[ Page 2653 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Privatization of health care. Mr. Harcourt –– 2654

Health care costs. Mrs. Boone –– 2654

Appointment of regional development liaison officer. Mr. Kempf –– 2654

Milk producers' quotas. Mr. Rose –– 2655

Investment of pension funds. Mr. Clark –– 2655

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

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2656

Mr. Guno –– 2656

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2657

Ms. Smallwood –– 2657

Ms. Edwards –– 2658

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2659

Insurance Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 48). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 2659

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Clark

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 34). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dueck) –– 2667

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Rose

Ms. Campbell

Mr. Gabelmann, Mrs. Boone

Appendix–– 2678

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a very great British Columbian, Mr. Henry Justensen. I would ask you to bid him welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: As all members know, from time to time the Whips in this House can have very serious disagreements, but I want to assure the House that I claim no responsibility for the condition of my colleague at the end of the table today.

MR. REE: It reminds me of the saying that in the world of the blind the one-eyed man shall be king.

MS. CAMPBELL: As many members of the House know, participating in municipal government gives you the opportunity to meet very fine people from the province outside of your own area. In my own days as a school trustee, I had the great pleasure of watching a man named Charles Hingston perform as a school trustee in British Columbia. My confidence in him was certainly justified when the B.C. School Trustees' Association elected him their president, which he now is. Charles and his family are in the House today with guests from New Zealand. Would the House please make welcome Charles and Gail Hingston, their children Leanna, Adrian and Melissa, and the family Ricketts visiting from New Zealand.

MR. WEISGERBER: It's my pleasure today to introduce, in the members' gallery, the newly appointed regional development officer for region 8, Peace River, Eric Gunderson.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I just noticed up in the gallery a very good friend of mine, who's here today watching the proceedings in the House. I would like to ask members of this House to join me in welcoming Ralph Morris.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, I've also recognized a friend, colleague and hard worker in Victoria, Mr. Jim Jaarsma. Welcome, Jim, to the House today,

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Tuesday, November 24, the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose under the provisions of standing order 35 to ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance relating to government proposals for privatization schemes within the province. I wish to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for providing the Chair with notice of his intention, in accordance with practice recommendation No. 8.

British Columbia's standing order 35 was substantially amended when the rules were revised in 1985, and while the order has been simplified and abbreviated, the Speaker is still required to decide whether or not the statement conforms to the rules applicable to such motions. The authorities have been consistent over the years, stating that it is not the urgency of the matter which the Chair must consider, but the urgency of debate at this particular time. There are numerous precedents, both in our House and in the United Kingdom, where matters raised might well be considered urgent, but no case could be established to persuade the Chair that the debate should be proceeded with at that particular time.

The basic rules applicable to motions under standing order 35 have been stated as follows: the matter must be definite; the matter must be urgent: the matter must be of public importance; the matter must involve more than the ordinary administration of the law: the matter must conform to general rules applicable to all motions for the adjournment; the matter must conform to general rules of order. I quote from May's sixteenth edition, page 370. The Chair adopts these general rules as still applicable to motions under standing order 35.

I have examined the statement provided by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and while the preambles deal with two distinct matters, decentralization and privatization, it would appear from the last paragraph of the material presented that the motion is directed at a single specific matter — that is, privatization — and accordingly qualifies generally under the rule that the matter must be definite and involve a single specific matter.

[2:15]

A close examination of the material filed reveals a technical error, which may well in other circumstances disqualify an application. In the particular circumstances of this case, bearing in mind the spirit implicit in the substantial revisions to standing order 35 adopted by this House in 1985, it is the Chair's decision in this particular case that the statement will be allowed to qualify under standing order 35. Accordingly, I propose to ask the House whether or not the member has leave to move a motion for adjournment of the House under the provisions of standing order 35 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, to wit, privatization in British Columbia. In this instance, I am declining to read the statement as presented by the Leader of the Opposition because, as stated earlier in my reasons, it is my view the statement is technically flawed.

Hon. members will appreciate that once I put the proposed motion to the House, if objection is taken, the question of leave to proceed will be decided on a division without debate. Should leave be granted to move the motion, I will then call upon the House Leaders to present their representation as to when the debate might proceed, bearing in mind standing order 35(6) and 35(7).

Does the member have leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House under the provisions of standing order 35 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, to wit, privatization in British Columbia?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A very interesting ruling pursuant to standing order 35 –– I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to you and to the hon. members opposite, after reviewing the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that there is a definite reference to the Premier. As we all know, the Premier is in Toronto at a first ministers' conference, and I think it would be important and essential to this debate that he be present. Therefore, with respect to standing order 35(6), it would be my suggestion that we defer this debate until 4:30 on Monday next.

[ Page 2654 ]

MR. ROSE: Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. This is indeed a historic day. As you and the House well know, there have been conversations about this. I think we've reached an agreement that since the Premier is one of the prime players in the whole matter of privatization, it would be inappropriate for the debate to proceed without his presence. As a matter of fact, our arguments without his rejoinder might well be perhaps even insignificant. So it's very important to us on this side of the House, as we welcome this debate, to have the Premier present, and we feel that the appointed time would be eminently suitable.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF HEALTH CARE

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has publicly stated that he supports private hospitals being established so that the rich can queue-jump for their operations and not have to wait. The Premier's massive privatization scheme includes radical plans to allow special care for a wealthy few. That would leave average British Columbians and their families to suffer through long waiting-lists and a lower standard of care.

My question to the Minister of Health is: does the minister support the Premier's privatization of British Columbia's health care?

HON. MR. DUECK: The Premier has stated in the past that nothing is sacred and that every area of government will be looked at as far as privatization is concerned. There has never been any mention made that the health care system is going to be privatized. If it were and if it is, it is future policy. I would not comment on that at this time.

MR. HARCOURT: That is a non-answer, and it doesn't do anything for the fears of British Columbians. What about the 700 families with children who need an operation and the 400 families who are waiting for open-heart surgery? That's a non-answer to the question, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health another question involving health care. I hope he will answer this one. It involves the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), who has stated publicly that the emergency wards in some British Columbia hospitals should be closed. I'd like to know if the minister supports the Minister of Finance's quest to close down these emergency wards in British Columbia hospitals and these hospital services.

HON. MR. DUECK: The Minister of Finance has never stated that emergency departments should be closed. I think he said that not all hospitals can do everything for all people. There are certain areas of hospital procedure, in the emergency ward or in any other part of the hospital, that may require looking at the whole catchment area and at whether one hospital specializes in one area and another hospital in another. As far as emergency departments are concerned, we have some emergency departments that handle certain procedures that other emergency departments do not. Therefore to have the same types of emergency department close together may not be the best route to go. For example, you may have an emergency in Chilliwack and an emergency in Hope. They both have emergency departments, but they fly them to VGH. So there is a difference. What we're saying is that we don't want to duplicate the same type of service in every hospital. That does not say that we're going to close the service departments in any hospital. That's the statement the Finance minister and the Premier were trying to make, but you weren't listening.

MR. HARCOURT: We were listening and we're still listening, and we're still waiting to see if the minister is supporting the Minister of Finance's quest. And we're asking you which emergency wards you're going to close down, so the people of British Columbia don't have to put up with that uncertainty. Which emergency wards are you closing down?

HON. MR. DUECK: Do I support the Finance minister? I sure as heck do. I need him. I support the Finance minister and I support the Premier. That was a silly question to begin with.

Secondly, whether we're closing emergency departments.... Our emergency departments, since we had to discontinue the user charges and fees, have gone up dramatically. I understand that your side of the House still supports no user fees, and I can tell you that's where some of the problems lie.

HEALTH CARE COSTS

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health. The Premier announced at the Social Credit convention that he would be capping health care costs at the current levels, and then he said later that he was going to be controlling health care costs. Could the minister advise us, please, what he's going to do? Are you going to cap them or are you going to control health care costs?

HON. MR. DUECK: I suppose the answer could be both. We're controlling health care costs every day. We're trying to find ways to control them better. As far as capping is concerned, we've capped the MSP for some time already — the doctors are well aware of that — and we'll continue to do so.

MRS. BOONE: The capping of health care costs leaves a lot of fear within the province. You're talking in terms of capping hospital funds, capping all these things. How can the hospitals, the health care people out there, make any plans when they don't know whether health care costs are going to be controlled or capped, or whether they're going to have any money to fund any extra priorities that they have?

HON. MR. DUECK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess this is my day. I would like to tell you this much: controlling health care costs takes much of my time, of course, because we are now spending, if you include the MSP payments which are part of the gross figure, $3.7 billion.

As far as hospitals are concerned, I have very good rapport with them, and I can tell you that their planning is moving very efficiently and very well. I don't see any problem there. They know where we're headed and they're cooperating with us in the most amiable way.

APPOINTMENT OF REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT LIAISON OFFICER

MR. KEMPF: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways in his capacity as Minister of State

[ Page 2655 ]

for the state of Nechako, if that's what Mr. Poole is calling it today.

Recently Mr. Barrie Carter of Smithers, former president of the Skeena Social Credit Constituency Association and campaign manager for the present Minister of Forests and Lands, was appointed to the position of regional development liaison officer for Nechako.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a barrel.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, political pork-barrelling of the worst kind, Mr. Speaker.

My question: what are Mr. Carter's qualifications for this position? How was he chosen?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm not sure that question period affords enough time to detail Mr. Carter's credentials for this particular matter, so I will table the copies of his curriculum vitae and the member for Omineca can view it at his pleasure. I think that will answer the question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KEMPF: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. At the same time, could we have the minister table what Mr. Carter's salary will be and the size of his expense account?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I think the member for Omineca knows full well that Public Accounts will afford him every opportunity to examine it.

MILK PRODUCERS' QUOTAS

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I might address a quiet question to the Minister of Agriculture. I want to inquire whether the minister has offered or has any knowledge of an offer to five rogue suppliers to give or sell these suppliers milk quotas.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, thank you to the opposition member. I presume you mean five producers. The five producers have been dealt with in the past few days. They are to be dealt with on the same basis as every other producer who enters the industry, the only exception being that they are to buy the minimum amount of qualifying quota, which is 100 litres. They have until April 1 to be fully in the system.

MR. ROSE: Can the minister assure the House that these five producers, as he calls them — who have already been to court and lost their cases — will not be jumped ahead on the building program over the 540 people already on that program?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There's no problem with that. The only thing those five producers will get, as did all other producers when we opted out in 1984, upon re-entry and paying $1.3 million in penalty.... We will give each producer 300 kilograms of butterfat. They will be treated on the same basis; they will not have any preference on the building program.

MR. ROSE: Can the minister confirm that most of those non-quota producers that he wants to welcome back to the fold — perhaps over the heads of 540 who were in the line ahead of them — once each had quotas, or most of them had quotas, which they sold for approximately $3 million? And now they want to get back in the system with the help of this government.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, they may have wanted to, I can assure you. But they are coming back in on the same basis as anybody else entering the system. They must repurchase the right for the licence and the marketing of that milk.

INVESTMENT OF PENSION FUNDS

MR. CLARK: A question for the Minister of Finance. I have here a government document that documents a radical change in the way pension funds will be invested in British Columbia. For example, it says that money should be invested in the Toronto Stock Exchange, of all things, and that up to 5 percent of public sector union pension funds should be invested in high-risk venture capital.

Will the minister confirm that the government is considering using public sector pension funds to finance high-risk projects in the eight economic development regions?

[2:30]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity brought forward by the second member for Vancouver East to illustrate how open and democratic this government's approach to governance of this province is. The hon. member refers to a discussion document which was developed as a consequence of an initiative of this government to determine whether there was merit in investing a portion of our pension and trusteed funds in equities. As it is the belief of this government that such an initiative should be discussed by those affected by the decision, we have been discussing for the last four or five months, with the various pension advisory groups whose funds we manage, whether the suggestion has merit and, if it does, how such a scheme might be developed. The discussion paper referred to by the member is the final consequence of those discussions that have been going on over a period of months with all the employee groups who would be affected by any proposal.

The member seems to conclude that because we issued a discussion paper, this government intends to proceed in one area or the other. I can categorically assure the House and the hon. member that it is what it says it is: a discussion paper. There will be no decision about what we may implement out of that discussion paper until there has been a full, frank dialogue with all of those groups who are so affected.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, insofar as that document relates to a long-term investment strategy, it is grossly improper to suggest that there is any particular relevance to the occurrences in the last 30 days in the international stock market area that should impact this decision. What we're asking the employee groups to keep in mind is not whether they would have made such a decision and acted on it in the last 30 days, but rather over the last 25 years: do you believe this would have been a positive thing to do, and do you agree with the authors of the report that such an initiative would have considerably expanded their asset base and improved the earnings from those pension and trusteed funds? In answer to the specific question....

Interjections.

[ Page 2656 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Minister of Finance has well canvassed the question.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of Finance. This is the workers' money, not your money to play with. Public sector workers have to worry about their jobs, and now they have to worry about their pensions as well.

In keeping with his remarks, then, will the minister confirm in legislation that workers affected will have a say in how their money is invested, and that it won't be up to the political whims of this government or the czars in the economic development regions?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: There was a response given to an earlier question during this question period to the effect that the questioner should listen. Had the questioner listened to my response, which I hope you will agree was full and thorough, it would have answered his queries. There is no need for me to respond to his second irrelevant question.

MR. SPEAKER: I might remind both sides to read standing order 47A (b), which says: "Questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion."

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 51.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
(continued)

HON. MR. DAVIS: This legislation will amend the Mineral Act in respect to claims and mineral properties in recreation areas. It applies more particularly to areas which conceivably could become class A parks in the future. The Wilderness Advisory Committee reported on these matters last year and recommended that mineral exploration and development be allowed for a limited period on lands which could be designated class A parks.

The cabinet has endorsed the Wilderness Advisory Committee's recommendation and is doing so more formally in this legislation. This short amendment in Bill 51 will put the recommendation of the advisory committee into effect by allowing new mineral claims to be located in newly designated recreation areas.

It also limits the Crown's liability for such titles should the areas in question be designated class A parks. In other words, to permit a claim in the first instance doesn't carry the obligation to continue to recognize it as a valid claim for the indefinite future. This amendment will not affect old or existing recreation areas — i.e., Strathcona Park, etc. It certainly won't affect existing class A parks, but it will apply to future recreation areas and certainly to future class A park designations.

In the past, parks and recreation areas have been established without an evaluation of the mineral resources in those lands. Mineral titles that had been issued in those areas could be owned in perpetuity. Under the new legislation they can only be valid for a limited period of time. In the past they were valid indefinitely, as long as the title holder conformed with the mining tenure legislation. That will now be changed.

Furthermore, the question of compensation to mineral title holders has never been addressed. The government's exposure, the people's exposure, to those claims will be limited by this legislation.

The past system resulted in the issuance of a number of mineral titles in recreation areas — indeed, in areas which subsequently became parks. That opportunity, resulting in problems, will be discontinued by this new law.

This amendment to the Mineral Act provides for mineral potential evaluations to be undertaken in recreation areas by the government's survey crews, and allows the mining industry a minimum of ten years to conduct explorations of its own. As a result of these evaluations — public and private — mineral resources information will be available prior to making decisions to create class A parks. Government then has an opportunity to decide, having this information, whether or not to include the lands so evaluated in future parks. In other words, we'll know whether there is mineral potential. We can, if the mineral potential is substantial and recreation or parks value minimal, exclude those areas. Alternatively, if we are assured that there is no ongoing or at least substantial mineral potential, those lands can forever be proclaimed parklands; and there isn't a problem of compensation to those who might otherwise have established claims in those territories.

Mineral titles issued after a recreation area is created can be cancelled ten years after notice is given to the owners that the area is a candidate park. Compensation will be paid to owners of mineral properties with proven reserves if the government of the day decides to include these properties in a park. The act states that compensation will not be paid on the basis of costs incurred for exploration, development, etc. by the private person, firm or whatever. The compensation formula will be specific. It will be related to the values well established at the time, and will be specified in regulations under the Mineral Act.

This mineral resource management approach has been developed as a result of consultations with the mining industry, recreational interests, wildlife people and, of course, government representatives provincial and federal. It has certainly involved the Ministry of Environment and Parks — its expertise and its concern and interest in recreation areas and parks.

Three objectives have been accomplished: lands can be added to the parks system; mineral resources will be evaluated beforehand and explored prior to designation; and the Crown's liability in instances where lands which have been evaluated are transferred for park purposes will be limited.

I've said that this does not apply retroactively; it will apply to recreation areas established in the future. Again, it follows the recommendations of the Wilderness Advisory Committee. The recreation areas now being considered, the first to be treated this way under this new legislation, are Kakwa in the North Thompson area, Akamina-Kishinena in southeastern B.C., the Brooks Peninsula, and the Gitnadoix and Fiordland in northern and northwestern British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this legislation.

MR. GUNO: Because this amendment impacts more on the integrity of the parks system, my colleague will be presenting a more comprehensive response to the minister's comments. By way of general remarks, I want to say that, as he describes it, this bill does set up the mechanism for mineral

[ Page 2657 ]

exploration and extraction within the designated recreation areas of the provincial park. More specifically, this bill will allow cabinet to establish recreation areas that are going to fall under this act. The cabinet also, upon the recommendation of both the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Environment, may regulate exploration, prospecting and mining in these recreational areas. In the third reading debate I will have a more specific question as to how this kind of assessment of the mineral potential will be carried out.

The one area that I would like to make a few comments on is the expropriation rights allowed within the recreation areas after, as the minister has described, not less than ten years. The rights held previous to this coming into force are not affected by this provision. Actually, this amendment merely streamlines what is already possible under the Park Act. As I said before, it enables the Minister of Energy to regulate mining within the parks. I'm concerned about the lengthy time that is going to be required before expropriation can take place. If the recreation area is to be put back into the park, it will take at least ten years before that can happen.

By way of general statement, I want to point out the folly of resource extraction within our parks system. I think that it demonstrates poor planning in that it is going to provide very little incentive for the mining industry. It's a poor use of our resources. But I want to express a deeper concern about putting these recreation areas right beside, or sometimes right inside, provincial class A parks.

[2:45]

An even deeper concern is that this government is apparently trying to foist this idea on the public as somehow enhancing the class A park value; that is, enhancing the scenery, the pristine quality of the parks, the quietness — in other words, somehow retaining the wilderness areas for the enjoyment of the public. I don't think that it does. There isn't any way that the effects of industrial activity can be contained. Mining, for instance, has such side effects as noise, tailings, and irreversible changes to the ecosystem. It's a very grave concern about the impact it will have on our present class A park system.

We have to understand also why these parks are being set up. By way of definition, parks are for the use and enjoyment of people of today and are to be preserved as heritage for our children tomorrow. A question I would have to pose to the minister is whether by establishing this process — that is, setting up these recreation areas where these mining activities can be undertaken — we are presenting an invitation to indiscriminate logging and mining in our wilderness.

The other matter that I want to touch on very briefly is that the act contemplates the expropriation rights not being allowed within recreation areas after ten years. It seems that this is rather inconsistent for this government, which last year introduced an expropriation act which emphasized quickness, while in this case the government seems far more constrained — that is in having to wait ten years before such an expropriation can take place.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, it's the folly of allowing such a resource extraction to take place in our valuable parks system, and the fact that it's going to impact so drastically on the continuing enjoyment of these wilderness areas, that I want to point out by way of general remarks.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I appreciate the comments made by the member opposite in his role as mining critic. I think we have to put on the record, though, that in the last year the Ministry of Environment and Parks has added over a million hectares to their portfolio, so our record for wilderness preservation and trying to establish the direction of the government is clear. We clearly endorse wilderness and recreation areas and the value of that resource for the people of and visitors to the province.

We are putting in place a regime, a program, that's clear to everybody, both to those who have an interest in recreation areas for recreation purposes and those people who may have mineral interests. It puts a plan in place for them. The act before you does not contemplate any logging, and I can assure you that that will not take place in parks — unless there is a special need such as bug kill or wildlife enhancement. In that case we occasionally take trees out of parks, certainly not for commercial purposes but for other purposes. There will be no mining in parks; this legislation refers only to recreation areas. As I believe my colleague has said, there is no impact on Strathcona.

We think it important, though, in terms of having an appropriate park regime and development program, that we have this legislation and further regulations in place. I would draw to everyone's attention the first section. where it clearly says that any decision to be made in a current recreation area will be made jointly by the Minister of Environment and Parks, Without his opinion the resource use permit will not proceed.

I clearly see the public as being protected. I clearly see this as a positive move in identifying to all and sundry that we have well in place the preservation of recreation areas and their final movement into parks, and all industry will be aware of how we are going to do this in an orderly fashion.

In terms of the expropriation comment the member made, it is correct that under a mineral title we will expropriate after ten years. I think it is logical to allow the industry to have that title particularly in a newly created recreation area, to set their geology in place and to see what value is there. We have to face the economic reality of the province and allow that time-limited period to be in place to allow for exploration. But I also think it is appropriate that after ten years we will be able to expropriate those rights.

As Minister of Environment and Parks I have no problem with this Mineral Amendment Act. I think it is clear; I support it. I recognize that there may be further questions, but we will be quite prepared to answer specific questions about the act when we debate it in committee stage.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I don't intend to use this time to address the Minister of Environment's comments on his industrial park policy and his record in this province. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves dealing with a Mineral Amendment Act at this time which indeed facilitates the mining of our parks. The government has chosen to exclude any further legislative restrictions on mining in parks or to include any environmental protections in that legislation. I think those are two very revealing omissions in this legislation.

The government has chosen to put forward a piece of legislation that helps initially to promote and facilitate the mineral development of recreational areas in our class A parks. They have chosen not to curtail mining in our parks. I stress again that they have chosen to enhance and promote mining in our parks.

If I can again remind the House about some of the history involved in the claims issue in our parks and the erosion of

[ Page 2658 ]

our parks system by the putting in place of recreational areas, when this first came up last spring, the minister and his assistant in the parks division said they were really in a difficult situation that had to do with the Tener case and that they were bound to deal with these claims. Because of this particular case, the government was forced to recognize the claims that existed in parks and to either compensate for or facilitate the mining of those claims. There have been decisions since that time which indicate that that is a false reading: that the Tener case does not pertain to all claims in our parks system, and that indeed the government could have chosen a different tack if — and I say if — the government's priority was to ensure that our parks system and the integrity of that system was guaranteed to future generations. Instead, we have before us a Mineral Amendment Act that not only deals with the existing claims in the park but allows additional claims, additional prospecting, and does nothing to limit the actual activity in those recreational areas. That is sad, and I think it reflects clearly who this government represents.

Again, I think it is sad that the Minister of Mines, recognizing that mines legislation does not empower the ministry to deal with some of the environmental impacts of any mine in our parks, never mind the actual mining in areas that are of environmental sensitivity — i.e. our class A parks — has chosen not to put into legislation further power for access to information that has some teeth in it, that allows the Ministry of Mines, in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment, to know what's actually going on on that site. The legislation currently in place does not give the Ministry of Mines the power to get information about the possibility of pollutants. The Ministry of Environment deals with this situation once those pollutants have left the mines' property. That is not satisfactory in mining throughout the province, and it most certainly is not satisfactory when we're talking about mining on property that is included in our class A parks system. I think it's again a reflection of this government's desire to facilitate mining corporations and help them erode the heritage of our parks system.

Clearly, industrial activity is not compatible with our parks. No matter which way you say it, no matter how much doubletalk there is, industrial activity of this magnitude is not compatible with our parks system. It is not compatible with wilderness areas in this province; it does not preserve the integrity of wilderness or the environment in any way. I think it's sad that the government has chosen this route. I'll look forward to some of the minister's comments when we deal with the clause by clause. In particular I'll be interested in the minister's comments as to why he chose not to put restrictions in this legislation to guarantee the people of this province that there would be some recognition of the environmental sensitivity of recreational areas.

[3:00]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, this particular act addresses a recreational area, and the last phase of recreational areas declared in the province includes the Akamina-Kishinena area in my riding, which has been a sore spot as far as parks and mining are concerned. There has been longtime pressure for a park to be established in this area. It sits right in the corner between the southern boundary of a national park in the United States and Waterton Lakes National Park on the Alberta boundary. This is the unfinished corner of that particular area, which is being considered by many people to be a natural area for a park. It's an absolutely magnificent area, except, of course, for the deplorable logging that has been allowed to go on. It wasn't brought into the parks system until now, and even now only as a recreational area.

There are some international complications to the fact that it does not have the kind of protection that a designation as a park would have given this Akamina-Kishinena area. In fact, I am sure the minister is well aware of the Sage Creek hearings and the international objection that was made by the United States — and, in fact, the international joint commission meetings that were held in the area and the major concern that was going on with the proposed mining development that would impact on that area.

There has been another major concern that I think is of considerable importance. It's a grizzly bear study that has been done over a number of years in a very extensive way. It is probably the area with the most dense grizzly population on the North American continent. That comparison includes the Khutzeymateen, which is generally considered to be a fairly dense area.

There has been an actual count of the grizzly population there. The only thing in there that bothers grizzly, as far as the scholar who has been doing the work is concerned, is the exploration for oil and gas in that area. This process of allowing exploration and other mining work to continue and then having it subject only to the current Mineral Act is, it seems to me — because of the experience of others of my constituents — a fairly dangerous thing to do.

I connect it with the response of the Mines ministry to the proposed drilling well in Sparwood, which has not yet been concluded, as the minister knows. I suggest that that could, and may, yet be concluded satisfactorily; we don't know. It took a lot of energy and pressure by the people who had some concerns about the drilling of a well that could or could not produce some kind of gas very near to a settlement.

It seems to me that if that kind of drilling was being proposed — and certainly there has been a lot of exploration, and this kind of thing has gone on in the past in this area — it would be a lot harder to push, under the current legislation, for the kind of hearing that the people in that area would want to have in the face of the perceived health effects that the discovery and production and transportation of, for example, sour gas would have.

It seems to me that it has not yet addressed the very need that we have for public input into these decisions. Right now the decision will be made by the Mines ministry and the Environment ministry in conjunction, but there is no need yet to allow the citizens of the area to have some input into the process of deciding whether or not to allow drilling.

There is some major concern in our area about input by the public. It's not only related to parks; it relates to the possible drilling, and it has also been related to forestry recreation areas, because there is considerable concern right now whether the public is going to have the kind of input that it requires into the management plan for the Height of the Rockies.

Put all these things together, Mr. Minister, and I think I would like to see something in these amendments to assure the public that they would have some input into what is going on. That is the least that one should demand. It seems to me that there is not yet a clear way that any of these ministries has shown that they can get public input in a way that the public agrees to.

[ Page 2659 ]

I think this issue has to be addressed, and I see this as another place where it has not yet been addressed, and it should be addressed.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Firstly, I'd like to repeat that this legislation does not impact on existing parks in any way, We're not talking about mineral development in parks — or, indeed, in future parks. We are talking about the ground rules for mineral exploration development in areas other than parks, areas which might become parks.

The hon. Member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) referred to the Akamina-Kishinena area, and that is a candidate to be a park someday. It adjoins Glacier National Park. It's an incredibly beautiful area. It has been damaged to a degree already; I'd say primarily by forestry operations. At least, flying over the heights of lands and valleys there, the main impression one has is that damage by man has been almost entirely caused by forestry companies. But those lands will recover, as they have over the ages from forest fires in the area, and so on.

We're talking instead of parks. We're talking about recreation areas, some of which one day may become parks, and we're talking about the process whereby we can put all and sundry — certainly all and sundry in the mining industry — on reasonable notice for the transition from recreation areas to parks. For those who have mineral rights in the Akamina-Kishinena area presently, when the government of the day decides that this will or is likely to become a park, they can now put them on ten years' notice. They then have ten years in which to carry out exploration and so on to attempt to establish a value for the mineral resource, and that value may or may not be bought out by the government of the day when that area becomes a park. So we're establishing a process whereby everyone is treated fairly, but also a process in which — in one direction, anyway — the movement is from recreation area to park.

This is not stating when any particular area will become a park, but it is setting up a mechanism whereby those who have valid mineral claims have a certain time in which to put their affairs in order and at the end of that time have a limited claim on the Crown. The situation presently is that they have an unlimited claim over time. Their claims are good for all time.

So we're setting up a mechanism which was advocated by the Wilderness Advisory Committee. It contained representatives of all interests — certainly the recreational side, the environmental side — and they thought this was a fair process, a fair sequence to follow in establishing future parks. That's basically what is involved.

Mine development nowadays has to go through several stages of investigation by our Environment ministry and others relative to pollution and other possible damage, and this would apply, of course, to any mining or recreation area, were one to develop. Whether or not there is public input would depend on the general public concern in the area and whether people locally were likely to be affected in any way by the mine development.

I would think that if we were to be seriously considering establishing a park in any one of these recreation areas or any part of them, the public should be involved. But again, specifically, this deals with recreation areas, with mineral claims and recreation areas, and with the way in which those claims can be limited and the way in which they can be extinguished if the government of the day decides to convert that area from a recreation area designation to a provincial park designation.

Motion approved on the following division:

[3:15]

YEAS — 38

NAYS — 19

Bill 51, Mineral 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.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 48.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: Yesterday there were the opening remarks by the minister in moving second reading, and then some comments from the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). In closing, the minister said: "I choose to respond to those remarks during the committee discussion." I wonder whether the minister wants to comment now on the general remarks that were made by the first member for Vancouver East, or whether he would rather wait and try to have me sort it out section by section.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm pleased, for the benefit of a full and frank debate, to respond to those general comments now, if that's your pleasure. While I don't have the verbatim in front of me, my notes indicate that there was a comment made about the record of the regulatory agencies employed by government and some question as to whether they might be relied upon to perform adequate service as it relates to this amended act. I'm very pleased to respond to that general comment with the assertion that the changes made by this

[ Page 2660 ]

government, in terms of its regulations and by virtue of its staffing changes, quite clearly have indicated to the affected industries our very serious attitude and our determination to ensure that to the best of our ability there will be consistent, determined regulatory actions taken when abuse is properly and legally identified, or at least identified in a way that can be legally substantiated if such is necessary. So I claim, Mr. Chairman, in response to the general statement, that this government's performance as it relates to regulatory functions is clear, and I am very happy to stand defending it.

A second comment was made dealing with the possible difficulty given the fact that the four pillars of financial institutions are breaking down internationally, that the federal legislation and the various provincial legislations across the country are facilitating a broader range of responsibilities for financial institutions generally, and that we are embarked in a similar direction. To the comment, then, that this breaking down of the four pillars may present some difficulties, as it relates to insurance companies, I have to note with some amusement that the speaker is himself directly involved with a firm — a commercial undertaking — which is in the process of attempting to broaden its interests in the insurance field. So I found it somewhat ironic that he would drag this red herring out and express some feigned alarm. I think that's probably the best response to that point.

The allegation had been made that we have not consulted with industry. There are a number of points there. First of all, you should know, Mr. Chairman, that the staff and myself have met with the Insurance Bureau of Canada on this legislation; we have met with the independent insurance agents' association and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Those are the major organizations extant in the province with an interest in the subject. Furthermore, by introducing this bill at the last sitting, it has, in effect, been in the public domain since July 16, and to any suggestion that we have been insensitive to the need for public input, I can think of no better defence than to say it has been out there and we have been inviting comment since July 16.

Lastly, as proof of my claim that this is a government that listens and learns, we will be introducing some House amendments during the discussion of this bill which will recognize some of the points made during those very lengthy, in-depth discussions with the industry.

MR. STUPICH: If I may comment on some of the comments that the minister made: first, with respect to his assurance that everything is going to be well now that there have been staff changes, I think that up to now nobody has really noticed any difference, either in the credit union movement or in the trust organizations that have had problems. Newport Mortgage that had difficulty.... There were all kinds of examples where there didn't seem to be the capability within the office of the superintendent of insurance to look after the interests of consumers in the province of British Columbia. When the minister said staff changes, is he talking about changes in personnel or is he talking about beefing up the whole office? Are there more people there? That's what I'm wondering.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the hon. member that my phrase, I believe, was alterations and changes to the regulations themselves and staffing changes. I wouldn't want to mislead you to think that merely by virtue of changing personalities we've remade the world. To the question of whether we have increased staffing levels in the superintendent of insurance office, the answer is no, although that may be a possibility. We are in the process of reorganizing a number of our sections in the corporate relations division, and I haven't yet received the recommendations of staff in that respect. But I'm aware of the fact that it is openly being examined and there may well be some suggested staffing changes as a consequence, but I wouldn't want to predict them,

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I can't help but be concerned about that, because it would seem to me that the difficulties we've had in the past with respect to financial institutions in the province is that there just hasn't been the capability within that office — a capability deficiency, I think, not because of the quality of the personnel, but rather because there just haven't been enough of them to look after the problems, particularly problems that have developed over recent years. However, I think a lot more will be said about that later on.

The minister commented on the red herring raised by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). He said that that member is associated with the financial institution that is trying to broaden its scope. That's true, Mr. Chairman, but that's one organization that hasn't been in trouble. I think it's one of the few credit unions that haven't been in trouble, one of the few that have done extremely well when others have been running into a great deal of difficulty. Perhaps it's all right for that one to expand its scope, but I'm concerned about others that may come up. There will be further discussion about that later in this bill. In picking on that member and the organization of which he is a director — I'm not sure if he still is a director — I think the minister has picked a poor target.

On the third point that the minister raised in response to the comments from the first member for Vancouver East, that the bill, which was introduced quite some time ago — July 16 — was introduced for discussion purposes only, as he said at the time, proving that it's now a government that listens, or that he's a minister who listens.... I'm not sure which he said. He corrected me a little earlier.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Both.

That may prove it to the Socred caucus. It doesn't seem to have proven it to people like the Insurance Agents' Association or to the Insurance Bureau, because as recently as before lunch my office was told by both of those organizations that they have tried to have meetings. The Insurance Bureau has not yet met with the minister, although it tried to meet with the minister. The agents' association did have one what they called "brief" meeting with the minister which was quite unsatisfactory from the point of view of discussion; they felt they didn't get anywhere in it, and they were hoping it was going to be just the first — a sort of introductory meeting.

It would seem that both the bureau and the agents' association expected consultation. They were reassured by the minister's opening remarks, when he introduced this bill on July 16, that there would be discussion, that there would be listening. The minister tells us he listened to somebody and will be reacting to what he heard by bringing in further amendments. But there seems to be a breakdown in communication between the minister and these organizations.

[ Page 2661 ]

The minister tells us there has been full, frank, free discussion, consultation, opportunity for people to speak and be heard, and that there was listening; yet the organizations to whom he was supposed to be listening don't seem to have known about those meetings. It's not the first time this kind of thing has happened. In the previous Legislature a minister assured me that he and his ministry were meeting with a certain organization in our community. When I contacted that organization, they didn't know what meetings were being held, because certainly they weren't a party to them.

So maybe the minister is mixed up. Maybe it's somebody else he met with on that one occasion.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The group that I met with personally, so I'm advised, was the independent insurance agents' association.

To the suggestion that the bill and the amendments therein may not have the universal support of the constituency it addresses, I'm not satisfied that that is a true allegation. It is likely true that on some particular aspects of the proposed bill the impact on one segment of the industry would be resisted by that particular segment, but that's no different from any other piece of legislation that we deal with in this House. It is seldom that we deal with a piece of legislation that does not impact adversely on one sector or another.

So I can say — with some confidence, I believe — that the general thrust of the bill, its intent, its degree of discussion, has had, and does continue to receive, the general support of the trade.

[3:30]

MR. STUPICH: This time I'm going to try to correct the minister, or perhaps correct myself. He said I advanced a suggestion that there was not universal support for the legislation. I hope I didn't do that, Mr. Chairman. I didn't mean to say that there was a lack of universal support or that there was not such a lack. I don't think I commented either way. I don't know whether there's any degree of disagreement at all.

My whole point was that the minister had said there was the consultation, the cooperation, the open government that he promised when he introduced the bill; yet the people with whom he was supposed to be discussing this legislation said that try as they did, the council was never able to meet with the minister, and the agents' association had one brief meeting, which they felt was just an introductory meeting to more such meetings. That's all I was saying. I wasn't saying that they don't like what they got. What I'm saying is that they don't like the process. They felt there would be consultation, an opportunity for them to make their input, and they feel they didn't have the opportunity that was promised them. That's all I was saying, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 3, hon. members, there are quite a number of parts, so I think we'll deal with them one at a time, if that's agreeable with everyone. There are some amendments to be offered.

On section 3 (28.1).

MR. STUPICH: Actually, Mr. Chairman, it's not 28.1 so much as section 3 in general. I wonder if it would be all right to deal with it in general first.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's all right with the Chair, if the Minister of Finance has no objection. I think we will have to deal with the individual parts, but a general comment would be in order.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister said yesterday or previously or both, I don't know, that it was a very complicated and time-consuming matter for an insurance company to be incorporated. It meant introducing a public bill by a private member. But there was a safeguard in that the private bills committee could call witnesses and listen to people who wanted to make representations about an application to establish an insurance company by any group for any purpose. There was that opportunity to listen and to comment, and the committee could then report to the Legislature, of course.

Now it would appear as though not even the minister is going to get involved in any of this — when I say the minister I mean his office really. The superintendent is the only one — and I'm not suggesting he's just one person, but I'm saying the superintendent's office — who takes sole, total responsibility for dealing with any application for an insurance company. Even insurance companies run into trouble and, certainly from the point of view of liability, people are more and more concerned about the way insurance companies operate. While I don't suggest that it should go back to what it was, that there should be a committee of the Legislature, that there should be this long process — I think we're well away from that — I wonder if the minister is getting out of being responsible for this and turning it over. Maybe he's ultimately responsible for the superintendent — that might be his answer. I don't know. But as I read this, the superintendent makes the decision. Is that really what it means?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the intention of simplifying the incorporation procedure for insurance companies is merely another indication of this government's desire to do what we might to help build up an infrastructure or a network, if you like, among the financial community for British Columbia. It develops that, by virtue of the parochial interests of some of our other provincial colleagues across the country, some of our existing financial institutions are at risk. Therefore it's more and more important that a province with a population base as relatively small as that of B.C. retain the maximum degree of flexibility it can to carve out market niches for ourselves as they may arise.

There's no better illustration of that than with the captive insurance legislation we passed earlier this year. It is the continued determination of this government to seek out those niches as they arise, and in order to do that, it's imperative that we be able to deal expeditiously with proposals that come forward. As a consequence of these proposed changes before us, we have an expression of interest from the trade, which otherwise might not have arisen were it not for the fact that we are attempting to simplify the process and at the same time ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in the approval process so that the interests of British Columbians are protected. That's our intention, Mr. Chairman, and we do believe that this act and these amendments will realize that objective.

[ Page 2662 ]

MR. STUPICH: We'll get to the safeguards a little later. I'm sure you heard my question, Mr. Chairman, and maybe the minister didn't. I was asking about the ultimate responsibility. Is it in the hands of the superintendent? Is he the one who's totally responsible? Does he not even talk to the minister about it or to someone in the minister's office? Is it totally within the office of the superintendent of insurance, this question of deciding whether or not an insurance company is going to be incorporated under this legislation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to give as full and complete answers as I can so that the members of the opposition might better understand the philosophical thrust of the legislation. If I err in appearing not to deal with a specific question, I apologize.

I suppose the best answer about any decision of the superintendent would be that it could be appealed to the Commercial Appeals Commission and could receive a full and fair hearing if there is any suspicion that an abuse might occur.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think now I have my answer. The minister is washing his hands of the approval process and saying that, really, it is the superintendent of insurance who is responsible for deciding whether or not an insurance company is going to be incorporated. He reports to no one on this issue.

The minister just washed his hands of the whole process and said: "You decide whether or not an insurance company should be incorporated. I don't want to even hear about it." That's what I heard, and I have voiced what I heard in much the same language as the minister, and I do appreciate his full and complete answers. I would rather they answered the question, but nevertheless it's all information, so that's useful.

MR. CLARK: Just to follow along the lines of the first member for Nanaimo, it seems to me that what this does is put a great deal of onus on the superintendent — much more than was the case in the past. Maybe the minister could inform the House whether he thinks the expertise exists currently in the superintendent's office, whether there will be a requirement as a result of the great activity this act will spawn and whether he envisions that there will need to be more expertise and a larger staff to provide the kind of safeguards the minister talks about.

There is a great fear on our side that there is a reason for the regulations in the first place and by removing the strict and onerous provisions and making it easier, it puts more pressure on the regulator to actually regulate. The same can be said for a number of other areas that the government is moving on.

But in this case, it seems pertinent for the minister to give us some thoughts on whether he sees the superintendent's office capable enough today, whether he thinks it needs more staffing, whether the expertise is there now or whether there needs to be more expertise recruited for that office, in light of the changes he's making here.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver East should know that the position of superintendent of insurance is presently held by a temporary appointment and that it is my personal hope that such appointment does not endure for much longer.

The fact of the matter is I've got additional work that I need performed, and this individual has many talents; only one of them happens to be some expertise in the insurance business. I'm referring to the acting deputy rather than to the superintendent, by the way, just so you are not confused.

As I said, we are going through a reorganization process or examination. Until I receive the recommendations, as they relate to all sections of the corporate relations division, I am unable to respond to your specific question about staffing needs. It might well be that we can combine some functions and in the process realize some economies. Certainly, because I have to reduce expenditures as a mandate from the Premier, I will be doing everything I can to wring every cent of value out of the corporate relations division.

So my intent would be that we not add to the staffing levels, but as you pointed out quite intelligently, it might well be that this legislation, being so imaginative and creative, will result in us receiving many more applications for incorporation of insurance companies than we currently envisage. I don't imagine at the moment we are going to get swamped. However, I do anticipate that there will be some early firms in the lineup to take advantage of this legislation.

MR. CLARK: It's really not acceptable to say that we're in the middle of reorganization. We have a temporary superintendent — an acting superintendent. We're going through all kinds of changes, the minister says, in the corporate relations section of his ministry. And yet you're bringing in legislation — legislation that, more importantly, requires the kind of tough scrutiny and expertise to ensure that safeguards do in fact take place.

So removing the legislative safeguards and placing the burden on someone who is not yet appointed I think is a serious mistake. It's indicative of this government's headlong drive to do things without proper planning or presentation. I'm surprised that even in an area as relatively minor as this they haven't done their homework and haven't got the people in place.

Maybe the minister could answer briefly a different kind of question, and it's a general one on this legislation. Would this essentially enable a credit union in Victoria to establish, in effect, an insurance company?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I really have to object. I never put any constraint on the questioners that they had to be brief. What's this? Are we all of a sudden having some artificial imposition of time limits on the third reading discussion? I never said you had to be brief when you put the queries to me. I don't think you should be making the same request of me. I want to be frank, full and complete.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: He said "would he briefly respond."

The question is a theoretical one. I suppose in the fullness of time there may well be an application from a credit union that deserves serious consideration for it forming an insurance subsidiary. You made specific reference to Victoria firms, and I have to say that at the moment I would guess that that is not a likely possibility.

MR. CLARK: Just so I understand the bill a little more, maybe the minister could explain why that is not a likely

[ Page 2663 ]

possibility, and whether in fact the intent of this legislation is to encourage this sort of one-stop shopping that we are getting rhetoric on from the other side and to actually encourage financial institutions — locally based, say, like credit unions — to set up in-house insurance companies to provide insurance services. Is that a goal of the legislation? Whether or not it is, could the minister explain why a credit union — for example, Westcoast Savings, or the one here — would likely be constrained from establishing an insurance corporation?

[3:45]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, unlike some arrogant centralized planners, this government happens to believe the marketplace is the best one to determine where the opportunities might lie. I think the question exhibits a bias in terms of what energizes the economy and what role government should play in helping economic activity. It is not the intention of this bill to enable any one sector to do any one thing. It is rather the intention of this bill to make quite clear our government's willingness to consider proposals from well- structured, soundly financed financial institutions to develop an insurance subsidiary, if that is their wish.

We do not target a sector with this piece of legislation, because we do not have the arrogance to think that we can accurately predict which part of the private sector might have an interest in a particular subject or the other.

MR. CLARK: Just to clarify the point, I was not trying to suggest that you were targeting credit unions; I was merely asking for an example for my own edification — whether or not this would be a likely candidate or whether this is the kind of thing the minister envisions. We have had self-insurance legislation allowing people to insure themselves, and we've had debate about that.

I wondered whether the purpose was really to try to encourage financial institutions like credit unions to form insurance corporations in order that the service provided might well be a one-stop service by financial institutions. I am not trying to pick on credit unions or anything; I am just asking for my own information whether that is a likely result of this legislation, or whether it is something the minister desires and that is the purpose of the legislation.

Section 3 (28.1) to 3 (28.3) inclusive approved.

On section 3 (28.4).

MR. STUPICH: As I read this section, it occurs to me that the minister is hoping that there will be a flood of applications for such insurance companies at a $25,000-a-crack non-refundable deposit.

Section 3 (28.4) approved.

On section 3 (28.5).

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.].

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: I just wonder if the minister could explain the purpose of the amendment.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the original section 28.5 allowed a special act insurance company to convert only to an insurance company under the Company Act. This was an oversight, as it is a basic principle of the administrative corporation procedure introduced in this bill that any form of incorporation or conversion be facilitated. The House amendment will permit a special act insurance company to convert to a company, or an insurance company, by following the established procedures.

MR. CLARK: Really, I am not asking you to tell us what the amendment is but to give us an explanation as to why the amendment was put forward. Rather than simply reading his notes, maybe the minister could just give us a sort of layman's interpretation of the amendment.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I indicated earlier in my general answers, Mr. Chairman, the process has received much dialogue with the trade. This particular amendment, I believe, arose as a consequence of those discussions.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 (28.5) as amended approved.

Section 3 (28.6) approved.

On section 3 (28.61).

MR. CLARK: I want to ask for a brief explanation again about the particular relevance of that section.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This section allows for an extraprovincial company to be continued into the province as an insurance company. As well, it allows a B.C. insurance company to continue outside of the province. The superintendent must approve the continuation or transfer of incorporation of any such company.

MR. CLARK: So this section allows a new insurance company incorporated for the purposes of this act to operate in another province, subject to the rules and regulations of that province.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, it deals with existing companies.

Sections 3 (28.61) to 3 (28.71) inclusive approved.

On Section 3 (28.8).

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to this section standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: Once again, just a brief explanation, please, from the minister. It doesn't have to be brief.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The original provision required a pre-licensed, provincially incorporated insurance company to have in its legal name the term "unlicensed." Upon licensing, the insurer would have to legally change its

[ Page 2664 ]

name to delete the term "unlicensed." After introduction of the bill, public comment was received, and it was determined that such a procedure was cumbersome. So here again is another illustration of response by this open government to suggestions made by the trade.

MR. CLARK: Okay, we realize that it was cumbersome. What does the amendment do, then? I'm sorry, I haven't got it before me, so I am partly guilty. The words "unlicensed insurer": does that no longer become public knowledge, then? It seems to me that the original wording of the section had some merit in ensuring that "unlicensed insurer" was incorporated in the act. It made it somewhat more difficult to remove, I agree, but it seemed to me that there was some validity in having "unlicensed insurer" incorporated.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The printed material and any material used by.... The firm so affected will have that qualification put in its publications. So in terms of consumer knowledge and protection it will remain in place. This merely deals with the question of the term in the act.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 (28.8) as amended approved.

On section 3 (28.81).

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move an amendment to this section standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 (28.81) as amended approved.

Sections 3 (28.9) and 3 (28.91) approved.

On section 4.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.],

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the areas in which the people who met with the minister, and the people who wanted to meet with the minister and are still waiting, were quite concerned, I think. It deals with the question of a capital base.

The section before us leaves it up to the superintendent to determine whether or not a prospective insurer has an adequate capital base. It is left solely up to the superintendent. I almost said "him." That might be a sexist remark; it need not be a "him." In any case, it leaves it solely up to the superintendent.

The industry wanted there to be a minimum of $5 million. I'm wondering why the minister chose not to have some minimum figure there at least. I can appreciate that different insurance companies should have different minimums, but I also wonder why the minister didn't buy the argument that there should be some basic minimum written into the legislation to give some guidance to the superintendent.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The approach we are taking here is, once again, related to my earlier comment that we believe there are a number of smaller market niches that can be filled if we have the wit to seize the opportunity. We think that it's important that there be the flexibility in the act to allow discretion about what kind of a capital base may be required. As the questioner pointed out, even in those jurisdictions which state the sums needed, there is some difference between the various types of insurance companies. That merely proves my point that when you're trying to provide flexibility to engender more activity in the financial community, it's very important that there be the opportunity for the regulators to judge the merits of each individual case as it might come forward.

MR. STUPICH: I have no quarrel with anything that the minister has said. I agree that there could well be different requirements for different companies. He's talking about niche situations. I think that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), speaking yesterday, said that such situations are where the higher risks could be.

It would seem to me that we also have to have some concern for the consumers. We want the consumers to be relatively confident that the insurer is stable and solid and is going to be able to stand behind the policies. Sure, it's up to the marketplace, and they can pick people in whom they have confidence. But if the superintendent of insurance is saying that this organization is qualified — "I'm going to approve a licence for them" — then I think the superintendent has some responsibility to satisfy the prospective consumer that it is a sound organization.

If an insurer is unable or unwilling to put up a minimum capital based on $5 million — or whatever, but some minimum figure — then I would think that that organization should not be licensed to do insurance business in British Columbia. We're not talking about large amounts when it comes to insurance. We've all heard of single claims that are much higher than $5 million, so we're not talking about a large figure. It would seem to me that even for such specialty situations as the minister is talking about, having a $5 million base is a reasonable request coming from people who have been in the business as long as the members of the council and the Insurance Agents' Association. Those people are in the business. They've been working at it, as far as their organization is concerned, for years. They've argued with the minister, with his staff or with whoever would listen to them that there should be a minimum figure. I agree, and I think the minister's answer doesn't really deal with the question as to why he was not willing to at least include a minimum figure. Flexibility, yes. But a bottom, yes.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Obviously the regulators would not approve any proposal that exceeded the financial ability of the company making application.

To illustrate the point here, the hon. member suggests a $5 million figure, if I understand him properly. The figure of $3 million is used by the federal government for general insurers. So even the hon. member is indicating the problem. Which figure is right? Furthermore, the captive insurance

[ Page 2665 ]

legislation this government introduced and enacted, and which has as a consequence recruited some firms for entering the private insurance field, only had a $200,000 figure attached to it. So you really have to be flexible if you're going to be able to meet the varied requests that come forward. We would anticipate that the average capital required by firms applying for this licensing would likely exceed $5 million on average. But that doesn't mean to say that every one will, and we want to make very sure that those that have a good business plan and can protect the interests of the consumers are not denied the right to offer a service.

MR. STUPICH: The captive insurance companies are dealing in a private business: they're not dealing with the public at all. We're talking here about insurance companies that are going to be dealing with the public. I have no idea when the federal base of $3 million was established, but I would suspect it was many, many years ago. Or else, why put it in if it's only $3 million? How did I arrive at $5 million? That's the experience from the industry. That's the figure they suggested. The minister, instead of saying,"You asked for 5, I'll give you 4 or 10," has said: "I don't think there should be any minimum at all."

[4:00]

I have heard nothing from the minister to convince me that there shouldn't be a minimum of some base figure that would inspire some confidence in the minds of the general public with whom these companies will be dealing. I don't think the minister has made a good case for turning down the request of the people in the business, the people who have had the experience and have been working at it. They made the request, and I think the minister should have responded in some way other than to simply ignore it.

Section 7 approved on division.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. CLARK: I have a question for the minister. There's a disturbing trend, it seems to me, in this government to replace the legislative requirement for Lieutenant-Governor in-Council approval with ministerial approval. One may argue that it's a small matter, but I think it can be quite significant. Once again we have a situation where the intent of this, according to the explanatory notes, is to replace the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the minister after receiving a report from the superintendent.

It seems to me that Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is a modest safeguard at best. Of course, it's not really at all, but it seems to me appropriate that there be Lieutenant-Governor approval, and that we all — this side of the House as well — are informed of suspensions or revocations of licences with respect to what is going on in the insurance field. It ought not to be simply transferred, to the superintendent essentially, which this legislation does. Maybe the minister could explain for us why it is necessary to change the provision which allows the Lieutenant-Governor for one which allows the minister.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: There is no better illustration of the need for regulatory authorities to act quickly and expeditiously than merely to read the history over the last three years of financial institutions in Canada, and indeed in the whole world. It is imperative that those individuals charged with ensuring that the laws are followed have the ability to act quickly when they see the need. Therefore, in the interests of the consumers of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, it's very important in our view that this change be made.

Section 10 approved.

Sections 11 to 29 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Section 29.1 approved.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

MR. STUPICH: I'm concerned about this one, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps the minister can relieve my concern. "No action for damages lies or shall be instituted against (a) the minister...." As I recall, reading through the bill, this is the first time there is any possibility of the minister being involved in anything that has come into this, other than that he introduced the bill. "No action for damages lies or shall be instituted against (a) the minister, the superintendent or a person acting under the authority of either of them, (b) a member. servant or agent of the council, or (c) a member of a committee of the council.... " It would seem, from reading that, that you can't have any action against anyone who has had anything at all to do with licensing or supervising one of these insurance companies.

It goes on to say: "...for anything done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of a duty or in the exercise or intended exercise of a power under this Act or the regulations, or for any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of that duty or power." Any neglect or default. It doesn't seem to matter how wrong a servant of the Crown or a servant of the office...how badly they have handled a situation; there is no opportunity for anyone hurt by this to sue anyone. Is that really what we're saying here? That there's no possibility of any action against any person working for the Crown or for the office of the superintendent, regardless of what they've done?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the key phrase there is good faith. In other words, what we're saying is that if these individuals charged with a specific public responsibility act in good faith, they would have this protection. This is not unusual or different. It is, I understand, not uniformly applied in our various pieces of legislation and that's something we will be working on as the opportunities present themselves. Nevertheless, the key phrase is "good faith." In the absence of such good faith, they are not given this protection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, at a time like this I would like to have the member from Esquimalt, or whatever it's called now — Port Renfrew — in the House. The minister says that the key phrase is "good faith," but I read also

[ Page 2666 ]

"neglect." How can you be neglectful in good faith? I suppose it's possible, but it seems to me that neglect is going a bit beyond the kind of .... What protection is there for anyone who has been hurt by what's gone on if the Crown can simply say: "Well, this person acted in good faith; they weren't trying to cheat you"? The fact that they didn't supervise what was going on was done in good faith. The fact that maybe they were short-handed, and the minister is responsible for that: well, they did it in good faith. So it doesn't matter how much a consumer has been hurt and how much the government is to blame for whatever reason. Because the person who was doing the work did it without any intention of hurting anybody, then everybody's off the hook. How could anyone ever go after anybody, unless they proved that that person was stealing from them or deliberately out to go after them?

It seems to me it's not just good faith; it's that the absence of bad faith is interpreted as good faith, the way this reads. If a person hadn't gone out deliberately to do something wrong, then it would be interpreted that that person acted in good faith. What you are doing is denying any access, it would seem to me. I'm not a lawyer; I would suggest maybe the minister isn't, but he has one handy. I don't have one right now. I wish I had. But it seems to me that this can be used to stop any action at all against anyone.

I can see why it should be, maybe, when we're talking about credit unions, trust companies and all those people where there has been so much go wrong because of the inadequacy, I believe, of the staff — I don't mean the quality; I mean the quantity. There haven't been the policemen there to do the job. It's the government's fault that they haven't been able to do the job. We're going to load more work on them, and the minister has not said that he's going to increase the staff by one person. He hasn't said he wouldn't, but neither has he given us any assurance that he's going to beef up that office. With all this throwing a lot more work on to them, to then say: "We can't be wrong because we operated in good faith whatever we did...." There's precious little protection there, Mr. Chairman, for the consumers in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I mentioned earlier, this section follows the example that I understand is in other pieces of legislation, although not uniformly across all pieces of legislation. There's nothing new or different here. But even to that section dealing with neglect or default, I must point out to the hon. member that the phrase following that is: "in the performance or exercise in good faith of that duty or power."

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister falls back on "in good faith," and all that means is the absence of bad faith; it doesn't mean good faith, as I read this. There just isn't any protection there for anyone. What it's doing is deliberately denying. The minister has said that this is used not in all other legislation, but in some. I could be nasty and challenge the minister to produce one other piece of legislation and show me that wording. I'm sure with time he'd be able to do it. I'm not going to ask him to do that; there's no point. I'm sure it could be found somewhere; I accept that. There may be some cases where it's justified. Here it isn't. I'm sorry to see it in here, and I'm going to vote against this section on that basis. I think there's no protection.

MR. CLARK: Well, I think the first member for Nanaimo made some very good points, and maybe the minister could clarify. If I had an allegation that they were acting in bad faith, I would presumably still be allowed to sue, but in my case I would have to make the argument that it wasn't negligence or incompetence but that in fact they were deliberately attempting to do something.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the act is written in a way that in the absence of good faith, then anyone can lodge a suit.

MR. CLARK: I know that if the minister continues to repeat the same answer, we may go away. Sometimes that works in this House. But I continue to be perplexed — as I think the first member for Nanaimo is — by the last little section after the comma, that says: "whether or not negligence is alleged." It seems to me that I can understand the arguments that the minister makes about good faith. But if the superintendent makes a gross error, a simply incompetent error, why would the minister object to a lawsuit that proves that there is incompetence or that negligence has taken place? Why would an individual who can prove that through an act of incompetence or negligence he has been damaged not be allowed a remedy in the courts?

I can understand the arguments that the minister has with respect to good faith, because they don't want frivolous actions, but where there is negligence or incompetence, I don't understand the hesitation on the part of the government to allow a suit to proceed. If it's proven to be a simple act or something that couldn't be avoided, then nothing would happen. Why does there need to be legislative prohibition against lawsuits where negligence is involved? We simply have not got any explanation from the minister in that matter.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I always am surprised — and I will continue to learn, I suppose, Mr. Speaker — at the issues around which the hon. members of the opposition get excited.

This is merely a rewrite of an existing section in the Insurance Act — nothing new or different. There's only one word that has been changed, and the principle that you have been discussing here with great vigour and social morality and conscience is one that is already ingrained in provincial legislation — with the exception of one word. So the issue you speak to has already been settled, and evidently worked successfully, historically. There has been no great public outrage about how this has been acted and administered.

For the red herring that you're dragging across, trying to make much of this.... I am continually surprised. But it is a learning process, Mr. Chairman, and I'm grateful to the opposition for the opportunity they give me daily and hourly to expand my level of knowledge.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this time I will ask the minister to give me specifics — if he would tell me of anyone involved with the Principal Group companies who has been totally satisfied with the operations in his office, or anyone involved with the teachers' co-op who has been totally satisfied. Those two in particular. I haven't heard of any of them saying they've been satisfied.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The subject at hand, Mr. Speaker, is insurance companies and not investment contract

[ Page 2667 ]

companies. But I just have to tell the hon. member that we are receiving and have received editorial comments and news comments across the nation about the way this government has dealt with the very challenging and difficult question of how best to protect the interests of the Principal Group investors. If the hon. member would like me to bring that documentation to him, I am happy to do so, although I suspect he's read it with some chagrin, as it's been printed across the nation.

[4:15]

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

On section 33.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment to this section standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

On section 37.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix]

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

On section 38.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [see appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 38 as amended approved.

Sections 39 to 41 inclusive approved.

On section 42.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [see appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 42 as amended approved.

Sections 43 and 44 negatived.

Sections 45 to 50 inclusive approved.

On section 51.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 51 as amended approved.

Sections 52 to 71 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 48, Insurance Amendment Act, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 34.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall sections 2 through 5 pass? On section 2.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, you have encompassed sections 2 through 5. If it has the agreement of the House, sections 2 through 4 have to do with the Community Care Facility Act. Some of my remarks might move between specifically section 2 and section 4. If I have some latitude in that regard....

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no problem there, hon. member.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like then to make some comments. I'd like to go back to the minister's comments in second reading yesterday, when he was giving us some explanation of the meanings of sections 2 and 4 particularly. He noted in his remarks that by adding "or a particular class of preschool supervisor," this was intended to cover such facilities as babysitting services in shopping malls and ski resorts, and then he noted in section 4 that the licensing board, in accordance with regulations, would be able to issue a letter of permission to a person to act as a preschool supervisor, without full qualifications.

The issue of child care is particularly important right now. I have some concerns about changes in the Community Care Facility Act that could have the effect of diminishing the qualifications and the supervision of those facilities. I note that the minister has taken two examples: one, the kinds of facilities set up in commercial enterprises for short-term stays with students or with young people with little children. He also has noted what I presume to be a situation that has developed,"a lack of fully qualified persons," to quote his words from yesterday's Hansard, in northern and remote areas to act as preschool or child care supervisors.

We're coming into a massive privatization of facilities, and at this time we are awaiting the direction from the federal

[ Page 2668 ]

government on its child care program, the national objectives that will be encompassed in those programs and the kinds of funding that will accrue to the province. At this particular time I feel concern about any suggestion that standards in terms of facilities would be by class rather than by individual facility, and that qualifications of people working in the field would in any way be diminished. It seems to me that no matter where we have child care facilities, we need to be looking to those standards being at the highest level, under the Community Care Facility Act. And we need to be looking not at ways of licensing people who have less than the qualifications that are now required under the act. but rather at providing the opportunities wherever they need to be available in the province for people to become fully qualified and trained to provide the supervision and staffing of such facilities.

Therefore I find myself disappointed in these amendments to the Community Care Facility Act. They seem to be consistent with a pattern that I'm seeing in government of deprofessionalizing and lowering standards that exist for essential social programs. Nowhere is this more significant than in the care of young children. I know we might say that for the short period of time children are in care in some classes of facilities, we really don't need to worry as much about standards. I think we make a statement to commercial enterprises or for-profit care facilities when we look to those standards being at the highest level. We make a statement too when we say we will not compromise the standards of training, experience and skills that will be required for people working with children.

If there are deficiencies in this regard, then I think we should be addressing those deficiencies, rather than diluting what I think are fairly good standards in licensing facilities and in authorizing staff people in those facilities. My concern is that this is a dilution and an undermining of some of those standards, even though the intent is, I think, to provide service where it's not available and to make it easier for commercial enterprises to have some lesser standards than we might anticipate in a full-fledged child care or day care centre which children are attending on a regular basis several times a week or on a full-time basis as their parents are working. I'd appreciate the minister's comments on this, and perhaps we can have a little dialogue in our debate across the floor of the House.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, if we're speaking of the short term, such as babysitting services in shopping malls and ski resorts, that was never controlled or licensed by us. We're just clarifying that we're continuing not to. We're putting in legislation because it would be absolutely impossible in all these areas that have little functions of looking after children on a short-term basis. I think the ministry just doesn't want to get involved in that, has not in the past and continues not to do so by making that very clear in legislation.

As far as the other one is concerned, where they may have a letter of permission, there has been a need for services of this kind especially in some areas as the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) would perhaps speak to. We're saying that it still must be approved by the board — in other words, a child care facilities licensing board. They would check the qualifications and make sure that someone from the street could not come in and say,"I want to start a facility," and that would be it. They're completely under control of that licensing board, as in the past.

What we're saying is that it may relieve some pressure from these areas that have a very difficult time providing the services for children that is not available at all. I suppose the question is: would we rather have no facility or a facility that perhaps in qualifications — when you talk about theory and other qualifications — may not be completely up to par. But the Child Care Facilities Licensing Board, after checking this out, say: "Yes, these people are qualified in this way; they may not have that standard, but we will license them." I think that's a step in the right direction. I don't think we're considering less quality of care, but we haven't got quite the qualifications as they require under the act.

I think when we talk about not looking after children, you'll find that all the news media.... And I agree with you, I certainly don't think we should put children at risk at any time. I don't think that's what we're doing here. When you listen to the news items about people who got into trouble and perhaps abused kids, they were fully qualified and licensed and had been for a long time. That's no protection when you consider looking after kids. What we're saying here is that the board would still look into every individual case, and this is the Child Care Facilities Licensing Board. They're doing that now. We're just saying that they may want to let someone open a child care centre that hasn't got the same qualifications.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your explanation regarding the section 5 amendment in clause 2 of this statute.

In respect to the letters of permission, I will simply maintain my position of disagreement with the minister in that regard, and say that I think this is the wrong way to go at the problem. The way to go at the problem, in my view, is very clearly to ensure that that training is provided. We have all kinds of means through the Open Learning Institute and the Knowledge Network and college facilities to provide that training. As the critic in the job training area, it upsets me when we look at diluting the standards rather than providing the necessary training to workers for essential aspects of social programs that we need to have right across the province.

[4:30]

I note that the letter of permission can be withdrawn, but in clause (n)(i) there's no suggestion that there will be any term on this letter of permission. Has the minister given any consideration to this being an interim kind of licence with some expectations and some requirements of a person who is so licensed to provide care to continue with his upgrading? I must state that I don't know in detail the kind of upgrading programs that child care workers in day centres must undertake, but I do know from practice that a number of people are often in the process of enhancing their standards and that these are to conform to the Community Care Facility Act. Has the minister given any consideration to putting a term on the letter of permission, and would such consideration be given by the minister so that it's not a licence that continues to be available in perpetuity?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. DUECK: It is under the discretion of the licensing board at the present time if this is approved.

[ Page 2669 ]

However, I should also point out that the facility is not what we're speaking of. We're speaking about the individual that will be the one looking after the children. Also, although this comes under my ministry as far as licensing is concerned, Human Resources are the people that it comes under as to funding.

MS. A. HAGEN: I gather by the minister's comment that it's not his intent to consider any term to this in legislation. I come back to my original concern that this is a dilution of the standards of the qualifications of people who are providing care, and there is a message in allowing a letter of permission without there also being some term placed on it that would require the individual to upgrade his or her standards to, if you like, the industry standard or to the Community Care Facility Act standard. I can acknowledge and recognize in distant areas the difficulty of having qualified people, but I do truly believe that anything in the act that allows for a lesser standard to stand without it having a term is a retrogressive step. I would hope that the minister might at some future time, if it's not available at this time, give some consideration to grandfathering or putting some term on those interim or letter-of-permission licences.

HON. MR. DUECK: Actually, it's not a bad idea. I think it should be considered. It's something I hadn't thought of.

MR. CASHORE: I think I heard the minister say a few moments ago in response to a question from the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) that the standards that we have haven't really been any protection because there have been problems where that has been the case. Is that correct? Am I interpreting what the minister said correctly?

HON. MR. DUECK: What I said is that in the past we did not have any provision for people who were not qualified to a certain standard, and that did not protect us against abuse, which is a fact.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask the minister what he feels the purpose of having standards and qualifications is. Why would we have that in legislation in the first place?

HON. MR. DUECK: I think now we're getting into an area of trying to be using words. Of course we have legislation and standards to go by. What I'm saying is that just because we're taking someone with less qualifications in areas where we have no facility or no licensed people, it is better than having none. That's the point I was trying to make. You have to agree. Should we have none or should we have some that haven't got quite that standard? I think the remark made here just earlier about perhaps a term — when we're talking about less qualifications, so they can come up to par — is a darned good idea.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to submit to the minister that if the minister can cite cases where there have been severe problems and where, in fact, standards in qualifications have applied, then that indicates a need for some careful attention to the way in which those situations are monitored, the way in which workers in those facilities are supported and their training upgraded, and the ways in which that whole part of the system is nurtured.

I would like to suggest to the minister that perhaps this begs the question, and that that is where the effort should be going, rather than into a process that's actually going to dilute the present services that are available. I can't imagine that what is being proposed here is a step toward improving the situation. It seems to me it is a step that is being brought about by a number of factors that probably we need to be addressing in order to change a situation that would have a government diluting its standards in order to find the personnel needed to fill those positions.

HON. MR. DUECK: No, I think we're going in the wrong direction, because, you know, standards assist in determining qualifications, but qualifications in themselves do not determine conduct. We're talking about conduct now; at least, you are talking about conduct. We are saying that we want to provide a service in areas where it is not available today, and therefore we or the board may accept a lesser standard in qualifications. What I am trying to say is that you can have all the qualifications in the world; that's not going to determine conduct. Some of these day care centres have had all the qualifications, but the conduct has not necessarily followed. That's the point I was trying to make.

We're going in circles. We know darned well what you mean; I know what you mean. And exactly what I mean I think I have made clear. We're only providing day care facilities in an area where they are not available today, and this may assist that particular need.

MR. CASHORE: Who knows, with this government, but I don't think we're about to see letters of permission allowing, for instance, the member for Vancouver South to advise the minister on engineers because there may be a shortage of engineers, or letters of permission with regard to medical work and standards and conduct because there might be a shortage of people in that field.

I would like to submit to the minister that our children are the most important people, deserving of the highest qualifications, the highest standards, the best conduct and the best training. It's high time that we recognized that that's every bit as important, if not more important, than the kinds of expectations we would have with regard to the standards for medical doctors or engineers or any other professionals in our society.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. CASHORE: We have here, Madam Chair, the issue of a number of definitions that will now become the responsibility of the cabinet to define. I think we're into a difficult time when, at the start of deciding legislation, the definitions of terms can change that quickly.

This is one of the reasons I was making a point yesterday. It's a point that needs to be made now. and we need to ask the minister to respond to it. In particular, with regard to victims of AIDS and people working closely in the field with AIDS people, how does the minister respond to their concern that this type of power instills a great deal of fear and will in fact contribute to driving them underground and will limit the likelihood of people willingly coming forward and participating in programs? How would the minister respond to that fear that we hear being expressed?

[ Page 2670 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: The regulations actually are all in legislation now — the definitions....

MR. CASHORE: My understanding, Madam Chairman, is that section 5 gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to define the meanings of these terms: communicable disease, health hazard, isolation, modified isolation, quarantine — which I would underline as driving deep fear into the hearts of many people — and reportable communicable disease. All of these, by this act, will have the meaning prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So I'm not sure I understand the answer that was given to my question.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the regulations before,"isolation," for example, was there, and we're just putting it back in — modified isolation. We're not changing anything in that at all; it's there in the old regulations. I don't know what you're driving at.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chair, I don't have the old regulations in front of me, but I do understand that I have in front of me an amendment act. There must be some reason for making this amendment, so perhaps the minister would explain to me why this section of the act exists.

HON. MR. DUECK: This is to make it clear that we have the authority. It was legislative counsel which asked to bring that into the amendment so that we had the authority to do so.

[4:45]

MR. CASHORE: Let me see if I can feed back and understand what you're saying. It sounds like what is being explained here is that this power to make definitions on the run already existed in the regulations governing the Health Act, and that it was felt necessary to move it from the regulations into the act itself. Is that correct?

HON. MR. DUECK: The way I understand it, it was to provide the certainty in the authority.

MR. CASHORE: I think that my point is still valid. There seems to be a need here to enact a power that enables the cabinet — I would say it's entrenched in this legislation — to change definitions according to emerging circumstances. I admit circumstances are emerging and changing rapidly; nobody argues with that. But I submit that there have been times in world history when health legislation has been used inappropriately. I would like the minister to comment on this. I'm not suggesting that there was any intent to do this in the legislation, but I would like to suggest to the minister that, in view of the point I made yesterday that there are some people in our community that we do not want to see go underground with regard to coming forward in terms of their illness, and in view of the fact that there are better ways of going about this, he consider a different approach.

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, the way I understand it, all the terms referred to in section 5, except for "health hazard," which was changed, are presently defined in regulations.

MR. ROSE: Madam Chairman, I think what is causing the problem here is the apparent openness of the lack of definition. We've had a chance here, a moment or two, to compare the original act with the amending section. On the bottom of the first page it appears that you're going to strike out the definition of "communicable disease." It's gone from the act. Right? It's fairly well-defined. It names a lot of diseases. But it also gives the ministry or the government, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the power to add. But it does far more than that. The whole section then goes on to list a number of other things — definitions of "health hazard," this, that and the other thing, and all down the line. That's pretty explicit in terms of definition. But "communicable disease," which was once explicit, becomes implicit — in other words, anything the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council decides is communicable. They already had the power to add, but they had a fairly tight definition with a power to add. Now it's wide open, and that's what is concerning my colleague, in my opinion. That is what is concerning a lot of other people who perhaps are sufferers from some communicable disease. They're concerned about the fact that the definition is not explicit. We don't know where it is. It hasn't been defined. The definition that existed is now gone. If it's going to be published in the regulations, if somehow we're going to have this definition before us at some particular time, I think it will relieve a great number of fears.

Our main fear, and I think other people have said this, is that the AIDS disease especially — the AIDS plague, if you want to call it; I don't want to be unduly alarmist, but it has been called that by others — could be driven underground by the fear created by such things as quarantine, hazards and the lack of definition in this act. We've taken a definition that we had, thrown it out, and said, in effect, that a communicable disease could be bad breath. It could be anything the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council says it is. When are we going to know what it is?

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, in the regulations it states that "' communicable disease' means an illness due to a specific infectious agent or its toxic products which arises through the transmission of that agent or its products." Communicable disease is defined in the regulations. So really it has gone into regulations, I suppose, rather than into the act itself.

MR. CASHORE: Now I'm getting even more confused than I was before. I have a copy of the regulations now. I thought the minister said a few moments ago that the cabinet, through order-in-council and through the regulations, had the power to change the definitions. But in looking at the regulations governing this section of the act, we find, as the minister has already given witness to, that there are hard and fast definitions of, for instance, communicable disease or quarantine. As my colleague the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) has pointed out, there is real concern about the cabinet having the power to make definitions on the go. I don't know if the English language is ready for that yet. I don't think it's appropriate, and I don't think the answer that I heard earlier about the regulations governing the act is really appropriate.

I think what we've got here is an agreement to disagree. I'm saying that it's a highly inappropriate process that's causing a lot of people uncertainty and fear. I would say that there's evidence of uncertainty right here in this House about this issue at this time.

[ Page 2671 ]

MR. ROSE: Would it be fair to ask the minister if our interpretation is accurate? The minister has taken the definition out of the act and put it in the regulations. Is that what has happened?

HON. MR. DUECK: The term "communicable disease" was always in the regulations, but it was also in the act, and we are taking it out of the act.

MR. ROSE: That is precisely the concern, because where it is explicit, open and available under legislation, regulations are not nearly as well publicized. I think that before we're through this stage the minister might consider whether the definitions that.... We agree that the power to add communicable diseases was in the former act, but I think it was reassuring that it seemed to have some boundaries, and now it doesn't. The only boundaries exist in the regulations.

Maybe we're quibbling, but if I were likely to be put away in some colony or quarantined in some way, I wouldn't call it quibbling. I would treat it more seriously than that. What may appear to be a quibble really isn't; it's really a basic concern.

MR. CASHORE: It seems to me in this section that the government is planning to make a gigantic change in our way of understanding an important process with regard to medical treatment and health care. This is not an insignificant piece of legislation. I think we understand the dilemma the government finds itself in. It's a dilemma that all of us in this House share. We would like to help you with it, but we would like to help you with it in a select standing committee so that we can do the job properly.

What we have happening here is frightening. Think of the term "quarantine," for instance.

MR. R. FRASER: What's so bad about that?

MR. CASHORE: The member for Vancouver South has his definition of quarantine, and I think that if all of us were to write down on a piece of paper right now our definition of quarantine....

MR. BLENCOE: Do you think it should apply to him?

MR. CASHORE: Well, I'm not going to go that far at this point. I had breakfast with him on the ferry the other day, and we got along quite well. I don't think that's necessary at this point.

Through you, Madam Chairman, to the Minister of Health: do you really want to do this? Do you really want to allow the kind of concern to take effect that will result from the non-definition in this act of these most important terms? If you do, I submit that it is going to cause a great deal of fear among the members of a community that we desperately want to come forward and participate in testing through trust.

HON. MR. DUECK: The last part about testing.... This really has nothing to do with testing, and we can get to that a little later.

This is not a significant change at all, since the definition is removed from the act to lend consistency to the operation of this act and the communicable disease regulations which have been in place for a long, long time — for years.

MS. CAMPBELL: I would just add with respect to the comments of the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) that the question is whether it is required to have any definition in the statute at all, given the fact that clearly the power of cabinet as it exists now in the act can override and create new definitions. What is being done now is making the act more consistent. I would point out that the problem with having the definition as set out in the act and not having that power available to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is that there would be a delay in adding new definitions or responding to new medical conditions.

So clearly the situation is now that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the power to define what is a communicable disease, and that is where the power ought rightly to lie, in my view, by virtue of the power of regulation. It's still an accountable power. But it seems that this amendment is simply removing the redundancy of having some definitions set out in the act but still having an open-ended power in cabinet to define what a communicable disease is.

It may give the hon. member some comfort to be able to look into the act and see words that he understands — like leprosy and smallpox, tuberculosis and typhoid fever — but that is not of much assistance to the Ministry of Health in responding to communicable diseases. So I am inclined to accept the hon. opposition House Leader's self-definition that he is, in fact, quibbling in that particular criticism.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think the minister noted earlier that all of the terms in this amendment, including "isolation,", "modified isolation," "quarantine" and "reportable communicable disease," are now in the regulations, and that they are defined and available. They have been in the regulations all the time, and those definitions, then, are available for us to see. I am seeing a nod from the assistant to the minister, so all of those terms, then, presently have definitions as they are interpreted by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Section 5 approved on division.

[5:00]

On Section 6.

MS. A. HAGEN: In section (c) of this clause, there is a substitution of an existing paragraph that deals with isolation and modified isolation, and I would like to read it into the record so my comments can perhaps be in the context of the actual words of the amendment: "...the isolation or modified isolation or placing in any hospital or building provided for quarantine or isolation of a person having a reportable communicable disease...." In my looking at the act, that language already exists, and this is what is being added: "...or the quarantine of a person who, while susceptible to a reportable communicable disease, has been exposed to it."

There are a couple of points I want to make about this addition, and I want to make them in the context of the fear and uncertainty that has been generated among a vulnerable community that has a potential for illness over a time-frame that is still not known.

I note that this person who, while susceptible to a reportable communicable disease — and let's suppose that disease is AIDS — has been exposed to it.... We're now talking not about isolation or modified isolation but actual quarantine of that person. It seems to me that the additional power here is draconian and would significantly inflame the fears that we

[ Page 2672 ]

have spoken about. It could significantly deter from reporting it persons who might suspect or be concerned that they might have the AIDS virus. I know that there are stipulations about when that particular power would be used, but there is a potential for a quarantine, which I would presume to be the most extreme of the measures that are available to govern the behaviour of an individual. It seems a very strong addition, and I can't for the life of me understand why we've moved from isolation or modified isolation to quarantine with a person who has been exposed to a disease when we want those people to come forward and get treatment, to be educated on how to live their lives with the threats that are associated with this disease. Perhaps the minister can give us some further understanding of the intent of this addition in the amendment.

HON. MR. DUECK: The old legislation, the way I understand it, says "communicable disease," and now we're talking about a "reportable communicable disease." I think that's probably the difference.

MR. ROSE: You're talking about exposure to it.

HON. MR. DUECK: The old legislation said "dangerous to public health," and now we're saying "reportable communicable disease." So it is more restrictive.

MS. A. HAGEN: The issue here is much more than the fact that it is a reportable communicable disease; it is the remedy that is being proposed. And the remedy being proposed is that such a person would be quarantined.

I have gone back to section 5(k) of the act, which is what is being amended, and the first words I read are the words that existed in that act, more or less. "The isolation or placing in any hospital or building provided for quarantine...of any person having any infectious or contagious disease...." But we're now adding: "or the quarantine of a person who, while susceptible...has been exposed to...."

I'm asking the minister why this amendment proposes what I consider to be the most extreme of the isolation kinds of approaches for a person who has been exposed to a disease, and I ask it in the context that we have been discussing this whole issue: that AIDS is a disease which is contagious in a way that no other disease we normally have thought about is contagious. It's not something you pick up by association; it's something that comes with particular behaviours, and it is totally controllable if those behaviours are controlled. Why would we be quarantining a person who is simply exposed to the disease? That language would be enough to strike fear into the heart of any person who is dealing with the fact that he or she may have the AIDS virus. It makes no sense in the context of the original clause, where no reference is made.... Sorry, there is a reference to quarantine, but it does use the word "isolation." It suggests that there is a possibility of our literally putting in quarantine people who have the potential to infect. That's a dangerous and frightening kind of power to give in this particular act. I've used the word "draconian," and it is in fact the most severe term. In the jurisdictions where they have looked at a policy to govern the behaviour of people in workplaces, we have looked to education, we have looked to people understanding the significance of their behaviour.

We have all kinds of people right across the spectrum who may be AIDS carriers. Surely to heaven we're not going to be quarantining those people as our method. We're not going to send out the message that that is the way in which we are going to be dealing with people who are exposed to the disease. Again it suggests a heavy hand, it suggests a message and a remedy that people continue to fear. I think the minister is not acknowledging, even with the amendments that are there, that that message is still in the statutes that we are looking at today.

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, this section here, of course, gives us the authority to make that type of regulation. However, if you want to go to quarantine, then it is spelled out very clearly in section 7. So that would probably clarify it a lot more than what we are talking about here, because we are talking about the regulations, and the quarantine section follows. We would like to get into that, if you want to go further on the quarantine part of it.

MR. GABELMANN: I confess, Madam Chair, that I didn't quite follow. If it is all dealt with, and if the issue is contained in section 7, then why bother with section 6? If section 6 is there for a purpose, the amendment to section 5(k) of the act is there for a purpose. What is the significant change?

Without reading the words in the amendment, the significant change, as I understand it, is to say that if you have been in contact with someone who has a reportable communicable disease, you are then in the same position, or you have the same status as someone who has a reportable communicable disease. The cabinet now will have the power to develop regulations regarding the isolation, or the modified isolation, or the placing in a hospital or building, of these people.

So what do we have here? We have every citizen in this country who has been exposed to a reportable communicable disease subject to isolation, subject to quarantine, subject to.... The minister shakes his head. If the minister can give us an explanation of why what we are saying is not correct, then we do not need to pursue it, but so far we haven't heard that explanation.

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, we are not changing the existing regulations at all. What we are doing is providing some limitations. The existing regulations remain, and there will be some limitations. The clarification of authority to the existing regulation.... This gives us the power to change regulations.

MR. GABELMANN: Let's just back up. Regulations can always be changed just by having a cabinet meeting — anytime, anyplace. So long as you have the statutory authority to pass a regulation in cabinet, you can pass a regulation. You have had the statutory authority to design and pass regulations relating to quarantine and this whole question of isolation as it is described in 5(k) of the Health Act.

So you have had the power: you could make and have made regulations. You could amend those regulations anytime without reference to this Legislature. Under the constraints of the act, the regulations are restrained by the language of the act. The language of the act is here being changed. And what is the significant change that we are being asked to vote on? The significant change here is that people

[ Page 2673 ]

who have come into contact with persons who have a reportable communicable disease are also now subject to quarantine, isolation, placement in a hospital or any of the other remedies.

So cabinet can now design regulations, or add provisions to the current regulations, by which people who have come into contact with someone who has a reportable communicable disease can now be isolated or quarantined, or placed in a building or a hospital or whatever. That is a significant change. The cabinet now has the authority to amend these regulations to include a class of persons who could not formerly have been covered by the regulation under this subsection. If before this amendment today you had the power to incarcerate people who were only in contact with persons who had a reportable communicable disease, why do you need the change? The change is for some purpose. If you didn't need the change because you had all the power before, then you wouldn't have brought the change in. The change has been brought in for a purpose.

On the face of it, reading the words, the only significant change is that there is a new class of persons who are now subject to isolation and quarantine, and it is those people who have been susceptible to the disease. Clearly, everybody is thinking about AIDS. But let's say that the common cold is a reportable communicable disease, and people are being quarantined for having a cold. If I don't have a cold, but I've been in the presence of someone with a cold, under this change, regulations can be written to quarantine me too, even though I haven't got a cold. So what's the purpose? Why are we doing it? What's it all about?

HON. MR. DUECK: I think you are correct that if someone has the virus, even if they haven't got the full-blown AIDS disease itself, they would also come under this category.

[5:15]

MR. GABELMANN: Let me go to the specific and leave the general for a moment. If someone has been exposed to the AIDS virus, the minister is suggesting that only if they actually have the virus would they be subject — if I heard what he was saying — to this particular provision. The only way you can determine whether you have the virus is by having an HIV test. The minister is saying — this is not what the words of the amendment say; I'm just going on what I think I heard the minister say — that if you actually have the virus, you are subject to the possibility of being quarantined or isolated. That's a mandatory HIV test for every person who might have been subject to the AIDS virus, is it not? How else do you know?

HON. MR. DUECK: We have no authority now to demand a test from anyone or for anyone. But the significant change in this is the reportable communicable disease; and, as you noted, the carriers of the disease are also those persons who may present a threat and would also be covered by the regulation. In other words, if they had a test and they tested positive, they would also be covered under this regulation.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister is saying that if they had a test and the test was positive, then they would be subject to the regulations. But the words of the act will say: "...while susceptible to a reportable communicable disease, has been exposed to it." No question there of a test. Is the minister saying that under the regulations, he will disregard the words in the act and make a narrower set of rules?

I think it's important to pursue this for a minute. I guess we're going to have to repeat ourselves here until we really clarify it. The minister is saying that of those people who are susceptible to a reportable communicable disease or who have been exposed to a reportable communicable disease.... You are either susceptible to it or you have been exposed to it; those are different and wide-ranging categories. Only if it's demonstrated medically that they actually have the virus or the disease or the reportable communicable disease are they covered by that section. If that's the case, why don't you say so in the amendment?

HON. MR. DUECK: We're not just talking about AIDS. This seems to be covering AIDS only, but we're talking about any communicable disease. A number are quite infectious. I would also like to point out that this has been thoroughly vetted by all of these groups — doctors, civil liberties — and they certainly are very happy with this regulation. They've gone over it many times for weeks and months now.

I would just like to read into the record a letter from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association; you probably have a copy. Just to show you some of the members that are in this association, for example, there's Dave Barrett, John Fraser, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, Darlene Marzari. It goes on and on.

They say:

"The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is completely satisfied with the language suggested by Mr. Lovelace concerning the scope of medical health of officers' powers as set out in section 7(l)(b) of the Health Act as: 'Where a medical health officer has reasonable grounds to believe that...the person is likely to wilfully or carelessly or by reason of mental incompetence expose others to the disease...."'

It goes on and on, and says: "We are completely satisfied with the bill in its entirety."

MR. GABELMANN: The minister read a letter from the Civil Liberties Association that referred to section 7 of the Health Act. We're debating section 5 of the Health Act. He added at the end, paraphrasing, I assume, the rest of the letter, that they're totally happy with everything in the bill. Well, Madam Chairman, it may come as some surprise to the minister, but I'm not ever totally happy with every position that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association takes; nor, I know, are members on that side of the House. Just because they happen to have a lawyer or two and maybe a small committee of their organization look at something doesn't mean that we should take it on blind faith that all the civil libertarian questions are resolved.

It's our job to analyze the wording in this legislation and make sure that it's suitable and appropriate and does what it is intended to do. We're suggesting that it may be intended that everybody who is exposed in some way or other to a reportable communicable disease should also be subject to quarantine and isolation. That's what it says. If that's what you mean, then say so and we'll vote on the issue.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are debating section 6 at this time.

[ Page 2674 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: I would just like to add one more thing. It wasn't just section 7. If you go on, it's supporting the total. Also, Dr. Blatherwick. You name any medical doctor. They're all agreeing that what we've done in changing the legislation is proper and correct, and that it's time we had this legislation in place.

I'm not a medical doctor, but when I check this with the people in my ministry and other than in my ministry they're satisfied that this is what they need to protect people on the outside who do not have this particular disease. I am convinced it is correct. I think we have an obligation not only to the people who have the disease — which it is true, we must certainly act properly with them so that they are protected with their civil rights and what have you — but also to protect the people who do not have the disease from those who do. You can't have it both ways. You cannot have the liberties of these people and then not protect the people who are in danger of contracting any of these communicable diseases.

It may not always be exactly what everybody wants, but at the same time I think we have a tremendous obligation to protect the people on the street, in homes or in public places, who could perhaps contract tuberculosis, typhoid or the other diseases so prevalent today. You cannot have it both ways. In other words, if you are going to protect the people who are not ill, you must do something with the people who are ill and are acting irresponsibly. That's what we are trying to do.

MS. CAMPBELL: I'd like to add to the comments the minister has made, because I think it's very easy to forget that the intent of this section of the act is simply to empower cabinet to make regulations. In fact, section 5(y) does give cabinet the power to make regulations for "the compulsory examination and treatment, by order of the health officer, of a person who the health officer believes on reasonable grounds is or may be infected by...." So you are quite mistaken. There is now the regulatory power for cabinet to require compulsory testing.

We are looking at a basic health statute for a regulating authority to try to deal with all contingencies. It is a great pity that there is an overfixation on AIDS, which is perhaps one of the least of the concerns in our society right now with respect to infectious or contagious diseases.

This amendment does two things. First of all — as has been made clear — it makes the wording of this section consistent with the new definitions being put forward in the act. But it also deals with a situation that hitherto has not been within the power of cabinet to regulate: that is, to regulate the isolation or quarantine of people who while susceptible to a contagious disease have been exposed to it.

The AIDS situation is the least applicable to discussion of this section. It's a great pity that the meaning of this has been distorted by a fixation on AIDS, because right now, unless this section is passed, the provincial government does not have the authority to isolate people who travel to an area of the world where there is typhoid or smallpox or polio and who are unvaccinated for those — I realize that smallpox is basically wiped out. They are not vaccinated or inoculated for those diseases, they have been exposed to them and they return to Canada. For many countries of the world we travel to we are advised to get certain kinds of inoculation before we go. There is not now within the purview of the provincial government the power to regulate the isolation or quarantine of people who enter British Columbia from areas where they have been exposed to those diseases. The World Health Organization issues a frequent advisory as to the prevalence of contagious diseases in various parts of the world. That is what this section empowers cabinet to do.

The authority given in this act — and it's an act that's been in existence, if you'll notice the initial dates.... I believe the hon. member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) has the other copy of the statutes in this chamber. The act goes back to 1960. It's been amended over the years. Every authority in Canada has broad powers to regulate for public health and contagious diseases.

It's a great pity that there is a paranoia about AIDS. I think the minister has made it very clear in his relations with those who responded to Bill 34 that he is willing to address those concerns. But a fixation on AIDS would lead this House to in fact deny cabinet the power to protect the people of British Columbia from truly contagious diseases. I don't think AIDS is a particularly contagious disease, certainly not in the context of other things to which people may be exposed. I made the point before, when this bill was tabled, that we had in Vancouver a known tuberculosis sufferer, who was known to be irresponsible with respect to exposing people to the disease. He had left a treatment facility, and there was no power to confine that person, who was a public health risk.

I think we are really getting quite off the point of what this is about. This gives the government a very important new regulatory power which does not now exist.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MRS. BOONE: This amendment is the section that has been added to make the Cancer Control Agency the agency that collects information. My question to the minister is: does the Cancer Control Agency collect only information on people with cancer, and will they collect only information on people with cancer?

HON. MR. DUECK: That was the earlier amendment that could have been for various diseases and various agencies. But it has been revised now, and it will be cancer only.

MRS. BOONE: Is it your view as the minister that you would have no authority to order the cancer agency to collect information from people with AIDS?

HON. MR. DUECK: Unless they have a cancer-related disease, I understand.

MRS. BOONE: If the Cancer Control Agency, then, is not collecting any information, who will be collecting information? Under what authority will that group be collecting information, and under what controls will that group be to collect information on AIDS?

HON. MR. DUECK: We're talking about section 7 now, not under this section. This is on cancer only.

[ Page 2675 ]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there are three more amendments to section 7. If it's agreeable, the minister could move all three of them at one time.

[5:30]

HON. MR. DUECK: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendments.

MR. CASHORE: I wish to ask the minister for clarification with regard to a statement he made yesterday. I've just been searching for it in the Blues and haven't found it yet. I thought the minister said that the amendments had been reviewed with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and had been approved by them. I wanted to ask the minister if that is the case: that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association have looked at the act and the amendments to the act and have stated that they are completely satisfied with this amendment in particular and with the package in general.

HON. MR. DUECK: That is correct. I am just trying to find the exact place in the letter. It says here further:

"Still, and to put it plainly, you ended up taking a lot of heat for misunderstandings that you were not to blame for. Your willingness to open the way for the correction of those misunderstandings by the amendment of Bill 34 is, in our view, a generous act of responsible governance that deserves special recognition and approbation.

"I learned yesterday in a telephone conversation...that the above-discussed amendments to Bill 34 have been approved by cabinet. I would like to take this private occasion to offer you the thanks of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and all of the many concerned persons and institutions that joined with us in seeking your attention to this matter. I very much look forward to an appropriate occasion, pursuant to your announcement of the changes to the bill and their significance, to make that appreciation of your work public."

And it goes on.

Amendments approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, we are happy to see the amendment which adds the "wilfully-carelessly" section. I have a question that I would like to ask the minister regarding this section. Could you please confirm that the government does not intend that persons with medical conditions suffer discrimination in public facilities, purchase of property, tenancy premises, employment advertisements, wages, employment, unions and associations? Can the minister assure this House that people with medical conditions will not suffer any discrimination in those areas?

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, I don't know how under the Health ministry I can ensure that. If someone wants to rent premises, and that individual does not allow the individual in the house, I don't think that I have the power to do that. I think that comes under the Attorney-General. However, I strongly believe that we all have equal rights in this country, and I would like to think that that includes people who are ill, people of different races, small people, and people who are tall or blonde or black. Certainly our Charter of Rights has addressed that, and I hope it covers all.

MRS. BOONE: These are the very things of which we are very fearful. We are very concerned that people who have AIDS, or any other medical condition, who have been identified, who are put in isolation, can be discriminated against — that they could find themselves unable to find housing or obtain employment, or they may lose their jobs. This is the type of draconian measure that we are very fearful of.

I was hoping that the minister would give us the assurance that there would be no discrimination, but it appears that there isn't any such move from the minister to ensure the rights of these people, and there is no legislation in this province to ensure the rights of people with medical conditions. That is the concern that we have. The changes that you have brought about have been asked for; they're good; they're welcomed. But you haven 't gone far enough. There is nothing in here that ensures that these people will have their rights protected.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chair, I would like to ask the minister, with respect to the portion of the amendment that inserts the words, "wilfully, carelessly or because of mental incompetence," if the concept of mental incompetence, in terms of the safety and well-being of themselves and others, is not already covered in the definitions under the Mental Health Act.

HON. MR. DUECK: I was looking at something else. What was the exact question?

MR. CASHORE: I would refer the minister to the definitions in the Mental Health Act, and ask him if this point is not already covered in that legislation.

HON. MR. DUECK: I understand now what you are saying, and it probably is, but apparently this was considered, and our legal advice was to include it in this particular way in this bill.

MR. CASHORE: For the record, I think it would be good if the minister would explain why this is included in this bill when it's already covered under the Mental Health Act.

HON. MR. DUECK: The legal advice was that we do this, and it was also the advice of the Civil Liberties Association. They asked for it, and we said we had no problem including it.

Amendment approved.

On section 8 as amended.

[ Page 2676 ]

MRS. BOONE: Madame Chairperson, I have some obvious concerns with the rights of people and with one of the sections that I don't believe has been addressed in this section here, although there are certain powers that have been given to medical health officers, and we by no means want to impede those powers. We believe that the people ought to be protected as well — that's the general public; the people of British Columbia have a right to be protected from people who are behaving in an irresponsible manner. However, we don't believe that this section gives due process to people, that they have the opportunity to take their concerns to a hearing, that they have the ability to have their say before a court of law or before a judge, to complain about an order given to them. We'd like to see a balanced area whereby those who have an order placed upon them have the ability to have due process, and also the medical health officer. A balanced act, I think, is in the best interests of all British Columbians and something that we would strive for.

To this end, I'd like to move an amendment to section 8 by inserting new sections after (1.2) and before (3). I have copies here, if you'd like to take copies to the minister.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you'd like to continue with your amendments while we consider them.... They're quite extensive.

MRS. BOONE: This is the only amendment I have, and I have explained that it gives what I believe to be a necessity...to allow for due process for the person with the order.

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, because time is of the essence, can we continue and then come back to this later? Would that be appropriate? Because it's quite lengthy, and it's difficult at this moment....

MR. ROSE: I believe that the minister has asked for time to consider this amendment because obviously he just got it. I don't know if our spokesperson has spoken to it or not. Has the speech been...?

HON. MR. DUECK: I just got the amendment.

MR. ROSE: But there's been no debate on the amendment. Is the request from the minister that we stand the clause until the amendment has an opportunity to be considered?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. ROSE: We would agree to that, and we could move on to another clause, if that's fine with the critic.

MRS. BOONE: Yes.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. hon. members.

Sections 9 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

MS. A. HAGEN: Madam Chair, section 19 removes from hospital regional districts any right to run a deficit in their operation. I think that that is the intent of that particular amendment. A fairly major section of the act is excluded, which, without going into detail, I think specified the terms under which a deficit might be recovered in a succeeding year.

Can the minister comment about what options hospitals will face — under their grant funding, and with insufficient funds to provide for services — if they are not able to run a deficit in the current year and recover that in the successive year? We're seeing this year that many hospitals are operating on a deficit basis. Is the minister projecting that by the end of the year we're going to see dozens and dozens of beds closed in this province because hospitals are not able to maintain the service that they need to for their communities and are not able to run a deficit or get any additional grant funding from the ministry?

[5:45]

HON. MR. DUECK: This is referring to capital projects only, not operations.

Sections 19 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

MRS. BOONE: This is a section that I have mixed feelings about, because on the one hand I know that it will help those of us in the northern half, but on the other hand it's giving some kind of approval to the system that exists which limits billing numbers. I have some real concerns about that limiting of billing numbers, as I've mentioned before in this House. I don't think the limitation on billing numbers has had the effect that it was supposed to have, which I believe was initially to encourage people to move to outlying areas. The fact that you have to put in this amendment here speaks for itself; doctors are not going to the outlying areas, even though they're having their billing numbers limited in the coastal areas. They aren't going there because they're fearful that they're going to be stuck there forever and a day because of the geographically located billing numbers.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: It's not my area; it's the area of the member for South Peace River (Mr. Weisgerber) that they don't want to go to.

I also have some real concerns about what is going to happen in the future and what is happening to the future of the many young doctors who are coming out of our universities. They are unable to get billing numbers; they are unable to obtain practices. They are working here in conditions.... Some of them are in areas where they can't earn livings. Many of them are in fact leaving. We've been doing things.... In ten years' time we're going to be passing a law to allow doctors to operate on letters of permission because we don't have any doctors here; they're all going to have retired and left B.C. We are really running a risk of losing some of our good young people when we do not allow them to obtain billing numbers.

So I'm really opposed to the restricting of billing numbers that they have. I think the ombudsman's report that has come out lately expressed some of the concerns that I have as to how billing numbers are being addressed. The ombudsman has concerns, as do I, as to how they're being obtained. It appears that in many cases the fairness of obtaining billing numbers has gone down the tube, and it depends on who you

[ Page 2677 ]

know and how much money you have as to whether or not you get a billing number.

So I have some real concerns. I won't be voting against this, though, because I think this section is making things a little bit better for those of us in the north, but it is still a poor means of doing this. You must be addressing the whole problem of billing numbers, and this government must address the section and deal with it properly. This is a make-do project, and it is not one I see as of any lasting benefit to anyone else. But you've got us stuck; we have no doctors, so we're going to have to vote in favour of this.

HON. MR. DUECK: Although the member said they wouldn't vote against it, I still have to speak to it because I think some statements were made that are not correct. It depends on how you read the ombudsman's report. As I read it, it is definitely vindicating our staff by telling us that we have in fact acted very responsibly in the area of granting billing numbers. I'm very pleased to see that. Although he's made some recommendations as to information on how to apply for billing numbers and perhaps some other areas where we certainly will comply, in general terms he has told us that there was no evidence whatsoever that we were having some doctors get ahead of the queue and also that we were offering billing numbers to someone who bought a practice. This is not so. We don't want to know whether someone's bought a practice; we don't want to know whether they have a practice.

We have a criterion, and there are certain things in that criterion, one of which is they must have hospital privileges. Some of the doctors didn't bother to get that. There's an appeal process if they cannot get hospital privileges, but they didn't take advantage of that. When you're speaking of a shortage of doctors in a few years, that would be quite a relief for me because right now I've got so many doctors in certain areas that I just don't know what to do with them, and so many more that would like to come on stream.

You are absolutely correct when you say that the young doctors who have just graduated cannot get into the business or have a hard time getting a billing number. This is correct, and I feel very badly about it, because they are the people that are gung ho to go, that have the latest theory and knowledge, and have just come out of school. Unfortunately, the real world is that for every billing number we issue, the cost to MSP goes up dramatically. This is a fact. So we're restricting billing numbers, and we will continue to do so until we have a better balance.

Talking about the north, we have a terrible time getting doctors in certain isolated areas. Just recently I met with five or six of these doctors who have a locum, practising in relief of other doctors when they are on holidays and so on. I asked them if they would in fact go to an area of our choosing and we would guarantee them X number of dollars. We would guarantee dollar for dollar, in other words, up to $42,000. That means they could earn $84,000 plus, and they said no, they did not wish to go.

When I consider people graduating in engineering and in all kinds of other professions.... Are they guaranteed to stay right at home where mommy and dad live? No, they must go to an area where there is work, even if it's out-of-province. My son graduated after five years of university. He spent three years in Fort McMurray, and that's not the best place to go when you've been brought up on the lower mainland. But those are the true facts of life; that is what happens.

We must continue to keep some balance in this whole issue. I know I was speaking away from the bill itself, but you started it, and I just wanted to respond to it.

Section 31 approved.

On section 32.

MRS. BOONE: My concern is with 8.22. I am going to read a letter I have which is a concern from the medical practitioners. Generally speaking, this bill has been vetted by the doctors, and they approve of it. But they say this is their gravest concern, and when I read this, I am very concerned as well.

"Section 32 causes us the greatest of concern of all the proposed changes and we have voiced our objections to the minister. The BCMA feels strongly that the inspector, under 8.22 (2a), should not only be a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., but should also be an individual who is acceptable to the profession at large and not just any medical practitioner chosen by the government. The proposal under 8.22 (3b) that an inspector, regardless of the fact that the inspector is a physician, would observe a physician rendering service to a patient, is a situation which is unacceptable to the BCMA. Such an intrusion into the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship, as well as the potential interference into the effectiveness of the consultation, is of considerable concern. For example, many female patients would object strenuously to undergoing an examination in the presence of a stranger."

I don't think I have to go on much further for you to understand my concern about this. I don't think it would be just females who would be concerned about having a stranger in when they are having any kind of meeting with their doctor. I believe that this should be objected to in the strongest terms, as this really goes against the confidentiality between a doctor and a patient, and intrudes on what I believe to be our right to privacy

HON. MR. DUECK: Some information on this section was requested by the current president of the BCMA, and I addressed that in a letter. I'll just read a portion of it:

"As you know, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia does occasionally observe the practice of a physician when competency is being investigated. While I understand the nature of the concerns that have been raised, the availability of such a mechanism as one aspect of the review process, to be used on occasion, will be essential to the effective operation of an audit committee. Therefore, at the time of establishing an audit committee, I will establish a protocol to require that such observations can only be made with the consent of the patient. If the patient has no objection, then I do not believe that there is any basis upon which such observation could reasonably be opposed. In addition, the protocol will

[ Page 2678 ]

require that the audit committee approve in advance the need for observation in specific cases."

MRS. BOONE: Is the minister, then, willing to make an amendment on this issue that would make the permission of the patient a necessity?

HON. MR. DUECK: No, we would not consider an amendment, but we will put that in the protocol.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

34        The Hon. P.A. Dueck to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 34) intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 7, by deleting the proposed section 5.1 (1) and (2) and substituting the following:

(1) The Cancer Control Agency of British Columbia may request a person to supply it with information or records or classes of information or records that may be prescribed by the minister for the purposes of this section.

(2) A request shall not be made under subsection (1) except where reasonable grounds exist to believe that the information or records will facilitate medical research and that the benefit to the public of the research justifies the request for the information or records.

SECTION 7, in the proposed section 5.1 (3)

(a) by deleting "or class of person", and

(b) by deleting "subsection (2)" and substituting "subsection (1)".

SECTION 7, in the proposed section 5.1 (4) by deleting "subsection (2)" and substituting "subsection (1)".

SECTION 7, in the proposed section 5.1 (7)

(a) by deleting "subsection (2)" and substituting "subsection (1)",

(b) in paragraph (a) by deleting "organization that made the request under subsection (2)," and substituting "Cancer Control Agency,",

(c) in paragraph (c) (i) by deleting "organization in subsection (1) " and substituting "Cancer Control Agency", and

(d) by deleting paragraph (d) and substituting the following:

(d) for the purpose of compiling statistical information by an organization, a government or a government agency where the information is compiled to facilitate medical research.

SECTION 8, in the proposed section 7

(a) in subsections (1) (b) and (3) (b) by adding ", wilfully, carelessly or because of mental incompetence," before "expose others", and

(b) in subsection (1) (c) by adding "or the agent" at the end.

[ Page 2679 ]

48        The Hon. M. Couvelier to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 48) intituled Insurance Amendment Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 3, in the proposed section 28.5

(a) in subsection (1) by deleting "to an insurance company" and substituting "into a company", and

(b) in subsection (2) by adding "into an insurance company" after "certificate of conversion".

SECTION 3, by deleting the proposed section 28.8 and substituting the following:

Unlicensed insurer

28.8 Pending the issue of a licence to an insurance company,

(a) the company shall not undertake an activity other than an activity specified in the plan approved by the superintendent under section 28.3, and

(b) the company shall in every written communication, advertisement and document in which the name of the company appears, add immediately after the name the following brackets and words: "(Not licensed)".

SECTION 3, in the proposed section 28.81 (1)

(a) in paragraph (c) by deleting "section 28.8 (b)" and substituting "section 28.8", and

(b) in paragraph (d) by deleting "does not use the words "unlicensed insurer" in its name or".

SECTION 4, in the proposed section 31 (1.1) by deleting "A licensed insurance company" and substituting "An insurance company".

SECTION 29.1, by adding the following section:

Sales of its business by Provincial insurers

120. (1) A Provincial insurer shall not sell or transfer its property and business as a going concern to or amalgamate with another insurer without the written consent of the superintendent.

(2) Section 28.71 applies in respect of a consent to amalgamation where the Provincial insurer is an insurance company.

SECTION 33, in the proposed section 364.1 (3) (b) by deleting "28.8 (b)" and substituting "28.8",

SECTION 37, by renumbering paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) as paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) and by inserting the following paragraph:

(a) in subsection (1) in the definition of "company" by striking out "and an amalgamated company;" and substituting "an amalgamated company and an insurance company;".

[ Page 2680 ]

SECTION 38, by deleting the proposed section 5 (2) (a) and substituting the following:

(a) be

(i) in Form 1 in the Second Schedule, in the case of a company other than a specially limited company or an insurance company,

(ii) in Form 2 in the Second Schedule, in the case of a specially limited company, or

(iii) in Form 2A in the Second Schedule, in the case of an insurance company;.

SECTION 42, by deleting that section and substituting the following:

42. Section 21 (2) (b) is repealed and the following substituted:

(b) to carry on the business of insurance

(i) except as authorized by section 33 (1) (d), or

(ii) unless the company is an insurance company that is licensed under the Insurance Act;.

SECTION 43, by deleting that section.

SECTION 44, by deleting that section.

SECTION 51, by deleting that section and substituting the following:

51. Section 247 (1) is amended by striking out "Every company" and substituting "Subject to section 31 (1.1) of the Insurance Act, every company".