing concern by the psychologists' association as to how they would govern themselves and who they would admit and who could call themselves psychologists. I am sure there are many people in this assembly who know more about the subject than I do, but speaking as a former school trustee, I know that many school psychologists are employed in districts throughout the province. They provide a great help for the district, for the students, for the teachers and for the parents, and they did want some recognition. I am pleased to see that the minister was able to recognize the service they provide and not to get hung up in any protection-of-turf arguments that were raised by some members of the psychologists' community and to address the concern that the school psychologists — all very talented people — had.

That, essentially, is what I wanted to say. Just to sum up my feelings about this bill. I think it has been a model of consultation on behalf of the Minister of Health. He has spent considerable time since June 7 listening to the concerns of the various communities, recognizing that those concerns were legitimate, spending an awful lot of time with his staff, with legislative council and with other members, ensuring that when we drew up amendments to Bill 34 they would answer the concerns we have.

So I do see it as a model of consultation. I commend the minister. I am extremely pleased with the additions that have been made and with the intent of the Psychologists Act, because it will be of an immediate benefit to the riding I represent. I know the same will apply to the psychologists' section.

So with that, I thank you, Madam Speaker and hon. members, and advise you that I am voting for and am totally supportive of Bill 34.

MR. CLARK: I'll be very brief, Madam Speaker. I rise quite simply to go on record as being opposed to this bill, in particular the sections that deal with communicable diseases. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) very eloquently stated the concern, as did the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), and I would like to try to summarize a little bit. Surely the goal is to prevent or control the spread of communicable diseases such as AIDS. That is such a very serious goal in society generally today, and even more so in British Columbia because of the high percentage of the population that has the disease compared to other jurisdictions. Therefore it behooves us to be particularly vigilant and aggressive in dealing with this disease. But quite frankly, I don't think this act does anything to deal with that. In fact, I believe quite strongly that it will weaken the cause of dealing with that very serious disease, and it will do so for two reasons.

The first is essentially that we lack human rights legislation that deals substantially with discrimination against people with communicable diseases and against those with sexual preference. I think those two things are very important for human rights legislation. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has included them in his model legislation, and it has to be in place. As a precursor to dealing with or giving the quarantine powers contemplated in this act, I feel very strongly about that, and I know other members on this side of the House do as well. The reason it's important, first of all, is that without anonymity and human rights protection for those

[ Page 2642 ]

affected by the disease, people are driven underground, and testing and education and control of the disease become much, much harder without that kind of protection.

The solution to this problem that is contemplated in the act may appear to be simple, but it is a very complex problem dealing with real people and with fear and apprehension on the part of those who do not have the disease as well as those who do have the disease. I think the minister has consulted many groups, and for that he is to be commended. But in my view, he hasn't consulted adequately enough with AIDS patients themselves. I must say that I have a number of constituents who have the disease whom I have talked to. They have talked to me at length about the legislation, with very real concerns that are not allayed by this legislation. Even if one accepts the argument that this legislation deals adequately with the problem, if those affected don't feel it does, if you haven't convinced them that you've dealt with it effectively, then in fact it won't work. Once again we have the situation, as with other legislation brought into the House, that without the consent or at least the understanding of those affected, these kinds of solutions do not work.

I think that the track record of the government in dealing with this very serious topic, with the disease of AIDS, is not reassuring, because the ministry has consistently taken the view that the ministry will deal with this problem with centralized solutions, with solutions from the Ministry of Health. They have spent some money on those kinds of solutions, yet all the studies show that the most effective way of combatting AIDS is with community-based solutions, dealing with people in the community. It's not only the most effective but the most cost-effective way of dealing with it. This government has not adequately funded Aids Vancouver and those who are on the front line dealing with the disease. Rather, they have chosen a more centralized and bureaucratic approach to the problem. I think that's folly. It's ironic that a government that uses the rhetoric and talks about privatization and less government all the time continues to fail to see that the solution is in the communities affected — and I don't mean just geographic communities, but the communities of people who have contracted the disease. The gay community has a higher percentage and more likelihood of getting the disease, and people in the gay community who are working very hard, volunteers dealing with this disease; have not been consulted on this legislation, have not been funded by this government. Rather, we have a statist approach from the Ministry of Health, telling people how to deal with it, throwing a significant amount of money at it, but not in the most cost-effective way. Quite frankly, this legislation scares me a little bit because it gives that kind of power to bureaucrats and to the ministry, without the consent or understanding of those affected.

Therefore the goal, which is to deal fundamentally with a very frightening disease, one that has very serious consequences, won't be realized.

[4:15]

I think the legislation really is somewhat draconian in that respect, and without adequate human rights legislation to protect those people, without consultation, without anonymity respected, it's doomed to failure. We on this side of the House, at least speaking personally, feel strongly that the type of human rights legislation we have constantly proposed should be brought in before we contemplate giving unelected bureaucrats this kind of power to deal with what is a very frightening disease. So I have to go on record today as opposing — I'm actually pleased to go on record as opposing — this kind of legislation. I think all people on this side of the House feel very strongly about this very serious problem.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendments to Bill 34.

I'm a bit concerned that the opposition is zeroing in on just one aspect of very large amendments to some essential parts of our health care system in British Columbia. Coming from Vancouver-Little Mountain, where the major hospitals are located — and most of them are provincial facilities — I support very strongly what the bill does in many areas. I think the minister has listened in the community; the consultation process has taken place. He mentioned also in passing that the civil liberties group has looked at the amendments that have been tabled and they are in support of that. I think the act opens up a number of areas in our province to allow better health care, particularly in the northern and the remote areas.

I think one aspect of the act that is really going to make a difference will be in the Physiotherapists Act. I'm pleased to see that we're giving more power to the Council of Physiotherapists and Massage Practitioners and allowing temporary registrations for a period of one year. We know there's a critical shortage of these types of persons within our health profession, and we hope to address that by having more of them graduate through the University of British Columbia at the school of physiotherapy.

The other area that we're looking at is in the Medical Service Act, where we will be allowed a different rate of payment for doctors who go into remote areas. That will, I think, encourage medical practitioners to take up their practice in areas of the province that don't have a medical practitioner now. In addition, there will now be an area where the doctors can receive a conditional billing number, and this again will assist those remote areas or areas of specialty that we want medical practitioners to practise in or be available in. I think sharing of the information from research is essential. I think the safeguards are built into the act, and particularly into the amendments.

I hear the concerns of the opposition in regard to the human rights legislation dealing with AIDS. In the correspondence that I receive, mainly as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, the communities are very concerned, and the AIDS community.... The government in British Columbia is probably, if not the leader in North America in the information on AIDS and the prevention of AIDS.... Obviously some of the work that is being done in research on AIDS in British Columbia is now being recognized. So while some of the items in the act are housekeeping, some major benefits will occur to the citizens of our province through this.

When we go into third reading we will be debating the act section by section, and at that time we will be speaking more to the various sections. I strongly support the amendments. The Medical Practitioners Act is opened up to give the college more rights and allow them, in consultation with the government, to change their acts so that they can better administer within the college; that's a point and a demonstration that we as government are listening. I think the public health act section, the community care dealing with that act, will allow for pre-schoolers to be licensed in the remote areas.

[ Page 2643 ]

I, Madam Speaker, strongly support all amendments to the act and will speak to it in third reading. I will support the act.

MR. LOVICK: Madam Speaker, I'd like to begin my comments by saying that I'm absolutely delighted to discern that members on the other side of the House are taking part in the second reading debate. I hope that that is the way this session of the Legislature is going to unfold. Certainly that was not the case, as we all recall, in the first session of the Legislature, and I hope that this is a sign of things to come. I certainly welcome it, and I'm sure the people of the province will welcome that kind of interchange of discussion and ideas.

I'm also looking forward to the discussion of this bill in third reading, particularly in response to the comments from the last member who spoke, the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), who made reference to the fact that various studies, submissions and bits of evidence had come before the minister's office and staff. I for one am looking forward to being informed of precisely what that information is. It seems to me that the people of the province will be well served when we have some very hard evidence, some concrete illustrations, of why it is argued that this particular measure for dealing with infectious diseases will apparently be addressed and grappled with by this bill, as we are told.

We are now, of course, debating the general principle of this bill, and there is not much doubt that the principle is protecting the public interest. Clearly, that is the intention of all the legislation under the umbrella of the Ministry of Health. The predicament. however, as I'm sure we all know, is that it is all too easy, in the name of protecting the public interest, to violate the rights of the private persons, the individuals. That is what my colleagues have addressed, dare I say eloquently, thus far.

My colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) has offered us a statement that in my mind suggests to us the best self that we all ought to listen to. I don't want to praise him too much, Madam Speaker, but I think that his comments were sufficiently profound and insightful, and sufficiently leading us to encounter the individual we would like to and ought to be, that they should perhaps be required reading for all of us before third reading commences.

My colleague from Vancouver East also spoke very well to the debate, talking more specifically about the mechanics, about the reality of that legislation as proposed to us. I want to suggest that in third reading we must, and I hope we shall, have a debate concerning whether this legislation will achieve the ends for which it is intended. I must confess, Madam Speaker, that I do not see that as likely to happen. Rather it seems to me — for the kinds of reasons adduced by my colleagues already — that what is more likely to happen is that it will have the opposite effect: it will be counterproductive. Taking this particular approach to preventing the spread of AIDS, paradoxically, we are more likely to cause the increase of AIDS. I don't think I need to go into those reasons again.

I'm not about to engage in an elaborate civil liberties case here, but I do want to suggest that that civil liberties argument must occur in third reading. I would like to give notice that I am preparing to engage in that debate, and I hope that members opposite will too. We need to grapple with those questions, and we need to come up with a resolution to those questions that all of us at least understand — not simply accept and act on but understand. The nature of our liberties and the nature of the limitations on our liberties, it seems to me, must be understood by the citizens. Otherwise they are fragile indeed.

What I want to talk about now is the general principle of health care, specifically the protection of the public interest. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Health, when he began speaking, acknowledging the fact that this bill clearly deals with a broad variety of health issues. I want to commend the minister insofar as there appears to be a clear recognition on his part that there must be a vigilant, active and aggressive Ministry of Health, that we accept that that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. I am pleased, for example, to discover that the thrust of the legislation would seem to be towards a more interventionist position. Perhaps if anything it errs too much on the interventionist side. But the proposition embedded in the approach is nevertheless the sovereign duty and responsibility of the Ministry of Health, i.e. the government, to protect the public interest.

For example, I see that in the bill we have changes to the community care facilities legislation. How interesting to note that apparently embraced and embedded in that argument is the sense that we do have an obligation to do something about providing community care facilities. I for one am delighted to discover that that is still the case. Indeed, Madam Speaker, given various announcements that have recently emanated from the Premier's office and the cabinet's office, I think I might be forgiven for wondering if that was still the stated responsibility of this ministry. I'm delighted to find that it apparently is.

I'm also delighted to see, in another section of the bill, under the Health Act changes, that it is recognized that there is a need to empower health officers to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Again, the principle is crucial. You'll notice I keep saying "principle," because that's the point I want to draw your attention to, and what I perceive as perhaps a threat to that principle.

I also want to commend the approach and the principle that is embraced in the other part of the bill, namely the Health Emergency Act, where we see the primacy of the public interest expressed implicitly and directly. Again, stated as it is, I think we can fairly conclude that the ministry is endorsing and accepting its responsibilities and its duties.

I see the Minister of Health looking across and wondering about the note I'm about to read. I've had to change my notes, because I discovered that an amendment to section 47 has addressed the next concern I wanted to draw attention to. I was worried about the relaxation of the authority and the relaxation of qualifications that were originally. I think, made possible by section 47. I'm happy to see that apparently that has been modified so that the Physiotherapists Act will still be written in such a way that we can guarantee suitable qualifications for practitioners in that field.

[4:30]

All right, then, let me pull this together if I might. The apparent acceptance in all of these pieces of the bill of the interventionist role of the government, the acceptance of the public interest as being paramount, the acceptance that the Ministry of Health has a sovereign and, dare I say, sacred duty to protect the well-being of the people — good, wonderful, accepted. But bear with me as I express to you some concerns I have that we, on the one hand, can elucidate and

[ Page 2644 ]

speak about these kinds of principles — I'm sure in all honesty — but at the same time we can be undertaking some actions which would seem to me clearly to go directly against those very principles. Two small examples, by themselves not terribly important, but cumulatively perhaps significant. Now, instead of having direct control of vehicles that we modify for use by the Ministry of Health to satisfy Ministry of Health standards, we have — to use the British phrase — hived them off; we've given the task to somebody else. I'm referring, of course, to phase 1 of privatization. Similarly, I see that Riverview Hospital is again to be hived off, to be sent to the private sector. I'm wondering whether those kinds of gestures are not directly contradicting or, at the very least, undercutting the principle embedded in the rest of this bill. That's my point.

My fears become, dare I say, even somewhat more strained and passionate when I reflect a little bit on the not very clearly and specifically stated parts of the next round of initiatives under the heading privatization with regard to health care and the principle thereof. Let me quote, if I might, Madam Speaker, the passage that I think deals directly with the principle of this bill, namely that the public interest must be protected.

Let me suggest to you that another statement perhaps contradicts or challenges that. I'm quoting to you from a press release issued by the Premier announcing the plans for what is euphemistically referred to as privatization: "The Premier said government has also appointed action teams to begin an immediate review of the Ministry of Health. 'Our health...programs are essential and we must protect them by acting now to contain costs and to increase efficiency."' Most people who saw that thing, that statement called phase 2, were immediately seized by fear and trembling. They began to wonder whether in fact the principle of health care, the principle of the government's responsibility to provide and to oversee health care, was in fact being challenged, indeed eroded. I think they have every justification for feeling that way, because we've had other statements emanating from the Premier's office that, if I may put it boldly and bluntly, directly contradict the stated principles of this bill and certainly the stated mandate of the Ministry of Health. I'm referring to the Premier's recent announcement about perhaps having another system of hospital care for those who can afford it. And the Premier is suggesting to us that that was not somehow to be considered to be incompatible or in contradiction of the existing health care system.

As I'm sure the Minister of Health well knows, a number of experts in the health care field immediately responded by saying that the moment you allow that kind of thing to happen, you have opened the door to a two-tiered health system in this province. That, of course, is precisely what my colleagues and I are apprehensive about happening in this province in the name of apparently increased efficiency, in the name of apparently downsizing government, in the name of apparently getting government out of the way of business, and in the name of — in a word — privatization.

If the minister can in all clear conscience talk to us about the need as elucidated in this bill, the same minister, it seems to me, is morally obligated to come out four-square against all the talk about privatizing the public health care system in this province. That seems to me a logical and fair conclusion.

I will of course save my other remarks about this bill until we get to the committee stage. I nevertheless hope I have succeeded in showing to the Minister of Health what my concerns are and why I think they are legitimately generated by recent developments in this province. I also hope that my colleagues and I have thus far — and I'm sure others will do the same — given notice that the debate about the public interest versus the individual interest must occur in this province, must be a protracted debate, and must be one in which we understand clearly what the so-called arguments are for those who would suggest that we need the kind of — dare I say draconian? — legislation suggested by sections 7 and 8 of the Health Act according to the changes presented to us.

MS. MARZARI: In the context of the theme of the last speaker, that of preserving the public interest, I would address myself to Bill 34. I want to talk about the dilution of standards and the dilution of protection of the public interest as I perceive it through a couple of clauses in this bill. I think that that is as important a point to be made as any assurances of the government that we are not diluting but strengthening.

The dilution of standards in the social field and in the health field has been an ongoing problem in the province for some time. We have witnessed it in the form of the privatization of many of our youth services. We have witnessed it in the development of a possible two-tiered system. We have heard, time and time again, about new facilities and new services that have been privatized — or will be in the next few weeks — such as massage therapy. We have heard about it in terms of payments which now must be paid by seniors for their drugs, or payments for treatments like podiatry and various other medical services.

The fracturing and dilution of the public service has been a major concern, and I cannot help but believe that many of the clauses here in the Health Statutes Amendment Act perpetuate this dilution of standards of service.

It's not always the most dramatic item that one must look at here. One must look at, for example, item number one. The Community Care Facility Act is being adjusted ever so slightly. A definition, ever so slightly changed, can bring about a dilution of standard of service and the changing of the tone in this province to make way for the privatization acts that this government is engaging in.

For example, when we take in section 1 the simple business of substituting the words "a facility designated by order or a class of facility designated by regulation," what we are doing is taking a youth detention home and changing its definition to a youth containment centre. From my reading of the new bill, what we are doing is saying that there will be exceptions. That is well and good; there are exceptions to most acts. Under the old act, the occasional youth detention centre or youth containment centre was exempt from the Community Care Facility Act. Under this new definition, there will be a whole class of facilities which will be exempted from the Community Care Facility Act. I think that what we have here is the possibility of youth containment centres that are privately run in communities being exempt from the inspection, from the licensing authority, from the public standards that the Community Care Facility Act provides. I am most concerned about that.

I have very often taken on the Community Care Facility Act in the past and said that its standards were too high. I had a facility I was advocating. I have to say that in every instance the Community Care Facility Act has acted appropriately, and the board under that act has acted appropriately, with concern and with due care, and has caused the development

[ Page 2645 ]

of a very solid standard for community care facilities in our province. We may want to decentralize that authority, we may want to vest more of that authority in our municipal councils, but by exempting a whole class of youth detention centres, I dare say, we are setting the stage for unmonitored, unlicensed, uninspected youth detention centres. That causes concern.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

In a similar vein, section 5, at the bottom of the first page of the act, suggests that Community Care Facilities Licensing Board will be able to license not just preschool supervisors. We all know what a preschool or day-care supervisor is about. We know what kind of training they get. we know what's expected of them, we know what the community college offers in terms of training and care for preschool teachers, but now we have the suggestion that there will be classes of preschool teachers, classes of child care supervision. I worry and wonder about what those new classes that we are going to be licensing in the next little while will look like. It has come to my attention that there may well be a group of welfare mothers, possibly trained for a minimum number of hours in child care centres, put back in their homes to offer unlicensed day care. That worries me. Are they going to be licensed as this new class of pre school teachers? Are they going to be this new class of child care supervisors? Are they going to be licensed themselves and yet their homes not licensed? The dilution of standards concerns me.

The dilution of human rights has concerned all of us in this province in the last number of years. The sections pertaining to AIDS quarantine and communicable disease quarantine quite blatantly lay out a provision which gives the province considerable power through order-in-council to define a communicable disease, to define isolation, to define modified isolation and to define a reportable communicable disease — all by order-in-council without a word of debate.

The best possible scenario is that the medical health officer, for example, of Vancouver, who has recently come in with what I consider to be an excellent set of guidelines, provisions and safeguards for the AIDS community.... That's what could happen. The medical health officers might be coming forth from various towns and municipalities around the province with their own set of human rights guidelines. The city of Vancouver adopted his guidelines just last Tuesday, and I think the city of Vancouver is to be congratulated for preserving the anonymity of AIDS victims and for setting up a bylaw or a regulation that prevents discrimination in the hiring process against people with AIDS.

[4:45]

But this provision does not do that. There is nothing in this bill to protect and safeguard the individual suffering from AIDS or the whole class of people who might end up suffering from AIDS. We have taken a heavy-handed approach on the power side, and yet we have a very diluted or non-existent human rights code in this province to deal effectively with the protection side.

Once again, I'm talking about dilution and about the protection of public interest being eroded — the safety net or security net being removed — while the state allows or encourages it to happen, or takes the driver's seat in forcing it to happen.

Section 47 deals with the physics and massage therapists. The physios came to all of us in the House and expressed their deep concern that their educational requirements were being eroded and diluted and that. In fact, because we have not been paying them well enough and because we have not been graduating enough physios from our school at UBC, we have lost many of the ones we have to other provinces, and we have not been able to make up the shortfall. When the chance came for this province to give the physios a decent sessional wage, that sessional increase went to the chiropractors instead of the physios and the physios were stuck, I believe, with a 3 to 5 percent increase in their sessional fees. Consequently we have a shortage, which has been made up in this province by a two-year moratorium on the physics' licensing abilities, so we have brought people in from overseas. Granted, the amendments remove this. The amendments, I gather, still allow the importation of physios but protect the ability of our licensing authority and our physios to protect their standards and the standards that we all enjoy in this province.

That is well and good, but I turn to the fact that this section deals also with massage therapists. Massage therapists, as we all know, are in the process, at this very moment, of being privatized and removed from the Medical Services Plan altogether. On the continuum of physical pain, if you want to put it that way, the massage therapist might often be the first person the individual patient goes to; the physio might be the second; the chiro or the medical practitioner might be the third. What you have done, basically, is kneecap the patient in this process. What you have done and are in the process of doing, without legislation, is removing and privatizing the massage therapists altogether.

So, what we have gained in physios whom we may be able to bring into this province, hopefully at a decent rate of pay, we have lost in our ability to deal with the patient whom the massage therapist often deals with — that first level of intervention, the first door that a client might want to walk through when he is suffering pain.

I am saying, then, that by getting rid of the massage therapists and knocking them off the medical plan, you are only creating for yourselves increased problems further down the road — possibly more expensive problems. By increasing the number of physios but knocking the massage therapists off at the bottom of the spectrum, you are not solving any problem whatsoever. You are increasing the fees that you're going to have to pay, and you are putting an additional strain on an already overloaded profession in this province, namely physiotherapy.

I would suggest that all the way through this bill, although each item is very distinct and stands out by itself, there is a theme. The theme is — as I said before — a reduction in the level and the standards of service, a dilution in the safety and protection factor for the individual client, consumer or patient, and a laying of the foundations of the privatized network this government envisages for the whole province. We're selling the province off by nickels and dimes by the dilution of our standards.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I want to comment just briefly on this act in second reading. I might add some comments later in clause-by-clause debate.

I can see some of the theme of how, somehow or other, every clause in the bill is a move towards privatization, which has not been planned or announced. I suppose, given the

[ Page 2646 ]

correct motives, anything can be translated into whatever interpretation a person wishes.

What I see in this legislation is a concern for the people, a concern to protect the public interest, a concern to try to provide the services that people do want and need. Perhaps the classic examples in this are the ones that have been referred to on a couple of occasions: the physiotherapist section and the psychologist section.

As a northern member, I am very familiar with the need for physiotherapists, the allotment of funds, the provision of and approval for physiotherapist positions, and yet the inability to get a physiotherapist to help those people in the more remote, northern communities who need that service as well.

Despite the talk of wages and all that, there seems to be a limited supply of physiotherapists in this province, and so we have had to go outside for physiotherapists. I have worked with some of the organizations in my community which tried to attract a physiotherapist here — absolutely qualified, from schools in the United Kingdom and in other places, from recognized schools of physiotherapy — and they could not get the people to make a commitment to come here to serve a very urgent need, because they were informed that they could come, but that whether or not they would be approved to practise in the province would depend on whether or not the association at some time in the future gave them a stamp of approval. It is most difficult to have someone come over and say: "Come on over. Move your family, move your home, move over here. We need you. And perhaps sometime in the future we'll let you know whether you're qualified to practise physiotherapy." I am speaking of people who were graduates of qualified institutions and therefore were quite acceptable in their own country and could certainly have provided that service to the young people who needed it in our northern communities.

This legislation opens that door and says that if we're going to get people in here, they can come with some assurance that, if they are qualified — it's not the dilution of qualifications — to practise physiotherapy, then they may do so in this province and serve the needs of people in the northern communities.

The psychologist section. I for one fail to see what the real concern is here. I believe the psychologists' association now insists that anyone who wishes to call himself a psychologist or use the term "psychological testing," or things of that nature, must have a PhD. Yet in their own organization, I understand, almost half the people have a master's degree — a grandfather clause.

In the school system we have people who have to be qualified to practise psychology, but because they are in the school system they're not allowed to use the term "psychology" in connection with the work they do. Yet if they were working in the government health service with the same qualifications, with the same master's degree, they would be allowed to call themselves psychologists. All this is doing is saying that people who are qualified.... It does not say it is dilution of qualifications. Many of the psychologists operating in the school system not only have their requirement in psychology; they also have teacher training and experience, and perform a useful service. It is unrealistic to say that if you step from the school into the government health service you can now do a psychological test, and if you remain in the school system you can do the same test but you must not call it a psychological test. This legislation provides the opportunity for people who happen to work for school boards, have the same qualifications and can be recognized as psychologists anywhere else to also use the term in connection with their job in the school system. I think that's really all it's about.

I know there's been talk of lack of consultation and that sort of thing. There have been other compromise measures suggested: call them by any other name but don't call them a psychologist; don't allow them to use the term "psychology " if they're in the school system — if they're somewhere else with the same qualifications.... They can change jobs tomorrow and use the term, but in the school system they are exempt.

I don't see this as a watering down or dilution of any standards. I don't see this as a privatization move of any kind. I simply see it as a recognition of the reality that exists, and equality for these people in the school system to call themselves the same thing that they could in another system.

MR. JONES: I'm having some difficulty trying to figure out what the principle in the bill is, it being such a complex bill. It seems that some people are suggesting that the principle is consultation and protection of the public, or dilution of standards. Perhaps it is dilution of standards. I think it's lack of consultation and lack of protection of the public. Probably more to the point, I think it's about government mishandling and interference. I refer to the psychologist section that the Minister of Education just spoke to.

It seems that in this province we have a dispute between two groups that practise similar and related professions, one group being the school psychologists, some 200 or 300 practitioners in this province specially trained to provide psychological services to schools. Roughly 10 percent of that body are members of the Psychological Association and have PhDs. I assume the remaining 90 percent have master's degrees. They are a group that are concerned. They are providing similar services, and yet they don't have an organization to represent them. They don't have a professional organization that can provide regulation or a code of ethics, that can allow them the kind of community and professional development activity they would enjoy if they had an organization.

[5:00]

As a result, in order to try to rectify that problem, they have sought affiliation with the British Columbia Psychological Association on repeated occasions. I think the most recent requests derive from a December '86 report of the task force on school psychology. That task force was appointed by the board of the B.C. Psychological Association and was charged with assessing the views of their membership on this question that is a controversy between these two organizations or these two groups of individuals. Apparently, 75 percent of the respondents in the Psychological Association indicated that they wanted some sort of membership status for the school psychologists operating at the master's level. Now it seems to me that there were seeds of a compromise there between the two organizations. However, the board of directors decided that they felt such a compromise was diluting their standards and did not allow affiliation with the school psychologists.

The British Columbia Psychological Association has roughly 800 members, so it's a larger organization. As the minister suggests, a little more than a third of those, 350, do

[ Page 2647 ]

have master's degrees. They were granted affiliation or membership in that organization prior to 1980. Since 1980, that organization has been striving to ensure that doctoral degrees were required for membership, and the organization decided that that level of standard was required for the practice of psychology in the province of British Columbia. They suggest that it is a risk to the public to allow lower standards of service, and that it's misleading to the public to try and delude people into thinking psychologists are less than doctoral degrees.

They view school psychology as a subdiscipline of psychologists, and it's natural that that professional organization wants to protect their title, wants to protect the standards of people entering into that profession, and see in the long term something quite different than what the Minister of Education is suggesting. They see in the long term that school psychologists will eventually have doctoral degrees. They see that as the direction for the future of the practice of psychology in the province. In 1986 the psychologists' association were successful in getting an injunction preventing the school psychologists from being able to be called school psychologists. They couldn't use the term psychologist. It was protection of trade, I suppose, granted by the courts.

So, here we have this dilemma. We have this controversy between these two professional bodies, both highly qualified. And what does the government do with this situation? Does it consult with both parties? No, it does not. Does it consult with one side? It appears that the person consulted with was the vice-president of the school psychologists' association. It doesn't bring the groups together. The vice-president of the school psychologists' association at the time was employed by the Ministry of Education and was an adviser to the minister on this question, and he says: "Sure I was biased. The Education ministry hired me for my expertise, and I was asked for comments on the issue, and I gave them."

So we have a difficulty between two groups in the province. The government uses its typical tactic to deal with these situations. It doesn't consult with the parties concerned. It brings in legislation favouring one side, when I think there was a real potential for a compromise there. I think that's been illustrated, because since the legislation was given first reading, the British Columbia Psychological Association has proposed a compromise position. Now maybe it's not a satisfactory compromise position, and I think the members opposite who pride themselves on getting government off the backs of people should have done that in this situation, should have encouraged the parties, provided the forum for the parties to get together and solve their own problem. But no, we see government interference again; we see government bungling again. We have one side in this whole dispute extremely upset, writing letters to MLAs. It was a situation that was resolvable, and it's sad that the government doesn't see this kind of resolution and this kind of process for government to operate.

The function and responsibility of government isn't necessarily to take sides; it's to provide forums for problem solving, forums for resolution of problems. That's not what was done in this case. It's sad that the government does not recognize that this is their responsibility as the government of British Columbia.

MR. MERCIER: I'd like to rise to support the amendments proposed for Bill 34. I've been listening now for a couple of hours to the opposition comments. There are nine areas of amendment, most of which seem to have the support of the opposition, and that's gratifying. They have talked a lot, but they haven't really specified any great concerns with most of the proposed amendments. We haven't heard compliments from the other side. but they through their relative silence illustrate their enlightenment and support. So I think that's appreciated.

What we've got is a bill proposed by the minister in charge of spending about $3.5 billion, and we're talking about some minor amendments to help him discharge his responsibilities. The one concern that the second member from Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) referred to was the way the government might be dealing with the AIDS problem. This government has spent millions of dollars — in the $10 million range — and it's probably doing more and handling it more progressively than virtually any other jurisdiction in the world.

The section that attracted some objection is section 7, but I say: what would they do to handle the problem, which is probably very limited and a very specific concern of dealing with a seriously irresponsible person with a communicable disease? It would be too late to pass the legislation if that person caused a problem. The legislation, if in place, can be used if and when it's indicated that it should be. The minister has said that section 7 of the bill concerns the powers of a medical health officer or court to make an order respecting an individual with a reportable communicable disease. He wanted to be sure there was not misunderstanding with respect to the powers, and so he has changed the wording after consulting with people that were concerned with the earlier wording. The sensitivity and misunderstanding that was illustrated in previous months had, from most people's point of view, been properly dealt with.

The medical health officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the person is both infectious and likely to expose others to the disease. Any order by the health officer requires voluntary compliance, and cannot be enforced without a court order. A medical health officer cannot apply for a court order without approval of the provincial health officer, a requirement which necessitates an internal review before further action can be taken. After all that, a proper hearing must be held in provincial court where the person will be given a full opportunity to explain his position. In other words, before the court can make such an order, it must be established at the hearing that the person (1) is infectious, (2) is likely to expose others to the disease, and (3) has contravened the medical health officer's order.

That may sound like it's unfair to some people, but who are we trying to protect? In this case, we're trying to protect the innocent population that isn't aware of this person who has a communicable disease. In the case of dealing with the public interest, when we're talking about, as the second member for Vancouver East talked about.... In fact, he got onto something called the sexual preference of individuals. Well, what we're dealing with in this bill is communicable disease. The sexual preference of individuals is their own business, but if they have a communicable disease, you tell me how else you could protect the community at large from an individual who is acting irresponsibly and who is identified as acting irresponsibly. I think that the bill adequately deals with that concern. Until you've been in a situation, as a friend of mine has been. where he lost his wife. his children's mother, through the AIDS disease acquired through intravenous, and you realize that if somebody had conveyed that

[ Page 2648 ]

disease, and that person had had to be apprehended, there would have been no power to apprehend that person.... There are enough safeguards in this bill. The other parts of the bill, from what I said earlier, appear to be acceptable to the opposition.

I fully support the intentions of the minister. I think the public interest, the safeguarding of the 99.9 percent of people who are innocent, in a case where there is an irresponsible act, is paramount — the protection of those innocent people. I compliment the minister on his presentation and recommend as much support as possible for this bill — even from members of the opposition who are broadminded enough to see that point of view.

MR. MILLER: First of all, I have to confess, as a resident of a small rural community in British Columbia, that we probably tend not to be involved in the debate as much as people from the larger urban centres. Principally, our contact with individuals who may have the disease, and the implications that that brings in terms of the loss of people whom we know and the suffering, are somewhat mitigated, I suppose, by our remoteness. That's not to say that we are aloof or removed from the problem, because I recall that there was an individual from my community who contracted the disease through a blood transfusion. So although we're not immediately caught up in it, we are aware of it.

In particular, through my contact with my own teenagers and their friends, I am aware that teenagers, who don't always make the wisest decisions about what they do in life, somehow have some ability to come to some commonsense decisions or understanding about things that we find to be quite frightening in society. Certainly this disease is quite frightening to many people in our society. It is significant, I think, that they are able to handle the stress and the fear surrounding AIDS in a relatively calm manner.

Also, as a resident of a northern community, I'm perhaps more used to listening to the CBC radio network than people in the larger urban centres. I think that that's fortunate in many ways, because it is the superior form of radio broadcasting in our country, and very informative. I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to listen on Saturdays to one of the very best programs on radio today, "Quirks and Quarks."

HON. MR. RICHMOND: "Meet the Premier."

MR. MILLER: If the Minister of Human Resources wants to make jokes, he can do that at some other time. In fact, the people in my constituency would like to meet the Minister of Human Resources, who promised to come up to my constituency a year ago and still hasn't shown up. But I'll deal with that at a different level. I don't really wish to get into banter on the thing, because I think it is a serious subject.

[5:15]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Nonetheless, getting back to the "Quirks and Quarks" program, I'm in the habit of listening to it. They have a regular feature called "AIDS Watch," and every week a section of the program is devoted to the latest scientific news about the disease, the advances that are being made in trying to treat it, and the new discoveries that are being made about its communicability and other areas.

It's a very good program, and what strikes me about it is that the discussion is on a very calm and rational basis. Scientists are able to talk relatively dispassionately and be very informative. That is a very important feature when we deal with this type of disease. In fact, if we don't deal with it on that basis, we run the risk of seeing some of the situations that have happened in the United States with respect to schoolchildren who have the disease and have been boycotted, and have not been allowed to go to school, and have had retribution on their homes.

We saw an incident on the east coast of Canada that was reported fairly extensively in the news: a schoolteacher in a small community who, once the word got out.... He didn't have AIDS, but he had been exposed to the virus. The closing of the door, the fear that that generates, the subsequent job loss and eventually probably the destruction of the career of an individual who struck me as a dedicated young man who was committed to the teaching profession....

Needless to mention, historically we have not done all that great a job. Anything you've ever read, for example, about the treatment of leprosy, and the fear, and really the improper way of dealing with it.... That's important, and I wanted to say that because of the atmosphere that the bill is being introduced in.

Two significant points have been made, I think, with respect to the bill — two significant concerns. One, of course, is the lack of human rights legislation that specifically affords protection to individuals with communicable diseases. That's a very real fear to people in that situation. Second is the fear of lack of anonymity. The argument has been made, I think quite well, that the lack of anonymity could have the opposite effect to what is desired, in terms of driving people underground. I might mention that wealth or class issues tend to creep into almost any situation. I don't want to overstate the question, but it seems to me that wealthy individuals are in a far better position to protect their anonymity and also avail themselves of the latest advancements. That is true from anything that I have seen or read.

Having set that scene — and I think those concerns are valid and very real — I want to relate it to what I mentioned is the atmosphere. Government can do a great deal in a province to set the tone, to set the atmosphere of a particular province. I think this is significant in terms of this bill. With the best of intentions, a government can ultimately fail in its objective because of other things that they do in related fields. I want to specifically mention privatization, because I think it has a bearing.

There is a great deal of fear, in my opinion, about the potential effects of privatization on the province, not just in health care but in a variety of fields. That fear is quite genuine. It's not something that I wish to fan, but I do sincerely believe that the fear is genuine. I have talked to people. I have talked to workers in the health care system. I addressed an area meeting of the health care association in Prince Rupert, the northwest region. I spoke very forcefully, and I'm afraid, Mr. Minister, that I did not praise you too highly in my address. I must say that the people I was speaking to were not New Democrats; they were concerned people in the health care field. In talking to some of them afterwards, despite their individual politics they tended to, agree with what I had to say: that the atmosphere in British Columbia has been turned upside down by government. Quite frankly, I think the fault lies with the Premier. I know the minister has been caught out in terms of the Premier

[ Page 2649 ]

making announcements: the number of contradictions and the floating of trial balloons. There's a hot-air machine in this building somewhere — and I suspect I know which block it's in — that's busy pumping out trial balloons.

If the government wants to be taken seriously in terms of wanting to deal with this very important subject, wouldn't it be preferable if the government stopped floating these trial balloons and the Premier stopped talking about health care for the rich and the rich being able to jump the queue? Wouldn't it be preferable for the Premier and the Minister of Health to stop talking about closing emergency wards? Wouldn't it be preferable for the Premier to straighten out where we're going in terms of this miraculous committee that in two months is going to report on one of the most complex issues governments have been grappling with in this country, let alone in this province, which is health care costs? He flippantly announces that a study team is going to give a recommendation by January 31 on capping costs at their current levels, and then a little while later says in the newspaper: "Well, I didn't really mean cap. That's not what I meant. I meant, you know, control." Then I read the latest Info Line and it clearly says "Cap."

Given the atmosphere, the tone, that's being generated by the government, how can they expect to be taken seriously when it comes to dealing with serious issues? And I again relate that back to the kind of atmosphere and the tone that's evident on a program like "Quirks and Quarks," or the people in the scientific community who don't spread fear, who try to deal — in legitimate, calm and rational ways by giving good information — with the very real fears that people have. If the government persists in their really unintelligent approach to governing, where there are these massive contradictions between what the Premier might say one day and what the minister might say another, then I think you're going to continue to have trouble.

You talk about privatization. I believe the government does some jobs better, and I think the majority of British Columbians have a fundamental belief in that. I think they maintain the highways better, and the Premier's spurious remarks about.... I can't understand the logic that because somebody built a highway, they can maintain it better. Obviously he hasn't looked at what's happening with the Coquihalla. The government does some things better. You're talking about privatization. Really, it's an open-ended program. Nobody knows where it's going. Medical health officers who are currently government employees are going to be involved in individuals' lives to the extent of revealing their identity — of quarantines and of all that goes with it. You can say that there are safeguards, like checking with so and so, but who knows whether so-and-so is going to be privatized.

Then we have the very real fear that some private agency can take the act that the minister wants to introduce and administer it. What are the checks and balances? What are the safeguards? I know for a fact now — and I have some confidence in the Minister of Health — that if the medical health officer in Prince Rupert or any other district.... I don't want to single out any particular district. If something happened that was untoward, I have enough faith in the minister to know that I could pick up the phone and talk to him. He might not say, "I agree with you," but he will say: "You're darned right. I'll get to that and I'll check it out." What success will individuals or, indeed, MLAs have in dealing with these private companies?

It is, I think, something that the minister should bear in mind. If there is an extreme reaction to suggestions dealing with serious subjects, the government really have to ask themselves if they are to blame because of the atmosphere they have set, the confusion they've caused or the turmoil that's evident among the public of British Columbia as to the real intentions of the government of British Columbia. Who is going to be privatized? We don't know. What is phase 2, 3, 4 or 5? We don't know. We have some blind commitment to some ideological principle that says, "Private enterprise can do it better and because of that, that's what we're going to do," without really pausing and thinking about the impact that that has on individuals in this province.

I wish the minister would consider that seriously. Perhaps if we get away, as I said, from these hot-air balloons that really are frightening people then we could deal it in a more calm and rational manner, which is the only way to deal with such a serious subject and really one of the major social issues of our time.

MS. EDWARDS: I am having a little difficulty getting around this bill because it does deal with so many things. I am trying also to look at some changes that seem to be coming. It's a little difficult to see exactly where this bill is going, but there are a couple of areas where I would like to point out a threat to the rights that people have in British Columbia. There seems to be a mood in this bill to centralize control and, in a sense, there are places where human rights are threatened. I think that probably the minister would like to hear about that, because I'm sure he doesn't want that to happen — let's hope.

First of all, on the human rights issue, I have some worries about what we call the rule of law. I will deal with some of these things when they come clause by clause, but right away there is the concern about the business of definitions. When we take something as important as the detention of a person, taking away the freedom of that person to freely move.... It has traditionally, historically and very modernly been a major threat to people, that their freedom to move can be gone. Now we have in one of the sections that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is able to define such things as isolation, modified isolation and quarantine. When those definitions can be subject to change and they deal with something as important as someone's ability to move, we are leaving too much control in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, instead of having the rule of law, which requires, as the minister is well aware, that when we begin to make laws for people we have to write them down so that we all abide by them, and not that they can easily — or even not so easily — be changed. In other words, citizens know where they're going and what's going to happen.

In the same regard, I think that we have to deal with a number of phrases that have the single word "reasonable." We have "reasonable" grounds; we have "reasonable" conditions. Although I recognize that this is not an unusual phrase in some legislation, I think that we have to be very careful. In the context in which these words are used when we're dealing with the kinds of communicable diseases that we're dealing with, we have to be very careful that we do abide by the rule of law, which says that you lay out the law and put it there so that we can all deal with it on an equal basis.

Another issue dealing with human rights is the whole business of the threat to anonymity that's coming up. Besides

[ Page 2650 ]

the business of someone who may have a communicable disease not knowing exactly what kind of conditions he may be assigned to or not knowing what the grounds or the conditions may be that apply, in fact there is an agency that can be authorized to go and contact that person or get information on that person's health. That is another area where we in our society have called that privileged information. Professional people such as doctors and lawyers have privileged information, and they do not let that information go. It seems to me that the health information about people who have communicable diseases should be considered privileged information. When one agency can be given even the name of a patient, or the information about that patient, by another agency, the human rights of that person may well be threatened.

I have said these kinds of things operate to make a centralization of control; that control goes to one place. If there is one agency that can change the law, that's what happens. I'm going to broaden my approach a bit to mention two other examples of where I see the kind of centralization of control that is of great concern to the citizens of British Columbia.

[5:30]

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

For example, there is an audit committee named here which is named to do something approximately the same as a different committee called the patterns of practice committee. I don't mean to go into the detail of this. The principle is that that committee, which had as part of its membership people from the general public and members of the profession which is being ruled, will now be totally appointed by the minister. This is another area where the centralization of this government is beginning to take over too many things. It follows the whole business of appointed boards for societies and institutions. This business of now appointing audit committees when in fact another type of committee that was broader and more broadly represented the interests of the people.... That is now being replaced by an appointed committee, and we have a degree of centralization.

The other general example of centralization that I object to is the whole business of the government setting educational standards for professional organizations. I'm talking mainly about the psychologists. I'm not sure what is happening with the physiotherapists, and I understand some changes may be made. The government in the bill as it came forward was proposing that it would set the standards for both of these associations itself. In fact, in some cases there is very clearly a lack of consultation with those groups and a lack of the following of the input that those groups made. That again is a level of centralization that is not healthy.

To refer again to some of the comments of my colleagues, in the current climate of British Columbia, where the government is centralizing for all it's worth, and where the citizens are beginning to not know what to expect from any announcement, these kinds of actions will certainly need to be examined and we certainly need to do more consultation. Perhaps the minister needs to listen better to some of the input that has been there and to look and consider whether we need that kind of centralization. I don't think we do.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, I think the main points of concern by the opposition have been expressed, but I would just like to reinforce a couple of them.

Certainly the problem of confidentiality and the potential for discrimination are of primary concern. If the government was showing the sensitivity that the council and the mayor of the city of Vancouver have shown on this issue over the last year or year and a half, they'd be bringing forth other legislation at the same time; there would be concurrent legislation in the whole realm of human rights, in terms of discrimination against victims of this disease. That is clearly the burden on this administration as well. It would be encouraging to hear something from the government benches to show that there is indeed going to be some real balance shown here in dealing with both the victims and the potential victims.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) and others have referred to cases where terrible hysteria is involved around the victims. They shouldn't have to put up with that in addition to the problems they bear. You think of the kids in Arcadia, Florida, for example, who couldn't get into elementary school. They moved to another town, and had trouble getting into elementary school there. That clearly underlines the problems in the confidentiality that has to be assured these people, in order to grapple with the disease, in order to prevent, the whole thing going underground and hurting the public health effort in this field.

These are significant, sweeping police powers, in a sense, that are being talked of here. There can be waves of hysteria among the public that at times can be irrational. It's the job of government in a free society to deal with those waves of hysteria in a careful way, to avoid the worst abuses for the people that are the victims. We have no evidence of that effort on the part of the government at this stage. Hopefully that will be forthcoming down the road at least, so that there will be more balance in this whole exercise.

We don't have a great history when hysteria has hit us in this country. We don't have a great history in this province, unfortunately, around issues of race. We have taken away the rights of citizens on the basis of racial background, despite their being born here, and all the rest of it, as we did with the Japanese during the war. It is a blot on our history as a free society. There are elements of the same problem for people with this disease.

As the member for Prince Rupert said, one might well indicate some positive feelings about the Minister of Health in terms of the role he has being playing over the last six months or since he has become minister. He has really become the backup man to some irrational stuff coming from his nominal boss. One day the Premier announces a committee; the next day the Minister of Health isn't sure if it's a new committee that has been sprung on him, or something else that wasn't really significant. There's always this patch-up effort relative to the balloons being flown by the Premier. In these circumstances, it's rather scary to think of the Premier responding to hysteria in some narrow area such as this and making some commitments of the government and then having the Minister of Health trying to deal with the backup problem on that. That is a concern, because he might not be able to clean up the mess of the day before and the media serum of the day before, which has been one of his main jobs as Minister of Health: dealing with the two-tier health system idea, dealing with the committee problem and the other stuff that tumbles out of the Premier's mouth.

In these circumstances, we might very well have the Premier responding to the hysteria, not showing the kind of careful response that the city of Vancouver and the mayor of Vancouver have shown. Maybe the Minister of Health

[ Page 2651 ]

wouldn't be able to repair all the damage that would follow, because frequently we get statements that are not thought out. There's not often — or not often enough — a link between cause and effect in terms of what the Premier says in this province. On lighter issues we can deal with it and roll with it and that's just the way it is. But on more serious issues it's simply not acceptable. It could develop a pattern and a public policy route that would be disturbing and harmful to a lot of people.

So when we see legislation like this that establishes tremendous power and authority in terms of the freedom of individuals in our society, it's disturbing to think of how they might be abused. While we recognize the problems that the minister is grappling with that are serious and have to be dealt with, there is no evidence that this administration has the skills or the ability or the concern that the city of Vancouver has shown to date.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I also want to rise in opposition to the bill. I find that we are in a very difficult situation having such a complex and detailed bill in front of us. a miscellaneous bill that affects so many important aspects of health care in our province, and then having to respond to such a contentious item. I believe that if the government indeed was committed to grappling with this problem the government would have done things differently.

Clearly, in the clause-by-clause we can deal with the different aspects raised in this miscellaneous statute, but I want to join with my colleagues in expressing concern over the AIDS quarantine, the infectious diseases quarantine.

It is very clear, from some of the responses of the public since this bill was introduced in the House, that large numbers of people are concerned about the sweeping powers that the government is asking for under this legislation. They are concerned, partially because they don't quite understand how those powers can and will be used, and they don't feel confident that the government will protect their interests. I think that is particularly unfortunate because confidence is paramount in dealing with such a serious disease as AIDS. The victims of AIDS and those in high-risk categories must be assured that they have the confidence of the professionals who will be treating them, the confidence and the respect of the professions — that their information, their identity, will not be disclosed. Those aspects have not been dealt with.

Significant concerns have been raised about human rights legislation and the need for specific protection. The government has, in its wisdom, decided not to bring down the amendments alongside of this legislation. It puts us in a position of being unable to support the legislation, not having that package in front of us and being assured that human rights will be respected. As I said, we are dealing here with an illness that the world has clearly not had to deal with before. There is a considerable amount of justified concern, given the kinds of actions that the government has undertaken in the past year.

I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that he himself has a blue-ribbon committee on ethics that has been working in the province behind closed doors, much to the surprise not only of people in this province but, I suspect, some of the professionals in the field. We have, much to my surprise, one of the gentlemen who is in charge with the Ministry of Environment's task force on hazardous waste, Dr. Boyes. It raises a significant question for me as to how not only the Ministry of Health's task force can be proceeding but how the Ministry of Environment's task force can hope to bring down well-founded recommendations when they are clearly stretching their resources very, very thinly.

It would seem to me that on an issue as significantly controversial as AIDS quarantine a blue-ribbon committee on ethics would have some recommendations for the government as to how to proceed on this very important issue. It's unfortunate the government is bringing this legislation to the House at this time without the input of such a committee. It's also unfortunate that the government has decided to bring legislation without consulting the actual victims and the groups that are at risk — the people that have been working in this area of support and actual provision of the kinds of information necessary to AIDS victims. It would seem clear to me that if the government was wanting to put forward legislation that would deal broadly and solidly with the concerns around this illness, they would ensure that everyone had an opportunity to have some input into the actual legislation.

[5:45]

The point that has to be dealt with here is the role of Government. Many speakers before me have brought out that particular point. We had a back-bencher from the government side say: "Just look at who we're protecting here." Let's look at who we are protecting and what the role of government is in protecting the citizenry of this province. Clearly the government has a role to protect the people of this province not only from the threat of communicable diseases but also from the threat of discrimination and the possibility of being the victims of disease and the victims of considerable hysteria and therefore the threat to their own personal wellbeing, whether they actually have a communicable, disease or not. The government is well aware of how the hysteria can take grip.

I am hoping that the minister is taking some notes, because there have been a number of very good speeches on the opposition side. Many concerns have been raised which I believe should be dealt with. I'm hoping at this time that there will be other expressions of concern from other members and that the minister will see fit to answer some of those concerns.

HON. MR. DUECK: Bill 34 is quite a complex bill, no doubt about that: but we certainly have brought together many people. There has been much consultation. We certainly have the approval of the civil liberties group, and as a number of people have suggested, they don't take things like that lightly. When they agree with the direction we're going, I feel quite comfortable with that. The physiotherapists have agreed with the amendments.

By and large, all the sections we have gone through, if you look at them carefully, should not be contentious. I've made a point of doing this in such a way that it wouldn't be contentious, and I'm quite surprised by the opposition to this point and what they've brought up. However, it will be debated line by line, I'm sure, and further debate will occur.

I don't know why we talk again and again about AIDS. We're talking about a reportable communicable disease, and we seem to concentrate on the one issue only, which is not what we had intended. Also, I have not heard any of this debate in the past months or years. This legislation has been in place for over 80 years, but we're modifying it to make it much less onerous. I don't know what all the screaming is about, because we're dome much better than the legislation that's been in place for 80 to 100 years. It was there, but we're

[ Page 2652 ]

saying it's not good for today, and we're changing it so that someone has to act responsibly and not just be able to be quarantined.

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

Motion approved.

Bill 34, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 51.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. DAVIS: Bill 51, the Mineral Amendment Act, is quite specific. It deals with mineral claims in recreation areas, and in areas which may become class A parks in the province. However, I do have a few remarks to make which could last up to 10 or 15 minutes, so I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of this House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.