1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 5, Number 1
[ Page 2919 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Hon. L. Boone: In the gallery this afternoon are a group of visiting Oregonians, members of the Oregon Children's Choir. Those of you in the building over lunch would have heard their delightful voices echoing through the rotunda. Would the members of this House please join me in welcoming these musical ambassadors to British Columbia.
D. Schreck: In the gallery this afternoon are two of the many fine people from North Vancouver-Lonsdale. Will the House join me in welcoming Anne Becker and Richard Dixon.
H. De Jong: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House this afternoon Rod Brooks and Carol Martens. They're both Young Socreds from the Abbotsford constituency. I ask the House to give them a warm welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to introduce two people who are not Young Socreds but colourful individuals in British Columbia: Jim Wilson, who, by the way, is an organizer for the Easter be-in, and Robert Gaffney. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, as a parent of a student who goes to Rockheights Elementary, it is a great pleasure to see 25 grade 6 students from Rockheights Elementary School in the gallery today, joined by their teacher, Mrs. Sinclair. I'll take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Education for making funds available for a new library at Rockheights Elementary and to wish the students well.
F. Gingell: Anybody who lived in the district of Surrey during the 1950s, '60s and '70s will well know Jock Smith, a longtime Surrey School Board member. He is here today with his wife, Mary, and his grandson Richard Douglas Waters. Please help make them welcome.
B. Copping: Touring the precincts today are 65 grade 4 and 5 students and their teacher, Mrs. Robertson, from Harbour View Elementary school in Coquitlam. Would the House please make them welcome.
E. Conroy: It's truly a pleasure to introduce to the House a longtime friend and supporter, Mr. Barry Ferguson, who presently resides in Gibsons. Would the House join me in making him welcome.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACT
Hon. L. Boone presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act.
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 82, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act. The purpose of this bill is to establish a new Legislative Assembly Management Committee to replace the Board of Internal Economy. This bill places administration of the Legislative Assembly in the hands of a committee representing all the parties in this House.
In the past, compensation for MLAs was set by the MLAs sitting on the Board of Internal Economy. With the new Legislative Assembly Management Committee proposed under Bill 82, MLAs will no longer be responsible for setting their own salaries. I commend this bill for consideration of the House and urge its passage.
Bill 82 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am pleased to introduce Bill 76. The Election Amendment Act has two primary purposes: to lower the voting age to 18, provided that these persons meet other voter registration requirements; and to permit eligible voters to register in their electoral districts on polling day and at an advanced poll or a special polling place.
These amendments are being introduced now to allow more British Columbians to vote in future in the event of a national unity referendum in the fall.
Bill 76 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Those familiar with the history of this place will recognize the significance of the introduction of the miscellaneous statutes bill. I'm delighted to be able to introduce this bill at this particular time. I'm sure all members would agree.
Members should know that although this bill contains mainly amendments to a variety of statutes that are of a housekeeping or technical nature, there is an amendment to the Infants Act which could be described as significant, and there are amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act which address a difficult situation. In addition, this bill contains amendments to a number of other statutes administered by various government ministries. Additional statutes to be amended are the Industrial Development Incentive Act,
[ Page 2920 ]
Land Title Act, Manufactured Home Act, Ministry of Forests Act, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 2), Nurses (Registered Psychiatric) Act, Pension (College) Act, Pension (Municipal) Act, Pension (Public Service) Act, Pension (Teachers) Act, Pension Statutes (Transitional Arrangement) Act and Trade Development Corporation Act. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.
Bill 81 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
HIGH-TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS
D. Mitchell: I have a question today for the Premier. The Premier is undoubtedly aware of the violent clash of predictions between his own government study on high-tech competitiveness in British Columbia and the survey that was released yesterday by the Vancouver Board of Trade. I wonder if the Premier can tell us whether or not he learned anything yesterday when he talked with the Vancouver Board of Trade. Hopefully, he listened as well. In particular, did he learn anything about his own bogus study on high-tech competitiveness?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Indeed, I did learn a great deal. I learned that a very successful B.C. entrepreneur from Delta did some cross-border shopping a while ago. As a matter of fact, he went to the United States: he didn't buy beer, he didn't buy cigarettes, he didn't buy dairy products; he bought a complete group of 40 highly skilled high-tech employees and brought them back into British Columbia.
I also learned that there are a number of members of the business community who were delighted with the summit, where we brought people together for the first time in this province to listen to each other and to learn from each other. As I told the board of trade, I am quite prepared to sit down and deal with the study that they brought forward and the one that our minister has brought forward. If the member is interested in the number of high-tech companies that are flooding into British Columbia because it's a safe, clean, green, attractive place to live and work in, I'd be more than prepared to give him a list of those companies.
[2:15]
D. Mitchell: A supplemental question to the Premier. He must be confused, because I'm talking about the meeting that he had yesterday at the Vancouver Board of Trade. He may recall that; it was only yesterday. At that meeting the board of trade issued a survey of 117 real companies operating in British Columbia -- not a hypothetical manufacturing company which the Premier's own study talks about, but 117 real companies. What they're saying is that British Columbia's taxation policies are having a negative impact on their ability to compete in our province. Is the Premier saying that there is no wisdom in the opinions of 117 real high-tech firms operating in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think 117 out of 600 high-tech firms responded to the survey, and I would assume that the other firms are too busy with their sales and busy doing business. I think the House Leader of the opposition should understand that the electronic manufacturing industry in this province is growing at the rate of 20 percent a year. The facts speak for themselves.
D. Mitchell: A final supplemental to the Premier and a question about the real world of British Columbia, not the Premier's make-believe world. I'm talking about the survey that was issued by the Vancouver Board of Trade yesterday. When the Premier addressed the Vancouver Board of Trade, the chair of the Vancouver Board of Trade said: "Our members are...reaching the boiling point. Unless we change direction, business and jobs will be lost...." Will the Premier at least acknowledge that this concern exists, and that his government's tax policies need to be reviewed, because they're wrong for British Columbia, wrong for the vast manufacturing sector, wrong for the high-tech industry in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I would hope that the members of the opposition would join with us in tackling one of the tough issues that we've had to face, and that's the financial mess we inherited. They should help us make the tough decisions that we've had to in order to get the deficit under control. The primary goal of the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Business Council of B.C. is to get our spending under control, and secondly, to deal with the very serious issue that they raise, which is the extent of the federal government's off-loading of costs onto our taxpayers. Three-quarters of our deficit this year is driven by the federal government off-loading their taxes onto B.C. taxpayers. I would hope that the members of the opposition would join with us in realizing that every cent of the revenue measures that were introduced went to pay down the deficit, and they should be in favour of that.
RESOURCE COMPENSATION BILL
J. Weisgerber: A question to the Attorney General. Given the Attorney's stated position to abandon Bill 32, will he undertake today to withdraw the legislation from the order paper?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I indicated publicly to the House earlier that we would not be proceeding with Bill 32. There is no intention of proceeding with the bill.
J. Weisgerber: Supplementary to the Attorney General. You have failed to convince the mining industry and the forest industry of that fact. What concerns the industry is section 5 of that legislation, which reads: "This act comes into force on the date that it receives first reading...and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date." The
[ Page 2921 ]
industry is concerned that if this legislation stays on the order paper it can be handled with second or third reading at some subsequent time. Will the minister undertake to remove the bill from the order paper and remove this threat to the industry?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sure no member of the House needs to be reminded of the fact that the April date would not be effective unless the bill were passed. There is no intention of debating the bill, and therefore it won't be passed, and therefore the date doesn't come into force.
I've had a number of letters of support and congratulations from many people in the mining and forest industries. I've also had one letter from a former member of this House who is connected to the mining industry and who asks that the bill be withdrawn. He suggests that it needs to be withdrawn so that there's no threat of it ever coming before the House. That wouldn't accomplish that purpose, because if we chose to bring it back to the House, I would simply go through the first reading process again. So there's no point in the member's question.
J. Weisgerber: A final supplementary. What the Attorney General fails to understand is that the effective date is the date this legislation was introduced in the House. If the bill....
The Speaker: Is this a new question, hon. member?
J. Weisgerber: Yes, it is a new question. The question is: does the Attorney General not understand the implication of leaving this bill on the order paper with a retroactive date for its application?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to the question is yes, I do understand. The member needs to know that if we were being nefarious or devious about this issue, which we're not, and we withdrew the bill and then decided to proceed, we would simply bring in a bill which had a clause in it saying it was effective April 1992, and accomplish the same purpose.
The point of the question and the point of Mr. Waterland's insistence that you ask it totally escapes me.
TAXOL
W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Forests. We're confident that the minister is aware of the medical importance of the Pacific yew tree and the cancer-fighting properties of taxol, which can be extracted from the bark and limbs. I wonder if the minister can outline what steps his ministry has taken to protect this vital species until such time as an inventory takes place.
Hon. D. Miller: There is ongoing work in terms of the inventory. As the member may be aware, there are currently no export permits for the bark. Some yew trees are harvested in the normal course of events. There are about two or three studies -- I don't have the details with me -- in terms of inventory and other issues. There are also ongoing studies to determine what further medical properties the yew tree itself may contain.
If the member watched the program on "The Journal," for example, he would have seen that taxol can be synthesized from the needles of the yew tree. In fact, it's maybe important to know that aboriginal people in my particular area of British Columbia have used the yew tree for centuries as a medicine, and in fact have boiled parts of the whole tree and used it as a medicine. So there are ongoing studies in terms of the...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude his comments.
Hon. D. Miller: ...inventory issue, and there are ongoing studies in terms of further medical uses of the yew tree.
W. Hurd: I thank the minister for his re-enactment of the Knowledge Network. But perhaps he can explain why the opposition has two licence agreements from people who want to harvest yew trees and who have provided documented evidence that these trees are being destroyed, burned and plowed under in active logging areas in this province.
Hon. D. Miller: I think the question was: could I explain why that hon. member has some documents. I can't.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Rather a curious response from the minister, because we understand he has the same documents. Perhaps the minister can explain why, as we speak, taxol-producing yew trees are being destroyed on TFL 39 of the Sunshine Coast, and perhaps he can explain, while he's at it, why the companies and individuals who want to harvest this vital species are getting the runaround from his ministry. Their question to this minister is: wouldn't it be better to harvest yew trees -- the bark and limbs -- to save cancer patients, rather than plowing them under?
The Speaker: Minister, there are three questions there, and I would urge you to be as concise as possible.
Hon. D. Miller: I do feel an obligation when asked questions by the opposition to try to answer, but in order to keep my answers short I would simply say that my ministry doesn't give anybody the runaround. If the hon. member is making an argument for the export of yew bark, I wish he would just stand up and say so.
BUY B.C. PROGRAM
R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. This morning the press reported that the
[ Page 2922 ]
Minister of Agriculture stated that the Buy B.C. program was ineffective. My question is: would you table the evidence in this House that allows you to make this statement?
Hon. B. Barlee: That particular reporter took that comment from an address I made in the House yesterday. I presume the member was here and heard it, so I should not repeat it, of course.
R. Chisholm: Will the minister also table the studies he referred to, which apparently show that generic advertising campaigns in Ontario, New Brunswick and Alberta have -- in your words -- failed?
Hon. B. Barlee: I thought I went over those adequately yesterday; perhaps I did not. I will go over them again.
We studied five jurisdictions around North America. One was New Brunswick. They used a pull strategy in attempting to stop cross-border shopping; it was not successful. We studied Ontario. They spent $10 million. They used the same pull strategy; it was not successful. We studied Alberta. They used a pull strategy; it was not successful. We studied the various attempts at a Buy B.C. policy by the former government of British Columbia. They attempted a pull strategy; it was not successful. We studied Washington; it was not successful.
Then we studied Oregon. Oregon tried a push-pull strategy, which means all the stakeholders are at the table; everyone gets together. It is not specifically government-driven; it is driven by industry. But government is an attendee. It is driven by a council of industry, and everyone is there, right from the labourer on the farm to the unions to the processor to the producer to the retail outlets, even to the mayors of Vancouver. So this is the process we're using.
The Speaker: The member for Chilliwack asks leave to table documents.
Leave granted.
R. Chisholm: I would like to table documents from Ontario and Nova Scotia. There are three more provinces to come on their so-called Buy Ontario or Made in Alberta programs -- and they are saying that they are 100 percent successful.
Hon. G. Clark tabled a summary of the borrowing amounts for the purpose of government operations for the 1991-92 fiscal year in accordance with section 43(2) of the Financial Administration Act.
Hon. G. Clark tabled a set of statements regarding borrowings for and loans to government bodies for the 1991-92 fiscal year in accordance with section 41.5 of the Financial Administration Act.
L. Fox: I request leave to present a petition.
Leave granted.
L. Fox: I present this petition which has thousands of names from the Vancouver Humane Society which supports the principle of my private member's bill, and I hope that it will encourage the House Leader to bring the bill forward for debate.
[2:30]
Hon. L. Boone tabled the B.C. Building Corporation's financial statements for 1991-92.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Motion 58, standing in the name of the Attorney General. [See appendix.] Motions on Notice
REFERRAL OF REFERENDA QUESTIONS
TO SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
On Motion 58.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move Motion 58 standing in my name on the order paper.
Members will recall that in the election of October 1991 two questions were put to voters in respect of initiative and recall, as it's popularly described in the United States. This motion is to refer the matter of those referenda questions to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, so they can examine and inquire into all matters and issues concerning those two referenda questions. I'm sure members of the House will recall that the previous government, when it announced its intention to put these questions before the voters, announced that processes such as the one we're embarking upon today would be followed to determine how the results of the referenda could be dealt with in this province.
With this motion, we are fulfilling the commitment the previous government made, and we're fulfilling the commitment we made in the election campaign and since to ensure that parliamentarians have an opportunity to examine the implications of the two referenda questions, which passed by some 80 percent of the votes last October.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to speak briefly to this motion, which we can support. It simply reflects the will of the people of British Columbia, who voted, as the Attorney General said, by more than 80 percent in favour of the two referenda in the last provincial election on October 17. The governing party officially supported both of those referenda and, in fact, urged British Columbians to vote in favour of them. It has taken some eight months to get to the point where we're now referring them to a select standing committee.
Hopefully, the government will be willing to act upon any recommendations that come forward from a select standing committee after there is an inquiry into this measure and into what is sometimes known as direct democracy. It's an important feature. It's a good
[ Page 2923 ]
use of a select standing committee. I hope that the select standing committee will not be constrained in its efforts to explore this in terms of calling witnesses, receiving any further public input that might be desired and coming forward with a report to the House at the next sitting of the House, which may be this fall. We don't know when the next sitting of the House is going to be, because we have not yet had an indication from the government as to when the House will sit again after it adjourns this summer. We hope that we will adjourn to a fixed date for a sitting this fall. At that point, hopefully the select standing committee that's going to be appointed to inquire into this important matter will be able to report, and the government will be able to act on the majority wishes of British Columbians on these two important questions and not simply delay this matter indefinitely. With that, I'd like to say that we support this motion and wish that the committee could get on with its work quickly.
J. Weisgerber: Obviously I also rise in support of the motion. I'd like to suggest to the Attorney General that it might have been appropriate for him to call along with that Motion 4, which is standing in my name and has been on the order paper since the House first sat this spring. In any event, the desire of both of the motions is similar, although Motion 4 is a bit more specific in that it asks the government to develop specific legislation to enact the wishes of in excess of 80 percent of British Columbians.
I think that we need to have this issue referred to a select standing committee. I don't think we have to do it to decide whether or not we should act on the wishes of over 80 percent of British Columbians. I think we have to decide how we are going to implement the wishes of such an overwhelming majority of British Columbians. In fact, Motion 4 would have accomplished that as well. In any event, if the minister refers the issue and gives the directions that might be appropriate to the committee, I think the focus should be on how to implement recall and initiative and not to go around to decide whether British Columbians were really serious when they voted in such overwhelming numbers on these two issues. If the government will undertake that, then I believe British Columbians will believe that their wishes have been acted upon.
Motion approved.
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, with leave, I wish to move without notice the appointment of Mr. Chuck Connaghan as an independent reviewer to consider mechanisms for setting MLA pay levels.
Leave granted. Motion without Notice
APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT
REVIEW ON MLA REMUNERATION
Hon. L. Boone: I move that this House endorse the conducting of an independent review by Mr. Chuck Connaghan respecting recommendations to establish an independent mechanism for setting levels of remuneration received by Members of the Legislative Assembly, and that his report be filed with the Speaker for tabling in the House within 14 days of the commencement of the next legislative session.
I'm pleased to ask the House to endorse this motion. It represents the first step towards establishing an independent mechanism for setting indemnities, salaries, benefits, pensions and severances for its members, as was promised in the budget speech.
I am tabling the terms of reference which will be given to Mr. Connaghan. His review will assess present salary levels for MLAs, consider the use of a formula to set and adjust those salary levels and consider the appointment of an independent body to recommend, set or adjust those levels and analyze procedures used in other jurisdictions.
I am sure that all members share my desire to establish an independent mechanism for the setting of our salaries and remuneration, one which is and is seen to be fair and impartial. I very much look forward to Mr. Connaghan's recommendations, and I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the House and the members on the opposite side will approve this motion.
The Speaker: Could the Chair have a copy of the motion, please.
D. Mitchell: Just very briefly speaking to the motion by the hon. Minister of Government Services, I think it's important for the House to know that there has been consultation on this matter and that this motion is the product of consultation. I think this is the way to bring forward a motion of this nature -- not to have an order-in-council issued by cabinet and not to have an appointment of this nature and this sensitivity dealt with in the fashion that so many appointments by this government have been, but that this be an open process, that there be consultation and that it affect every member of the Legislative Assembly.
It's an important assignment that is being given by this House to Mr. Connaghan. I think Mr. Connaghan is an excellent choice for the job. I think he was a fair and independent practitioner in the field of industrial relations for many years. He also chaired the provincial round table until recently and did a fine job on that. But I think it's important to recognize that Mr. Connaghan has a very tough job here. This is a very difficult assignment, and it's one on which we wish him well.
I think it's important that we've taken away from the MLAs themselves any potential conflict that might be inherent in attempting to have MLAs, or a body or committee of MLAs, set their own salaries, indemnities, severance provisions and pension arrangements. I think that's dangerous. There is a conflict there. So Mr.Connaghan has an important job, a tough assignment: to recommend to this House a mechanism by which those aspects of our remuneration would be reviewed in the future. It's going to be a difficult assignment, as I've indicated. We wish him well.
We hope that he does take a look at other jurisdictions. Maybe there is some wisdom in other parlia-
[ Page 2924 ]
ments and legislatures throughout the Commonwealth that he can take a look at to determine whether or not there is a better way of doing it here in British Columbia. I think it's important to note that there should be no restrictions on Mr. Connaghan on this assignment and that he's reporting to all members of the Legislature.
As I mentioned on the previous motion, should we adjourn to a specific, fixed sitting day and have a sitting of the Legislature this fall, hopefully Mr. Connaghan will report, as the motion states, within 14 days. Hopefully we'll have his report by Christmas, and there will be some certainty in the future as we enter the new year.
I speak in favour of the motion.
J. Weisgerber: We join with the government and the official opposition in support of the process that's been outlined and the appointment of Mr. Connaghan as the individual to undertake it. As has been indicated, Chuck Connaghan did an outstanding job with the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. He gained the trust and respect of British Columbians around the province. I think he's ideally suited to undertake what will undoubtedly be a controversial undertaking. There will be some criticism of a process that is put forward, almost regardless of what that process is. I think we should understand that. We should not expect British Columbians simply to rejoice that there is a new process to be recommended for establishing salaries and benefits for MLAs. With that, I wish Mr. Connaghan well. I hope that he is successful, because if he is, that will, in turn, serve this Legislature and British Columbians well.
Hon. G. Clark: Very briefly, I too would like to thank both opposition House leaders for their support in this endeavour and, if I might stretch the rules a bit, also thank them for their support and work on the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act, which is before the House. It's a product of consultation with all members of the House, one which I think behooves us to follow more closely as we move along through the next few years.
I too would like to echo the comments of the third party leader that one of the challenges facing all politicians, regardless of ideology or political stripe, is to at least strengthen the credibility and respect the public has for the institution of parliament. One of the problems, of course, in recent years is the increasing cynicism the public holds for politicians generally and for those of us who serve in public life. Anything we can do to assure the public that we're acting in the public interest and that there's a process that's neutral and independent of members when it comes to things like remuneration will enhance the process, this building and parliament. I think we're all better off. I'm delighted that all members have supported this particular process that we're embarking upon.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 71.
MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE
SERVICES ACT
On the amendment (continued).
L. Fox: As I started to say before the clock pre-empted me, I rise in support of the amendment. I'm extremely concerned with the amount of confrontation that this particular act and Bill 13 have created. Perhaps it's naivety on my part, but when individuals make statements, I tend to believe them until proven wrong. But when the Premier, prior to being successful in October and even since then, suggested to the province that he and his colleagues wanted to end confrontation and that they wanted to deal fairly in all areas of dispute, in the interests of all British Columbians, I believed him, and I believed that this government would do just that.
When they tabled Bill 13 and Bill 14, and subsequently Bill 71, in the confrontational way that they did, they created confrontation with the medical profession like we've never seen before. Not only have they done that, but through that they have lost some credibility with the professional caretakers and with those individuals who could play a very major role in changing the medical system, which we all know has to take place.
I have listened throughout the debate on Bill 71 and I've heard points being put forward by all members in the House, irrespective of which party they support. The minister has suggested that the opposition doesn't interpret the bill correctly, has faulty research or has erred in the reading of the bill. Therein lies the problem: we do need time to consume what the intent of this bill is.
[2:45]
The medical profession, not only the doctors themselves but the intern group, PARI, have identified many areas of concern with this bill. I'm one who would like to have all of those areas concerned dealt with before this bill becomes law. That is the reason why I will support the referral of this bill to the select standing committee.
We know that in the throne speech this government placed new emphasis on select standing committees. This select standing committee only yesterday was given a task, and I'm not going to demean the task that it was given. In spite of the chairmanship of that committee, I wish it well in its deliberations. I have many thoughts with respect to its task, but I'll leave those to another time. I'm not sure that a select standing committee is the right forum. Perhaps it has to be a White Paper committee, or something which floats the intent of what this bill is and is allowed to call witnesses and presentations from the public as well as from the professional people.
I also believed this government when it said it was going to put new emphasis into co-operation; it was going to put new emphasis into the select standing committee structure; they were going to be meaningful and take on issues that were important to all British Columbia and bring some form of consensus to government. I really did appreciate that statement, because I
[ Page 2925 ]
firmly believe, as an elected individual, that the government that does bring in a consensus forum, allowing a process where they float their initiatives through an all-party structure and bring back a consensus as to what's in the best interest of British Columbia, will be a government that stays in power for a long time.
I would suggest that we do not have the answers to the many concerns that have been outlined. I will outline a few of them. Bill 71 will create longer waiting-lists for surgery and treatment. It could place restrictions on patient tests that can be ordered. It will ration patient care by placing a cap on the total amount of money to be spent. It could force doctors out of the province. This bill can limit the ability to obtain new medical technology. It would allow for a violation of confidential patient records. It would forever remove doctors' rights to negotiate, the result of which will be continued turmoil.
All these issues are contained within the bill. The minister may be satisfied that they're not issues, but I can assure you that the public and the medical profession are not satisfied. I believe that if the minister wants to do the right thing by the province, she should take up the medical profession on its challenge to meet the budget problems of this year and put together an all-party process which deals with these issues -- every one of the issues that have been identified.
I well recognize the fact that the royal commission spent 18 months travelling around the province identifying public concerns with respect to health care, and came forward with over 300 recommendations as to how the government might take on that challenge. But those are only recommendations. Recommendations themselves have to be clarified. You have to look at whether the mechanics of those are in fact practical. It is never a fault to sit back and assess those and see whether or not it meets the criteria they thought it might.
I strongly believe, as I said before, that we know we're going to have to make changes in the health care system. We know that there will be those who will resist change. I am one of those. I am the kind of individual who likes to see something in place and examine it to see whether it works. I have to see it for myself; many of the members of the public are that way.
I suggested yesterday that pilot projects may have been the way to go with some of these issues. I am concerned that the minister and the government have lost credibility in the process this far. By accepting this amendment and going through this process, I believe they will gain back that loss of credibility. Beyond that we'll help to promote change in the health care system.
B. Jones: As a result of the province's budget and legislation from that budget we have found ourselves in some disagreement or dispute with a variety of groups in this province, probably none more sensitive or difficult than the current dispute with the BCMA.
In our personal lives when we see two partners -- a husband and wife -- who are having a dispute, I think it behooves us to try to be fair and reasonable, because we generally hope those partners carry on that relationship. We don't rush to judge. We don't take partisan sides. We don't take the verbatim word of one side in that partnership, because we know that the partnership is important. What we see members opposite do, because of their narrow, partisan perspective, is take the kind of word that the BCMA is suggesting verbatim and giving no credence, not listening, not giving any respect to the other partner that will be working with the BCMA for many years.
What we see in the arguments that support the motion to refer to a select standing committee basically boils down to one argument, and that is that there has been a lack of consultation. Very clearly, members on this side of the House have tried to communicate in a clear, fair way that there has been substantial, considerable consultation.
We see shaking heads and heckling on the opposite side at the moment. I would ask the hon. members opposite to listen for one moment, again, to the litany of consultation that has taken place. I appeal to those members not to let their narrow partisanship blind their judgment of the situation.
Fact One: there is little new in this legislation. The legislation that this is replacing is 24 years old.
Interjections.
B. Jones: Listen up! The revision that was discussed with the BCMA started about five years ago, in 1988. I guess the previous administration assumed it was a pre-election year and had the bill all ready to go. They didn't bring it forward to this chamber. They engaged in a consultation process with the BCMA. They had the bill all ready to go. Up to five years ago we had consultation on amendments to the act. Since then, particularly in the last few months since February.... The member for Richmond East, who is the Health critic, has heard this from the minister, from me and from the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, but it doesn't sink in. Four years ago most of this bill was ready to go. There have been discussions and consultation with the BCMA on this bill for the last three months.
In fact, I'm surprised that members opposite aren't outraged. Legislation is first tabled in this chamber, but the minister took the unprecedented step of taking legislation -- at least the penultimate legislation -- to the BCMA annual general meeting. Had that been done in other jurisdictions, many opposition parties in this country would have stood up and said: "This is contempt of the Legislature. This is the place to introduce legislation, not at the BCMA general meeting." But the minister didn't do that. In the interests of consultation, she risked that kind of accusation. She risked the chastisement of the opposition and this parliament by introducing legislation to the doctors first -- after years of consultation. The kinds of consultation that we've seen have been considerable.
The member for Richmond East read out, directly from the BCMA and without any consultation with anybody else, a chronology of events, assuming that that was a complete and fair picture of the kinds of consultation that have taken place. I understand that the member was not trying to deliberately mislead this
[ Page 2926 ]
chamber, which is a serious accusation. I don't know whether you are aware of that, but that's what happened. The chronology that was read out was far from complete. Have a look at your chronology. Does it mention an important meeting with the BCMA? Does it mention April 6, a meeting with the Health minister and the Premier? If you have a chronology of consultation, would you not include a meeting with the Premier and the Health minister of the province? If you didn't, would you not consider that a serious omission of fact? What I'm interested in is appealing through the facts to the members opposite. That chronology was incomplete. The member opposite suggested that there were 23 hours of meetings. The minister herself has engaged in many meetings, many phone calls with physicians and with the BCMA executive. If you include the staff level and political level, all the correspondence and all the phone calls that have gone on, I wouldn't be surprised if it was thousands of hours of consultation that's gone on over this bill.
I have met with the president of the BCMA in my constituency office, for lunch at restaurants, for dinner at restaurants, in hotels, at the BCMA office and at the Ministry of Health office. There has been meeting after meeting and considerable consultation on this matter. There was considerably more, but even if it had been only 23 hours -- and the member opposite suggested that was inadequate -- I would suggest to that member and to this chamber that that is more than a Minister of Health has ever met with the BCMA executive on a single issue in the history of this province.
[3:00]
There has been considerable and extensive consultation on this bill. The opposition would like to delay the bill and have it to go to committee, but the vast majority of rhetoric that we hear from members opposite is to obstruct, delay, take cheap shots, score political points and act in a partisan way. Consultation is an imperfect process. There's never going to be enough consultation, but the kind of thing that has taken place to date is the exact opposite of what members opposite have been saying has happened. The behaviour of members opposite -- particular of the official opposition -- is the exact opposite to what they were saying during the election campaign. They were saying: "We're tired of the bickering, we're tired of the polarization in this province and we need a fresh approach." In fact, the leader of the official opposition, in his best high school debating line, came out with a famous line during the television debate: "That's why nothing ever gets done in the province of British Columbia." If it were up to the opposition, nothing would ever get done in the province, because they want to delay, to stall and to frustrate everything that this government has proposed.
Fact three. I would like to appeal to the members opposite to listen again -- although it's been mentioned a number of times in this chamber -- to the cost of delay. They say: what is the rush? Members opposite should be aware of the costs of delaying this particular legislation. What happened with the previous administration was that there was a deal with the BCMA, and every year a budget was set in this chamber. It wasn't an honest budget, because the government of the day knew that there would be an overrun. They knew there would be excess costs of utilization, and there was a deal with the BCMA that would share those costs. I believe that in the last year it was something in the order of $50 million shared equally between the province and the BCMA -- the physicians of this province. It was a deal that worked, but it was a kind of phony process in the sense that a budget was not a budget.
What this government is saying is that we are going to bring forward this part of the Health budget, and you can believe it. We are going to try as hard as we possibly can not to exceed that budget. The problem is that we don't have that deal in place now. We don't have the ability to have the physicians of the province pick up half of the overrun. Because there is no agreement, guess what's been happening since March 31? There have been utilization costs, we have been running over budget, and if members opposite want to pick up $50 million to $70 million out of their pockets, or the BCMA wants to pick up $50 million to $70 million out of their pocket, then let's delay it. We'll delay it all year -- you pick up the costs.
The costs of delay of this legislation are staggering. The costs are $50 million to $70 million, a staggering amount. There are ministries that operate in this Legislature with much less than $50 million to $70 million. I suppose that members opposite would enjoy nothing more than seeing the credit rating of this province, under this administration, go down. They would love that. They would wring their hands. In fact, I think they are salivating at the prospect of these kinds of overruns driving down the fiscal responsibility, the impression of this government as being responsible managers of taxpayers' dollars -- $50 million to $70 million.
Members opposite a few weeks back thought of themselves as the champions of the taxpayers. Well, this irresponsible motion is going to cost the taxpayers of this province an additional $50 million to $70 million. Taxpayers want deficit reduction. Taxpayers are tired of seeing the kinds of overruns that have existed in the past. This administration is going to do everything they possibly can to live up to the overarching commitment that they made during the election campaign, and that was to live within the means of the taxpayers of this province.
At times, that goal, that aspiration, contradicts some of the other commitments that we had hoped to make, but the overarching commitment is to live within the means of British Columbians. I think, deep in their hearts, despite the rhetoric and nonsense that goes on in this place, all members understand that. All members understand that we have to get deficit spending under control in this province and in this country.
I mentioned yesterday that in the last 15 years the costs of health care have only gone up 2 cents out of every dollar, from 25 cents to 27 cents, but the money spent on debt servicing has doubled, from 6 cents to 12 cents. Every part of the budget of every province in this country has to be scrutinized. We have to spend smarter if we are going to continue to fund social programs in this province.
[ Page 2927 ]
Interjection.
B. Jones: Exactly -- who disagrees with that? That's why we need this legislation. We're almost in the third quarter of the fiscal year already. We're probably already something in the order of $20 million in excess costs over the projected $1.271 billion in overruns. Taxpayers aren't going to stand for a government that doesn't live up to their commitments to spend wisely. The tools in this legislation are going to allow the government to do that.
The facts about consultation do not support the case for this motion to refer to a select standing committee. Very clearly the costs of delay are staggering. This motion in fact is an irresponsible motion. The only rationale I can think of why this motion is before the chamber is that Rafe Mair, the other day on his radio program, chastised the opposition for being wimps, that they're not doing a good job fighting the government. So we have a motion before us to delay. Really, one of the functions that the opposition serves is to delay legislation, and the government is quite happy to delay this legislation as long as members opposite want to debate it. That's fair, that's what this chamber is for, and we're quite happy to do that. Unfortunately, in that debate members opposite don't want to listen, don't want to think, don't want to understand the rationale for why this legislation is before the chamber at this moment. This amendment is mischievous, it's irresponsible and it deserves the defeat that it's going to receive.
A. Cowie: I stand in support of this amendment. The member for Burnaby North talks about loosening up. Certainly if he would loosen up, speak less and get it back to the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services, maybe we would get something done. I've heard a lot of drivel in my day, but that certainly was an awful lot of drivel.
There are a lot of questions in this bill that simply aren't answered. For instance, what is the role of the new tripartite commission? It's certainly not clear. Certainly the doctors don't find it clear. When we want to know whether the consultation has been effective or not, we have to talk to those people who supposedly have been consulted. They don't feel they've been consulted. Other people feel that we have simply not had time. Nine days since this last bill was introduced is simply not enough time.
The greatest cost savings in the health system, I am told by doctors and by people in the facility business, is in the actual building of facilities. I would imagine that the minister knows that about 5 percent of the cost of.... If you build a hospital, that represents approximately 5 percent of the cost of maintaining that hospital over the years of its life. So it's very, very important to put the hospital in the right place. It's very important to design it properly and to make sure it's serving the people it's intended to serve within the whole system of the province.
This bill, in itself, is not that bad. There are a lot of aspects about it that could be made to work if we simply understood it. That's what we're really upset about -- the lack of consultation. That's why I believe it has to go back to the select standing committee, in spite of the chairperson. I'm willing to tolerate that.
What is proper and effective consultation? I stress the word "effective" because I know, from my business over the years, that you can have lots of consultation, but unless it's effective and set up properly, then that sort of consultation is useless and it will not lead to the conclusion that you want. There are many models, and I know the minister knows all about public participation. I would ask that the members of this Legislature support this amendment, and let's make sure it gets to the standing committee, where we can deal with it and get on with the business of the day.
The Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker, I just want to remind all hon. members that the amendment is to refer the subject matter to the committee, not the bill itself.
W. Hurd: It's always a pleasure to rise in debate in the House in support of a motion which refers as contentious a piece of legislation as this to a select standing committee of this House. I was rather struck by the comments from the same tired speakers opposite, who assure us that the consultation that we've sought all along on this bill has in fact been in place and that the activities of the BCMA are entirely aside to the ongoing negotiations; the millions they've spent on advertising and the concerns that individual doctors express to MLAs throughout this province are nothing more than the usual round of shadowboxing that goes on between the BCMA and the government, and there's absolutely nothing to worry about. Well, hon. Speaker, that is indeed a sad and tragic misunderstanding of the current situation in British Columbia vis-�-vis the province's doctors. They are concerned; they do know what's at stake here. Not one that I've talked to in my own riding doesn't accept the fact that there has to be some role for the medical profession in deciding how their future is going to be decided by the government.
I'm particularly distressed to hear the suggestion by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who chairs the committee to which we seek to refer this bill. He suggests that the most contentious piece of legislation affecting our medical health insurance system in this province is not the type of legislation that should be referred to a select standing committee of this House. I say that that is one of the most shameful statements that I have heard made in this chamber during the course of our debate on this particular bill and, indeed, during the entire session. For that member, who chairs the committee, to suggest that we have no role to play in this legislation gives me reason to suggest that that member should resign from the committee and accept the fact that he has lost the confidence of this House as the Chairman of a select standing committee that is supposed to look at health and social services in the province of British Columbia. We have a Chairman, a convener, from the government side of the House suggesting that that committee has no role to play. It's shocking and shameful. This member, who has become a lap dog of the government, on this particular bill is suggesting that there is no role to play. It's absolutely
[ Page 2928 ]
outrageous. I don't know how that hon. member can stand in this House and support this bill and vote against this amendment, recognizing the fact that his committee could make the contribution that they could make to settling this issue once and for all.
I cannot understand why the government refuses to acknowledge that they have totally bungled the negotiations with the province's physicians, who are not unreasonable people. They're not the kind of people who would, as I said yesterday, petition or bankrupt the medical insurance system into oblivion. They're prepared to work with this government. They would work with this committee, and this House would speak with one voice on the most important issue that we're facing this session: the future of the medical health insurance system in the province of British Columbia.
[3:15]
How can anyone who seeks consensus, who seeks rapprochement with the province's doctors, oppose a motion that sends this to a select standing committee of all the members of this House that would reflect their will and commitment to solving this issue? How could they vote against it? We've heard some of the most shallow arguments advanced by the government that I have yet heard. They suggest that there might be some taxpayers' dollars involved. They throw around figures of $60 million or $80 million, as if the BCMA could tomorrow cave in and save the taxpayers that amount of money. That's what this is: economic pressure. It's the kind of sleazy tactics that the previous government used in trying to beat down the province's doctors. They're suggesting to the official opposition that we're spendthrifts and would happily petition our health care system into bankruptcy in support of the doctors. Hon. Speaker, it just isn't so.
The fact of the matter is that this government hasn't consulted with the physicians. That's the reason we're in the pickle we're in today, with this government trying to ram through a bill that affects not just the province's doctors -- let's make sure we emphasize that fact -- but every aspect of our health care. It's the type of bill that cries out to be referred to a select standing committee of this House.
As I look back on the debates of this assembly during the last six months, I am struck by the fact that despite spending four years in opposition, this government still does not understand what it is to achieve a consensus. They do not understand how you arrive at a solution that satisfies all the stakeholders; they still do not understand that basic principle. And to hear the Chairman of the select standing committee stand in this House and say that there is no role for that committee to play in dealing with this important issue merely underscores the fact that this government is morally bankrupt when it comes to addressing the very real possibility that this chamber could achieve the consensus that we need in this province to satisfy the doctors.
I urge every member of this assembly, and particularly those on the government benches who are private members of this assembly, to ask themselves a basic question about the role of a parliamentary committee or legislative committee in the government process. I ask them to think about how much more effective it would have been had it been struck in April, when this issue first came before the House; how much more effective it would be for the BCMA to have known that it was going to be dealing with a collective will in this House and with a firm conviction by the entire Legislature that the course of action it was following, crafted by a special all-party committee of this House, was in fact one that they could live with because it reflected the will of every party represented in this House. Wouldn't that have been much better than the tortuous process we find ourselves in today, the kind of process that sees an all-encompassing bill thrust on this House in the last days of a session without any possibility for proper debate and proper consultation with the doctors? That is the message that the government is asking the opposition to swallow in this assembly.
They stand, one by one, and oppose a constructive, reasonable amendment. The members opposite have accused the opposition of stalling, of expending taxpayers' dollars for no reasonable purpose. Well, I ask the members opposite in the government to think of one thing: the medical insurance system in this country has been around for two generations. Is it not worth a few more months in a legislative committee to make sure that we get it right in British Columbia? Is it not worth that few more months, that expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, whatever it is? I ask the members opposite and the Minister of Health of this government: is it not worth that amount of time to ensure that the medical professionals, who bear the brunt of this medical system, the ones working 50 and 60 hours a week, are at least satisfied that they have been treated fairly by the members of this assembly? Is that not something we should seek to achieve in this House, to support this amendment to send it to a legislative committee? Would that not be the approach that would satisfy the doctors in this province? Would they not recognize that if we did speak as one in this assembly on this important bill, while they may not agree with every aspect of it, they would at least accept the fact that the elected people of the day had spoken with one voice?
I reiterate that I find it shocking and sad and one of the most depressing moments in this chamber to hear the convener of that committee stand and say that this bill has no place in being considered by a select standing committee of this House. It's shameful, and I only hope that the member will take that message back to the doctors of his riding.
U. Dosanjh: Point of order. In his remarks, this member has referred to another member as a lap dog, and I'm simply raising that as a concern. I think this member should withdraw that remark.
The Speaker: Did the hon. member intend to impugn the motives of another hon. member in this House?
W. Hurd: Not in any way, hon. Speaker. I was merely referring to the fact that the committee would not have an opportunity to deal with this important matter.
[ Page 2929 ]
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
B. Jones: On the same point of order, hon. Speaker, the member did choose to use that offensive language, which I find offensive and unparliamentary. I would ask that member, in respecting the traditions of this House, to withdraw that statement.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I have asked the member if he intended to impute improper motives to another hon. member, and he has said no. However, perhaps the hon. member, in consideration that another hon. member felt offended, would like to withdraw the comment.
W. Hurd: With all due respect to the Chair, I don't believe that I impugned the integrity of the hon. member. On a point of principle I decline to withdraw the remark.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock to again reconsider the request of the Chair. Certainly there have been indications that the term was not appropriate for this House, and I'm sure the hon. member would like to reconsider his position, withdraw the comment and then continue with his debate.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, while I have the utmost respect for the rulings of the Chair, I find that in the context of my remarks I don't believe the phraseology was impugning the integrity of the hon. member. As an hon. member of this assembly, I certainly exercise my right to stand by the comment and refuse on principle to withdraw.
J. Tyabji: To the same point of order, I'm having some difficulty with the point of order being raised in that I think we all realize that there is a lot of latitude with which we discuss things, whether we're speaking to an amendment or in second reading. When we're using metaphors, unless that metaphor is inherently negative, which surely the phrase "a lap dog".... I mean, we have to build metaphors. That's the whole point of being in opposition. If these members are going to take offence every time we don't agree with them or say nice things about them, then they're going to rule a lot of different words unparliamentary. I understand that the Chair is recognizing that this member has taken offence to the use of those words. I would say to this member that metaphors are metaphors. When this government was in opposition, there were other colourful metaphors being used.
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that in raising a point of order a member cannot enter into a discussion with the Chair.
K. Jones: Point of order. The real question here is the fact that at least ten minutes has transpired since that statement was made. The member should have been up on his feet immediately after the event if there was something to be concerned about. He did not take timely action, and therefore the position as a point of order no longer exists.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. members to be seated. I think the Chair has heard enough input on this point of order. I have asked the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock to reconsider and withdraw. The Chair has made that request. I would now, for the third and final time, order the hon. member to withdraw that comment, or the Chair will have no alternative but to take the appropriate action.
W. Hurd: While I respect the wishes of the Chair, as I've indicated, I do not find the remark to have impugned the integrity of the hon. member. Again, on a matter of principle I find that I must decline to withdraw.
The Speaker: Then the Chair has no alternative but to ask the member to withdraw from the chamber for the remainder of the sitting day.
J. Tyabji: I am standing to speak in favour of the motion. I find that I am somewhat distracted based on the preceding events. I will try to refrain from using any further speech that may offend any of the members of the House.
This is a very substantial bill that we're going to be dealing with here. The substance of this bill is going to have an enormous impact on medical services in British Columbia, and because of this it is crucial that this bill receive input from all parties in the House. It is not enough, as one of the previous members had stated, for some of the substance of this bill to have been put in place by the previous administration four years ago. I don't find that to be enough in terms of addressing our concerns with regard to public process. I don't find it enough for the previous member to say that there were one or two occasions that our own Health critic didn't address in her speech, that weren't in her chronology. I don't find that to be a credible enough basis for saying there was public process.
I think that in order to have adequate public process, we obviously have to have the input from all three parties in the House. We have to put it to a select standing committee. It is the only thing that makes sense in terms of bringing democracy into play. There are three parties in this House, and a bill of this magnitude should definitely have input from all the affected parties. In order for people from around the province to be represented in going over many of the significant amendments and structural changes that we will see in this bill....
[3:30]
We can go into some of the specifics of it, although that's not the point of speaking to an amendment. But we've talked before about the things in Bill 71 that cause us great concern on the opposition benches -- for example, whether there should be access by doctors to all the patient files; that there will be government inspectors who can then access patient files. These are things that should be debated in a select standing committee. I think it's only fair to the bill, to take it to a
[ Page 2930 ]
select standing committee and to have all parties in the Legislature review the bill. Hon. Speaker, the select standing committees have been created specifically for this kind of issue to be brought forward.
We heard the minister talking about being fiscally responsible and that the clock is ticking with regard to health care, and that therefore we have to see this bill passed in a speedy manner. I find that to be a dangerous precedent, if we are allowing the ticking of the clock to determine how democracy is affected in the province of B.C. Surely we can't be sitting here and saying we have to rush this bill through the Legislature because money is being spent. If that is the case, we should have had a fall session. We should have introduced the bill in a fall session and allowed it to sit on the books for public debate. This government had eight months to set things up. If the government is trying to say there has been adequate consultation for four years previous, well, they've been in for eight months; surely they could have taken the four years of consultation -- if they feel that's satisfactory, and I don't know that we agree with them on that point -- and brought it to a prior sitting of the House.
We have brought this up so many times, hon. Speaker. It's not enough to be rushing legislation in at the end of the session, saying: "Oh, it's the end of the session. I have to see this bill pass." What kind of signal does that send out to the public, when we won't send it to a standing committee? We can't possibly have adequate debate in the House, because it doesn't allow any of us to gather our resources from around the province or to have meetings with our constituencies. How can we meet with the people in our constituency who represent a wide interest in the health care community if we're in midnight sittings of the House? We're in midnight sittings because we're trying to pass this bill. We don't want to pass the bill, because we can't have the meetings. How can we, as parliamentarians, bring to bear the kind of thoughtful resources that are necessary to do this bill justice?
Hon. Speaker, there are some very good initiatives in this bill. There are a lot of things in this bill that we as an opposition campaigned on in the last election. And what do we find ourselves doing with regard to this bill? We're focusing on the fact that it's being rammed through the House. We would like to be able to spend a lot of time in second reading dealing with the things that we agree with and the things that we disagree with. Instead we're finding ourselves speaking to motions on putting it to select standing committees. We're spending all our time trying to buy some time so we can bring in whatever resources we can to bring to bear on this bill.
F. Garden: Take as long as you like.
J. Tyabji: The hon. members are saying: "Take as long as you like." I wish that were the case; I wish we could take as long as we liked. We wanted to adjourn this House on Thursday and come back in the fall on a specific date to talk about bills like Bill 71. We feel that bills of this magnitude require that kind of thoughtful consideration. They require the ability to go to the community -- not just the BCMA but the entire health care community -- to not just consult with different groups within it, but to go to the public and say to them: "As your representatives in the House, we want to know what you think about this." To be able to sit down with this bill and work through what it means when we talk about subcommittees being appointed under the commission and the fact that they can bypass the commission -- I'd like to be able to speak to that with my constituents. I'd like to be able to talk about the government inspectors and how my constituents feel about that. There's no way I can do that when we're in midnight sittings in the House. It would take four hours just to get to my riding, never mind setting up a meeting so I can talk to them about Bill 71.
If we had adequate time, hon. Speaker, this minister would probably find a lot more support on this side of the House for some of the initiatives in this bill. We would love to be able to commend her on some of the hard work she's put into some of the good initiatives in the bill. This minister would have that opportunity to receive the applause where applause is due and the criticism where we feel we can have critical input, if we could put it to a select standing committee, and if we could then take it through our caucus and through the public.
This minister is saying that we are working toward a balanced budget and that to be fiscally responsible we have to be putting this bill through as fast as possible. It doesn't wash, hon. Speaker. It doesn't make sense to me to say: "Oh well, because we need a balanced budget, we have to put the Medical and Health Care Services Act through the House as quickly as possible." That doesn't make sense to me. What we are doing, in fact, is losing credibility with the public. If we bring a bill of this magnitude to the House and it's through the House within the space of a week, what kind of signal does that send to the public? The public is already nervous because we've had Bills 13 and 14 sitting on the order paper since the beginning of the session. They don't know who to believe. They see the ads on TV. They read things in the paper. They hear statements from the minister. They hear from their health care professionals. There hasn't been time for adequate dialogue just to deal with the backlash from the previous bills that were introduced.
Now we've got Bill 71, which is much more comprehensive, which should obviously be given proper scrutiny so that we can tell the people in the community how it differs from the previous bills and how it's the same, and so we can receive input from the community. By putting the bill through the House quickly, the minister is actually allowing lobby groups to have more impact on the direction of the government than the general public can have, because lobby groups have more money and they can afford to put out the advertising. Their message may be a valid message, but how is the message of the public going to get to the minister? We can get letters from the public to our offices. By the time we send a letter to the minister and it comes back to us and goes back, this bill will be gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. That, to me, is not a fair process for dealing with something of this magnitude. What happens if the bill goes through and
[ Page 2931 ]
we haven't spent enough time dealing with the significance of a small clause somewhere in here? But there is a constituent somewhere in the interior who knows exactly what kind of impact it will have, and he will call me a week from now and say: "While you were in second and third reading of the bill, I was still doing my research, and I didn't have time to deal with that." This whole issue of rushing bills through the House is something that has already come home to haunt us. This is all with regard to the motion to send it to a select standing committee.
I had a meeting today with someone who found a clause in a bill that we passed last week with regard to forestry practices, and that clause removed the sustainability clause from the Forest Act. We didn't catch it; nobody caught it. And it's out there. I said: "Why didn't you phone?" He said: "Because it had already passed third reading." That's a very dangerous thing. In fact, when we're talking about bills and the research that needs to go on, there's no way that a bill of this magnitude can get the scrutiny that it deserves unless we send it to a select standing commitee and unless we allow the resource people around the province to provide input to both sides of the House. If the minister wants to do anything to deal with the removal of the clause that I was talking about, it will have to be by way of a supplementary bill, and it will embarrass him if he decides that he wants to reintroduce that.
I wouldn't want to see this minister go through the same process that our Minister of Forests is going to have to go through when he is called accountable on the removal of that clause. I'm sure that this minister hasn't had a chance to go over this bill with a fine-tooth comb, because it has just been in the House for a few days. Even though she's had a lot to do with this bill, there are legal implications in every clause of it. There are implications with how it relates to previous bills, how we're going to deal with it and the impact that it will have around the province.
We saw that this minister got into all kinds of hot water with previous bills that were introduced. We don't want to see her going into the same scenario with this bill after it becomes an act, when there might be some retroactive fallout. How will you address that? What if we had done the same thing with Bills 13 and 14, rather than letting them sit for a couple of months so that we could deal with them in a different bill? When we have an erosion of public confidence in even one sector of the health community, such as the doctors, we have to talk about why we shouldn't allow bills to go through so quickly, specifically since some things being addressed in this bill were brought up in previous bills, and those previous bills have not been called into an act because this minister has deemed that it's not in the public interest to do so. So we've seen bills that this minister has introduced in the House in this session go by the wayside. This bill has come in as a replacement bill. How do we know that she won't have the same feelings about this bill after two or three months that she had about the two previous bills? There hasn't been adequate dialogue or adequate time.
I wholeheartedly support the amendment to send it to a select standing committee. I don't believe we should be rushing into this, and I don't believe there is any time constraint. It reminds me of the emergency debate on the gypsy moth issue. The only emergency was the one that was being generated so that we could have a debate in order for the Minister of Forests to try to get some after-the-fact dialogue. We are asking for an amendment that would put this bill to the select standing committee so that we don't have to deal with the fallout after the fact, and it won't already be an act by the time we realize that, oh dear, there was something hidden in here, and we didn't get a chance to address it.
To say that it's not fiscally responsible to deal with this bill that way, to me, undermines the very parliamentary system that we are here to represent. We are here to represent the people. If the people's interests are not reflected in this bill, we should have adequate time to dialogue on it and to deal with the people. You don't put a price tag on that, hon. Speaker. You don't put a price tag on democracy or on parliamentarianism. We're here, and we know what it costs to be here; that's why we're here. If this minister thought there was such a big rush on this, we should have had a fall sitting. We should have had dialogue on all of these policy initiatives. We should have had this introduced some time ago. We should have had this bill introduced at the beginning of the session; or alternatively, sections of this bill should have been introduced in a different bill. The sections that this minister felt it critical to introduce at this juncture should have been introduced now. She should have rushed them through, and then she could have at least said: "I was going to introduce it in one bill, but here's the other part. I will let it sit on the order paper until the fall, at which time I will take input from all parties in a select standing committee."
I can't emphasize enough how important it is for us to allow the democratic process to go full course on something like the Medical and Health Care Services Act, which is something that will affect every British Columbian. Everyone in B.C. will be impacted by this act. Everyone in B.C. should have the ability, even if they choose not to, to participate in the dialogue. That is why I very strongly support the amendment to send this to the select standing committee for adequate review and due parliamentary process.
K. Jones: I rise with great pleasure to support this amendment. There's no question that there's a need for further consultation, further review of this legislation, which has many difficulties. There appear to be failures to recognize certain health care professionals, such as psychologists and occupational therapists, within the terms of the bill. Obviously the minister continues to hound the doctors with this bill. She plagues them with the failure of the first bill and then brings in the same sort of provision in the second bill and continues hounding the doctors.
I must say that it's most unusual and unfortunate that the Chair of a standing committee should be so dogmatic as to refuse to make changes to allow this legislation to be reviewed in his committee. It's very inappropriate, I think, for a Chairman of any committee, especially a standing committee of this House, to
[ Page 2932 ]
stand up and say that legislation that's being suggested by the opposition for referral is not appropriate for that committee. Who is this dogmatic person, who is capable of making the decisions for all of the people in this Legislature, to refuse to have it come to his committee?
[3:45]
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I would urge the member to be cautious in the language he uses in this debate. Moderation, temperance and an absence of personal attack is always in order.
K. Jones: This is fraught with a great deal of emotion in regard to the way it has been handled. The proposals, the statements made in debate by the hon. member to indicate that we as members don't have the right to decide what should be referred to a committee, are not acceptable. That's why we have to get emotional about this. We're talking about the very principles of this House. No person can make a decision or a recommendation to prevent the discussion of issues and the referral of issues from this body to another body of this Legislature because they happen to hold a particular position in this House. That's what I'm speaking to. We the people of British Columbia need the opportunity for this to be reviewed in an open forum.
There is nothing wrong with this type of legislation being reviewed. A prime example was shown by the Attorney General in the handling of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, where the act, even before it was processed, was put out to the community, brought before panels and press conferences, and people were given adequate time to make representations from the community and from the Legislature. Even now the member is not forcing it through, unlike the Minister of Health, who is trying to force this bill through without any changes, as if whatever is brought forward is the very best that could ever be done: why bother with the input from the rest of the people in this House, because there's nothing they could contribute that would make it any better. That's what we're talking about. We want an opportunity for this to be made better for everybody, because this is a very serious bill. This bill has to be treated with the utmost importance that it has, just as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was treated. This bill has just as much importance to the way of life of the people of British Columbia.
U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the member for Okanagan East indicated in her remarks that no price is too high for democracy. Obviously this is what it's all about. We're debating the issues in an open and forthright manner. This is what democracy is all about, but the amendment that the Liberals have placed before the House could potentially be a $100 million amendment. The longer we wait for the legislation to come into place, the more expensive it is for us as British Columbians to deal with the issues of health care. The amendment could cost us between $50 million and $100 million, and that would be the price of the folly of the opposition in terms of the amendment they have placed before this House.
Not every issue has to go to a select standing committee. There are issues and there are issues. Parliament is supreme, and by debating and after debating the issues, parliament can pass certain legislation. We feel it's important for this legislation to be passed this session and passed now. Therefore the Liberals have full opportunity to participate in the debate and make their views known.
In the end the parliament reigns supreme. We make the decisions, and the legislation then eventually is passed and governs. Some issues can be sent to committees, as a reference was made just today in the House to the parliamentary reform committee on the referendum and recall issues. Those are important issues as well, but there are other issues that are important in terms of timing. You can't wait around for months and months for recommendations to come in. The whole House instead of the select standing committee has to make those decisions, and I submit that this amendment ought to be defeated because of that.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to stand up today and speak in favour of the amendment moved today by the member for Langley. I listened carefully to the comments of the member for Vancouver-Kensington. I'd like to say that he made an eloquent argument for referring this bill to a select standing committee of the House. I'll tell you why. He says it's a question of timing. I would agree; it is a question of timing, but not the political timing of this Minister of Health who introduced this bill in this fashion, not the timing of this government that is in disarray and has refused to negotiate fairly with the physicians of our province. No, that's not the timing that's important here. That's not the timing that should be driving the relationship between the government and the physicians, who can and should be playing a leadership role in our health care system.
The member for Vancouver-Kensington says that this is a $100 million decision. He says that if we refer this bill to a standing committee of the House for further study where there can be proper input from the physicians and the general public, it's going to be a $100 million decision. He says that's going to be costly.
What is costly about fair negotiations, which the BCMA have indicated they're prepared to enter into today? In fact, they've been prepared to enter into fair negotiations with this government from day one. The fact that this government has been unprepared to negotiate fairly with the physicians of this province is costly. That's what is costing the British Columbia health care system millions of dollars. That's what is costing British Columbians lack of confidence in their health care system. That's where the cost is being incurred, not by open government, not by referring this to open consultation and public input and input from all members of this Legislative Assembly. No, the member for Vancouver-Kensington is wrong. He speaks nonsense, and he knows it.
What is costly is this government's approach to this legislation. It's costing all British Columbians a lack of confidence in their health care system. That's going to be untold in terms of dollar value. It's going to be untold in terms of the other costs -- the social costs, the
[ Page 2933 ]
public confidence that's going to be chipping away at our health care system and medicare in our province and country as a result of this government's arbitrary wrong-headed approach to this bill. That's why the amendment should be supported.
This amendment is a fair amendment. It's not a dilatory motion. It's not an obstructionist tactic by an opposition that's filibustering -- far from it. This amendment was moved in all sincerity. I'll refer to the comments made by the Health critic yesterday, the member for Richmond East. When debate opened on this bill, she responded to the comments from the hon. Minister of Health. She made a very good argument for why this bill deserved further study. In a letter to the Minister of Health, which the opposition Health critic wrote immediately thereafter, she said: "To be reasonable, Bill 71 should be scrutinized by the public at large over the coming months and could be considered again at a fall sitting of this Legislature. To consider moving this bill through to third reading in less than ten days is not fair to British Columbians." That is a reasonable approach. That is a moderate approach that can be considered by this House. We have the power to do that. The member for Vancouver-Kensington said that there is a role for select standing committees. Surely, if there is a role for select standing committees, then here is a case that is tailor-made for a referral: Bill 71.
We know that health care has played an important part in the political history of this province. Anyone who has studied the political history of British Columbia knows that governments have risen and fallen on health care issues. I really believe that Bill 71 is going to be a significant reference point in the history of this NDP administration. This is something that people will look back on. Bill 71 is going to be a key political reference point for the next generation of British Columbians. They're going to look back on this act and take a look at the process and effect of passing this bill into law, making this bill an act of this Legislature, and they're going to ask why. When they answer that question why, it's going to be an explanation for why this government has lost faith in the people of British Columbia. I predict that that's going to happen. There's nothing inevitable about history. Surely that's a logical conclusion of the approach that has been taken by this government that has failed to listen to the people and failed consistently to consult freely with the physicians of this province, who have been ready to consult from day one.
What have they done? Prior to coming into office, we had a major review of health care in British Columbia, the Seaton royal commission -- the most extensive review of the health care system in our province in a generation. That royal commission deserved further study. That royal commission deserved further study and a serious look by the government. Does Bill 71 incorporate the major recommendations of the Seaton royal commission? No, of course it doesn't. It couldn't, because the royal commission has not received proper scrutiny. And there again is a logical opportunity for a referral to a select standing committee of the House, but the government has again failed to consult.
We have a good health care system in British Columbia that needs improvement. How does Bill 71 address that? Our health care system needs to be rethought. There's no question about that. How does the new Medical and Health Care Services Act address that? The first thing we have to do is take a look at the process that went into this bill. What did the people of British Columbia vote for last October 17? They voted for an end to polarization and an end to arbitrary government, and they voted in favour of consultation and consensus. They voted in favour of everything that was not part of the process that led towards this bill. It's so patently obvious. This government did not learn the lesson of the election of last October, and they're behaving as if they have learned nothing from the lessons of the past. Where were they? Were they in opposition for all those years, or not?
In this bill that we're debating here today and on the amendment that we're speaking to -- and the reasons that the amendment should be supported -- we have to ask the fundamental question: why has this NDP government singled out physicians? It's very clear to most fair-minded British Columbians that if there are going to be changes to the health care system in our province -- which does need some restructuring -- then doctors must be part of the solution. They have to be. We have to count upon the leadership of the physicians of our province to be part of the solution and the process.
What has this government done? Has it consulted with the physicians in an open manner? Has the input of the physicians of our province been incorporated into this Bill 71? No, of course it hasn't. They've been ignored. Instead, the government has taken a bullheaded and confrontational approach. It has treated the doctors as if they're the enemy. In fact, if you talk to physicians, to the many fair-minded doctors in this province, they'll tell you that they feel as if they are being treated as criminals as a result of this bill.
We've seen this process repeated in this House, but never in such a blatant fashion since this session started some three months ago. Bill 71 really typifies a political game that this government has been playing. They bring in legislation in a rushed, slipshod fashion. It is not well thought out, it's poorly crafted and prepared, the draftsmanship is sloppy, it's ambiguous, and they want to see if they can slip it through the House, because they have no legislative program that's well thought out. That's what Bill 71 fits into -- a legislative program that is not well considered.
So they bring it in, and they want to see if they can get it past the opposition, and perhaps see if the opposition wants to propose any amendments to the bill to hopefully improve it. But we're growing tired of this game, and when it comes to Bill 71 we can't treat it as a game, because this is very serious. It's the future of health care in our province, and it affects every British Columbian.
[4:00]
I've consulted on Bill 71 with the physicians within my own constituency, and I've talked with a group of physicians in the community of Squamish who have had a chance to scrutinize Bill 71, and I want to tell you
[ Page 2934 ]
why I'm speaking in favour of this amendment today. It's because of what the physicians of Squamish told me. They have had a chance to look at it, and what they say is that the bill is vague, gives sweeping powers to the government and delegates sweeping powers to the commission that it appoints. The doctors, of course, are in a minority on the commission. The duties of the commission can be delegated to a subcommittee. We know that by the legislation, but the commission itself can be disbanded by the government if the government so chooses.
Doctors are concerned that their civil liberties are being affected by this bill, especially the manner in which it is being brought in. As I've said, doctors who have read the bill feel that they are being treated as if they are criminals. Doctors are being forced into a situation where they have to consider opting out of the health care system, which this bill makes very difficult, or whether or not they are going to be forced to consider going on strike, withdrawing their services, or limiting their services to their patients and working fewer hours.
The physicians of our province are concerned because of the oath that they swear when they take on what was and should be a noble profession -- to be a medical practitioner, a physician in our province. They are being torn, because their professionalism is being challenged. They don't want to be part of a system which they envisage this bill is leading towards, where they simply become salaried employees on payroll who are expected to work a limited number of hours a week and, perhaps, withdraw their services when they are not being treated well. Physicians are part of a profession that has never worked in that way. In countries and in jurisdictions which have gone down that road, we've seen health care deteriorate to a point where individual citizens are affected. Those who can least afford to be are neglected.
The feedback that I've received to this bill from the doctors in Squamish, who I'm referring to, is quite instructive. They talked about the commission itself, which can divide doctors into any group whatsoever for categorization with no rights of appeal. That's typical of legislation brought in by this government. Typically there is never a right of appeal. All negotiating is out the window. There is no negotiating. For a government that claims it's in favour of negotiation, that claims, in terms of its relationship with labour unions, that they are in favour of free collective bargaining.... Yet when it comes to physicians, there is no negotiation. There are sweeping, broad powers appointed to a commission with no negotiation.
The master agreement which provides for negotiation is gone with Bill 71. That's another reason why I speak in favour of this amendment today. The ability to negotiate, talk and consult is completely gone. By order-in-council the government can retract any decision of the commission which is appointed by this bill. We have to question the independence of the commission itself, because the government ultimately holds all the power here. So why have a commission? I guess that's one question we can ask.
The government really comes down with an iron fist with this legislation, and there are no loopholes. They are virtually all closed. Doctors are feeling like they are caught; they are feeling like they are rats in a maze. What do they want? They want to be consulted; they want to have the opportunity to negotiate; they want to have the ability to negotiate as professionals within a modern, progressive health care system; they want this bill withdrawn; they would like at the very least to have some input into it. That's why the amendment should be supported. Because the amendment suggests that the subject matter of this bill be referred to a select standing committee for further study.
There's a lot that I could say about this bill in terms of the representation that I've received. I can tell you that I have received hundreds of letters from physicians in this province. When we count up all the representation that we've received in the official opposition, it's in the thousands. I have personally received hundreds of letters from doctors all over the province. I received not only letters from doctors, but also letters from ordinary British Columbians. I have a note here from some constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. F.H. Smith from West Vancouver, who are very concerned.
In this letter directed to me regarding Bill 71, Mr. Smith writes: "My wife and I are pensioners on a fixed income and are very worried if" -- this bill -- "is passed. We are worried that our health care will suffer and our doctor may not be available when required." That's a legitimate fear. It's worthwhile to put that on the record, because I think it's a representative fear in the broad community that if this legislation is pushed through, doctors may not be available for people who require medical assistance. That fear exists in the community, and the government needs to address it. The minister must address it when she makes her closing remarks at second reading of this bill.
A number of doctors have made representations to us, but there is one group that hasn't been heard from yet in this debate. We will be hearing more from them, particularly when and if this bill ever gets to study by committee. Our preference is that it not be a Committee of the Whole House that this bill is referred to but a select standing committee. We've talked about a number of medical practitioners and the BCMA and others, but I'd like to refer to an association called the Professional Association of Residents and Interns of British Columbia, sometimes called PARI-BC -- no relation to the Minister of Advanced Education.
The perspective of PARI-BC on this legislation is quite a valuable one, because they represent the young physicians who are just emerging into the profession -- the very best and brightest minds. PARI-BC is an interesting association, because it represents 500 young doctors in postgraduate family practice or specialty training in programs in British Columbia. These are residents and interns who are the medical practitioners of tomorrow -- a very important, key group for the future of our health care system in this province.
They have a number of differences with the government over this bill. They have a very different perspective than the BCMA or other groups of physicians. Their perspective is unique, and I think it deserves to be
[ Page 2935 ]
heard in the House in this debate. These are young doctors who grew up with medicare. They are committed, therefore, to working within the system and improving it. Half of the members of PARI-BC are women. I think their membership really does reflect the demographics of modern British Columbia.
Just before I tell you what they say, it's useful to tell you that they've had to fight with the government twice in recent years. They had to go to court twice to defend their rights when the government tried to restrict their right to practise. On both of those occasions, they won in court.
When it comes to Bill 71, I want to tell you what PARI-BC, the young interns and resident physicians, have said.
Hon. E. Cull: What's the date of the letter?
D. Mitchell: I'll refer to the date of the letter if you like. It's dated June 18, 1992. They also issued a news release on June 19.
Rather than go through their whole proposal, let me just give you the summary, because I think that that really gets to the nub of the issue here. It's a very extensive brief. It was directed to the Minister of Health, so she has received this. What they say is that "Bill 71 provides draconian measures for controlling health care costs." That's the essence of what they say. "Furthermore, while purportedly allowing the public a real voice in the administration of the health care system, in reality it consolidates the government's own authority. It denies both the public and health care workers a meaningful role in determining the future of health care in this province." That's the essence of their objection.
Let me get a little more specific. They address a couple of specific problems with this bill that they feel are paramount to be addressed in terms of the interests of the 500 young interns and resident physicians that they represent. Firstly, they say, "Bill 71 gives government ultimate power with unbridled authority in managing health care," and they feel that that's wrong. Secondly, they feel that young doctors, future practitioners, are effectively prevented from having any input because the new commission will be, frankly, biased against them. That is a legitimate concern, and that has to be addressed before this bill can be passed into law.
Thirdly, they say: "Bill 71 establishes a mechanism for singling out groups of practitioners for discriminatory treatment. Such unjust policy will be directed primarily towards young doctors at entry to practice." That is a concern they have. It's a fear they have, and it has to be addressed. It has to be addressed by the hon. Minister of Health, and we want to hear how the Minister of Health intends to address this concern.
Fourthly, and the last point I address from PARI-BC -- I think it an equally important one: "Bill 71 allows government to place restrictions on the freedoms of British Columbians and permits the government access to personal and confidential information about each citizen." That is something we have discussed in this debate. It is a concern. We have listened to what the minister has said, but I believe the physicians and the general public need to have this addressed unequivocally so that fear is not there, because that fear is integral to confidence in our health care system. That is a fear that is out there. PARI-BC has expressed it. The minister has to address that concern.
I am talking about this group of physicians, some 500 young interns and resident physicians, who feel strongly that the passage of Bill 71 must be prevented and the proposals must be subjected to open, prolonged and intense public scrutiny. "We call for a return to fair and honest treatment of all British Columbian citizens and doctors." That is what they're calling for. It is not different from what the opposition is calling for in the amendment to the second reading of this bill. If the bill is referred to a select standing committee of the House, then, as PARI-BC feels, this bill can be subjected to open, prolonged and intense public scrutiny.
We're not asking that it be delayed indefinitely. We've agreed that the health care system needs to be looked at again, rethought and restructured. How can that happen? By the government simply bringing in, in the dying days of a session, a bill and trying to ram it through the House? Or can it be handled more effectively by using the tools that we have at our disposal, which include select standing committees of the Legislature for this kind of scrutiny? The tools are there. We can use them. It takes only political will. It takes the government to admit that they have perhaps made a slight mistake in terms of process by trying to ram this through. It takes a second look. It takes the maturity of judgment and the ability to decide in a wise fashion that this takes a second look. This bill requires a second look, and it should be referred to a select standing committee for that reason. The bill is not perfect. I would hope that the government would be prepared to admit that. It requires a second look.
Now speaking to the amendment, there are other reasons why this bill should be referred to a select standing committee. There are a number of other reasons. I could never catalogue them all in the short time that is available to me, but I would like to refer to another letter that has been sent to me by one of the doctors. I referred to this stack of letters here. Obviously I'm not going to be able to refer to every individual concern, although I must tell you that it is truly impressive to see the level of thoughtfulness and the articulate manner in which physicians have addressed this concern in writing to members of the Legislature, including myself. These aren't form letters that have been sent in by a special interest group at all. These are very thoughtful, passionate letters from people who care about our medical system, our medicare system and our health care system in the province. They don't want to see it destroyed, and they fear that Bill 71 is going to be a major step in the wrong direction.
I have a letter here from a doctor in Squamish which has been sent to the Minister of Health. It has been copied to myself and to the Premier. I think this letter very clearly summarizes what so many of these doctors are saying in these hundreds of letters that I've received. In his June 10 letter to the Minister of Health, Dr. Quiring says: "In my opinion there is more than enough money in the present budget to look after
[ Page 2936 ]
health care if abuse in the system is curbed. I feel that the vast majority of this abuse comes from patients, not physicians."
He goes on to discuss some potential solutions to that. The minister has received this letter, and I know she has received hundreds of letters like it. But it is representative of a physician trying to come up with solutions. The physician is saying there are problems in the system, and they can be addressed. I'm trying to, in a very constructive manner, suggest ways that the system can be fixed, because this doctor does not want to be put into a situation where he is forced to leave the province. This doctor, like so many of the young internists and resident physicians who are members of PARI-BC, do not want to contemplate a future where they are forced to leave British Columbia to practise elsewhere simply because they're not made to feel welcome here; because they're made to feel unwelcome and almost like criminals in their own province. One of the big concerns that we must have is that Bill 71 doesn't simply accelerate the brain-drain from our province and force the best and brightest medical practitioners who are just coming into the profession to leave to practise south of the border. That would be a tragedy.
An Hon. Member: Cross-border shopping.
D. Mitchell: That's right, cross-border shopping for medical care. When we go down to the United States to shop for that medical care, we're going to be consulting with physicians who have tragically left our province to practise elsewhere. That's not what we want to see; we want to see those young doctors stay and practise in British Columbia.
[4:15]
I was very disappointed with the comments made in the debate on second reading by the Minister of Advanced Education, who is himself a practising physician. He said that if those physicians wish to go south of the border, then let them go; we don't care. But we do care when the very best and brightest physicians in this province want to practise elsewhere because they're not made to feel welcome here, and they can't practise here in the way that they've been trained and taught. We don't want to just let them go. We don't want to provide incentives for them to leave; we want to provide incentives for them to stay and practise here. So we have to address that.
One of the concerns that has been addressed in debate on second reading of this bill, and on the amendment to which I'm speaking, has been the whole issue of the rationing of health care. That's what the government is getting at, and that's what the hon. Minister of Health is really driving at in Bill 71. But who is going to decide on the rationing and on what treatments are available?
I'd like to read into the record a very small portion of a letter that I've received from Dr. Anthony Chan, who practises at Lions Gate Hospital on the North Shore. He's a vascular and general surgeon. This is a letter he wrote on June 21 -- it's very current -- and it gets to the whole issue of the rationing of health care, which we don't want to see in this province because it's a difficult position to put a physician into. I'm not going to read the name of the patient, but I do have the permission of the doctor to use this letter. He's writing to the daughter of a patient of his, and he says:
"As you know, your mother is currently in hospital under my care. She has had two previous operations for blockage of the arteries. Her underlying problem now is further deterioration of her blood vessels.
"What I am about to inform you will undoubtedly upset you, but after agonizing over this all day, I have decided to be candid with you about why I have decided not to operate.
"Normally, I would have recommended another bypass operation, even though the chance of long-term...success is only about 30 percent....
"Given a choice, I would have preferred to give her that chance. Unfortunately, we are now faced with a rigid and inadequate budget for doctors' services and are being told to trim our services to stay within that budget, or face penalties. The Minister of Health" -- and he names the minister -- "stated in no uncertain terms that 'one of our most important responsibilities is to set a health care budget that taxpayers can afford and that everyone must work within.' Since this budget is obviously not adequate to meet the needs of British Columbians, by about $60 million this year, doctors have to start rationing what they do. They have to set priorities and eliminate those services that have low yield or cost-effectiveness. A third bypass operation on your mother would fit that description. I have consulted another vascular surgeon, and he agrees with this assessment."
He concludes his letter by saying:
"Personally, I am against this type of rigid rationing. It flies in the face of everything I have been taught and amounts, furthermore, to a serious conflict of interest. The doctors of this province are therefore trying very hard to stop Bill 71, which is about to be passed into law. Health care is too important to be compromised in this arbitrary way by people who obviously do not understand what is at stake. It is also sad that the public does not seem to realize or care about what is happening to their hitherto excellent and comprehensive health care system.
"I have not conveyed these facts to your mother; there is no need to distress her further. Please rest assured that I shall continue to treat your mother as best I can under the circumstances.
"Yours sincerely,
" Dr. Anthony Chan."
I could read into the record hundreds of other letters like these, but I think this letter gets to the essence of the problem -- the difficulty that we're placing physicians in, the whole issue of rationing health care, which Bill 71 really is driving at. Rationing health care is one of the goals of Bill 71. But the question is: who decides? The physicians clearly aren't in a position to decide. Or if they do, they have to make decisions that provide profound moral dilemmas for them as practising physicians who have been taught and trained within a system to provide the best health care for their patients. They're having to make life and death decisions on behalf of their patients and their patients' families. You can sense the trauma that Dr. Chan expressed in his letter of June 21 in writing to the daughter of one of his patients. It
[ Page 2937 ]
was a very difficult task for him to write that letter and have that kind of communication.
The government has to be more open about this process. They really have to address the fundamental issues here. They want rationing of health care. Who is going to decide? Arbitrary action.... They have to decide.
This amendment says that we should send this bill to a select standing committee of the House so that it can receive a more thorough scrutiny, more public input and input from all members of this House. I urge all members of this assembly, for those reasons, to support this amendment.
B. Jones: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Jones: I looked up in the gallery a few minutes ago to see that this chamber was joined by a distinguished British Columbian. I think it should give heart to all members that there is life after politics. In the gallery today is a former member of this chamber who served in the forties as the MLA for Peace River, I believe it was, for the CCF: a gentleman by the name of Joe Corsbie, who has gone on to serve this province in a wide variety of capacities. He has a particular interest in health care in this province, and I'm sure he is here today to see what debate is happening on Bill 71. Would the House please make Joe Corsbie welcome.
F. Gingell: It must be apparent to all members of this House that there are fears which are a mix of things that are real and perhaps some things that are imagined. We must surely also realize that when a change of this nature comes about, it is important that there be sufficient time for a sober second thought before action is taken.
The Canada Health Act has been in existence for many years now, in excess of 25 years, I understand. Changes come slowly. As conditions change within the country, there comes a time when these acts and this legislation need to be revised. We understand from reading in the newspapers that even the federal government is recognizing the need for some revision, or at least is considering that the time has come for revision of the Canada Health Act to be considered. As the federal government has withdrawn from its responsibility to properly fund all of the provinces to provide health care, the provinces have been burdened with this changing environment. When the time comes for a change to be made -- and it is clearly long past time now -- it is critically important that it be handled in a manner that is seen to be open, consultative and listening to all segments of the population. All people in Canada are concerned with the Canada Health Act. Whether we are physicians or beneficiaries or taxpayers, we all have very real interests in what happens.
I appreciate that the Seaton commission report, Closer to Home, does set out some new parameters, does tell the provincial government about things that they should be concerned about, does sound the warning bell about costs. The warning bell about costs, of course, isn't something new. Arrangements have been negotiated for some years now between doctors and the provincial government with respect to the capping of fees to a global budget amount. I understand that had the BCMA had some comfort that there was going to be fuller consultation and that they would be listened to, there was very easily an opportunity to provide for an agreement for this current year.
I'm really sorry that that didn't happen, because what we need at this moment is breathing space. We need to see what is happening with the federal government. If they are going to make changes, those changes in the federal legislation and the regulations that may become apparent from the changes should be brought into play in whatever legislation we have in British Columbia. So the amendment -- that "Bill 71 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services" -- seems to me to make good common sense. This does not mean that the lid is necessarily taken off the provincial treasure chest and free rein is given to the medical profession.
As I said when I spoke in second reading, I can appreciate the problem that the provincial government has. What is the problem? Well, it is a problem of inflation compounded by a growing population, compounded by an aging population, compounded by advances in the medical and scientific world that bring to all people more advanced medical procedures to elongate their lives or make their lives more comfortable; and finally, it is compounded by new diseases.
If the position of the government sustains and they do not send this to the select standing committee because we will have a crisis on our hands, I would suggest that simply isn't the case. I am sure there can be an accommodation reached between the government and health-care givers, accepting that there will be a cap on the total amount of payments and on the clear understanding that the select standing committee will be given this task and will be called on to listen to beneficiaries of the health care system and practitioners around the province and come up with the right solutions.
Mr. Speaker, I was really quite surprised when the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who is chairman of the committee, suggested that because the committee has already been given one specific and important task -- I do not in any way denigrate that task -- they simply wouldn't have the time, resources or ability to deal with this critically important subject.
[4:30]
What are the important things that the provincial government does for the people of British Columbia? Recognizing, as we should, that we are their servants, and that it is our responsibility to deliver the things they want and need and the things that laws and practices in Canada over the years have established, three or four things bubble up to the top as being the most important. At the top of that list of responsibilities of the provincial government is health care. Health care, education and the social services net are the important things. This one, that in this year -- I believe from memory -- is anticipated to spend $5.1 billion of the
[ Page 2938 ]
total budget of roughly $18 billion, because of its cost, obviously takes precedent.
As we are going to make change, as change is surely going to happen and must happen, we all recognize that we cannot allow our present medicare system to drive us into the hands of the receiver and the pawnbroker. We have to shape and style the new medical services that will lead us into the next ten years with a great deal of care. The Medical and Health Care Services Act is critically important to us and must be done with the due care and consideration that it deserves.
It was interesting to listen to the minister earlier and other speakers say that there has been a lot of consultation. "I met with them on such and such a day in February, and such and such a day in March, and such and such a day in April." I think it came to a total of ten or 12 days in total. But at that time, they must have been dealing with the provisions of Bills 13 and 14, because Bill 71 did not exist.
An Hon. Member: Sure it did.
F. Gingell: If Bill 71 existed then, why was it not brought into this House at that time, six weeks ago, for us to consider it? It is now June 23. That reminds me of another important day, March 23, budget day. I remember it so well: my first responsibility of having to look at something, given an hour, and then supposed to come in and listen to the whole thing. March, April, May, June: three months.
If Bill 71 existed three months ago, it should have been called Bill 31, not 71, and it should have been presented to this House. Who did you consult with? The question of the consultation is not just with the medical profession. It has to be with all the people. I'm really surprised, because I thought that if you had had the opportunity to bring in this bill earlier, before the House started to move towards a conclusion, a bill of such importance and such magnitude, it would have allowed us as the opposition to do our job in the responsible and proper manner that we should. We need time.
Now it's all very well for the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale to shake his head, but I didn't know that the NDP caucus had been looking at Bill 71 for three or four months.
Interjections.
F. Gingell: Well, he's indicating he's had lots of time.
At any rate, I have no problem in my heart supporting the amendment. I think that it makes good, honest common sense.
I appreciate the problem of the minister. I believe that the minister can make an arrangement with the BCMA that will ensure that the lid is not removed from your budgetary restrictions for the year 1992-93; and in the meantime, with input from both sides of this House and the proper type of consultation, we can come up with a solution.
There are matters that need to be looked at. It is not clear whether the Hippocratic oath covers a medical doctor going in to look at a patient's records that are not the result of his relationship with the patient but the result of a relationship between the patient and another doctor. That is a problem that surely, with sober second thought, without rushing Bill 71 through the process, can be dealt with and looked at. There have to be solutions. If the list of doctors designated to be inspectors or auditors or whatever word is appropriate -- I think it is inspectors -- were to come only from a list nominated and prepared by the BCMA, surely no one would have any problem with that. Surely if that's the sensible way to go, it should be put into the legislation. Then it would probably be without question that those inspectors, because they would be acting on behalf of the medical association, would be covered by the demands and requirements of the Hippocratic oath.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: Yes, I'm sorry. That was what I meant to say. You should get that list of nominations from them. I don't see that with this act. I think that a lot of matters need to be dealt with, and with a good heart and sincerity, I suggest that you deal with the money problems separately. Make sure that you can remain within your budget -- I'm sure that arrangement can be made -- and leave the passage of Bill 71 until it has time to be thought out, considered and dealt with in much greater depth. With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for your patience.
C. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, I spoke late in the main motion of this debate because I thought it had been said by all the other speakers, but in fact it hasn't. The suggestion from the Liberal side that this bill should be put into committee for further consideration is illustrated by what happened when the member for Burnaby North commented on the consultation with the BCMA on Bill 71. The facts are actually these, as far as dates and consultation times are concerned.
The first time the BCMA was exposed to a proposed revision of the Medical Service Act was February 26, 1992. Dr. Finlayson and Dr. Henderson and Dr. David Logan of the Ministry of Health were present. At that time no indication was given of Bill 13 or Bill 14. The contents were never seen or known by the BCMA until after they were tabled on March 26, 1992.
The second fact that he had wrong: in 1989 the Socred government indicated that they would introduce legislation on regionalization. On the morning the bill was to be introduced, the Minister of Health at the time, the current member for Matsqui, invited the BCMA to his office and offered to show the BCMA officers the legislation which was to be introduced that day. The BCMA said they did not wish to be party to such a phony consultation process, and they indicated to the minister that there would be a holy war if he proceeded with the new legislation in such a manner. Is this what this government calls consultation? The government changed its mind and announced to the public that the new bill would not be tabled, and the BCMA never saw that bill then or subsequently.
[ Page 2939 ]
The members opposite are asking why we are suggesting we should wait and have another look at this bill. I have in my hand a letter from a young doctor. I think the members of this House should listen very carefully to what this young doctor says -- the very people who the minister's aiming this legislation at.
An Hon. Member: Where's it from?
C. Tanner: The letter comes from a doctor in North Vancouver-Seymour.
D. Jarvis: No, he's in Lonsdale.
C. Tanner: I beg your pardon.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.
C. Tanner: He's from North Vancouver-Lonsdale.
Interjections.
C. Tanner: I apologize to my fellow member from this side of the House. He's from Lonsdale.
The letter reads:
"I am a physician undertaking postgraduate training. I have grown up in the present system of medicare, and I am committed to its preservation and improvement. It is indeed timely that our system of health care be reassessed, and I believe that the recently introduced Bill 71, the Medical and Health Care Services Act, offers a unique opportunity for such change.
"I have grave concerns, however. If passed as written, I believe this legislation will enable the Medical Services Commission to treat me in an unfair and discriminatory way with respect to the manner in which I shall be paid for my services in the future, and provide a mechanism for restricting the location and circumstances of my future practice.
"I firmly believe that all physicians must be treated in a just and equitable fashion. Doctors entering practice must not be treated in a discriminatory manner or be made to shoulder a disproportionate share of the financial burden of health care. I therefore implore you amend Bill 71 to ensure that this cannot happen.
"Furthermore, as a future medical practitioner in British Columbia, I insist on the institution of a meaningful mechanism by which my voice is heard in any discussions made by the commission which affect me or my future practice directly. In this regard, I acknowledge the Professional Association of Residents and Interns of B.C. as my legitimate and independent representative and urge that PARI-BC be accorded the same level of participation in the Medical Services Commission as the British Columbia Medical Association.
"I ask you to reply directly to my concerns and such provisions as made, and I request that you take steps to delay the passage of Bill 71."
The Minister of Health, in her wisdom, has decided to bring this piece of legislation into the Legislature late in our term, late in our session and late as far as the ability for members on this side of the House to look at it. That in itself is bad enough. But on top of that, the minister has an attitude toward the members on this side -- and even to her own backbenchers -- like she discovered medicare.
It might be of interest to the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head that this member, standing in his place here, ran in the Yukon on a ticket of medicare in 1970. Being the last place in Canada without it, I was very proud to be one of four members who supported it in the House. We introduced medicare in 1971 to come into effect in 1972. We gave a year of public meetings for the people to have input into the same plan that was in the rest of Canada, but we thought it was important enough that the public should have some input.
In spite of that, for some perverse reason that only Yukoners can explain, when it came time to pass the legislation in the House, the House was presented with a petition signed by 75 percent of the population that didn't want medicare. I had some difficulty understanding how they came to that conclusion. The fact of the matter is that they were able to express their opinions. They had a chance to. In my view, they had it wrong. Since the majority of the members in the House at the time had run on the ticket of medicare, we put it through. I think if you went back to the Yukon 22 years later, you would find that if you wanted to take it away from them, you'd have a riot on your hands. The fact of the matter is that we gave the public time to express a point of view, and I think they are entitled to do that.
[4:45]
The argument has been made on the other side of the House that because a commission went around discussing and collecting information, that was consultation. That is not the case. Consultation is a two-way street. They collected the information. The minister should rightly have taken the suggestions and put them into a White Paper. Then they should have put it up for further discussion and brought the legislation in in six months' time. That is what our amendment is trying to do.
We think you're going too fast. We don't necessarily disagree. We think you've got some problems with the legislation that we can help you improve in committee. We think you've moved too quickly. We think you should seriously think about what you're up to before you take it the next step.
Interjection.
C. Tanner: The suggestion by the member from Burnaby is that we should make an amendment. We have made an amendment which will give us time and expertise to look at it not in the hot light of this House, but in the cold light of a committee day, when we've had the opportunity to get people who have the expertise that the members opposite have had, supposedly in the short time they've had it in front of them.
I suspect that this bill is as much a surprise to many of the members of the back bench on the opposite side as it is to us. It was only in the last 48 hours or so that this bill was introduced, and already they expect to push it through. I don't think that's what the public wants. I think the public deserves to have an opportunity to talk to this bill and give us another look at it.
[ Page 2940 ]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 17 | ||
|
Tyabji |
Reid |
Mitchell |
|
Cowie |
Gingell |
Warnke |
|
Stephens |
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
|
Serwa |
De Jong |
Fox |
|
Symons |
K. Jones |
Chisholm |
|
Jarvis |
Tanner |
|
| NAYS -- 42 | ||
|
Petter |
Marzari |
Boone |
|
Sihota |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Barlee |
Charbonneau |
Jackson |
|
Pement |
Beattie |
Schreck |
|
Lortie |
MacPhail |
Lali |
|
Giesbrecht |
Conroy |
Miller |
|
Smallwood |
Hagen |
Gabelmann |
|
Clark |
Cull |
Zirnhelt |
|
Blencoe |
Barnes |
Pullinger |
|
B. Jones |
Copping |
Lovick |
|
Farnworth |
Dosanjh |
O'Neill |
|
Doyle |
Hartley |
Krog |
|
Randall |
Garden |
Kasper |
|
Simpson |
Lord |
Brewin |
L. Fox: Point of order. The member from Port Alberni was counted in, and he is in fact not in his chair. You said his name.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Your point is noted.
On the main motion.
D. Mitchell: I have spoken on the amendment, which unfortunately now has been defeated. I think it's truly regrettable that the government has decided not to vote in favour of the amendment.
I'm rising to speak to the main motion, hon. Speaker. I think it is truly lamentable that the government has voted against this amendment, which was offered in good faith by the opposition as an opportunity to help improve the process by which some restructuring of the health care system in this province could take place.
Several speakers on the government side, including the minister, have indicated that Bill 71 took some four years to draft. If that's true, surely it could use more than three weeks of exposure to the public, more than three weeks of consideration, if in fact there were four years of secret, backdoor drafting. It's ludicrous, the process by which this bill has been foisted upon this Legislature and by which the Legislature is being asked to pass this legislation. It's bad legislation, and that's why we can't accept it. That's why the amendment was offered, in the most sincere fashion. The amendment, which has failed, was offered in the true spirit of cooperation, and the government hasn't even considered it. No one who has risen in the debate has spoken in any substantive way to the amendment, which was offered in good faith. Now the amendment has been rejected, and I regret that.
I want to speak to the main motion: that this bill be read a second time now. I want to let you know right now, hon. Speaker, that I'm going to be speaking against that motion. Hon. Speaker, you should recognize that the motion for this bill to be read a second time now, which signifies that this House agrees with the bill in principle, is wrong. How can we agree in principle with legislation that has been concocted in the manner it has? It has been prepared in secret back rooms within the Ministry of Health, the cabinet and the Premier's office. The Minister of Health has been asked to front for this bill, to bring it forward without any consultation with the people it affects -- the general public or, more particularly, the physicians of the province, who must take a leadership role in the health care system. It's a travesty of our parliamentary system, if you scrutinize the process by which this bill has been brought forward.
When I was speaking to the amendment to second reading moved by the member for Langley -- which has been defeated; which I think was a good amendment -- I referred to the young medical practitioners, people who have no voice, young interns, resident physicians, the best and brightest who are coming up into the system. What a message to send to the very best and brightest young minds in the medical care field: that British Columbia might not provide an opportunity for them to practise their chosen profession after all the years of study that they put into it. Those working on post-graduate studies, those working in our hospitals, those working in some of the leading-edge practices in terms of specialty medicine -- what a message to be sending them: that there is no future for them here in British Columbia. That's what the Minister of Advanced Education said yesterday: "Let them leave. Let them leave the province."
An Hon. Member: He didn't say that.
D. Mitchell: That's what he implied. That's what the Minister of Advanced Education said. As a physician himself, he should know better. We don't want this government to be sending that kind of signal to medical practitioners in this province: "Let them leave; let them opt out of the system." If they want to leave the province, if they want to head south and practise there, where they're more welcome, then let them leave. That's what he implied. And that's shameful. What he was saying was good riddance to them, good riddance to the best and brightest minds in this province.
[5:00]
I'd like to ask this question. It is directed to the Minister of Health. If the Minister of Health were driving on the Upper Levels Highway on the North Shore, if she were to get into an accident and had to be taken to the Lions Gate Hospital on the North Shore and if she required neurological assistance, the chances are a practising neurologist wouldn't be there. Do you know why? Because of the three practising neurologists at Lions Gate Hospital, there's only one left. That neurologist can't work on a 24-hour-a-day basis.
[ Page 2941 ]
Heaven forbid the Minister of Health is in a tragic accident on the Upper Levels Highway and has to be taken to the Lions Gate Hospital; she may not be able to receive the health care she might require in a tragic accident of that nature. That would be terrible.
Why have the neurologists at Lions Gate Hospital, like so many other specialists in other hospitals, left the province? They've left because they've been told by Bill 71 that they're not welcome in British Columbia anymore. The place where they chose to practise, where they've trained, where they've come, where their families and friends are and where they want to make their future, that place is not a home for them. They're not welcome anymore. That's why it's a tragedy. Bill 71 is scaring off the very best that we have in our medical profession. It's forcing them to opt out of the system. That's why we can't support this bill.
I referred earlier to the hundreds of letters that I, as one MLA, have received. Some of them make some excellent points. They're made with a degree of articulation that speaks volumes. I'd just like to read one into the record. This is a letter from a doctor in my constituency of West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who writes to the Minister of Health. This is a letter from Dr.Boothroyd from West Vancouver. It's a very short letter. I'd like to read it into the record because it deals with Bill 71:
"Thirty-six years ago I came to Canada, where free enterprise medicine was available to the satisfaction of all. Today that system has been destroyed without reference to the doctors who provide the service. I'm happy to hear my colleagues declaring the time has come to opt out of medicare as you portray it. I have no intention of continuing under your terms of service.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. It is a shame that you obviously don't know what happened in the 1970s when the Labour government of the time tried your tactics in Great Britain. Today the fees for surgical services in the United Kingdom are two to three times those we receive here."
It's signed by Dr. Boothroyd from West Vancouver. I'm not going to go on to read the other attachments, but I think you get the picture. Here's a medical practitioner who came here a generation ago to practise and has now decided to opt out; he has now decided that's the only solution, given the policies of this government.
What is so tragic about this bill is the manner in which it's been brought in, the process. There might be some good in Bill 71. It's a 40-page bill brought in in the dying days of a session -- what the government hopes are the dying days of the session. But I can assure you we're here for a while if members expect to pass this bill. They expect to ram this through the Legislature without any consultation, without accepting an amendment that was offered in good faith to have it referred to public scrutiny by a select standing committee of the House. I think it's a tragedy.
Let me refer to another letter from another doctor in my constituency, from Squamish, a very different kind of community than West Vancouver. This is a letter from Dr. Richard Cudmore. I'd just like to very briefly read one paragraph of this letter. He's writing to the Minister of Health, but he's copied the letter to me. I know the Minister of Health has received a few cards and letters in the past few weeks; I'm sure she has. She's received significant representation from the doctors who provide the leadership in our health care system. I don't think she's had the time, perhaps not even the courtesy, to respond to most of these doctors. They certainly are frustrated, and that's what they've told us. Dr. Cudmore says to the minister: "Further to my previous two letters to you, I would like to, once again, ask you to have these bills removed." He's referring to Bills 13 and 14 and not to Bill 71. He says:
"I think it is very important in our society that groups such as ours, who ethically are not prepared to use a strike weapon, should nevertheless be protected by a mechanism such as binding arbitration to resolve fee disputes. I think that the physicians of British Columbia can be justifiably proud of their efforts over the past 15 years, particularly in times of financial difficulty that the governments have found themselves in. You may recall that moneys were actually donated back to the government in the past.
"I can assure you that on a daily basis I am discussing these issues with my patients, and the support that I have is 100 percent. I would urge you to fulfil the commitment to negotiation which your party made while in opposition. Would you treat us this way if we were a union?
"I ask that you urgently consider this, and I look forward with interest to your thoughts."
Here is a good question, hon. Speaker. Dr. Cudmore from Squamish is asking: "Would you treat us this way if we were a union?" That is an important question to be asking this government. Are they treating their friends in the trade unions in this manner -- failing to negotiate, no consultation, no consideration for....? They have fair wages for the construction unions. But what about fairness for the physicians of the province, who have to provide a leadership role in our health care system? It's not there.
I've received letters from doctors all over the province. I don't want to focus only on my own constituency. It is most interesting to look at letters received from constituencies represented by the New Democratic Party. Let me read into the record a portion of a letter from Dr. Rhonda Low of the Mount Pleasant Health Centre on East 8th Avenue in Vancouver.
An Hon. Member: That's the Premier's riding.
D. Mitchell: Yes, that's right: I think it is in the riding of the hon. Premier. I don't think she feels comfortable writing to the Premier anymore, after having many letters go unanswered. Many doctors have noticed that the government simply does not want to respond to their legitimate concerns and valid grievances.
This is what Dr. Low says in her letter to me of June 19:
"As a hard-working family physician with a busy full-time practice in Vancouver, I am very disappointed with the proposed Bill 71....
"The overall impact will be the same as Bill 13, and once again the global budget will greatly compromise the delivery of optimal health care in this province. This cap does not take into account the large trend towards
[ Page 2942 ]
immigration to this province, complicated expensive treatment of diseases such as AIDS, development of new technology and sporadic epidemics. This will ultimately mean longer waiting-lists for surgery and treatment, and stagnate medical progress in this province. There will be a further loss of quality physicians, and this act will, most importantly, penalize doctors who provide quality care. While all physicians recognize the need to control escalating health care costs, there is also the greater need to maintain excellence in the delivery of health care systems."
She goes on, and I don't want to go into the whole letter. But let me just read the conclusion, if I may, because I think it is most pertinent to this bill. She says:
"Most importantly, I know my patients will suffer needlessly and unfairly should Bill 71 become law. Surely the people of British Columbia deserve to have this legislation debated for as long as necessary to arrive at a thoughtful plan that will serve the people well for years to come."
I think that is very well said. She points out so clearly in the letter that Bill 13 is really incorporated in Bill 71. What did the government do? They said: "We'll scrap Bill 13 because the doctors didn't like it, and we'll bring in this new bill, Bill 71." But Bill 71 is a Trojan horse, a military tactic known to students of military history. They brought in Bill 71, but Bill 13 is inside it just waiting to be released on the doctors of this province, because they want to penalize and punish them. It is a shameful, underhanded approach on the part of this government.
I want to make reference to a sentence in one other letter from Dr. Peter Dodek of the University of British Columbia pulmonary research laboratory, St. Paul's Hospital. He is an assistant professor of medicine there. It's dated June 19, and he says: "Once again, I am disappointed at the shortsighted and irrational approach taken by the Minister of Health" -- and he names her in the letter -- "in her recent attempts to force through Bill 71." This is from a professor of medicine. Let me tell you how he concludes this letter, because I think it is most constructive and says a lot about this government. He says:
"Teamwork and collaboration is also an essential feature of continuous quality improvement, one of the newest and most productive innovations in health care management. As a worker in this field, I can only respond with sadness and regret to Ms. Cull's autocratic style of government. If a democratic approach is not used in both the writing of the new health act and in ongoing negotiations between government and physicians, then we cannot expect to progress as we approach and enter the twenty-first century.
"The tension for change is obviously evident. Let's use it to the best of our abilities to make useful progress and not regrettable mistakes."
That is from a professor of medicine at St. Paul's Hospital. I think he makes a good point as well.
This is simply an example of dozens and dozens of letters I've received from doctors like Prof. Dodek, who's concerned about the future, wants to innovate and believes that innovation and change is required in the health care system, but that it cannot be managed in an autocratic fashion and a dictatorial manner, which this Minister of Health is trying to force on the province of British Columbia through this terrible legislation. It should not be tolerated; we must oppose this legislation.
We talked earlier in the debate about concerns over confidentiality of patients' files. I don't think that has been satisfactorily addressed by the hon. Minister of Health.
Let me tell you about a letter I received from a practising psychiatrist in Vancouver. Let me tell you what I've heard from Dr. Thomas Barnett, who works mostly at Vancouver General Hospital's adolescent unit. There are some very sensitive issues in terms of the patients he deals with. He has given me permission to read this into the record, as have all these doctors. He doesn't refer to any sensitive material in this letter, but let me tell you about a particular issue he's addressed in this letter, because I think it's so important:
"I currently work mostly sessionally at Vancouver General's adolescent unit. Because my work is almost all sessional, my sessional rate has dropped below the point it was five years ago. At this unit we take care of the most seriously ill teens, those who are manic-depressive, psychotic, depressed and suicidal. It has been intense work, but interesting and challenging.
"I say 'was' because I am leaving as of September 1, 1992. The reasons are partly financial and partly because I want to position myself in order to be one of the first to go into opted-out full-time practice. I am readying my office plans, developing an approach which I hope will appeal to a range of people, and plan to be ready to go when the time arises. I am going to be left in the doldrums like a ship without wind.
"So already the current government's approach has affected my little area of health care. And if it goes through with its promises, as I know it no doubt will, I will seriously take at a look at a practice which will be devoted to and take care of the people who can pay up front. Not that this is the type of work I want to do, but far from it, because in my field many of those who need the help are not able to pay up front. So it really is the man in the street who will suffer."
He concludes his letter by saying that he doesn't want to go this way. This practising psychiatrist, who deals with teens who really require assistance, doesn't want to go this way, but he's being forced to opt out of the system. He says in his letter, and I quote again:
"I am in favour of some of the changes that are proposed. I think it is a good idea to let the consumers, the people, in; and the physicians, the providers, into the system. And needless to say, I hope that they will be a good balance to bureaucrats who need a window into the outside world. But this ramrodding of this bill into the Legislature seems to me to be rather sadistic and overly aggressive. Of course, I have some theories as to why this particular bill is being passed in this way by this person...."
This is a psychiatrist speaking, and these are quite interesting comments. He goes on to list a number of problems with the bill, and let me just tell you how he concludes the letter, because I don't want to read the whole letter into the record. It would take too much time, and I have more to say to this bill. He asks what is wrong with Bill 71:
"Ability to make special exceptions. What does this mean? Written in so much haste that criteria for these exceptions are absent. There is no provision for negotiation with physicians. There is no provision for resolu-
[ Page 2943 ]
tion of disputes. The commission has too much power. I will never, never let inspectors into my office."
This is a psychiatrist, who has confidential files in his office and is very concerned about the privacy of the material in those files. He concludes:
"As I read this, I assure you that I will not work under Bill 71 as it now stands. Does the NDP want a two-tiered system? Because that is what they will get with Bill 71. Perhaps I am so distrustful that I wonder if they want us to be the ones to break it to the public.
"Yours respectfully,
"Dr. Thomas W. Barnett."
Hon. Speaker, that's the fear in the medical community. They're so distrustful that they want the doctors to break it to their patients, rather than the government taking the responsibility as they should. Those are the kinds of concerns we've received. That's the kind of representation we've received from doctors throughout the province. I can tell you in a very genuine sense that it is from throughout the province, because we have letters from all over the province.
Here's an example of the many letters I've received from ridings represented by the New Democratic Party. I have a letter here from Dr. Dykes from Victoria Street in Prince George. It is important to take into account the regional nature of the economy and how the medical community has a special challenge in meeting those needs in the interior of the province. He has practised for 22 years in the Prince George area, and they have the following problems: their mortality rate is 34 percent higher than the rest of the province; their cancer rate is 46 percent higher than the rest of the province; they have no public health doctor. He has chronic recruitment difficulty for medical manpower. What does he say about Bill 71? In a letter to me dated June 19 he says: "Passage of this bill will be the final nail in the coffin for north central health care." That's what this medical practitioner from Prince George feels about this bill.
[5:15]
The opposition to this bill isn't coming from elected representatives in this chamber alone; it's widespread throughout the province. I think this government has to understand that. Let me give you an example from Kamloops, again from a constituency that has no voice in this House, because members representing Kamloops are afraid to get up and speak on Bill 71. They're afraid, but let me tell you that there is a voice for them in this House.
I've received a letter on behalf of 155 doctors in Kamloops, Clearwater, Merritt, 100 Mile House and the Ashcroft region. This is a letter to me, dated June 18, and it says that at a meeting of the Kamloops Medical Society, 155 doctors adopted the following resolution:
"The doctors in this area will not work under this bill if it is passed and its provisions are shoved down our throats. The doctors in this area will not enrol in the medical plan. We are therefore neither opted in nor opted out, and will sever our relationship with the insuring body, namely the Medical Services Commission.
"The doctors in this area will continue to practise medicine, billing our patients directly, and it will be pointed out to our patients that they will receive no refund from MSC. This is not a strike or withdrawal of services. We don't think it will be very long before the public screaming reaches the ears of the NDP, because it will be the NDP government that has opted the patient out of medicare."
This is signed by Dr. Karpiak from district 10 of the BCMA. He closes the letter by saying: "I am sure that I don't have to list the provisions of Bill 71, which cumulatively will put an end to medicare in B.C." This is what he says, and he's speaking on behalf of 155 doctors. They're saying they won't work under this Bill 71.
Why is the government forcing this kind of confrontation on the doctors of British Columbia? It's shameful. They've got to stop and take a second look, because they're forcing confrontation. People in the province voted against confrontation in the last election, and this government's reintroducing it into so many facets of our society. It's shameful, because this bill is really causing more damage than the health care system in this province has ever known.
That was from Kamloops and from the central interior. Let me tell you that I have received letters from doctors in a number of different regions throughout the province. I've received one from the clinic of Ingram Family Physicians in Duncan. So many of these letters come from doctors who have been disfranchised, because their elected representatives are afraid to get up in this House and speak on this bill. They're afraid to speak in favour of the bill because they don't support it, or perhaps they're afraid to speak against the bill because they're afraid to break the whip on the opposite side. But let me tell you that doctors in ridings not represented by New Democratic Party members have a voice in this House.
Here's a doctor from Duncan who wrote to me on June 19 on Bill 71. His name is Dr. Philippson, and he's from the medical clinic of Ingram Family Physicians on Ingram Street. Let me read to you the introduction of the letter, because it's a very articulate letter -- very well thought out and very well considered. It's totally opposed to Bill 71. What he says is: "I am astounded and disgusted with the continued arrogant and deceitful attitude that" -- the Minister of Health -- "continues to have with the physicians and public of the province of British Columbia."
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I must remind hon. members that in quoting letters from persons outside the House, one is not allowed to use language that would otherwise be unacceptable in this chamber.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will be pleased to respect your ruling.
Let me tell you of the hundreds of letters I've received. There is some language in here which would not be appropriate to quote in this chamber, and this language comes from well-educated British Columbians who are frustrated to the point where they can't express themselves in words other extreme language. Let me tell you what this doctor said. I will go on, and I'll be very careful not to quote Dr. Philippson incorrectly. He's referring to the Minister of Health when he says: "Her arrogance is obvious by her refusal to enter into meaningful negotiations with B.C. doctors for the
[ Page 2944 ]
provision of health care services to British Columbians." He's referring to a general sense....
B. Jones: On a point of order, the language expressed in that letter is language pointed personally at the Minister of Health. This member takes offence, and I would ask that member to withdraw those terms that were offensive to me and, I'm sure, to the Minister of Health.
J. Tyabji: On the point of order, we've seen people rising a number of times today on language being used in this House. Frankly, we have our list, and I don't believe "arrogance" is on the list of unparliamentary language. In this case, I certainly can't see it. The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is trying to provide a voice for the people of his constituency. If the people of the constituency are saying a certain thing, how is he going to share with the House what is being said by those members except through conveying them in this manner?
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. I will just remind the hon. member who has the floor of the comments I just made. In quoting any material that is brought into the debate, one must be absolutely cautious not to engage in language that is unacceptable in this chamber, even if it is attributed to somebody else.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will certainly respect that ruling, and the comments of the member for Burnaby North are well taken. Those comments were not my own; I was reading from a document. But if they were offensive to that particular member, then certainly I'm not going to pursue that line of debate. I withdraw those comments if they were offensive to him in particular.
The point that I'm trying to make here is that physicians are frustrated. They're frustrated to the point where their emotions are boiling over. They have no voice -- especially physicians who are resident in constituencies held by members of the government.
I've received representation from the Mission Oaks Medical Centre. In a letter to me dated June 19, Dr. Blackwood says: "At the present time we are dealing with a totally unethical, self-righteous government which is dangerous in the highest extreme. The medical profession needs the protection of binding arbitration as defined in the Canada Health Act and also followed by seven other provinces in Canada." Dr. Blackwood is from Mission. He goes on with great frustration.
I've probably received the greatest representation from Nanaimo -- probably close to 100 letters from physicians or medical practitioners from the Nanaimo area alone. I can't even begin to refer to the seething frustration among the physicians who have no voice in this Legislature because members representing Nanaimo are afraid to get up in this debate. They're afraid to speak in this debate. But I've received a number of very articulate letters from the physicians practising in that area of Vancouver Island.
Let me just tell you about one letter from Dr. Bandali of Dufferin Crescent, Nanaimo. He was talking about Bill 71 in a letter to me of June 17. He says:
"It is most distressing to learn that the present NDP government wishes to ram through legislation which will have a profound impact on the health care of the people of this province, without input or discussion with the physicians who are the primary providers of this service.
"We are gravely concerned about a number of aspects of this bill, and the government has seriously underestimated the budget needed to provide adequate health care. This will result in serious and significant cutbacks, resulting in rationing of health care for every family in the province. This means that patients will have to wait longer to see their physicians; there will be longer waiting-lists for operations and tests and treatment. This in the long run cannot help but adversely affect patient care. This erosion of health care should not be allowed to happen."
He goes on and makes some excellent points in this letter, which I won't continue. I could go on. I have letters from doctors throughout British Columbia, but particularly those disfranchised doctors from ridings held by New Democratic Party members who refuse to get up and speak in this debate. It's shameful.
For that reason, I feel that the fact that the previous amendment was defeated by this government proves that there's no goodwill, and I feel compelled to move another amendment to second reading of this bill: that the motion for second reading of Bill 71 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."
On the amendment.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to speak in favour of this amendment, which should come as no surprise to the members of the House and those who are listening.
Some Hon. Members: What amendment?
J. Tyabji: I believe some members weren't paying attention. Hon. Speaker, we are speaking to the amendment?
The Speaker: I have an amendment before me. Debate can continue.
J. Tyabji: I think the hon. members should pay attention. One of those two members was the one who just said that no one was listening. I'd say that the only people who aren't listening are perhaps some of the hon. members on that side of the House. I think the fact that some of those members are saying that no one's listening is indicative of the kind of mind-set of the members on the other side of the House. We on this side don't have that mind-set. We believe people are listening. This is our own health care plan. Not only are people listening, but they're concerned. They're interacting with both sides of the House. They're only getting feedback from this side, but they are certainly reaching out to members on both sides of the House. People care very much about Bill 71. They are paying attention, and it is a very critical bill.
[ Page 2945 ]
Members have been talking about what Bill 71 means to us and how we are treating people within the health community. In the other amendment we introduced to the House, asking for the bill to go to a select standing committee, we saw that amendment defeated. That was extremely unfortunate, and it's because of that defeat that we brought in this amendment. The members on this side of the House feel that the future of health care is definitely in question with Bill 71, because of the manner in which it's been brought in and because of the way it is eroding the confidence of the physicians. Because of those concerns, we moved this amendment to hoist the bill for six months. Because of that, we do not want this bill to be debated only for these few days. We want to have that time-frame so that we can come back after six months and speak to this bill.
The fact is that the physicians of the province have no confidence in this bill, and many of them are choosing to opt out. Going back to when we were talking about Bills 13 and 14, I was at a meeting in Okanagan East where the doctors showed up, and they were very concerned. They were talking about health care issues, and they wanted someone to listen to them. They all filled out their forms and said that in the event that they felt that health care to be in jeopardy, they would opt out of the system.
What does that mean to the people of Okanagan East who go to those physicians and who aren't even aware of the debate that's taking place in this chamber right now? They're not aware because it's being rammed through the Legislature. It's going through too fast, so they don't have time -- the retired people, the senior citizens, the young mothers who take their children to the doctor all the time. What is going to happen if this government rams through Bill 71, if our health care system is eroded, if the doctors opt out? The patients will go to their doctor, not realizing the implications of this bill, and find that their doctor is no longer in the plan, because that doctor, on a point of principle, could not support a health care system that would not listen, and because of that, opted out. Now we have senior citizens and people who will go to their doctors, and their doctors will no longer be part of the system. They're being denied access to their choice of physician, because we are not allowing the parliamentary process to go through due course, and that is to allow proper debate of the bill.
We wanted it to go to a select standing committee, and being a vehicle of the House it is an excellent way for it to go. But because the government defeated our amendment to go to a select standing committee, we have no choice but to speak to the fact that we want to see this bill put off for another six months.
There are many questions that have to be answered with regard to this bill that we will never be able to answer within the context of this debate. This debate is almost a travesty. Once again, we see a situation where after the fact the bill is being put forward to the House in a situation where it will be passed within a few days if we don't see any kind of stalling process being initiated from that side of the House.
Originally, when Bill 71 was introduced, we thought we were going to have a set fall sitting. It would be at that fall sitting that we would debate a bill of this magnitude. Perhaps it is because we are rookies that we have more faith in the system than what is being demonstrated by this debate being rushed through. Because we are rookies we felt that a bill of this magnitude couldn't possibly be given only a week to go through the House. We were confident that we would have until the fall. We were confident that we would have until the next sitting of the House.
As I said before this, there are things in this bill we are prepared to support. We would be happy to take those things to our communities and hear feedback on those initiatives. There are also parts of this bill that we are extremely uncomfortable with, that we disagree with completely, that as a matter of principle we cannot support. We feel that we must have time to debate those issues within the bill. We will not have time based on this debate. It offends our confidence in the parliamentary process to see that a bill of this magnitude can be introduced and put through the House this quickly. People within the province are going to start to question whether a majority government is ever in the interests of the people if we see bills like this being passed without any due course or dialogue for the people of the province.
[5:30]
What will happen if we as legislators sit here, allow this bill to go through, and three or four months down the road the implications start coming home to roost with us, and we start seeing the doctors who have opted out and the patients who can no longer visit their own doctors? The implications of rushing this bill through will be that the poor and those who can least afford it will no longer have access to their physicians, because their physicians will opt out as they have lost confidence in the system.
When we are starting to talk about the exodus of doctors -- doctors who opt out and people who are leaving the province -- I sense from that side of the House that there's not a lot of sympathy for physicians. They feel that physicians make a lot of money, and they don't feel sorry for them at all. That's fine. But even if they don't feel sympathy for the physicians, even if they say.... I believe the term "fat cats" has been used by some of the members on that side of the House when they're dealing with physicians. Even if that is their perception of physicians, even if they don't want to listen to the doctors, even if they're going to let the doctors talk only to the opposition, because the members who are part of the government won't listen to them and won't represent their own doctors in their riding, what about the rest of our constituents? What about the people who are part of the general public, who don't have the time to read this bill and understand the implications and do the research? What about those who haven't yet had a chance to realize the impact that it will have in their daily life? How are those people going to be impacted when their doctors leave the province? Why are those people not being represented by the government members who are in their ridings?
[ Page 2946 ]
As every member in opposition and in the third party are getting letters from constituents and doctors, so too are the members on that side of the House receiving numerous letters from their doctors and constituents. It undermines the parliamentary process when they don't give those people a voice, when they will not speak up on behalf of their constituents. I challenge the members on that side of the House to stand up and tell us all the constituents who have written to them in support of Bill 71. Or better yet, let's hear them say why they think it serves the parliamentary process to ram Bill 71 through the Legislature. I really think it's a form of contempt of the House if they will not give due process to this bill. If they will not accept our amendment, it really runs contrary to our democratic process and parliamentary procedure. If they are going to show contempt of the process by not allowing debate, then we will sit here, and we will certainly be doing our best to introduce amendments to try to counteract the contempt that we feel is being shown by not giving proper debate and dialogue to the bill.
We see constituents in their ridings and our ridings -- many constituents in their ridings are losing faith in their own members, who won't represent them in the House -- sending their letters to our side of the House, the opposition, so that we can at least give them a voice in the House, so that we can at least represent them.
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: It seems to me that those members don't even believe me that their constituents are writing to us. I say to those hon. members: go check your mailboxes, because there are letters from your constituents. You'll see that they've been cc'd to our side of the House, because they've been writing to you, and you haven't been listening. You certainly haven't been giving them a voice.
I challenge members on that side of the House to stand up and represent the physicians in their ridings and the other members in their ridings whose physicians are going to opt out and who are going to then go to their physicians and not be able to receive service. In fact, it will be the poor people in their ridings, those who can least afford it, who will end up going to their physicians and not being able to afford to go. People who are wealthy are going to be able to afford to pay for the medical care on their own. It's two-tiered. We are definitely moving toward a two-tiered system of medicare in the province of B.C.
We've seen on that side of the House a general disregard for our concerns. The very fact alone that credible constituents in all of our ridings are calling our attention to the potential end of health care as we know it in B.C. should show that they are undermining the parliamentary process and that we have to wait a few months before we make this bill into an act.
There will be a number of amendments introduced by the official opposition at the committee stage of this bill, because we are going to address the specific clause-by-clause concerns that we have. Our only recourse in second reading is to try to introduce amendments so that we can slow the process up, to allow whatever limited dialogue there is out there to be fed into us.
I notice that the ranks are fairly thin on that side of the House. Does this represent the kind of concern that members from that side of the House have for this bill? This happens to be the bill concerning medicare in B.C., and as the hon. member for Delta South pointed out, there is nothing that government offers to the people of the province that's more important than medicare and medical health services. The fact that there are almost no members on that side of the House even listening to the concerns of the opposition.... As I said, it is only the opposition that is bringing forward the concerns of their constituents. What recourse do their constituents have for getting to them? They've written to them; they're not listening. They try to get their concerns brought up in the House, and they're not coming up from that side of the House. When we bring them up on our side of the House, they're not even here to listen to them. We are very thin in our ranks here, and I think it's unfortunate, because if they were here, perhaps we could convince them to depart from this contemptuous practice of bringing in an enormous bill and then not even being here to debate it. They are ramming the debate through the House, and they are not even here to debate it. In fact, I would even venture to say that I could call them lap dogs if I wanted to, and they would not even be here to defend themselves.
The Speaker: I'm going to ask the hon. member to withdraw the reference to that term. We've had discussion in this House on that language today.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I'm not using that term in reference to anyone. I will definitely withdraw the term.
I'm trying to say that they're not even here for the debate. They allow so much range to the debate because they're not here; they're not even participating. I'm just trying to draw the point that earlier at least some of them were here to participate in what we were saying, even if that participation was contrary to what we're saying. Where are they so they can at least refute what we're saying? Where are the members who will stand up and say: "We disagree with it being stalled for six months, because we feel that it is in a finished form"? Where are the members who will take exception to what we're saying? They're not here. I find that to be truly unfortunate. I don't know how their constituents can be represented in the House when they're not even here to listen to us. I hope that that does not reflect the level of respect with which they treat the health care system.
I started this with regard to the amendment, and the fact that no one is listening is fundamental to the debate. The people who are listening are also the people who don't have a voice on that side of the House. They want to have a voice through opposition.
As I mentioned when I was speaking to the previous amendment, last week we had a bill go through that had a very significant clause in it. There wasn't adequate time to do research, and now it's an act. In
[ Page 2947 ]
that case, I venture to say that the minister may not even be aware of the implications of the removal of that clause. If he becomes aware of it, and if he then has to amend the act, it's a long and cumbersome process. In the meantime, we have an act where there is no provision for sustainable forestry. That's how significant it was in that bill. There could be an equally significant clause in this bill. It could become an act. By the time the research can be done to justify a bill of this magnitude, it's already an act. Any kind of recourse would have to be done after the fact.
I see that there is one member here who could have called me to task on my previous terms of reference, as he did earlier. I'm happy to see him come to participate in the debate.
With that, I'd like to wrap up my speech on this amendment. The key point is that this is undermining parliamentary procedure. We shouldn't have legislation by exhaustion, especially on a bill of this magnitude. We fully expected that this bill would sit on the order paper until the fall. We fully expected that a bill of this magnitude would not be called for in this session. We were dealing with this bill with that approach. It is because we expected that this would wait until the fall session that we are introducing these amendments at this time.
We need every opportunity to at least speed up our own research processes and try to put the message forward to the government in a very strong manner that this is not an acceptable way of dealing with medicare. There are hundreds and thousands of people out there who have very serious concerns with this bill. Many of them do not have a voice in this House. We want to provide a voice for them, and we want the government to at least provide an ear for them to listen to. It cannot possibly be done, given the constraints of this debate. If this is going to be an act by the end of this session, we're not doing justice to the bill or to the people of B.C., and we're not doing justice to medicare.
It is with that in mind that I fully support this amendment. I urge the government to reconsider their hasty dealings with this bill. Slow the process down, and allow people the avenues for direct input to the ministers, to the back bench and to the members of the opposition so that we can do justice to this bill and support the minister in the areas where we agree with her.
A. Warnke: I want to speak to this amendment. I believe that it must be supported because, as events have unfolded on this particular bill.... I must admit I would be less than true to myself if, having seen this bill and the way it has been addressed -- a somewhat exhausting and exhaustive.... I think the point has been made by many people over and again to try to signal the government that something is not right with this bill. Indeed, when we spoke on an earlier amendment, the one in which the opposition parties had advanced a reasonable proposition to the government to refer the bill to a select standing committee, it is regrettable that a reasonable option was offered, but alas it failed. Fail, fail, fail. So in this particular amendment, what is advanced here is the last and only option available to the opposition parties, which see some very severe problems with this bill. It is regrettable that this is perhaps the last and only option available to the people of British Columbia to voice an opposition to this bill. It is the last and only option, because it is quite obvious and apparent that the government now wants to ram this bill through. You know: ram, ram, ram. I think it is about time that instead of ramming things through, the government takes a great big U-turn.
M. Farnworth: That's ewe as in sheep.
A. Warnke: That's it; you've got it. That hon. member who just spoke up is very quick. It's very good that he caught onto it. When I referred to the U-turn, to stop ramming things through, he got it: we're talking about sheep that are ewes.
But why support it?
F. Garden: Tell us what you would change in the bill.
A. Warnke: There's one hon. member who said: "What do you want to change in the bill?" I think that hon. member has forgotten that we're talking about the amendment.
The big question now is: why do we support this amendment? Well, we support this amendment because we need a real cooling off. As a matter of fact, I recall that during the day an hon. member opposite said: "You guys" -- meaning us on this side of the House -- "have got to chill out." I would agree with that. We need a cooling-off period. On such a hot day, it's a pretty good idea, too.
[5:45]
We get a very strong sense from the community, from the people of British Columbia, from the number of letters that have come forth and the number of people who have expressed their opinion.... I'm sure there are members of the government party who have also received letters and heard concerns. I really have a lot of faith in democracy. I believe that the members of this Legislature do go back to their constituency offices, and they listen to the representations that have been made in their constituencies. I am sure they have come across letters and expressions of concern about the health care system of this province.
The letters in fact have been read before this very chamber. Let us take one example. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi read a few letters in this chamber. Everyone could obviously recognize that that was a very tiny tip of an iceberg of letters that had come to him. It's instructive that in that particular member's case, he had received letters not only from his own constituents but from throughout the province. This is also true for other members of the opposition. I know in my own capacity I've received letters from all parts of the province. It has been absolutely amazing. When first elected, I thought that most of my correspondence would be coming primarily from my own constituency, but I've received letters from all over the province on very contentious issues and problems such as this one.
[ Page 2948 ]
It is a tiny tip of an iceberg of letters that we have been getting; but of course icebergs melt. When icebergs melt, drops of water are formed. Pretty soon the drops of water create a flood like the glaciers. Indeed some of the letters that have been read in this chamber are much like droplets of water that flow in the Fraser River: it's a very small portion of what has been coming forward from the people of British Columbia so that we may in turn represent those interests.
Therefore in supporting this amendment we need this cooling-off period. We need time to re-examine the essence of our health care system, the Seaton report. My colleague from Delta South talked a little this afternoon about the Seaton report, which does address some aspects of it. But as I mentioned earlier, the Seaton report is also a very small part of the consultation that has taken place.
I have heard the Minister of Health on different occasions claim that consultation has taken place; but I'm still waiting. Perhaps the minister at some point will convince us that there has been extensive consultation besides the Seaton commission report, but so far there has not been an elaboration as to what kind of consultation has taken place and whom the minister has consulted.
That minister has also made reference to the BCMA. This surprises me in one way. If that consultation has taken place -- and I don't doubt the minister's word for one moment -- the objections of the members of the BCMA to this particular legislation should be crystal clear. The reason why this amendment has to be supported is that perhaps we need to go back to the original sources to once again hear the concerns. Obviously the concerns that were expressed, and the criticism of the legislation that's been brought forward in this House, have been clearly demonstrated. With press releases, and so forth, we have a very good idea what members of the BCMA were and are saying, and what they've said to the minister. Perhaps it is in the government's interest to reconsider whether a full consultation has taken place. This is the reason for supporting the amendment.
There are other reasons as well. Again, it is not altogether clear that the process of consultation, and the process of setting up the administrative machinery of establishing a new commission.... Apparently the government members just simply do not fathom this, but I suppose it's worth repeating over and over again so that it becomes crystal clear why we are supporting this amendment. The efforts in establishing the procedures, the institutions over which the government has control, and therefore its thumb on future policy, and the control of the administration of the health care system such as no other government has had before, is objectionable.
While I and my colleagues think it is objectionable from a particular standpoint, it may be that we need the government members to conclude that we need this kind of exercise of control. Maybe there are some premises that have not been displayed here. It's good to flesh out the arguments and outline the various premises as to why we initiate policy and so forth. That has not been done here. To my way of thinking, it has not been a very full argument that government members have presented. Perhaps to provide that opportunity for government members to put forward their case in full and elaborate on the premises of putting forth legislation such as this, it may well be that we need that time. Time is so critical to instil something else. It is something else that I mentioned earlier in the day, and that is to promote confidence in the health care system.
I'm convinced that we on this side of the House are not wrong. I'm convinced that the other side, the government side, is wrong, as I'm sure government members feel that we're wrong on this side of the House. But it may be that whatever premises and perspectives we operate from, it's significant enough to clearly illustrate that we need to sit down and take some time off. Obviously we cannot do it through a select standing committee. That would have been most desirable. We need the government to sit down and reconsider where it is going with this kind of legislation and absorb the input once again from various parts of the medical community.
The medical community quite genuinely feels that this kind of legislation puts them in a subordinate status vis-�-vis the government, however the commission is established, whatever happens from that or whatever appointments are being made. The medical community has to have confidence in their health care system. The public has to have confidence in the health care system.
The reason that we support this amendment is that we are down to the wire. This is the last and only option available to opponents of this legislation who see problems with it. Once the legislation comes into being, then it sits there.
One hon. member said earlier: "You can add to the legislation. It's not carved in stone. It's not permanent. If there is something wrong with it, you can add to it later on." Anyone who is well acquainted with legislation recognizes that once an act comes into being, it's not just a simple matter, especially when one thinks of the administrative implications of administering an act, to add an amendment here or there. There are certain kinds of problems that make it very difficult to tighten up on the administration. This is surprising, because the government knows full well how difficult it is. It's a brand new government that has come into a situation. I'm sure that it has wanted to tighten its belt in the administrative machinery of public policy. It's interesting. Maybe they have not been in power long enough. Maybe they have not experienced the difficulty of reining in the administration.
Once legislation has been put in place, if it's faulty, a very odd phenomenon happens. If it is flawed, the latent problems in that legislation later on become manifest. How do you control it then?
Caution is extremely necessary. As far as I'm concerned, caution is a virtue in public policy making. For this reason as well, I support this amendment.
Regrettably seeing that we are approaching 6 o'clock -- and I believe that we have an agenda for the rest of the evening -- I move adjournment of the debate on this amendment until the next sitting of the House.
[ Page 2949 ]
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me inform the House that we are sitting tomorrow. I don't believe I've done that as per Standing Orders
I would like to move that the House recess for five minutes and sit no later than 11 p.m. tonight.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:06 p.m.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 50.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 50; M. Farnworth in the chair.
On section 20.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
On section 20 as amended.
A. Warnke: It's hard to make the transition from talking about icebergs and drops of water to talking about something that's of interest in a different area. But at any rate, I want to ask the Attorney General if there is any procedure in formulating section 20 here. To what extent is the Attorney General confident of avoiding procrastination until the last day when the application is made? We're trying to really avoid that if possible. It's possible that not only does this apply to section 20, but to other sections as well.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We dealt with the questions of undue delay with some amendments and some sections yesterday. The general scheme is that the head of the public body must produce the information without delay. There is a 30-day provision, and then there is another 30-day provision. After 60 days it has to be treated as a new request, which is in the amendment that we're dealing with and that we've just adopted.
The amendment ensures that where a head promises to release information in 60 days and subsequently changes his or her mind, the initial request is treated as a new formal request. As a result, the applicant will receive any information that can be released more quickly. If that's not clear, I'm prepared to do some more on it. I think it should be.
A. Warnke: Also on section 20, although there is a general issue involved, but very briefly: as we noted in second reading, there is the media's concern about the issue of access to soliciting information and so forth. It was argued earlier from that perspective that obtaining information is not possible unless some sort of permission is granted for the release of the information. As I thought about it later, maybe I should have asked that on section 9. Nonetheless, here the media has expressed that it would like information released as soon as possible. I'm just wondering whether the media's concern about information being released as soon as possible has been considered. What sort of response is there from the ministry?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In respect of the concern about "as soon as possible," yesterday we added some amendments that talked about "without delay" so that there wouldn't be the temptation to hold the material until the 29th day. This section talks about material that is available to individuals through the normal course of events. That's not part of the legislation. It also says that if an individual asks for something that is scheduled to be published within 60 days, then the person has to wait for the material until that publication date.
Section 20 as amended approved.
Section 21 approved.
On section 22.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 22. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
On section 22 as amended.
A. Warnke: The argument has been put forward that a person who has information being sought for should know who the information-seeker is. That's one kind of an argument that has been put forward. That is, an individual should know who is seeking information on him. Yet on the other hand the third party, as it's described here, should also be protected. How did the ministry balance this kind of dilemma to ensure that the rights of both the person who has information being sought on them and the third party is protected?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The legislation through various sections read in concert is designed to protect the privacy of applicants in those situations. We think it does that. Again, this is almost an on principle kind of question rather than a committee stage issue. We think we've covered that with a fairly extensive section.
A. Warnke: I have one other question on this section. Has the ministry considered what is an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy? Could the minister elaborate on that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Are you looking for an answer?
[ Page 2950 ]
A. Warnke: What may be an unreasonable invasion of privacy? I was thinking of it in more general terms as to whether there has been some sort of consideration. Perhaps the best way is to define unreasonable invasion of personal privacy.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Section 22(3) and the various subsections under (3).... We start with the principle that it's a reasonable test. Is it reasonable to assume that it's an invasion of privacy? Then we go beyond that and say that there are a certain number of situations in which it is deemed to be unreasonable, and those items are listed (a) through (i). I don't think the amendment changes that.
Section 22 as amended approved.
On section 23.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
[6:15]
Amendment approved.
On section 23 as amended.
A. Warnke: Just a quick point here. In their particular criticism of Bill 50, the media had made some references here. I noted that they picked out this particular section. I'm wondering if the Attorney General could respond to some of the media concerns about section 23.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm quite prepared and delighted to be as co-operative and forthcoming as possible, but I need to have a more specific question than that.
A. Warnke: I understand that completely. I think the one particular problem was stating that within 20 days after the notice.... The media has questioned whether this is sufficient time. There was a reference, I believe, of five days with the media. Perhaps that needs some sort of clarification.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I take it the member is asking me about 23(1)(c) and is asking about the 20-day provision.
First of all, 20 days is an arbitrary number. If my memory's correct, the media submission was five days. Five days, even if they are described as five working days, is a very short period of time to examine major issues. The kind of major issues that are at stake in this issue relate to trade secrets, for example, or sensitive personal information. To try to make a judgment within five days on those kinds of questions, and to have that in writing as a response.... It is just too short a time-frame, in our view. We discussed that issue with the media coalition, and our view is that 20 days, just from a practical perspective, is a more appropriate time-frame.
Section 23 as amended approved.
On section 24.
A. Warnke: I'm looking at a time-frame by which.... There is a time-limit, and then notice of a decision. It's a minor point, and I'll pass on that. Perhaps the Attorney General would want to comment on section 24.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The section is designed to outline the time limits for notification of a third party. It also provides for notice provisions. It says that within 30 days after notice is given to a third party about the possible release, the decision has to be made about accessing a record. But a decision can't be made before 21 days after notice is given. It's just to try to give some instructions to inform the process and to set the time-frame parameters.
Section 24 approved.
On section 25.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to Division 4 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I now move the amendment to section 25 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 25 as amended approved.
Section 26 approved.
On section 27.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 27 as amended approved.
On section 28.
A. Warnke: I have a quick question on section 28. I can perhaps use an illustration. The question I'm leading up to is how we deal with innuendoes and information. I recall that some time ago -- over 20 years ago -- a government file on a particular individual had a description. I'm from, I guess, German descent, so it might be appropriate to castigate myself. The information read something like: "He works hard, like a big fat German." Prima facie, this is a very offensive remark, but in a peculiar sort of way the particular person who wrote this was in an awkward position of trying to
[ Page 2951 ]
describe in the best terms possible -- this is a government position, by the way -- the characteristics of this person for the purpose of employment.
Fortunately everyone knew what it was like, yet I can imagine the person would take offence to it. By way of that kind of illustration, here we have individuals who make those kinds of comments in the public service -- both provincial and federal. Taking into consideration that this happens on a frequent basis, I'm wondering how we deal with what could be construed as innuendoes, even when those descriptions are positive and constructive. It was just one concern that tweaked me here as I read section 28.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, section 28 requires that the information is accurate and complete. While the suggestion or example used by the member doesn't fall technically within that kind of definition, it certainly does within any other kind of propriety. If an individual sees or understands that kind of comment or inaccurate information is on the record, then under the following section they have the right to have that information withdrawn, excised from the record or amended.
Sections 28 to 31 inclusive approved.
On section 32.
A. Warnke: Is there not an amendment to section 32?
The Chair: The amendment is on 33, hon. member.
Section 32 approved.
On section 33.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 33 as amended approved.
Sections 34 and 35 approved.
On section 36.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 36 as amended approved.
On section 37.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
On section 37 as amended.
D. Mitchell: If I could just ask a question to the Attorney General about section 37, which is dealing with the commissioner appointed under this act, the person who is appointed under this section is not eligible for reappointment as a result of this amendment. I'm wondering if the Attorney General could explain very briefly the rationale for that. For instance, even if we find an excellent candidate -- the best candidate in the world -- there's no room for reappointment here. Can he explain the rationale for that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The main reason for doing this is to prevent the possibility -- and it's only that -- that a commissioner would make, in the last year or two of his term, recommendations that were favourable to the government, but in a way that maybe the whole Legislature wasn't really aware of, and would therefore try to curry some favour and get reappointed.
I can tell you, we accepted the suggestion and recommendation on the advice of the former ombudsman, Mr. Stephen Owen. That was a suggestion that he had made. We feel comfortable with it. I recognize the fact that you could find an outstanding candidate who might be eligible for reappointment, but our feeling was that on the balance it was better to give the person their one shot and then go to somebody else.
D. Mitchell: I notice that the commissioner is an officer of the Legislature. That is specifically what this section of the bill suggests. Could the Attorney General inform the committee whether, as an officer of the Legislature, this commissioner would have his or her budget approved through the legislative process rather than through Treasury Board?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not a decision that this legislation deals with, and certainly the section doesn't. That's a decision that's made by another process.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask the Attorney General to comment on this further. The independence of the commissioner is key to this whole legislation. We applaud the fact that the commissioner is an officer of the Legislature. Much like the ombudsman and the auditor general, the commissioner administering this act is also going to be a servant of all members of this Legislature. I think that's important. The independence of the person who occupies that office is important.
But I'm seeking some reassurance from the hon. Attorney General that the budget for the office of the privacy commissioner is also going to be independent from government, so that government would not have the opportunity to interfere with the operation of the office of the commissioner.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is an interesting issue. It's not in order in this section, but I don't mind taking a minute if the Chair allows me to.
[ Page 2952 ]
Treasury Board, in effect, raises the money to be spent; therefore Treasury Board decides how it gets spent. That's a fundamental rule, I think. She who raises the money decides who spends it.
The other thing I should say is that this position will be treated no differently from that afforded to the ombudsman, the auditor general or the commissioner under the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. The same procedures and process will be employed.
Further to that, in section 41, which I would encourage the member to read, if the commissioner feels that he or she is being thwarted by the government or Treasury Board, he or she has the opportunity to make a report to the House, which of course is public. Presumably, if in fact there has been an attempt to muzzle by financial means, then that will become public, and the government will be judged accordingly.
[6:30]
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the hon. Attorney General referring to section 41, which anticipated a comment I was going to make there; I won't make that comment at this point.
Section 40 as well deals with the salary, expenses and benefits of the commissioner, but the concern here is the independence of the office of the commissioner. Surely if we are to have any confidence in this bill -- which is a major piece of legislation introduced by this government -- and in the independence of the commissioner, who is going to administer this act if in fact it becomes law, then there has to be some independence for that office in terms of setting the budget for the commissioner. The hon. Attorney General has guaranteed us that there will be no difference between how the budget is set and approved for this commissioner and, say, for the ombudsman or the auditor general. I think that's important.
If the commissioner is an officer of the Legislature, independence is crucial. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the hon. Attorney General, who is responsible for this act, might interfere, but there has to be a safeguard for future governments, for future administrations, for future occupants of his office, so that there wouldn't be an attempt to muzzle or to interfere or to provide the commissioner with less than the full resources required to complete the duties of the job assigned under this act.
Under section 41 the commissioner may make a special report. That's a useful safety valve, perhaps, but why even anticipate that? Why not make it truly independent? Would the hon. Attorney General be willing to consider yet another amendment to enshrine in this bill, as it becomes a statute of the province of British Columbia, the true independence of this office by allowing the commissioner's budget and office expenses not to be funnelled through Treasury Board -- through a cabinet committee -- but perhaps through the legislative management committee, which is going to be established under different legislation that we're considering this session?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll go the member one better. The budget will be processed through this Legislative Assembly by way of a vote. It probably will be vote 5 or 6 -- vote 1 being the assembly, vote 2 perhaps the ombudsman's office, vote 3 being the auditor general, or whatever the numbers are, and then vote 5 or 6 in years to come being the office of the commissioner. Every member of this House -- not just the management board, not just Treasury Board, not just a small group somewhere, but the whole House; all 75 of us -- will be able to make speeches about the adequacy, inadequacy or appropriateness of the budget of the commissioner. What could be more fair or more democratic than that?
D. Mitchell: The Attorney General is quite right. Through the budget process every member of this House has an opportunity to comment on the budget once it is set. Is the hon. Attorney General indicating that Treasury Board will not have predetermined that budget before it comes to this House?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This House is paramount. If this House decides the budget isn't enough, this House will decide to provide more money.
D. Mitchell: I don't want to prolong this debate. We could go on and talk about the principles of parliament and the independence of servants of the Legislature, which it is contemplated that this commissioner should be. The bill says very clearly that the commissioner is an officer of the Legislature -- that's in section 37(2).
There's a concern about the independence of officers of the Legislature. If an officer of the Legislature has to have the budget for his or her office set by Treasury Board, a committee of cabinet, then is there true independence? I guess we could debate that until the cows come home, but there is a concern. There is an opportunity for political interference in the all-important office of the commissioner. I flag that for the Attorney General. It's something that we as an opposition are going to be watching very closely.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, I can hear the cows coming home. Since 1979 we've had an ombudsman in this province whose budget has been subject to the same process. No one, I think, has ever suggested that there has been any interference with the budget of the ombudsman, and I expect the same tradition will apply here. If it doesn't, the Legislature can voice its disapproval. If that's not sufficient, the commissioner can voice his or her disapproval by way of a report to the House, which is public. I think we've got more safeguards in here than we have in the other votes of this kind.
Section 37 as amended approved.
On section 38.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
[ Page 2953 ]
Amendment approved.
On section 38 as amended.
A. Warnke: Actually, my comment was on the amendment. Even if it's passed, I would like the Attorney General, if he could, to just briefly describe the transition from a majority to two-thirds. I think this is an improvement, because we are dealing with a very severe situation of removing a commissioner, but is three-quarters or something like that contemplated?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As defined in this section, if for some reason the commissioner is to be removed upon recommendation of cabinet, then it requires two-thirds of this House to approve that removal. We thought two-thirds was an appropriate number. In a normal course of events, two-thirds of the House means that there needs to be pretty widespread support, and we thought that that was the appropriate number.
Sections 38 as amended approved.
Sections 39 to 41 inclusive approved.
On section 42.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
On the amendment.
A. Warnke: I just want some clarification on section 42(2). What I have problems with are subsections (e) and (f). As I look at the rationale for the House amendments here, I believe (e) is deleted, but the status of (f) is not changed. I'm wondering if that (f) should not be changed to (e), and since (e) is revoked altogether, perhaps we need an amendment to the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is the most fundamental issue of this Legislative session: should (e) be (f), or should (f) be (e)? On the face of it, (f) should be (e). Did we do that in drafting this? I need to look at Orders of the Day to be sure. We're talking about 42(2)(f).
We accept the proposed amendment from the opposition critic to change (f) to (e).
We've had some information that may be of interest to the members. The computers which look after all these amendments just do it automatically. In fact, to be serious about it for a minute, what happens when an amendment like this goes through, if (e) is deleted entirely, then the remaining subsection automatically is re-lettered, so we don't need to worry about that.
Amendment approved.
Section 42 as amended approved.
Sections 43 and 44 approved.
On section 45.
A. Warnke: I just want to inquire into the confidential nature of statements and that sort of thing. I think it's a good section, actually, but how will the confidential nature of the information here be protected?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The safeguards in respect of confidentiality are not built into the section as such; this deals more with admissibility and other issues. We will ensure -- we need to do this if this process is going to work -- through an administrative process, that information provided by or questions asked of the commissioner will in fact remain confidential.
Sections 45 and 46 approved.
On section 47.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 47 as amended approved.
Sections 48 and 49 approved.
On section 50.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
On section 50 as amended.
D. Mitchell: I'm concerned about the whole issue of jurisdiction between the office of the ombudsman and the commissioner under this act. I notice that the amendment allows the ombudsman to investigate issues that the commissioner of privacy may already be investigating, and I'm concerned about the jurisdictional line between these two officers of the Legislature. I wonder if the Attorney General can clarify, for the benefit of the committee, where the line is. If there is an overlap, isn't there room for administrative inefficiencies and jurisdictional concerns between these two officers of the Legislature? If one officer is investigating a specific complaint, whether dealing with privacy or access to information, if the ombudsman has a broader investigation going into it, certainly there must be room for some kind of protocol agreement between these two officers of the House. Could the Attorney General comment on that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member uses the term "protocol agreement." Our suggestion was to have a letter of understanding -- which is the same thing -- between the commissioner for this act and the ombuds-
[ Page 2954 ]
man. It is quite easy to conceive of situations in which there would be a potential of overlap. Someone may have started a process in one area, and then it became clear that it should go to the other. There needs to be that kind of memorandum of understanding. Our intention in respect of that agreement -- the protocol or whatever we call it -- is that it will be in place prior to proclamation of this legislation.
D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, then, would it be contemplated under this amended section of the bill to ever have investigations going on simultaneously by the offices of the ombudsman and the commissioner under this act? Or would that memorandum of understanding that the hon. Attorney General referred to eliminate that possibility of conflict?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It is conceivable that there could be a general subject area that is multifaceted, which would have some part of it being dealt with by the commissioner and some other parts by the ombudsman's office. That is conceivable, but the letter of agreement between the two of them would have to be very clear in respect of that -- clear that the ombudsman's office cannot, under this legislation, deal with issues that are by law covered by this legislation, and clear that the commissioner cannot by law investigate matters that are the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. There is a clear statutory authority in each case. There is obviously the potential for overlap or perhaps even conceivably conjunctive -- no, that's not the best way of putting it -- investigations going on at the same time on related issues. That has to be done by protocol; it has to be done by agreement by the two officers of the House working together, as I'm sure they would.
Amendment approved.
Section 50 as amended approved.
Sections 51 and 52 approved.
On section 53.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 53 as amended approved.
On section 54.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 54 as amended approved.
[6:45]
Section 55 approved.
On section 56.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 56 as amended approved.
On section 57.
A. Warnke: Again just one qualification with regard to 57(3)(a). I guess it's that darn pronoun "it" again, but it is up to the applicant to prove the disclosure. I would like some elaboration on onus here. One example that came to my attention was the example of a pesticide company. I would like to have some sort of elaboration on an illustration. Maybe a pesticide company has demonstrated why it should or should not make certain documents public. It's the question of onus that I'm after, and I'm wondering if the Attorney General could expand.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In general terms, the onus is on the head to prove why they shouldn't release information. When it comes to personal information in respect of a third party, then we're saying that the applicant must prove that disclosure of that information wouldn't be unreasonable in terms of invasion of that third party's personal privacy. We think it's appropriate to, in a sense, switch the onus there.
If you want to debate it further, we can.
D. Mitchell: Could I ask for leave of the committee to return to section 55? I know we're on 56. I have a brief question on that that I wonder if I could ask the Attorney General.
Section 57 approved.
D. Mitchell: Under section 55, I notice that the commissioner is authorized to assign a mediator to investigate and try to settle matters under review. Could the Attorney General...?
The Chair: Just one moment, hon. member. We have to ask leave.
Leave granted.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thanks to members of the committee for giving me leave to go back to section 55.
This allows for the appointment of a mediator. Could the Attorney General inform us as to who would be qualified to serve as a mediator that this commissioner might appoint? Would it be the range of industrial relations mediators in the province? Would there be a special category or body of people practising
[ Page 2955 ]
law who would be considered for mediators under the terms of this act?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Two comments on this. First, it's our expectation that the commissioner's staff members would provide mediation services and develop an expertise in respect of that as a routine matter of their daily work. It's interesting to note that in other jurisdictions, apparently some 70 to 80 percent of the issues are settled by mediation.
On section 58.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 58 as amended approved.
On section 59.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I again move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
On the amendment.
A. Warnke: I wonder if the Attorney General could just briefly describe the significance of the change in the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It clarifies the status of a commissioner's order while an application for a judicial review is pending. In effect, all the time-frame questions are frozen while the judicial review is underway.
Amendment approved.
Section 59 as amended approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment to the heading of division 2 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
On section 60.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 60 as amended approved.
Sections 61 and 62 approved.
On section 63.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 63 as amended approved.
Sections 64 to 68 inclusive approved.
On section 69.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 69 as amended approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper which adds section 69.1. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
On section 70.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 70 as amended approved.
On section 71.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 71 as amended approved.
Section 72 approved.
On section 73.
A. Warnke: It's specifically with regard to section 73(1)(a). One thing that has come to my attention is a view that perhaps this is a bit vaguely defined. It begs the question: when is an error not an error? I would like to have the Attorney General just touch quickly on that one.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: When is an error not an error? When there's still room left to dance on the head of the pin.
When it's not.
[ Page 2956 ]
A. Warnke: It was a cute question to see if we're all awake.
What I'd like to move to is that I guess there is a concern when we say that a person "must not wilfully make a false statement to...." Well, that I think we can understand, but when we say "mislead or attempt to mislead...." It's this phrase "attempt to mislead." There's an impression that this leaves it a little bit vague. Does the ministry not consider this all that vague, and is this a precise way of putting that forward?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Maybe this is the problem with plain language. I think every ordinary citizen that I know of who is told they aren't allowed to make a false statement, aren't allowed to mislead or attempt to mislead, would know exactly what that meant. I think it's plain, simple and clearly understood.
A. Warnke: I guess when we get into this whole discussion of "attempt to mislead," we have to get into the conditions of intent. That's the part that perhaps is vague.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: You can't make a false statement; that's clear. You can't mislead; that's clear. You can't attempt to mislead. Attempting to mislead means you haven't got caught yet. Misleading means you got caught. You misled, and they caught you. Attempting to mislead says they haven't caught you yet. Maybe you tried to slip one by, and it may go unnoticed for some time to come. The attempt itself is subject to a penalty. If you want better answers than that to this question, you're going to have to ask somebody else.
A. Warnke: I want to thank the Attorney General for doing the best he could. I think now we all appreciate why I said: "When is an error not an error?" But let us pass this section.
Section 73 approved.
On section 74.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendments approved.
On section 74 as amended.
A. Warnke: This is another one of these questions. What is defined when we use the term "public interest"? How has the ministry essentially dealt with this concept of public interest? I guess I'm looking specifically at 74(4)(c): "...for any other reason it is clearly in the public interest or fair to do so." Could we have an idea of how precise this concept is?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the person who is releasing the information -- the head, as we describe this person -- thinks it's of general public interest beyond simply the applicant's interest, they may decide that the applicant shouldn't bear the cost of providing this information, because there is going to be a benefit that goes far beyond the applicant. Therefore, it's in the public interest to have the fee waived.
A. Warnke: I guess I'm wondering whether, since there is a fee involved, it is just vague enough that many people would say: "Why pay the fee? My case or quest is in the public interest as well." Isn't there a way of fudging or abusing the system? I guess that's what my concern is here. People obviously want information. If there is a fee or part of a fee that could be suspended under something called the public interest, perhaps in this kind of situation a precise definition of public interest would be appropriate. I am attempting to anticipate the kind of case where people are looking for an excuse to be suspended from paying part of the fee and that sort of thing. Here is this term "public interest." What I'm looking for is whether the ministry has any idea as to how the term "public interest" is defined, so that we can distinguish between the people who genuinely need some fee suspended from those who do not.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The government and its agencies will develop policy and procedures in respect of this issue. If, in the commissioner's view, these policies are not appropriate, the commissioner will be able to provide advice on that and in the final analysis give direction. So it remains to be seen how this develops; there's not much more I can say than that.
Section 74 as amended approved.
On section 75.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 75 as amended approved.
Sections 76 to 79 inclusive approved.
On section 80.
[7:00]
D. Mitchell: For the record, in section 80 the commencement provisions of this act -- the coming-into-force provisions -- are quite unusual in terms of bills that we've dealt with in this session of the Legislature. I wonder if the Attorney General could explain the commencement provisions under section 80(1) and (2), which provide for some very unusual coming-into-force commencement provisions for a statute. I think the rationale needs to be part of the public record.
[ Page 2957 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, 80(1) states that every section of the act except for 77(2) comes into force by regulation. Then in the next subsection, 77(2) comes into force one year after section 4 comes into force. Section 4 grants rights of access to information. If you go back to 77(2), members will see that it deals with the relationships to other acts. If this act is inconsistent or in conflict with the provision of another act, the provision of this act prevails, unless the other act expressly provides that it prevails.
Do we need more than that? If the member is asking about commencement, first of all, or about proclamation.... Maybe I'll start at the very beginning. Proclamation is scheduled to be in October or thereabouts of '93. It may be that different parts of the act are proclaimed at different times; as is usual with a proclamation bill, it can be done section by section. Our expectation is that for the most part the act will be proclaimed in October 1993, and section 77(2) will come into effect a year later. That's what all of this means.
If the member wants to ask more questions because he wants to trap me and trip me here in terms of the legal stuff....
D. Mitchell: I'm just wondering why.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Okay. The reason for that deals with the opportunity in that year to review the confidentiality provisions in all of the other legislation. We've got, as members will know, two and a half feet of statutes back there, and this legislation can impact on all of those other statutes. We need some time to do that review properly in terms of potential conflict between them.
D. Mitchell: I wasn't trying to trap you on a question; I think there needs to be some clarification on this because it is complex.
Is it contemplated that prior to proclamation of this act there might be further amendments to the statute? We've seen here in the committee some 50 amendments passed already at this very early stage in this bill's life, and now it's going to presumably be passed into law. During the period between now and commencement of the act, is it contemplated that there might be further amendments?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I indicated in second reading and I've indicated elsewhere that should issues be raised between now and the spring 1993 legislative session that indicate we need to amend this bill to make it even more perfect, I am open to that and we will deal with it at that point. I think we'll be looking at significant issues that have merit, where we may have made a mistake or we may have overlooked something or we may have assumed an interpretation that we learn later we should not have assumed. So yes, the possibility of amendment in spring 1993 is there.
D. Mitchell: I thank the Attorney General for his comments on this. I think it highlights that this is an interesting way to make laws. It may be a bit of a crazy way to make a law. This is an important piece of legislation, and we've indicated our support for it, although we did request in second reading debate -- the Attorney General will remember -- that perhaps this is the perfect kind of bill that should be left over, that shouldn't go through committee stage at this early stage, given the number of amendments that we've had to deal with here in this committee today and yesterday, and given the fact that it is likely that there will be further amendments once it's given broader exposure to the public and other interest groups. So it's a bit of a crazy way to be making legislation, but we've done our best under difficult circumstances. I take it from what the Attorney General said that we can fully expect in future sessions of this parliament, of which we are members, to be seeing this statute come back for further amendments, and we'll deal with them at that time. But it's not ideal. It is a move that we can generally support, and we have supported it, but I wish there was a better way.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I explained, I think, in second reading that we needed to have the Legislature pass the bill in order for the regulations to be started to be worked on, the manuals for training and all of the other issues. Without that we couldn't do that other work, and so we had to have it.
I take some comfort in the fact that the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, which has been working on this issue for some considerable time and represents a broad cross-section of concerned British Columbians, has made it very clear that they think this bill is.... These are their words: "With the new amendments, FIPA can state unequivocally that this is the most open, balanced and effective information rights legislation in Canada." In another part of their press release they say: "...all of...FIPA's significant concerns over inadequacies in Bill 50 have been handled. Any further changes we would wish are not sufficiently pressing to warrant further delay."
They make the point that they want it passed and in place. They want the procedures that lead to its implementation a year and a half from now to get underway. We needed to have the bill passed in order to do that.
Section 80 approved.
On schedule 1.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Schedule 1 as amended approved.
On schedule 2.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
[ Page 2958 ]
Amendment approved.
On schedule 2 as amended.
A. Warnke: By accepting the amendment for schedule 2, we've accepted additions here. It's with regard to the confirmation of public bodies. I'm also wondering whether there are any prospects for deletions. I suppose one can anticipate that when we take a look at the list of public bodies, there may be some which by necessity will be eliminated. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General could outline the procedure or the process for deletions, or whether the ministry is even anticipating any deletions later on.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I understand the question correctly, the member is asking how, if an agency named in the schedule goes out of existence, it gets removed from this statute. My understanding would be that the statute revisions legislation that we've introduced this session would allow legislative counsel to do that. I think I'm right on that question. That's the intent of that other provision, so legislation can be cleaned up without having to come back to the House if there is a simple, non-policy-related item of that kind.
A. Warnke: The answer that we received is sort of what I anticipated concerning those public bodies that do go out of existence. However, outside of those obvious, clear examples where public bodies do go out of existence simply because they're no longer needed, is that the only criterion for deletions, or have we covered ourselves that there will not be a deletion from this list of a public body that still continues in existence?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the public body still exists and we need to remove it from this list, then we have to come back to the Legislature to get an amendment to do that. In the course of the next eight months or whatever it is, if an indication is made that we have an inappropriate inclusion on this list for whatever reason, I'm consistent with my answer a few minutes ago on the other issue: I'm quite prepared to come back and ask the House to approve an amendment to delete a name, or to add one if we missed one.
Schedule 2 as amended approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with many amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 50, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, reported complete with amendments.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 50, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 70, hon. Speaker.
MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This fall the motor vehicle branch will be introducing a mandatory vehicle emission inspection program for the lower mainland. This emission testing program will be the first in Canada and is one of the most sophisticated in North America. Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act are required to provide the authority for administrative procedures and inspection requirements for motor vehicles.
The emission testing and inspection program is a major environmental initiative and will address the growing air-quality problem of the lower mainland. As motor vehicles are a major contributor to the air pollution problem, the vehicle emission testing program is a timely initiative that can be supported by all British Columbians.
To meet demands for better and more efficient service, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia will be introducing a business change that will address the problem of month-end lineups for insurance renewal. The corporation's proposal will allow licence and insurance to begin and expire on any day of the month. This daily expiry program for vehicle licences and insurance will distribute the expiry dates more evenly throughout the year, which will eliminate month-end lineups and allow Autoplan brokers to spend more time meeting the needs of their clients. The proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act introduce transitionary provisions to allow the introduction of the daily expiry program.
Other amendments being introduced in Bill 70 focus on the operation of the motor vehicle branch. Amendments to the driver licensing provision update and streamline the administrative procedures set out in the statute. These amendments will allow the introduction of new service initiatives such as over-the-counter driver licensing issuance and will permit the branch to react to a changing driver population. Further, these amendments are required to support programs such as the recently announced graduated driver licensing review for new drivers.
[7:15]
The motor vehicle branch plays an important role in monitoring commercial vehicles operating on our highways. An amendment is proposed that will streamline the appointment process of the branch's enforcement officers. Currently enforcement officers are appointed under four separate acts, utilizing four different appointment procedures. The amendment will allow
[ Page 2959 ]
branch enforcement officers to be appointed under a single act for greater efficiency.
I move that the bill be read a second time now.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
A. Warnke: What a confusing night this has been, going from my icebergs to things that run on gasoline.
As I take a look at this bill, I see that it does provide the essential features of addressing such problems as pollution. Certainly one thing I'm very impressed with is the need to address problems of licensing. I think we're long overdue in dealing with this problem of people fudging the system by essentially acquiring more than one licence.
Overall, the bill does not contain any controversial amendments. There could be a minor concern here and there, but what can be of concern is that vehicles must be tested annually. In fact, passing the vehicle test is a requirement for insurance renewal. We'll need that; we understand that. At the same time, because it is a requirement for insurance renewal, the insistence that vehicles must be tested annually could be construed as a substantial problem.
For example, what if, under the air care program, the owner cannot afford to make the repairs to the vehicle? The vehicle may be given a conditional pass, but then it begs the question: does this not work to defeat the purpose of the program? The government argues that a vehicle operating on a conditional pass is, well, simply okay. It's okay, because at least it will be polluting less.
But by and large, I believe this bill is a constructive contribution. Therefore I'm looking forward to the summary remarks by the Attorney General.
H. De Jong: I just want to rise very briefly on this bill. I appreciate the intent of the bill and the intent of the government to do this motor vehicle inspection, because our part of the Fraser Valley is certainly affected by the amount of pollution that comes from motor vehicles and other emissions.
The thing that I am somewhat concerned about, and I really haven't had enough time to review the bill in total, is the transport trucks that don't necessarily buy their licences in British Columbia. Perhaps they come from Alberta. There appears to be no provision in this bill for the inspection of those trucks, or whether they are in compliance with the regulations here.
I realize that this is perhaps a question more to be put in third reading. But that is a concern of people in the lower mainland, because there are many trucks going through there that are severely polluting from a visual point of view. If it's not in the bill, then perhaps the minister could have a look at that prior to third reading to see if there could be an amendment made that that area of transport also be covered.
Otherwise, I am totally in agreement with the bill. Of course, prior to this government taking over, it was initiated to have the testing stations in the lower mainland. I am pleased that the government is continuing with this process, because clean air is something that everybody not only appreciates, but is entitled to have as clean as possible.
I want to thank the minister for bringing this bill about, and I hope for a good workable program that will follow out of this bill in terms of cutting back the pollution in the lower mainland.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Perhaps some of the issues raised by the member for Richmond-Steveston can be canvassed in the committee stage when we get to it, possibly as early as tomorrow.
On the issue of the additional amendments raised by the member for Abbotsford, I will ask my ministry staff, some of whom are listening to this debate, to review the point that the member made. If it's possible to deal with that issue, I would be happy to try to do that. It may be that the issue needs more time than we have and that it's something we'd have to deal with in another session. In any event, I'm prepared to have a look at that.
I just want to say, in concluding debate on this bill, that when we were sworn in on November 5 there was in place a program established by the previous government -- now being referred to as AirCare. We simply took over a program that had all of its contracts in place. We were unable to in any way affect the nature of the program or the nature of the contract, because they were in place. We are simply putting into effect the policy of the previous government.
I don't mind admitting to members of the House that I had some concerns with some issues and elements of the contract. Nonetheless, they were in place. We were unable to make those kinds of changes, but having said that, the idea of trying to get at the terrible pollution problem in the lower Fraser Valley and the lower mainland was an excellent initiative of the former government, at the urging of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The former government should be applauded for having taken the initiative to bring in a program of this kind, even though I may not agree with all of the details of the particular contract.
It is crucial that we get on with the job of cleaning up the nitrous oxide and many other pollutants that are in the atmosphere in the lower mainland and are caused primarily by automobiles. In fact, some people suggest that our problem here is worse than what exists in Los Angeles. So we're determined to get on with that.
The other major provision of the bill is the daily renewals, which will make everyone's life a lot easier when they go to renew their Autoplan insurance and pick up their decal for the succeeding year.
With that, hon. Speaker, I thank the members for their support for this bill and once again move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 70, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 70; M. Farnworth in the chair.
[ Page 2960 ]
Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; M. Farnworth in the chair.
Bill 70, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 64.
MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 64; M. Farnworth in the chair.
On section 1.
D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, before we start committee stage on Bill 64, I'd like to compliment the Chair on the versatility that you've exhibited here this evening by going back and forth from the chair to the table with great colour -- indeed, a colourful Chair.
I'd like to ask a question to the hon. Attorney General on section 1 of Bill 64 -- a very important bill which we had a very interesting debate on at second reading in this House. The Attorney General, in his concluding comments on second reading, made some commitments to the House in terms of how the government would handle this bill, and we appreciated those comments.
In terms of a specific question on section 1, my reading of section 1 is that it repeals and replaces the definitions of "private interest" and "spouse." "Private interest" is amended to reflect the broadened definition of conflict of interest under the act as it will be amended by this bill. Conflict of interest is defined as the exercise of an official power or the performance of an official duty or function. The definition of the term "spouse" under this act is broadened to include a person who is living with a member as husband and wife without regard to any period of time. My question to the hon. Attorney General is: when does a live-in relationship pass from being casual to being as husband and wife?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The definition of that is a reasonable period of time. I think it would be unreasonable to assume that a weekend was a reasonable period of time. That immediately raises the question: if it's not three days or four days but it is 200 days, what's the cut-off period?
I think it's a reasonable understanding that there's cohabitation, and that a member and his or her spouse are living together as a couple. That's what we're talking about here. It's pretty difficult to define in precise terms. There are no guidelines in the legislation other than common sense, and the commissioner will have an opportunity, I suspect, on many occasions to bring some common sense to this issue.
[7:30]
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the comments of the Attorney General. I agree that there has to be some reasonable test here. There are no guidelines. Members are honourable members, but the conflict-of-interest commissioner who administers this act has a huge job in front of him. Certainly we don't hope for him to become a marriage counsellor as well as a personal counsellor and confidant. There is no test. The amendment makes sense. We understand the broadening of the definition of "private interest." The spousal definition is a bit ambiguous. Perhaps there is room for ambiguity. I'll just leave it at that.
I think the member for Saanich North and the Islands might have a question on this section, as well.
The Chair: I recognize the member for Saanich and the Islands.
C. Tanner: Congratulations, Mr. Chairman. You've done it again. Another Chairman who can see me out of the back of his head; nobody else can see me over here.
The Chair: The Chair has peripheral vision.
C. Tanner: What a versatile Chairman you are up there and down here. You can see out the back and everything. Thank you.
To the Attorney General. When you were considering your conflict-of-interest amendments, did you look at the Constitution Act at the same time? Members do have obligations under the Constitution Act. In this particular case the Constitution Act says that you can pass your interest to your spouse and free yourself of a conflict as far as the Legislature is concerned. That seems like it's in contrast of what this act is intending.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't have the Constitution Act in front of me, but we very much paid attention to the provisions of the Constitution Act. The Constitution Act does not deal with conflict of interest, or members' conflict of interest as such. I do have the Constitution Act in front of me now. Section 25 of the Constitution Act refers to "Prohibited office or contract." It says: "No member of the Legislative Assembly shall accept money from the Crown...in respect of a corporation that accepts money from the Crown in right of the province...." In other words, you can't get, as a member, money from the Crown beyond the moneys that are specified as salary and whatever expense allowances are established. That's what that section does.
The member refers to transferring to a spouse. That issue is not in section 25 of the Constitution Act. Section 25 of the Constitution Act is the only one that interfaces, if you will, with the bill under discussion. I'm not sure that I know how to follow any further the member's thought process here.
[ Page 2961 ]
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, could you allow a little leeway on this debate. Although we are talking about another act, it is pertinent to what is intended in the Conflict of Interest Act. Under the Constitution Act you cannot as a member receive an income of any form from the government other than that which you derive as salary and so on; but you can avoid that receipt of income by giving, in my case, shares to my wife. It was pointed out to me by the conflict-of-interest commissioner that I would have a conflict if I didn't give them to her -- and I've done that. But in actual fact, it was the conflict-of~interest commissioner who told me. I don't think that is necessarily in the same spirit as what you have written here under the Conflict of Interest Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're dealing with two different issues here. Let me just see if we can define it. I'm reluctant to get into personal situations too much. Obviously the member is doing that and says he doesn't mind, but I won't be that specific. If a member of the House has a company that is in receipt of money from the government, under the Constitution Act the member cannot receive that money. The advice is to transfer that to one's spouse. So that deals with section 25 of the Constitution Act, which says that a member can't take any money. Section 26 says what money you can take. That is revenue to the member from the government, and that is what the Constitution Act deals with.
The conflict-of-interest legislation deals with a different issue. That issue is whether the member's spouse puts the member in conflict of this section by receiving that money. It would be clear to me that there is no conflict. The member may wish not to be the minister responsible for a particular area if that operation provides money to the spouse's company. I think the member follows what I'm saying. That would be perceived as a conflict. In fact, under this legislation I would describe it as a conflict. I would describe it as a conflict whether or not it was in the legislation in any event.
In the situation that I think I understand the member to be involved in, it wouldn't be a conflict for a member with no responsibility for that particular operation of government to have his spouse receive payment through her company. Once this comes into law, the member would not be in a conflict-of-interest position by what he has done with respect to his business arrangements.
C. Tanner: Two questions arise from what the minister said. Section 26 of the Constitution Act should be amended to include lottery corporations, which it doesn't now. That would be of assistance to people such as myself. There is really no reason at all that I should have had to get rid of my interest because I had a terminal for the Lottery Corporation -- over which I have absolutely no control whatsoever. You should put it in for next time.
The other thing is that in this case I have done the best I can to fulfil the wishes of the conflict-of-interest commissioner, but in my mind I still have a conflict-of-interest because my wife now has a source of income from the province. If I've got a conflict under the new conflict-of-interest guidelines that you're putting here, the same thing exists in the first case.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the first issue, amendments to the Constitution Act are completely out of order in this discussion. The point has been heard, noted and can be considered.
In respect of the second, substantive question, the member has, first of all, transferred shares to the spouse, declared the interest to the conflict-of-interest commissioner and has in effect received the blessing of the conflict-of-interest commissioner for that arrangement.
I don't think anybody reading this legislation, or any fair-minded person in this province, would ever believe that an opposition member or a government backbencher or probably even a cabinet minister would be in a conflict of interest as long as he didn't have responsibility for the Lottery Corporation, or could possibly perceive that there is any conflict of interest whatsoever as a result of a Lotto terminal being in the member's spouse's bookstore, if that's where it is. Really, we are not attempting to be silly in this legislation and to have conflicts described where they don't exist. That's not a conflict of interest. If the member used his position and power to make sure that all the lottery money in British Columbia that was invested went into his store and he got a big cut on it, then clearly we've got a conflict situation. But that's not what we have in this situation, and I'm certain the conflict-of-interest commissioner would agree.
C. Tanner: Then we get to the nub of my problem with this new legislation: in my view, a member should be able to make a declaration of everything he owns, or his spouse owns, or whoever you want to declare, and the conflict-of-interest commissioner should say: "In my view, you do not have a conflict of interest." He should be able to give you that permission, and you should be clear. As long as you're not in the cabinet, you shouldn't have to get rid of those interests.
The other problem I have is that under the present legislation -- not the amendments we're talking about now, but what presently exists, which these amendments are pertinent to -- if one thinks they have a conflict of interest, the commissioner presently can't say they have. He can say they might have. When, in my case, I wanted to question it and say, "I'm sorry, I don't agree with your interpretation, Mr. Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner," he said: "Well, if you don't, what you can do is go into the House and have one of the members stand up and question you, and you can answer that." That has been changed under these amendments; I appreciate that. But the fact of the matter is that I shouldn't have to do that either. I shouldn't have to have somebody from the public lay a complaint; I shouldn't have to have a fellow member from any side of the House lay a complaint. The commissioner should make the decision.
That's my fundamental difference today with your legislation, Mr. Minister. I think that declaration is sufficient, except for members of the cabinet. I think you need special rules for members of the cabinet, but I
[ Page 2962 ]
don't think you need them for the opposition and the backbenchers on the government side.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The amendments envision different standards for members of cabinet and parliamentary secretaries than will exist for other members of the House, government backbenchers and opposition members. So where we think it's appropriate, we have made that distinction.
I think there is a basic difference. What the member is suggesting is just disclosure, and what we're saying is that there are to be rules beyond disclosure. The member's position is principled, I suppose; it's just a difference of opinion. You're not wrong. It's not a question of wrong and right; it's just a difference of opinion. The member's position is that once you disclose and it's all on the table, then the public can see and can judge whether or not there's a conflict, and the commissioner can make comment on it to help the public with that description. Clearly we've gone beyond that with this legislation, to define specific situations that will be conflict. When you do that, you open up grey areas. There will be grey areas the other way too, and there will be less certainty the other way. It's a choice we made. We decided, given some of the history in this province, that we wanted to make sure that we were tough in this legislation.
Under section 14 of the bill, once it's amended, the member still has the right to apply to the commissioner and ask for an opinion or a recommendation on any matter respecting the member's obligations under this act and section 25 of the Constitution Act, which is the section that prohibits receiving revenue.
In other words, in the situation discussed by the member -- the lotto terminal in his spouse's store -- the member could write to the commissioner, once this bill has been passed and we've got a new act in place, and say: "Here's my situation. Am I in conflict?" The commissioner in this case, I have no doubt, will write back and say: "No, you're not. There's no problem." So it would allow the member to do what he wants to do. But we also have some constraining provisions and pretty tough legislation; there's no doubt about that.
L. Fox: I have a couple of areas of concern. If I could put a case in front of the minister.... It's my understanding, from what he has stated in this section of the act, that.... If I were on the government side and a minister and perhaps sat on the Treasury Board, would I be in conflict if my spouse were a schoolteacher or if she were a nurse? I'm reading that into it. Perhaps the minister could answer.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is the odd giggle on this side. We have had a lot of time to think about and deal with this particular issue, because earlier this year, obviously, there was legislation reflecting compensation -- the old Compensation Fairness Act -- which applied to public sector workers, many of whom are related to members of this cabinet. So the question came up. Even though this wasn't the law, we were applying these principles to ourselves when cabinet was being put together and as we have functioned since then. We have tried as best we can to function by the rules that we're asking the House to now approve.
[7:45]
Clearly this legislation would not capture the member's spouse if the member's spouse were a part of a general class of person -- class of person being a teacher or a B.C. Hydro worker or whatever else. We asked the conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Hughes, very directly about this question at the time, because some cabinet members were concerned that they may be in conflict with this principle that we're now proposing to adopt. Mr. Hughes's response to it was very clear and categorical: there was no conflict, because the spouses of members of cabinet were in fact members of a general class of citizen, and the benefit was available equally to all members of that class.
L. Fox: I understand that, but what would happen if the same spouse happened to be president of that local union or association and was in charge of the negotiations of that union? If he or she was no longer one of the general membership but one of the driving forces behind it, how then does that fit into the equation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're talking about private interest here. The president of the union or the head of the bargaining committee or any of that kind of category of person doesn't receive any additional financial benefit or any other benefit as a result of a decision. Therefore it would be no different a situation than other members of the bargaining unit or of that -- as it is described here -- broad class of electors.
L. Fox: Clearly there are some differences between being a silent member of an association and being one of the lead negotiators within a union structure. Obviously the fact that her husband or his wife was in cabinet and part of Treasury Board, which would be dealing with the finite items, would be an area of conflict -- even perceived conflict, if not direct conflict. In my mind, if you're making the decisions that you're making -- I guess the analogy is with business people -- I would think a similar principle would stand in this regard.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member raises an issue that is beyond the question of private interest as referred to in section 1. My sense of what the commissioner would say as a result of that kind of question -- based on all the discussions we've had on these kinds of issues recently -- is that there is no private interest being benefited because the spouse happened to be head of a bargaining committee. The head of the bargaining committee doesn't get any private benefits from the decision. Every member of that class of electors receives the benefit.
I'm really reluctant to suggest answers in this debate that the conflict-of-interest commissioner would judge later, because that's his job, not mine. If I were concerned about that question, I would look to a later section of the bill referring to apparent conflict. I don't think it applies, frankly; I don't think the commissioner
[ Page 2963 ]
would think that it applies. That's a place to look and to seek advice from the conflict-of-interest commissioner.
I'm trying to put myself in this particular situation. If my spouse were actively involved in negotiations on behalf of a class of electors who were dealing with an issue that was in front of cabinet, my instincts -- without asking anybody -- would be to declare my conflict and get the heck out of the cabinet room. I think that you have to be purer than pure in this business. Any member of this House who doesn't live up to standards that are even higher than we have in this legislation is asking for trouble. I think that everybody who has even just a mild suggestion that there may be some conflict should get the heck out of the room on that particular decision. As the act requires, notify the Clerk or the secretary of the committee -- wherever you are -- that you've gone and for what reason. I think we are expected as politicians -- and I accept this responsibility -- to be white as the driven snow on issues of this kind. If we're not, the public will do things to us that the member is quite familiar with.
L. Fox: The reason I raised the question is that when I decided to seek office -- and I have a small business -- the first thing that I wanted to do was see whether or not I would be in any kind of conflict, and I found that the outline was rather grey. I wasn't reassured any more by my discussion with Mr. Hughes, because a lot of it came right back to me. Given my experience in municipal politics, where we attended many sessions on conflict, the rule of thumb was that if you perceived a conflict, there probably was one, and so, as you say, you get out of it.
However, I have seen indications and incidents in the Legislature -- certainly in the past several years -- where perceived conflicts could kill you. Just the fact that you were perceived to be in conflict was damaging to your character. I did not want to put myself into that jeopardy, and that's why I asked the questions. I'm not trying to sneak behind the bush or anything -- even though I did know that some members of cabinet had spouses who worked in several different occupations.
Another area that concerns me falls under this, I believe. It isn't perhaps something that can be legislated but maybe something that morally falls on the member to recognize. It has bothered me in the past -- and I don't mean this in any demeaning way -- that members have been elected on either regional districts, municipal councils or school districts and still held the office of a legislator.
Interjection.
L. Fox: No, I'm not pointing fingers. Obviously I believe that that is an area of conflict, given the level of discussion -- certainly in municipal politics as well as school boards. But this document does not deal with that, and I just want some comments from the minister with respect to that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member raises questions that I think need to be pursued as we hone the rules around conflict of interest and as we refer what I would describe as tier two, the second phase of this whole issue of process, to involve municipal councils and school boards and hospital boards and the public sector and the public service into a broader conflict-of-interest legislation. I think we should continue to review this particular act as well and hopefully by next year come in with a comprehensive piece of legislation that deals with all of the issues that have been raised and many more. I think the member makes an excellent point about seeming conflict if you hold two offices. That's one of the reasons why it's now illegal to be both a member of the House of Commons and the Legislative Assembly at the same time -- because of that perception.
This law does not make it illegal for the Leader of the Opposition to continue to be a regional board member, nor does it make it illegal for the member for Vancouver-Quilchena to continue to be a parks board member, nor does it retroactively prevent Graham Bruce from having been a member of council in Cowichan when he was a member of the Legislature.
Those are interesting questions. They are not covered by this legislation. Whether they should be in future legislation is a very good question, and I hope we can receive comments from all members of the House over the next year in respect of those issues as we work toward a new and expanded bill.
L. Fox: I have one further question. This comes because of my own discussions, as I was obviously concerned when I met -- and I guess all members of the House did -- with Mr. Hughes. My question is in terms of, say, a corporate structure in which a member has over a 25 percent share and the guidelines are actually 25 percent. It's a corporation. This particular phenomenon was quite ironic, because in order for the government to get service in the particular product which my corporation supplied, they really had no choice but to do business in our community in order to save money. I might as well spell it out: vehicles. In fact, if there's a warranty on vehicles not sold by me but my dealership carried that franchise, and they chose to have the work done in town to save the government money, potentially I could be in conflict even though the government didn't pay the bills because it was a warranty paid for by the company.
We get to the point where this conflict is extremely scary. Even unsolicited, if you have a share in a corporation you can get yourself into extreme difficulty. I think somehow, some way there has to be some clarification of a lot of these grey areas. I am uncomfortable thinking that the commissioner could make a ruling on something that I could not prejudge to my detriment. I'm concerned that there are other individuals in the province who, finding themselves in similar circumstances, may not run for office because they're not prepared to take that risk. I don't know whether you can comment on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll try. The member raises an important but difficult question. One of the reasons we have a conflict commissioner is to try to deal with these kinds of issues. All members make their declara-
[ Page 2964 ]
tion and the conflict commissioner makes a summary of that declaration public. Then under another section, if the member is concerned about whether or not something is a conflict or a perceived apparent conflict -- the wording here -- the member can ask for an opinion, a declaration, from the commissioner. We think that's going to make people's lives more comfortable in respect of these grey areas. If after a year's experience or eight months' experience it doesn't, we'll try to redress the issues by way of changes when we do the major legislation next year. I can't get into the specific issues.
I didn't know until this very minute that the member was a car dealer. That's unusual for members of that party. I would never have guessed.
But seriously, the member raises an interesting question. We think we've dealt with it by way of asking for an opinion from the commissioner. The commissioner can give advice and members can then make the decisions they need to make.
[8:00]
C. Tanner: I appreciate that the minister is being very patient with us on this side, but I think it deserves that scrutiny. I suspect there are more people concerned about it on this side of the House right now -- not necessarily for ourselves but for future members. The fact of the matter is that if you're in business and have built it over a number of years, you have the same need to look after that business for yourself and for your future as to try to serve the public in this House. We think that's in jeopardy to some extent.
It seems to me that what the minister is saying is confirming my worst fears in that he's admitting that there are grey areas. My answer to that is the declaration form of dealing with it, which the minister doesn't want to agree with. I wonder whether the minister would give the House a commitment that.... I lost the amendment to move it to the committee. But would the miniater give the House some consideration in saying that sometime between now and the next time they review it, we could get this into committee, so we could give him some examples like this and maybe help him write his new piece of renewed legislation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't give the member a commitment about referring it to a committee, because that is a cabinet decision, first of all, and then it needs a motion of this House. The House would have to carry that kind of issue. I think what the member is seeking from me is a commitment that I think it is a good idea to proceed in that way. Quite frankly, I think an act of this kind belongs to all members of the House. If we can find ways of involving all members of the House in making sure the legislation is good, then you have my commitment that I will work toward that goal. I can't commit the House, however, in respect to what it might do by way of a motion of referral.
In respect of the grey areas, we've had a Criminal Code in this country for a long time now, and we're still finding lots of grey in there. The courts are full every day with people arguing what it means, because it is grey. All legislation is inevitably going to be grey. But I accept, in principle, the suggestion that this legislation belongs to all of us. All of us need to be involved in its development, and I will work toward that goal.
The member should know right off the bat that the same issue he raises about a member's business applied under the old act. These amendments don't change that in any real way; that problem would have existed under the old legislation. I'm not a business person myself, and when I got into politics, I chose to never buy stocks or bonds or anything that could put me in a position that could be perceived as a conflict. So I don't have that kind of experience with managing a business or investment portfolio or any of that kind of activity -- by choice. Because I've made that choice, I don't have the experience. So when people like Paul Martin, MP, make the kinds of comments he has made in respect of conflict of interest, given his position in the business community and his family's wealth and business interests -- quite varied and extensive -- I take some heart that business people can live with conflict-of-interest legislation. There you have it.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
H. De Jong: The minister made a comment, saying "purer than pure." We're looking in this section 2 at an apparent conflict of interest. Just to give a scenario, when we run for office and are elected, we get elected on the basis of representing the community. The people expect us to represent the community and the aspirations of groups within the community, be it the chamber of commerce or a ratepayers' group. For instance, in Matsqui Prairie we have a floodplain area that is subject to flooding and certainly could be endangered if proper rock work is not undertaken early in the spring prior to the Fraser runoff. To give that scenario first of all, while you may have a brother or perhaps more than one brother living in that 10,000 acres protected by that rock work that is expected to be done, it does take money from the provincial government. The provincial government, even though it may not be involved in the specific program at the present time, always has been. That's why I'm using this scenario. If a member elected from that area, whether a minister or a parliamentary secretary.... Those are offices given after you've been elected. As members we should be able to make representation to whichever minister it applies to, to get the necessary assistance.
From what I read into this bill, parliamentary secretaries in particular would put themselves in an apparent conflict-of-interest situation. Certainly a minister would, if that minister was a member of cabinet, even though he or she may be a minister other than the one whose ministry money is required through. To make my point very clear, the same thing would apply in terms of money for revitalization of a downtown area. I could have three brothers, for instance, in a town that has applied for a revitalization program which would probably eventually increase the value of the
[ Page 2965 ]
properties that they owned in that town. Yet it is an undertaking by the total town, and certainly, as an elected member, you would support that to get it to fruition for that particular downtown area. Again on this issue, parliamentary secretaries would certainly put themselves in jeopardy by making efforts to get the government wheels moving in that direction. Perhaps the minister could explain whether what I have described is, in fact, seen as a conflict of interest or not.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member raises good points. We are, as far as statute law is concerned, breaking new ground. It raises questions that have not been answered before in this country -- how you determine this apparent conflict.
I'm going to come back to the specific remedy. I just want to say, first of all, that this concept existed in the Premier's guidelines. Former Premier Vander Zalm included this concept in his guidelines. The difference here is that there is a sanction -- a penalty -- and an independent judge for determining whether or not there's been a violation. In the previous guidelines, the Premier himself was both judge and executioner. The concept was there. It just didn't have the force of law. When it has the force of law, it clearly is of more concern. I accept that. It's a concern on all sides of the House. It's a concern to me.
Cabinet made the decision to recommend to the House that we proceed with this section based on our view that this is what the public wants. The principle was raised in the Sinclair Stevens affair, and in that case Judge Parker talked about apparent conflict of interest and gave it a definition. We borrowed extensively -- in fact, we borrowed the words almost precisely -- from Judge Parker in respect of the definition of apparent conflict of interest.
It gets back to a fundamental tenet of western parliamentary democracies: the old cliché about justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. So the appearance is as bad as the actuality. Then you come to the kinds of questions that the member raises. In general terms, if the member's brothers are part of a broad class of electors who benefit from a particular government initiative -- downtown revitalization or riprap along a river to protect farmland or whatever -- then my view would be that there is no conflict.
Let me give members a specific example from my own situation. Earlier this year cabinet dealt with issues in respect to tree-fruit growers in the Okanagan. The issues were payments to growers from the Crown. I have two brothers who are tree-fruit growers in the Okanagan, and I have parents who, although they are retired, still own an orchard in the Okanagan.
L. Fox: Resign!
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Resign!
Under the legislation there is no conflict of interest, because the benefit is to a broad class of electors -- all tree-fruit growers in the Okanagan. There's no particular benefit to my brothers, so there's no conflict there. It's not a spouse; it's not a direct family member. I chose to absent myself from all cabinet committee decisions on the question of assistance to tree-fruit growers in the Okanagan, because I felt that it could be a perceived conflict of interest if I were participating in a decision which could increase the payment to my brothers for their crop for last year. So I got out of that decision. I wouldn't lobby on behalf of that issue; I wouldn't participate in a meeting on that issue; and I declared what I perceived as my apparent conflict.
That's an example where it becomes an individual judgment. If members are unclear about how to handle their responsibilities for dealing with that issue, my sense is that you give up some rights. You can't do everything, and you may have to be in a position where you don't actually participate in a discussion or do some lobbying on behalf of a particular issue. You just have to hope that some of your colleagues do. I think that's one of the realities.
In the final analysis the conflict-of-interest commissioner can make a declaration. In the cases that the member cites or in the case that I cited, the conflict-of-interest commissioner could, if we asked for a declaration from him, say: "There is no conflict. Feel free to participate. There is no apparent conflict." I think members should feel comfortable about that. My own sense is I would still stay away from it, because the public has this very high standard, which I think we should strive to meet. It doesn't answer all the questions. I don't think it's possible to answer all the questions. We're breaking new ground here. We will have to rely to a large extent on good faith and on the judgments of the commissioner.
H. De Jong: The minister gave a good explanation about his family perhaps being a beneficiary of the tree-fruit program. But suppose that the minister lived in the next riding, and he had people in his own constituency coming to him saying: "Please, Mr. Minister, do something in order to make your colleague aware of the problem." It wouldn't be your relatives within that constituency, but at the same time there may be 10,000 fruit farmers that would be helped by that particular program. This is really my question: can we be effective for our community in terms of its needs, even though when the money would come across for whatever program it's not a direct benefit to a particular family as long as it's widespread or is for an industry or part of an industry? I really have difficulty with seeing that as an apparent conflict.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The original act -- and it's unamended on this point -- says that this act does not prohibit the activities in which members normally engage on behalf of constituents. I think you could argue, and everyone would agree, that that's an activity that the member normally participates in on behalf of constituents. If you're the minister, I think there are some different issues involved. But if you're a member advocating for your constituents or neighbouring constituents -- I think we represent all people in British Columbia, even if the riding is smaller -- I think the act is clear on that. I don't think the member will be in any conflict, perceived or otherwise.
[8:15]
[ Page 2966 ]
D. Mitchell: I think section 2 is a very key section of this bill. It defines conflict of interest, and it provides an expanded definition of conflict of interest from the statute that it's seeking to amend. The definition of conflict of interest is widened. The bill also includes the definition of "apparent conflict of interest." The Attorney General's comments and the example he used, along with the comments from the member for Abbotsford and the previous comments on section 1 from the member for Saanich North and the Islands and the member for Prince George-Omineca, all made some excellent points.
To deal with the general question here, I'd appreciate the Attorney General's comments in committee this evening. We're dealing with some amendments to the act that broaden the definition of conflict of interest -- and apparent conflict. The criterion there -- as we find in this bill -- is that conflict is the reasonable perception, which a reasonably well-informed person could properly have, that the member's ability to exercise an official power or perform an official duty or function must have been affected by his or her private interest. That's very carefully drafted. It's open to interpretation.
I have a question about the interpretation of the statute as it is going to be amended by this bill. This is a broad question. I think the hon. Attorney General would agree that we don't want to discourage people from entering public life. We don't want to discourage the very best and brightest British Columbians from entering public life and becoming elected representatives. The question I might ask and I seek some comment on is.... Perhaps the definition of conflict of interest and apparent conflict under this section of the bill is too widely cast.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Is it perhaps too widely cast? Perhaps. I don't think so. I think it captures what the public expects. The public expectation was captured very clearly by Justice Parker in the Sinclair Stevens affair. We have borrowed heavily -- in fact, word for word -- from Justice Parker in respect of the apparent-conflict wording. It's tough; no question about it. But it is from the Premier's guidelines.
Frankly, I don't mind admitting to members of the House that I didn't want to bring in a bill that had provisions that were weaker than the Premier's guidelines, if we could justify continuing with the Premier's guidelines. The Premier's guidelines had this issue of apparent conflict contained in them. Sinclair Stevens had it applied to him. The public, in my judgment, wants this kind of legislation. Is it perhaps cast too widely? The answer to that is no, in my opinion and in the opinion of our group.
C. Tanner: I don't want to be repetitious, but it seems to me that the real hang-up in this act is the second part of the amended section 2. It's the one that is going to be open to interpretation. The amendment of section 2 is, I think, acceptable to all members. But I think we're all having trouble with section 2(2). I think what we're saying is that you got a little carried away in your attempt to give the public your perception of what the public wants -- some protection. In actual fact you've gone too far. You've inhibited us too much, and you've left it open to interpretation. What happens if the interpretation isn't as you read? A year down the road, before we could have another look at this or we could take it to a committee to look at it, we could find ourselves in court. And our only recourse, if the conflict-of-interest commissioner and this House.... There's no reason to have that.
I think you're moving too fast. It would be my suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that the minister should be prepared to let that section go for now. Keep the first section; let the second section go. It's not going to detract too much from what you want to do, but it is going to give us some comfort on this side of the House.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Even though section 2, in both parts, applies to all members, the effective sanction is on members of cabinet. If a member "exercises an official power or performs an official duty or function in the execution of his or her office...." That is going to apply far more heavily on members of cabinet and to a lesser extent on parliamentary secretaries than it will on other members of the House. So that's the first point. If it isn't going to work, it isn't going to work first of all on us 19. So if there's a risk being taken here, it's being taken by the executive council. That's the reality there.
If the member had asked me six weeks ago if section 293 of the Criminal Code had my support and would I implement it, I would have said yes. The polygamy section of the Criminal Code -- I would have said we've got to do something about it, until I learned how the law works and discovered that we couldn't. There are all kinds of laws that are written that don't work, laws that are improperly drafted, laws that are written in a way that can be interpreted differently by different people. Judges do it all the time -- how else would we have split decisions on appeal courts? Everything is grey. There are issues to prove in section 2(1). How do you define the word "knows" in "knows that in the performance of the duty or function"? You can go on and on. Every word in the English language can be subject to a different interpretation by a different individual, and they usually are.
I recognize that this is the key element in the bill in respect of breaking new ground. I recognize it's tough, and I give my assurance again to members of the House that we've got a revision of conflict legislation coming forward next year, I hope, and in the process of doing that we will pay particular attention to this. We've spent some time with the conflict-of-interest commissioner over this particular section. We relied heavily, as I've said before -- three times now -- on Justice Parker's wording. We think we've covered the bases. Some members will think we've gone too far, and we're too tough. We will live with those consequences more, I suspect, than other members of the House -- in the short term, anyway.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
D. Mitchell: Section 3 adds a new section to the statute, and it provides for an explicit prohibition
[ Page 2967 ]
against conflict of interest. My understanding in my reading of this section of the bill is that it prohibits members from exercising an official power or performing an official duty or function if the member has a real or an apparent conflict of interest. Hon. Chairman, I understand how this might relate to a member of the executive council or perhaps even a parliamentary secretary. But could the Attorney General explain to the committee how that would relate to a private Member of the Legislative Assembly?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I were a member of the select standing committee or a special committee charged with appointing an ombudsperson, and my spouse were the leading candidate, I would not participate any longer in that committee, because I would suspect it would be a conflict of interest.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
H. De Jong: I understand that this section deals with parliamentary secretaries and members of cabinet after they leave office. Does that also include members of cabinet? Suppose an election was held and there was a change in government, where members of cabinet were sitting on the other side of the room like we are here this year. Could they not make presentations to members of cabinet on behalf of their community?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: They certainly could on behalf of their constituents. They couldn't on behalf of a lobby group that was active in the area directly involved with the former minister's ministerial responsibility, because the former minister would perhaps have some inside knowledge of how the ministry worked, the policies and all of that. The former minister, then, can't participate in any lobbying with respect to issues that were within his or her duties before. The same would apply to members who are defeated, or members who are re-elected if they are no longer in cabinet, but it would not preclude -- as we talked about earlier, the allowance of section 5 -- acting on behalf of constituents, and it wouldn't preclude issues where there is broad policy.
The only changes in this section from the law that's in place today are with two issues. We have changed 12 months to 24, so there's a two-year prohibition instead of one-year, and we've included parliamentary secretaries. Those are the only changes in this section.
H. De Jong: One more question on this section. It is on the change from 12 months to 24 months, which is quite extensive. If, in fact, a minister or a parliamentary secretary has been purer than pure, why would this additional 12 months be required? As I see it, it's really like a penalty for having served and having been purer than pure.
I could perhaps accept it if, in fact, the minister had not lived up to his commitments. But to extend the period from one year to two years.... The public is concerned about pensions or severance pay being paid to members who don't get re-elected, if they haven't served the sufficient years to receive a pension. But isn't this going to have a drastic effect on, first of all, members wanting to run for office who are running a business, or are intending to go back into the business afterwards? It may be a logging business, for instance, and requires access to an area to be logged, or whatever. It could be a number of things that are not necessarily directly related to government, but somewhere along the line they need government approvals. So I have difficulty with this 12-month extension on this particular period. In fact, I really don't see why we need any period at all.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The principle included in the original section is a principle that's been in place in other jurisdictions. If, after participating in a ministry, you have learned all kinds of things about what goes on in that ministry, have access to people and know how to pull levers in that ministry, the principle here is that you should not then go out into the private sector or other sectors in the community and be able to come back and lobby the new minister on behalf of somebody else in the private sector to get a benefit. That group that you're lobbying for will have an added benefit, an inside track, over all the other groups out there who have retained somebody else who wasn't a cabinet minister in that job.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: And they may be at a disadvantage, if they hire poorly. The fact is that the principle was in place before and is in place in other jurisdictions. The principle of a time-period is in place in other jurisdictions. The time-periods in other jurisdictions vary, and I can't remember all the various periods. We thought two years was an appropriate time-frame. The former government, of which the member was a member, thought one year was enough. Both numbers are arbitrary. You chose one year; we've chosen two. It's as simple as that.
I think, quite frankly, it's appropriate. If I'm the Minister of Forests and I'm defeated, I think it's entirely inappropriate that I then go out and work for Fletcher Challenge and come and meet with the new Minister of Forests on behalf of Fletcher Challenge to try to persuade the new minister to do something on behalf of that private group -- or lobby anybody else in the government. I think that's entirely inappropriate. After a couple of years, there's been enough change in the issues and enough time has elapsed so the former minister isn't going to be that intimately involved with the ongoing issues. Maybe it should be forever. We didn't choose to do it forever; we have just put a two-year time-limit on it. It doesn't prevent former ministers from getting a job in the public service. It doesn't prevent appointments such as Garde Gardom to B.C. House in London. It doesn't prevent a member from doing what members in other provinces have done: going directly from being a minister to being a deputy minister. It doesn't prevent any of that. It doesn't prevent ministers from going out and lobbying
[ Page 2968 ]
on behalf of other issues which they weren't involved in. It's a very narrow restriction, and one that I think should be supported.
[8:30]
J. Weisgerber: In the previous answer the minister indicated that a cabinet minister who found himself in opposition, as has been known to happen, would be precluded under this legislation from lobbying his or her former ministry on behalf of an interest group. Surely that can't be correct. Surely we are not introducing legislation that would in some way inhibit my ability to act on behalf of my constituents or on behalf of groups of individuals, in the broader constituency in the province, who might look to me as a logical spokesperson for their issues. I'd like the minister to clarify for me that, in fact, that's not what he is suggesting.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As the former Minister for Native Affairs -- as it was then called -- the member has every right as a member of this Legislature to lobby on behalf of native issues in general, to meet with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and to advance particular interests. As the former Minister of Native Affairs, it would not be permissible -- either under this amended act of 24 months or the previous act of 12 months -- for the member to take a contract with a particular native group and take that native group's concerns to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in an effort to persuade the minister to do something on behalf of that group. That would not be allowed; it wasn't allowed before. We're extending the prohibition for an extra 12 months.
Let me say just one more thing. Section 5 remains. I've said this before: members continue to have the right, clearly spelled out, to lobby on behalf of constituents. All native people in British Columbia are the members' constituents.
D. Mitchell: Just one question on this, because section 4 deals with different categories of members of this House. It deals with members of the executive council, parliamentary secretaries -- and private members, I think, by inference. I take it that there is no retroactivity contemplated in this amendment to the statute. Could the Attorney General just clarify this for the benefit of the committee? He's indicated something of the private world of parliamentary secretaries -- the fact that they have an insight into the administration of a ministry, perhaps, by virtue of the performance of their duties. We don't talk a lot in the House about parliamentary secretaries and what their duties are. Heaven forbid, I don't think we'd ever want a job description for any of our roles in this Legislature; that would be far too restrictive.
In terms of private members of the House, there's no time-limit on restrictions on post-office activities. Could it not be the case that a government private member might have, from time to time, the same kind of insight into the running of a ministry or an agency of government as a parliamentary secretary, especially given the fact that this government is given to the practice of having private members on their side of the House serving on boards of Crown corporations?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member raises an interesting point which is not covered by the legislation. In respect of normal parliamentary activity carried out by members who are not on the executive council and who are not parliamentary secretaries, I don't think there would be a problem. There is no intimate involvement in a ministry, in a subject, or in cabinet discussions.
In respect of the Crown corporation, I want to think about that issue. It's an issue that I can't, off the top of my head, just standing here, respond to in an intelligent way. But I'll just confirm the first point that the member made; it is not retroactive. The extension to 24 months will not cover the member for South Peace River if he chooses to resign and to get a job lobbying on behalf of a native group.
D. Mitchell: I would encourage the hon. Attorney General to think about this point that I'm making about private members serving on the boards of Crown corporations and agencies in this province. The government has adopted this practice. Private members of this Legislature have been appointed to the boards of more than one Crown corporation.
We are dealing here with conflict of interest. We're dealing here with the principle, as the hon. Attorney General has told this committee this evening, whereby parliamentary secretaries might have insight into the ongoing activities of a ministry of government. Certainly if a member of the Legislative Assembly was serving on the board of a Crown corporation for a time, they would have insight into the ongoing activities, which may be commercial in nature, with respect to one of the Crown agencies of our province. It seems that something's missing in this legislation if it doesn't cover that potential conflict. I wonder if the Attorney-General would consider an amendment to the bill before its passage into law, to cover that potential loophole. It should at least be brought under consideration by this House, I would think.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's an issue that I have not put my mind to and have not considered. On the surface, it sounds like a valid point which merits consideration. My undertaking is that we will look at the question. I don't want to undertake that we could do all of the appropriate consultation that I would want to do, in particular with Mr. Hughes, in advance of the winding up of this session. My commitment would be that we will review that issue as part of the ongoing review of the general legislation, and if it's needed to be dealt with next year in this bill, we can do an amendment at that time.
C. Tanner: Just a small point on section 4(7), Mr. Minister. It says: "A person who contravenes subsection (4), or (6.1) commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine of not more than $5,000."
[ Page 2969 ]
I thought I had a good voice that carried. I have problems with your voice, Mr. Minister. I didn't realize you were having problems with mine.
Two suggestions. One is that $5,000 isn't enough anymore, with the sort of salaries that are paid these days. Secondly, it would be my suggestion that in future legislation you don't put the figure in, because they are inclined to just sit there for years and years, and $5,000 becomes irrelevant ten years down the road. I think it should say under the regulation, or alternatively, put a very high figure so the judge or magistrate or whoever can go up that high.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In principle, I'm not sure I agree with leaving the penalty figure in the regulations. I think it should be in the act. Remember that this isn't the penalty section that applies in general terms. This applies only to some narrow issues. The penalty sections later can be pretty tough -- forfeiture of seat, for example. So we're talking about a small issue here. Whether $5,000 is enough is a good point. We'll review that issue too, as we do the continuing review.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
D. Mitchell: Section 5 amends section 8 of the act, dealing with parliamentary secretaries. I understand that what it does is add parliamentary secretaries to the prohibitions on members of the executive council who are engaging in an employment or profession which may conflict with private duties. I note that members of the executive council who have a portfolio receive an additional $39,000 a year. Parliamentary secretaries, under our current procedures here in this House, receive an additional $6,000 per year. When I take a look at this, and I look at the prohibition that is provided here for employment, for other professions, I wonder what's being implied here. The parliamentary secretaries are also prohibited by this from employment or activities placing them in any conflict of interest. I'm wondering if there's an inference here that the remuneration for parliamentary secretaries is going to have to be increased as a result.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is 71 no, four yes.
D. Mitchell: I just wanted to get that clarification. I did my best to lobby for the four members of the House, and I failed miserably.
I have another question on section 5 of this bill. It's with respect to the restriction on holding of offices or directorships. This section also makes the holding of an office or directorship other than in a social club, religious organization, political party or Crown corporation -- interestingly -- an unqualified prohibition. Previously the section prohibited the holding of such offices only where it was likely to conflict with the member's public duties.
It's interesting that the categories listed here are social club, religious organizations and political parties. These are all considered to be analogous in some respect. It reminds me of the recent Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society issue, where the federal Member of Parliament for Nanaimo, Dave Stupich, indicated that a political party was a religious organization or charity for the benefit of receipts from bingo operations. So maybe this is the Dave Stupich amendment.
But I do have a serious question on this, hon. Chair. I'm wondering whether this amendment to the statute is too strict. Why should members be prohibited from being involved in charitable organizations, for instance?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is a question of holding an office. It's not being a member of a group; it's "...shall not hold an office or directorship other than in a social club...." Whether a charity that doesn't do business with government is a social club is, I think, a matter for discussion between the member and the commissioner. I think a social club would be defined quite widely, but it wouldn't prevent membership in any other organization.
D. Mitchell: Just while we're on this section dealing with these prohibitions or restrictions on holding an office or directorship, why would "Crown corporation" be in there as well?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're saying that there are some directorships or executive positions that members of the executive council or parliamentary secretaries can hold -- and we've listed them. They're obvious in respect to social clubs, religious organizations and political parties, and we've added Crown corporations. Traditionally, it has been the case that members of the executive council and parliamentary secretaries have been members of Crown corporations. We wanted the option to continue that practice should we choose to.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
D. Mitchell: Just a brief question on section 6, which amends section 9 of the act. It's with respect to keeping an access to records, where there might be potential conflicts. I note that there are certain restrictions on maintaining cabinet secrecy under this section of the bill. I'm wondering in particular about section 6(3)(b), which says: "...in the case of a meeting of the Executive Council or a committee of the Executive Council, as soon as practicable after of the Executive Council's decision on the matter which has been the subject of the disclosure is made public." That's with respect to the keeping of and filing of access to records. I wonder if the hon. Attorney General could just explain how this prohibition on cabinet confidentiality would work procedurally.
[8:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If a member of a cabinet committee declares his or her conflict or apparent conflict to the secretary of the cabinet committee and
[ Page 2970 ]
leaves the meeting, the cabinet committee secretary keeps the information until the decision has been implemented or made public, at which point the secretary then gives that information -- the declaration that the minister has absented himself or herself -- to the commissioner. At that point, it's public. So when the public announcement is made of a decision, the public also knows at the same time -- if they choose to find out from the commissioner -- that a certain member actually abstained from participating in a decision.
Hon. Speaker, I would like to do a floor amendment on section 6(3)(a), which is typographically incorrect. It says: "...in the case of a meeting of the assembly of a committee of assembly." It should read: "...or a committee of the assembly." This is an unnoticed typographical error, which I would like to correct by way of a floor amendment, so the word "of" would become "or." I would so move.
Amendment approved.
On section 6 as amended.
C. Tanner: I've got to admit that has devastated my argument; I'm totally out in left field here now. Just as a matter of interest, Mr. Minister, is there no conflict between what you are saying in this section as far as disclosure of the member having left the meeting, particularly if it is a meeting of cabinet or a committee of cabinet...? You preclude from the general public the knowledge of what went on in a cabinet meeting for ten years, but you don't here.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: When the decision of cabinet has been made public -- not the briefing that the deputy minister or others in the bureaucracy may have given to cabinet about why they should make a particular decision -- then the declaration that the cabinet minister absented himself or herself is also made public then. I think it is straightforward.
It is not the same point in the House because it is public. The issue here would be if a member, as happened earlier in this session, left the chamber during a debate on a particular bill; this would require that it be filed with the Clerk, and the Clerk would immediately file that information with the commissioner. In the case of a cabinet or cabinet committee decision, it would be filed with the commissioner as soon as the decision was made public. The freedom-of-information legislation doesn't prevent the decision being made public; it prevents some of the advice being made public.
We have a very alert Clerk. I therefore move an amendment to section 6(3)(b) by deleting the word "of" in the third line, after the phrase "as soon as practicable after" and before "the Executive Council's decision." I don't know how that happened.
Amendment approved.
Section 6 as amended approved. On section 7.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to get some clarification on the new section 9.1 that is to be added. As I read that section, cabinet ministers with real or apparent conflicts should absent themselves from the cabinet when decisions are being made. I am reminded of reports earlier this year that when the cabinet, before the House had been called back, decided it would overrule or ignore the Compensation Fairness Act as it applies to the BCTF or to school boards, ministers sought advice from the conflict-of-interest commissioner and on his advice absented themselves from the decision. I think it was the Premier and the Minister of Finance who were mentioned as having been advised that they should absent themselves. What I found peculiar in that instance was that both of those individuals had been reported earlier as having supported the decision to overturn that decision. It seemed rather hollow for the Premier to go around to chamber of commerce meetings and other public functions and say that he believed the act should be ignored or overturned, and then go to a cabinet meeting and absent himself when a decision was being made. It seemed to me that it was kind of a hollow gesture on his part, because he had clearly.... The members of his cabinet knew what his thinking was. If it presented a conflict for him, absenting himself from the cabinet room where the decision was ultimately being made had no real bearing on the decision that would be reached.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first thing that members need to know is that this section is lifted from the former Premier's guidelines, so we're not doing anything more than was in place before except to give it statutory authority. Secondly, before the member arrived in committee this evening, we had an extensive discussion with respect to that particular issue -- spouses of members of cabinet who might have benefited from the repeal of the Compensation Fairness Act.
The member is incorrect, I must say, in respect of the Minister of Finance and the Premier. Because we were living up as best we could to the Premier's guidelines -- as we understood them -- we asked Commissioner Hughes for his advice on the question. He said there was no conflict for all members of cabinet to participate in that decision, and all members of cabinet who happened to be there that day did participate in the discussion.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, I was well aware of the debate as it went on, and the point was not whether or not the conflict existed between the members and their spouses. The question arises when prior to a meeting a high-profile members of cabinet -- i.e. the Premier or the Minister of Finance -- publicly express an opinion and then absent themselves because there appears to be a conflict. I am suggesting to you that that's a rather hollow gesture on their part because other members of the cabinet who are influenced by them are already aware of their opinion. That was the point I was intending to make.
[ Page 2971 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understood the point; I just didn't respond to it. The member makes a fair comment. I don't know of any remedy that could avoid that particular problem. If in an election campaign the leader of a party campaigns on a particular issue, or more specifically, if a member campaigns on a particular issue and is high-profile on that issue and then becomes a cabinet minister responsible for that issue and then has to absent himself or herself for whatever reason, other members of cabinet are going to know what that person's view was. We can't solve all the problems in the world.
D. Mitchell: I note that this section also empowers the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint a cabinet minister to act in place of a minister who has removed himself or herself with respect to a decision that may pose a conflict under this act. Could the minister confirm that this example has already taken place in this session, where his seatmate the Minister of Finance was relieved of his responsibilities under the Society Act in favour of the Minister of Government Services? This was with respect to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal that a special prosecutor has been appointed to look into under the Ministry of Attorney General. Is that the kind of situation that this section is really referring to?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, in general terms it does. In fact, if this provision had been in place a few weeks ago -- a month ago, or whenever it was -- we could have handled that situation more effectively. The minister could simply have delegated those narrower issues to another cabinet minister rather than transferring the whole operation in which the possible conflict occurs to another minister. What you can do rather than transferring the branch administratively is transfer the responsibility for those issues to another minister on a temporary basis. It's probably a distinction without a difference. But this gives a preciseness to it that we think is appropriate. In general terms, yes, that's the kind of illustration.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
D. Mitchell: I just have a quick question on section 8. It relates to the need for ongoing disclosure rather than annual disclosure statements. There's an ongoing disclosure provision here -- that members should make ongoing disclosure statements to the conflict-of-interest commissioner within 30 days of any material change in their assets, liabilities or financial interests. I note in the bill that a material change is to be defined by regulation. Could the Attorney General enlighten us in this committee this evening as to what is intended by regulation here? What is the definition of "material change" likely to consist of?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't give a precise answer to that question at this stage, because I don't know what the regulation is going to say. I haven't yet been in discussions about how to define that, but we're going to work with Mr. Hughes on that. He has now had some years of experience of seeing how changes occur in people's portfolios, or assets. We'll try to define "material change" so that it won't mean you'll have to file every week if your savings account increases by $5 every week. We've got to be reasonable and sensible about this, and that's what the intention will be.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to know why this section was necessary. It provides for members to now request the commissioner's opinion and advice under both section 25 of the Constitution Act and the act that this bill is amending -- the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. Why would this section be necessary?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We took the advice of Mr. Hughes that members should be able by statute to ask his opinion on the issues raised in section 25 of the Constitution Act. We had discussion earlier, in some measure, and we are acting on Mr. Hughes's advice on this section, and I'm delighted to take his advice.
[9:00]
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I think I can take some credit for that. Mr. Hughes and I had a long discussion about that section. Hopefully, he put it in on my account. But he missed the other one. There's another problem, under the Election Act. When a member decides to run for election, he has to fill in a similar qualification. Personally I think it's unfair, because you're not elected to anything yet, and you're already making disclosure to a comparative stranger as to what your business assets are. I was very embarrassed in 1986 when I had to make a disclosure in front of a discharged lawyer. He happened to live in the same town that I did, and I was very uncomfortable about it. I think it's unfair. Could the minister give us some assurance that his ministry could look at the Election Act too?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll look at everything if you like. But seriously, disclosure legislation is different from conflict legislation. I've thought for years, ever since the disclosure legislation came in, that it's cumbersome and needs dealing with. I make no bones about saying that. I'm also quite happy to say that I think the Election Act needs a lot of work. We intend to give that a lot of work. So there we go.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
H. De Jong: I understand this section allows cabinet to request an opinion from the commissioner on any matter respecting the compliance of a member of cabinet or parliamentary secretary, but also on any member of the House. Doesn't that put members of the
[ Page 2972 ]
opposition at a disadvantage when the House would vote on whether a member should be subject to the commission for an inspection or not?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to have to ask the member to repeat the question. I'm sorry.
H. De Jong: This section allows the Legislative Assembly to request an opinion of the commissioner respecting the compliance of any member of this House. Seeing as this is a decision made by the assembly, doesn't this section put the members of the opposition at a disadvantage, seeing as they're always lesser in number than the government?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, on the face of it. Section 10(2.1) requires a majority vote; therefore, theoretically an opposition member would be unable to get the majority to agree to ask the commissioner to give an opinion. But if you flip back to the first amendment, a member of the public who has reasonable and probable grounds can, by application, request an opinion. As a member of the public, the member for Abbotsford would be able to ask for that provision. In addition to that, in the original legislation, any member of the House -- this is in section 15 of the act as it now exists -- who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that somebody is in contravention can write to the commissioner, set out the allegation and ask the commissioner to give an opinion respecting compliance. So I think we've covered it in a number of ways. A member of the public can do it, a member of the House can do it, the executive council can do it and the Legislature can do it.
D. Mitchell: Just a brief question on section 10, which is very important. We debated in second reading quite a bit the provision for members of the public to request an inquiry under the terms of the bill. A member of the public can now do that. I believe what the spirit of the bill says is that, in order to limit any vexatious requests for information, the commissioner will decide if the grounds are reasonable and probable under this section. I wonder if the Attorney-General can tell us whether or not it's contemplated that there will be any guidelines for what is reasonable and probable. Or are we relying here on the good judgment of the commissioner?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The intention at this point is to rely on the good judgment of the commissioner. If events should demonstrate a need to go beyond that, to develop policy around the issue, then it would still be open to doing that.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
D. Mitchell: I note that the hon. Attorney-General is getting hungry, as am I, so I don't have very many more questions. In section 11 we have a provision for special assignments. The commissioner of conflict of interest can take on special assignments. Just for clarification, this section permits the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as well as the Legislative Assembly, to request the commissioner to undertake special assignments that he or she considers appropriate. Would an example of this already have taken place in this session, with respect to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society affair, whereby the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party jointly requested the commissioner of conflict of interest to look into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society affair? Is that an example of what has already taken place here? Why would this section be necessary if in fact it can already take place?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I didn't know better, I would suggest that the member is a lawyer. He asked a question when he knows the answer. The answer is yes.
D. Mitchell: I'm not sure how to take the Attorney-General's last comment. I'll try to take it as a compliment, but it's not easy. Is he saying that this section is unnecessary? That's the question I'm trying to raise here. If in fact it can already occur, why amend the act?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm advised -- I had forgotten this -- that there is a similar section in the Auditor General Act which allows the Legislative Assembly to ask that a special assignment be undertaken. The provision is appropriate in the issue that the member talks about, and I think we'll see a motion dealing with that before long. It enables the House and/or the cabinet to ask the commissioner to undertake assignments. What this will mean is that if, for example, on a particular issue authority could be conveyed in the Inquiry Act, you don't then need to pass orders-in-council to deal with it. It's all contained here within the mandate and authority of the commissioner. So the commissioner would be able to conduct himself or herself in a way that I think the member should agree would be useful for public business in this province.
Sections 11 and 12 approved.
On section 13.
B. Jones: I thought I might rise in honour of my former colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, Dave Mercier, whom I think this amendment has been put in place after.
This section is about filing. I did want to ask the Attorney General a question for the record about filing. As one who has filed these kinds of disclosure statements for many years, I appreciate that there is a new opportunity for filing at the point of any material change in one's assets. It seems to me that the many pages that members fill out annually might be expedited by the opportunity to file a disclosure that would disclose any changes in the material assets from the previous year. A process might be devised so that we do that in order to reduce the amount of red tape that our
[ Page 2973 ]
colleagues in this House endure annually. It would be an effort.
I have discussed this with Mr. Hughes, and he suggested that I raise it with members in the House. It's on the record for the Attorney General to respond to.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member makes a good point. If a member is disclosing next year exactly what he disclosed this year, why go through pages and pages all over again? You could simply say, "Change the date," and it's all accurate. You could even initial minor changes that may occur on a particular page or item.
I don't think that this legislation as it's written precludes the commissioner from allowing that procedure. In fact, I looked at the legislation with that question in mind. My own view is that it does not preclude that. It may be that the commissioner would feel more comfortable if regulations attached to it provided for that opportunity. It makes sense, and anything that makes sense we should do.
H. De Jong: Section 13 deals with the issue of whether a commissioner finds an offence by some member. He's then making a recommendation in the report that is laid before the Legislative Assembly. My question is on this one in particular. If something on a member of the opposition is laid before the Legislative Assembly, and the majority of the House is the government, is making a decision on the kind of reprimand or penalty really a fair procedure? In fact, as the act says, it could mean that the member would lose his seat.
A further question to that is: should a member be expelled from his seat? Is he allowed to run for election again when the by-election is called?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to can you run again is yes. If a member who has been required to forfeit his seat chooses to run again, the ultimate authority in this democracy -- and I hope it always is -- is the people. This is not a criminal conviction. This is something much less than that. It's a pretty severe fine to lose your seat. But if the public decides that you should be re-elected, then that's the public's will, and that should prevail.
The bill does not change the procedure in respect of the Legislature having to deal with the commissioner's report. We're still dealing with the situation where a minority grouping in the House could be subject to the will of the majority, but that would have applied to us when we were in opposition when this bill came through a few years ago. The public is the final judge. If the House acts in a capricious, mean or vindictive way, then people who behave in that way will be judged by the public. I think members would be very loath to do that.
H. De Jong: At the same time though, I would like to hear the minister say whether or not he agrees with me whether it is fair to those who are in the minority in the House when the total Legislative Assembly makes a decision on whatever is recommended by the commission.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: When I was a member of the opposition in a minority group in this parliament and this bill came through, I did not think it was unfair. I thought it was fair then. I still think it's fair.
[9:15]
Sections 13 and 14 approved.
On section 15.
D. Mitchell: A question on the commencement clause -- the coming into force of the bill. It seems to be a boiler-plate provision in almost all the bills coming in from the government in this session that they come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. On a bill of this nature, I am wondering why not coming into force on the day of assent. Would that not be appropriate for a bill of this nature?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think not. There are a number of issues in here, some of which of have been identified tonight, that require further clarification and regulation, and some issues require the commissioner to have some time to set up his shop to deal adequately with the legislation. It is for that reason that it is proclamation rather than on royal assent. There is no intention to delay or hold this off any longer than is necessary to get the rules, regulations and policies in place.
C. Tanner: I'm sure the minister is glad to get to this section, as we all are. I know he is hungry, so he is going to give me the right answer or I'll keep him here for the rest of the night. Could the minister tell us how much it is going to cost the people of the province to bring this act into force?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I'm not that hungry. Secondly, I don't think this is going to cost very much. I don't know that the commissioner's office will have to have extensive additions to staff to accomplish this bill. Clearly there are some additional provisions: filing and some others. There will be a requirement for what I would describe as minimal office staff. Members who know the commissioner will know that there will not be any fat in that particular office.
Section 15 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 64, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete with amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee of supply.
[ Page 2974 ]
House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
On vote 48: minister's office: $365,941 (continued).
Hon. E. Cull: I know the member for Langley is not in the House tonight, but I did undertake to get back to her on a question she asked me last night. I hope she will have an opportunity to read this in the record afterwards. She asked about palliative care programs. I want to inform her that approximately $5.77 million is currently funded from the hospital care division for a variety of palliative care programs in the province. In keeping with the Closer to Home theme, future palliative care proposals will be community-based. Funding for them will come from the community partnership program for hospital care. Most hospitals actually have two or three beds for palliative care, but they have not been specially funded for them.
In addition, we're providing up to $1.9 million in this fiscal year through our continuing-care division for enhancements of community-based palliative care services in B.C. This funding will enable the community home-nursing services to provide 24-hour nursing care in the last days of life to people who choose to die at home. All the provincial and municipal health units have received additional funds for this initiative. For the member's specific information, the Central Fraser Valley Health Unit, which includes Langley, has received an additional $56,000 for this purpose.
L. Hanson: I'm reading the Blues. The minister dealt yesterday with some hospital funding issues in Terrace and Kitimat, and spent some time talking about that. I'm sure the minister is aware that in my own home community there is now an initiative to close about 20 beds and lay off about 20.... I'm not sure of the number of staff. I've asked this question: was it as a result of what you might expect as the normal summer holiday slowdown, because of people on holidays and that sort of thing? I was assured that it wasn't.
Last night in my home community about 200 people came out to a public meeting to discuss the issue. It's my understanding that the occupancy rate in the hospital is up in the 90s, but I'm not sure exactly what the percentage is. There's a wait-list of almost 1,600 -- 1,580. The difficulty that I have in understanding it.... I might just add something else to that first. It appears that the hospital in Enderby, just north, has taken some initiatives to do less in the surgical area than they did in the past, if not cut it out completely. There is some negative action on the part of the Armstrong unit. Although it's not a full hospital, they were going to expand their day surgery to five days a week. I believe they're at three or four now. They've decided against that also because of that. I'm trying to get a feeling for and an understanding of the difficulty that is being experienced there as a result of a shortage of funding. Is the Vernon Jubilee Hospital abnormally busy with operations with that kind of waiting-list? Is that a normal waiting-list for communities of comparable size around the province? I believe they compare the Jubilee to Penticton and Chilliwack and some other hospitals.
The initiative will also close the fourth operating room. Since it has not been working, the wait-list has grown from about 900, I believe, to 1,580. I wonder if the minister might enlighten me as to what, from the ministry's point of view, the difficulty is.
Hon. E. Cull: I want to give the member some background information, and then answer the question that he just posed to me.
Vernon Jubilee Hospital received this year in its base budget allocation an increase of 4.2 percent over last year. In addition to that, they received another 2.4 percent for pay equity. That's a total increase this year of 6.6 percent of their funding over last year.
The history of funding for Vernon Jubilee has been very good. In fact, it has been better than other comparable hospitals in their peer group. Between '88 and '92 they received funding increases of about 12 percent annually. This hospital has received more additional funds in the past three years than comparable hospitals. Clearly the increases that they had been receiving were out of line with their peer group, which is, I'm sure you understand, how hospitals are funded. Last year their unaudited financial statements indicated a surplus of $37,000 for the year.
The waiting-lists have decreased slightly during the labour dispute this year, which is kind of interesting, because I would have thought they would have gone the other way. There have been some changes proposed. In answer to your question, given the fact that this hospital has received funding that is clearly beyond inflation at this point and it has addressed their salary amounts in terms of pay equity, we are unclear why, when they have a 6.6 percent budget increase, they have a need for $1.8 million in cutbacks. As a result of the fact that the cutbacks don't seem to match their budget increase, we're having staff work with the hospital administration to determine exactly why they feel they have to make these kinds of cutbacks when they've received what appears to be a very adequate funding increase this year.
L. Hanson: Do I understand from the minister that the review team that I believe was mentioned in either a press conference or a press release that you would have going around the province...? Is it your intention to send them to look at that situation?
Hon. E. Cull: The special review team was announced to deal with the three hospitals in the northwest. There is not one review team that will go around the province. If we find hospitals are having difficulty living within their budget and maybe having a hard time trying to make decisions about how to manage within their budget, and we think they will be assisted by an external review team, then we will put a special review team into that community to have a look at it. We will also look at their hospital-community interface so we have some idea of what's happening with their community services. At this point I might as
[ Page 2975 ]
well put that on the record, because you may be interested in knowing what's happening in the community-based services.
In the Vernon local health area there has been a 40 percent increase in continuing care -- that's home nursing and long-term care assessment -- a 20 percent increase in public health prevention services, almost a 39 percent increase for family health and a 30 percent increase in mental health services.
[9:30]
L. Hanson: Do you have those increases in place, or do you anticipate putting in place the increased services that you mentioned?
Hon. E. Cull: Those services are being put in place right now, but they're not up and running in the community today.
L. Hanson: In talking to the hospital and the administration, one of their concerns has been that the community home care workers that are needed to offset some of the days' stay in hospital are not quite in place yet. So it's a chicken and egg, a cart before the horse or whatever sort of situation.
If the hospital is operating inefficiently and that's what's causing the shortfall, then I suppose the Ministry of Health would be there to make recommendations as to what efficiencies could be realized. Vernon does have the trustee who the minister put in charge of the board, so it should have the ability to deal with inefficiencies if they are there.
The question that I continually get asked is whether the 1,500 or 1,600 on the waiting-list for a community that services an area like Vernon, with a population, age demographics and everything that goes with it, is the median around the province for hospitals of that size. Or is there something peculiar about what is happening in Vernon?
Hon. E. Cull: The waiting-list in Vernon is higher than the average around the province, and that is a concern to us. You are no doubt aware that we have announced that we're going to have a comprehensive look at waiting-lists around the province. We're trying to understand exactly what is driving them, because it's not a simple issue when you get into it. It's often a question of appropriate human resources and whether you have the right professionals.
Sometimes it's a question of the way the hospital actually manages the beds, whether they're doing it on a medical surgical model or whether they break it up around specialties. Sometimes it has to do with the way hospitals actually utilize those beds, whether they have an appropriate day surgery, whether they're using the community resources and whether they're going through their community partnership program to try to increase utilization in the hospital without affecting the quality of care in the community. So we will be looking at that.
We were going to start doing that earlier, but as a result of the hospital labour dispute, knowing that it would impact on waiting-lists, we felt that it would be reasonable to let things settle down for a bit before we had a look at it so that at least we weren't dealing with the labour dispute portion.
I think it's interesting to note that Penticton, which is a similar community in terms of its demographics and size and had received similar budget allocation, is not having these kinds of difficulties. So my staff will be working very closely with the public administrator in Vernon on these utilization issues. My staff tell me that the hospital is reasonably efficient in the way that it's managed, but there are some utilization issues that require further work. We're working very actively with the administration in Vernon to bring those about.
L. Hanson: It's my understanding -- of course, I read from the media and what other communications I can get -- that they are going to close 22 beds, lay those appropriate people off and close the fourth operating room as of the end of this month. Is the minister suggesting that the investigation and advice she is going to give may have some effect on that, or does the trustee and the hospital administration now go ahead with that closure?
Hon. E. Cull: It's my understanding that a number of the layoffs are of increased staffing that was put on last year. There was an increase last year, and this is just bringing it back to where it was. That is part of what is going on here. It's difficult to get the baseline reading of exactly what's going on.
L. Hanson: I can concede that, although I don't know whether that is the case or not. Let's suppose it is the case. I'm sure that the 20 beds were not closed last year; they were open last year. The staff portion of it may be staff who were added last year, but the bed closures are not part of some advanced or expanded operation from last year. The question I asked the minister concerned the investigation with staff members that the minister has suggested and advice that she may be able to give to the hospital. What effect will that have on these bed closures and the operating room?
Hon. E. Cull: I want to go over that last point again. The information we received from the hospital itself indicates that the staff cutbacks include a number of staff employed on a temporary basis during 1991. Further cutbacks are due to a reorganization within the hospital. Actual numbers of staff displaced as a result of the budget shortfall are unclear but are likely to be considerably fewer than originally reported by the hospital. That's the latest information we have from talking to the hospital administration.
The thing that is still puzzling and that I have asked the administrator to explain to me is: if they have received 6.6 percent more funding than they received last year, why are they not able to continue to operate the same number of beds that they did last year? Even considering that inflation in hospitals may be slightly higher than the average inflation rate, there still should be enough money there to operate those beds.
There is a pattern in a number of hospitals around the province. It's the same question I asked when I went
[ Page 2976 ]
to the northwest. Why does a 5 percent shortfall in funding, which is what they've received up there -- unlike Vernon, where the increases are closer to 0 percent -- translate to anywhere from a 25 to a 33 percent cut in beds? Some questions have to be asked of administration, because in my mind, those numbers don't add up. Even if you start to work with some of the economics around hospitals, overheads and all the rest, they still don't match up. There are some questions that we have to ask hospital boards and hospital administrations to answer, and they have to be accountable to their communities for those decisions.
For the most part, boards are voluntary. People give hours and hours of their time without any remuneration -- and not always a lot of education and skills training. We know that hospitals can use additional assistance, which is why we have our own ministry staff available to work with them and the special review teams to go in and have a look. An external peer review will be made public in that community so the public understands what the decisions are and where the trade-offs are being made.
L. Hanson: Yes, I think I understand that, and I certainly subscribe to that philosophy. I might point out to the minister that the board is replaced by the trustee of the ministry's choosing, and if those inefficiencies are there, in working with the trustee it should be fairly easy for the ministry to determine that. I guess the question that I still would like to know is: is any action on the part of the ministry going to have any effect on the closures that are announced for the end of this month, which, as I'm sure the minister can understand, is just a few days away?
Hon. E. Cull: The public administrator has been invited to come and talk to me to explain what is going on in the hospital around the decisions that they're making. But he is taking action right now. I understand he's going to be bringing in some utilization experts to have a look at the situation in the hospital to see what changes can be made. In fairness to Mr. Moreton, we have to recognize that he has not had a long period of time to try to change procedures in the hospital. He has had to deal with the situation as he found it when he came on the job sometime in March.
I also would point out that there was an external review done of the hospital, I believe in the last 18 months, which looked at funding for the hospital. There was a small adjustment made to the base funding as a result of that review, but essentially the hospital was deemed to have enough money to operate efficiently with the number of beds they had for the kind of community that they were serving.
I expect hospitals to work hard to be able to do this. This has been a tough year for all hospitals, with having to share the 5.5 percent increase in funding, and they are going to have to work a lot smarter to make sure that they can continue to deliver a high quality of service to their communities. I think the interesting thing, when you look across the province -- again we'll use the Penticton example -- is that we have other situations that are not unlike Vernon's, where the population, the hospital and the funding increases are similar, but the end results are different.
The only thing that I can say to you in answer to that is that we've identified Vernon as needing some further attention from the ministry, and we will continue to work with the public administrator to try to bring about the efficiencies in the best way possible and to maintain the quality of service in that community. We think there are ways of doing that, and I believe that the administrator also thinks there are ways of doing that. I think bringing in the utilization experts is one of the ways that they're recognizing there are still things that can be done.
L. Hanson: I appreciate that the administrator or trustee -- I'm not sure what the correct name is -- has only been there a short time, and it's unfair to expect him to be right up to date with everything that has happened. I guess the concern being expressed in the community is that the wait-list, whatever the reason may be, appears to be abnormally high. The ministry is working towards finding a solution. I can't argue with that, and I think that's the right approach. I guess the question I still have is: are those closures of the operating room and hospital beds going to go ahead? I think it will just make the waiting-list longer. It grows at about 80 to 100 a month when the fourth operating room is not working. Is the action that the ministry is looking at going to happen fairly soon? It's a lot easier to stop than it is to get started again, and the community really is quite concerned with the waiting-time.
Hon. E. Cull: As I said a few minutes ago, the interesting thing was that during the labour dispute this year, when you would have expected their waiting-list for operations to increase, it went down. I think there's a lesson to learn if we look at why it went down. They went down because they increased their out-patient operations to the point where they were actually starting to look for people to come in. They were that efficient at it.
Again, to compare this to Penticton, they have three operating rooms, they are serving a similar population, and they don't have the same waiting-list issue. The utilization expert who's coming in is looking specifically at operating room scheduling, and I think we will find some answers there that will show us that there are ways of using the facilities -- the three operating rooms that will be in existence -- to deal with more patients than are being handled at present.
[9:45]
L. Hanson: I certainly would fully support the best value for the dollar that we spend on health care, because it is such a tremendous part of our total budget here in British Columbia. So you don't get any argument from me as far as that principle is concerned. I hope the ministry will look at the situation there just as quickly as it can, because under the circumstances, if that goes ahead, it is just going to get worse and worse.
I am pleased to have the information, but I'm not sure I like the information that I got that Pentiction,
[ Page 2977 ]
which has a similar-sized hospital and a similar population, has a much shorter wait-list. That says to me that we have to find out what the difficulty is. The community is quite upset, as shown by an ad hoc meeting last night on that issue which attracted 200 people. I implore the minister to take action as quickly as possible, because if she doesn't, that situation will just get worse and worse. I'm concerned about it.
I had one other question on a slightly different subject. I think we've got on to community care in some of the discussions. It's my understanding that the Health ministry provides some funding to the school boards for certain health-related issues within the schools -- specifically for speech and hearing, and probably for children with special needs. They may have a disability, where they have some special need. I was wondering if the minister could comment on what monitoring situation is in place to ensure that the funds that are provided are used for that purpose. The issue in the community that I'm in, and I'm sure the minister has heard this before, is that the funds that are put in place for special education -- which I believe include some, but not all, ministry funds -- don't always get dedicated to special education as such. I was wondering if the minister could comment on how that's monitored.
Hon. E. Cull: The funding is provided under the school protocol, but it is managed by the medical health officer. Funding that is designated under various programs, whether it's for speech therapy, audiology or any of those kinds of programs, goes there. It doesn't get mixed up with the education budget, which I think is what you may have been suggesting. If I understand the arguments that have been made about the other issue, it is that in the education budget, special-education funds may not have been spent on special-education students. They are not lumped together. It's managed by the Ministry of Health, and we're accountable through our medical health officer to provide those programs.
L. Hanson: I have just one further question. Would the question of the provision of speech and hearing services within the community go to the local health officer?
Hon. E. Cull: There is funding both within the Ministry of Education budget and within the Ministry of Health budget. I can't speak to the Education portion of the budget, but clearly the medical health officer is responsible for the Health ministry's portion of the budget.
L. Reid: I believe there is only one member of your contingent who I have not been introduced to. Perhaps you would be so kind as to introduce her to the House.
Hon. E. Cull: Vicki Farrally, who is the executive director of our alcohol and drug programs.
L. Reid: To continue my remarks of yesterday, we were discussing the out-of-province hiring of 700 workers. You suggested that there has been consultation with the unions. However, members of the B.C. Nurses' Union would disagree. I would share some of their remarks:
"There seems to be a lack of planning in the government shift from acute care to community-based care. It appears that changes are being made without ensuring that a plan is in place, and that the government is hiring health care workers from outside the province to fill the new positions in community health while workers are being laid off due to cutbacks at hospitals like Prince George."
The minister said yesterday that she has consulted.... Certainly the unions have expressed reservations, and these are some of their concerns about the contracting-out of new community health jobs. They wondered if these positions would be unionized, and if so, which union would represent them. HEU and HSA jobs are tied to institutions, though many of the jobs opening up in the community or in community care are traditionally their domain. The BCNU is organized in both the institutional and community care settings; however, they're not sure how these new jobs are going to be reflected in their existing structures. Could you comment on that?
Hon. E. Cull: The 700 jobs that are the subject of that ad are all unionized. They will be ministry employees, and they will be members of the BCNU, the BCGEU or the licensed professionals.
L. Reid: I appreciate the comment. The nurses' union would make this comment to you: they know that the shift to community health care could shrink the bargaining units of the three unions that have traditionally represented health care workers. You are suggesting otherwise. However, that is still a serious concern that they have expressed, and they're not convinced that all of the new positions will be unionized. That would mean that the new workers, many of which will be women, will not be enjoying the benefits enjoyed by other workers. Is there any truth to their concern?
Hon. E. Cull: Clearly, any job that involves working directly as an employee of the government of British Columbia, unless it's a management exclusion or is otherwise excluded because of the nature of the position, will be a union job, and it will be one of those unions that already represent people who are employed by the Ministry of Health.
There will be -- as there are right now -- non-profit agencies providing community services. A wide variety of community agencies depend on the Ministry of Health for their funding. I can get the figure for you in terms of what portion of our budget goes into providing services on that basis. Some of those agencies are unionized, and some of them are not unionized.
I am concerned about what happens to the jobs of people employed in the hospital sector, and as a result of that we are working with the three health care unions to develop a labour adjustment strategy. We have reached an agreement that we will do so by September 1. We have reached an agreement that we will delay the hirings as it makes sense. In some of them, where there is not a hospital job transferring over into the community, we will probably go ahead and fill them. There are
[ Page 2978 ]
no public health inspectors, for example, working in hospitals, so we will go ahead and fill some of those positions. We are working quite actively with the unions on this strategy.
I have to say, though, hon. member, that I have this concern, and I think it's a new role for the Ministry of Health -- one that they have not taken on before -- to be concerned about labour adjustment. I'm proud to say that because of the attitude of this government, we are taking on this responsibility. It's a learning process for some of my staff to have to go through, but we're working on it very hard.
I have another concern, which is the provision of quality health care services to people in communities. Besides being concerned about the shift of jobs and what happens to those individuals, I am also concerned that we increase community-based services, that we bring services closer to home and that we enhance those areas of preventive health which have been starved in the last number of years -- particularly in the areas of mental health, children and youth at risk and the handicapped. We all need a hospital, a hospital bed and a doctor when we are ill, and we want to make sure that we maintain that core of services.
I think what we really need to do, if we're going to start addressing the health of British Columbians, is try to help them before they get to that point of real crisis where they have to be institutionalized for whatever reason. Our emphasis is to try to create more services at an earlier stage of intervention and prevention, so that we can keep people healthy rather than simply fixing them once they're sick.
L. Reid: The unions that have submitted their comments for my consideration this evening have also noted that the royal commission's recommendation for the creation of a single bargaining agent for employee groups will have some impact on their future. They are interested to know the results of the Korbin commission -- in fact, whether or not you've had any discussions with the Korbin commission or any input, and how that outcome may impact on the decision.
Hon. E. Cull: I have asked the Korbin commission, as one of their priority activities, to look at the question of how the health sector should be organized with respect to that very issue. The Korbin commission is looking particularly at the employer organization, because, as you'll appreciate, there are 22 unions in the health care sector and seven employers. It does make for a lot of difficulties. It particularly creates barriers for employees who may be moving from one institution to another or from an institution to a community-based setting. Part of the solution, I hope, will come from the work that the Korbin commission is doing right now.
L. Reid: Do you currently favour the recommendation of the royal commission that suggests a single bargaining agent?
Hon. E. Cull: The Korbin commission has been asked to look at that for me. At this point, it would be prudent for me to receive their report before putting out a personal position, which is all it could be at this point. I have not had any time to do major research on it. I will wait to see what the Korbin commission suggests in this area. Certainly I have had a lot of sympathy with the issue, as suggested particularly by the Hospital Employees' Union over the years, that it would be a lot simpler if they were dealing with one employer. Beyond that, we're really going to start moving into the realm of my personal position, as opposed to the position of me as minister and the policy of this government, because Korbin is still out doing the work.
L. Reid: The royal commission's recommendations on issues such as midwifery have legal and practical ramifications. Will midwives in B.C. be required to carry their own malpractice insurance?
Hon. E. Cull: As the member is aware, the whole question of midwifery has to be determined upon a recommendation from the Health Professions Council. The Health Professions Council is still waiting to receive an application from the Midwives' Association. I have encouraged them to make their application, because I support the concept of legalized midwifery and would like to get on with it. But we can't get on with it until they have made an application to the Health Professions Council, which would then make a recommendation to me.
Part of the recommendations would include things like the question of insurance, their scope of practice and their entry route into the profession. There are multiple route-of-entry models, and then there is the single route of entry as nurse-midwives, which has been suggested by the royal commission. In Ontario they've gone the other way. There are questions of education and training; there are quite a number of issues that would have to be determined. I am eagerly awaiting the association's making an application to the Health Professions Council, so that we can get on with it and deal with this issue.
L. Reid: There are many questions that need to be answered. However, I would submit to you that the reason there is no application is that they need an answer to that question. Whether or not they carry forward as midwives will depend entirely, they suggest, on whether they have to incur the financial burden of malpractice insurance. So, in fact, the loop needs to be closed on this issue; they need the answer prior to making their application.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I have to operate by the law that exists right now with respect to regulating professions such as midwives. The law requires that they make an application, and that the Health Professions Council deals with this issue and makes a recommendation to me. I can't tell the Health Professions Council what to do, how to make the recommendation or anything else. I have to say that when I met with the Midwives' Association, that wasn't one of the issues they raised with me.
[10:00]
[ Page 2979 ]
I know they are concerned about what the regulation under the Health Professions Council is with respect to the public interest. That will be put in place very soon. But we have assured them that the Health Professions Council is more than able to receive and start work on their application at any time that they're ready to submit it.
L. Reid: It seems that another difficulty we have in our hospitals and certainly in other care institutions is assaults against health care workers. They're being endangered on the job by a variety of assaults and interactions with patients. They do not feel they are currently working in a secure setting and would like to know what plans you have in place to ensure that hospitals and other care institutions are secure working environments.
Hon. E. Cull: We share your concern with respect to the violence that people working in institutions may be subjected to. You may be aware that we have a provincial nurse advisory council looking at this issue. We have also, in cooperation with the B.C. Health Association, funded a project to look at ways of reducing those kinds of incidents. I'm sorry, I don't have the details on the dollar amount on that. We are doing specific training in the institution that we have direct control over, which is Riverview. Riverview is one of the places where there really is a major concern because of the nature of the patients in that institution. We are hoping that our increased funding in the community area will start to help address this issue through increased services in that respect.
L. Reid: I appreciate your comments. However, I would suggest that most emergency rooms in this province are also subject to extreme bouts of violence. Certainly the emergency staff who have petitioned my office are interested in security of some sort. Has any thought been given to that for emergency rooms in particular?
Hon. E. Cull: With respect to hospital funding, I believe the member is aware that all of the hospital funding is a global budget, so we don't provide specific funding for any particular aspect of hospital operations. In many of the larger hospitals they already have security staff attached to their emergency wards for that particular reason. Some of the other hospitals are putting together response teams that allow them to quickly respond to any incident that may be occurring, or if a patient comes in who is likely to give staff particular difficulty.
L. Reid: A number of groups who came into my office stated that the Ministry of Health is too compartmentalized and would benefit from better communication between different areas within the ministry. Can this be true? Please comment.
Hon. E. Cull: Finally a point of agreement with the member on the other side. Yes, I've been talking a lot about health care reform in the community and about the need to integrate services in the community, and let me tell you, I agree. You start at home. We do have communication difficulties within the ministry. I think we have been too structured into line programs. We are actively looking at managing change within the ministry as well. I think the member will appreciate that there are some challenges and difficulties in moving down this road, not the least of which is that we are currently in a national search for a deputy minister. I think it would be imprudent to reorganize the ministry, and then hand the new deputy a fait accompli and say: "Here you go. We've done the work, you just manage it." We really want to have that individual involved in the reorganization.
Having said that, though, we have been working to develop a number of cross-branch, cross-division teams. Where possible we've been trying even at the community level to start to put people in place. For example, the hospital operation reviews that have been traditionally done are going to be changed so that they become community health audits. That means that not only will we have the care services people going in and looking at the hospital operations, but they'll be working with the family and community health people and the public health people so that they're taking a more integrated look. I think that by making those kinds of changes as quickly as we can within the ministry, we'll start to address this issue. I thank the member for bringing it up, because I think it is really important that change begin at home in the ministry and reflect what we want to go on in the community.
L. Reid: The commission recommended the appointment of a six-member health council appointed by a unanimous vote of Legislature to advise the government on health care. The chair of the council should also be chosen by a unanimous vote of the whole House and should report yearly to the Legislature. What are your feelings on this? Is this something that we can look to have in place at some point during your term of office?
Hon. E. Cull: I would hope that we would have a health council. I think that the appointment of a permanent health council would be a great asset to the people of British Columbia. It would give them a group of individuals that would be working on health goals and health policy, providing that kind of watchdog second-opinion approach that a council could do. We have referred that recommendation and a number of other recommendations that attach to it to the minister's advisory committee. If it wasn't the last meeting, it was the meeting before where there was an excellent discussion around the specifics of the recommendation -- you know, how the council should be put in place; who should appoint the council; whether it should report to a legislative committee, the Legislature or the Premier and the possibilities that are out there. We are looking at some of the models that exist in other provinces to see what we can learn from what they've done.
It's difficult to know whether this is feasible at this point, but I would hope that at the end of this process of the 24-member minister's advisory committee, they
[ Page 2980 ]
would be in a position to recommend something to us that would allow a permanent committee to take over the continuation of the royal commission and the management of health care reform without much of a gap between the end of the minister's advisory committee and the start of a permanent commission.
L. Reid: If I may for a moment touch on priorities for the future of health care, how will the government accommodate the increase in the number of frail elderly requiring care in B.C.? The royal commission discovered that up to 40 percent of all acute-care beds are being used by the frail elderly and that half of these patients should be in long-term or extended-care beds. Is this true?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm just looking for some of the specifics here. An aging population, particularly a population that has an increasing number of the frail elderly, the older seniors, is one that we're very concerned about and that needs to be addressed in the future planning of the ministry. There are a number of ways that we're going about doing that.
I think the figures are correct. Whenever I've been on a hospital tour I have always asked the hospital staff to tell me whether they think the royal commission figure of about 25 percent of the beds being filled by people who should really be in other kinds of accommodation is correct. Generally they say yes. I don't know what your experience is when you've been out in the hospitals, but I think it's a good question to ask them, because it gives you some indication of what is going on in our hospitals.
There are a number of things that we're trying to do. First of all, we want to try to maintain seniors in their homes for as long as possible. I understand that a number of years ago there were fairly low levels of care.... People would be institutionalized perhaps at an inappropriate personal care level. Certainly with the elderly -- particularly the older they get -- once they start to lose their independence, even if it's for a short stay in an acute-care hospital, they often lose those coping skills for everyday living. So if we can keep seniors comfortably and longer in their own homes and their own communities, I think we'll have a better health outcome and a better quality of life for those people.
We're doing that through the funding increases that we have provided in the areas of continuing care -- again, 14 percent -- residential care and home support services. I have just been given an example. White Rock is a community with one of the largest elderly populations. We're working with Peace Arch District Hospital. Here are some examples of what's going on just in that one community. There is a new 150-bed extended-care unit due to open in 1994, at a total capital cost of $13.5 million. There is approved construction of a new and expanded ambulatory care, diagnostic treatment and support building which will provide additional services. There is the implementation of a quick response program -- I am sure the member is aware of the quick response teams -- to improve the provision of home support services to the frail elderly, so that we can make sure that we're providing those services at the right time. The quick response teams have been particularly effective in Victoria. We learned that through the Victoria Health Project, where they are able through their intervention at the emergency room to reduce the hospitalization and the waiting-lists for people going into extended and long-term care. Through these initiatives, there is increased funding to seniors' programs that help maintain them in their homes for a longer time and then increased funding to residential care, particularly at the IC 3 level, to provide additional services for those very frail elderly who come in at the most severe level.
L. Reid: It appears that the average age of individuals using long-term and extended care is 85, and that their numbers will increase by 70 percent over the next ten years. What financial impact will this have on the system?
Hon. E. Cull: It's difficult to say exactly what the cost impact of having people come in at a higher acuity level will be. Clearly there is going to be a cost impact, and it will undoubtedly be expensive, but I don't have a dollar figure and I don't think we have the ability to really assess exactly what that's going to be at this point. One of the ways, of course, that we're affecting it is by keeping people in their own homes longer so that they don't need quite the same high level of services, which should allow us to do a little bit of reallocation.
I also mentioned the 500 new residential beds that we're providing this year, which will start to deal with that issue. There is some additional funding -- again, I don't have the precise dollar figures with me -- to recognize the fact that when seniors come in at a greater age, with a higher acuity level, they may require additional resources in that institution to deal with them than they may have needed when the average age was a little bit lower and seniors coming in were a bit more independent.
L. Reid: Current statistics suggest that there will be a 52 percent increase in the incidence of cancer due to population growth and aging. What is the government doing to prepare for the changing demands on the health care system in the area of cancer treatment?
[10:15]
Hon. E. Cull: I think one of the major things we did is approve the new cancer clinic in the interior earlier this year.
An Hon. Member: Not in Kamloops.
L. Fox: Not in Prince George.
Hon. E. Cull: Well, you may have to wait. We're also building a new cancer clinic in Surrey and doing an expansion in Victoria. We are expanding the capacity to treat cancer patients. I think that's probably one of the most effective ways that we are going about dealing with this rather shocking increase in cancer. We also have a community oncology program which we are
[ Page 2981 ]
expanding. In addition to that, as you are aware, when I spoke about the hospital budgets, I indicated that half the funding for hospital uplift this year went directly to high-priority programs, one of which is cancer.
The other, I guess, is the preventive issues that we're doing around cancer, which have to do with lifestyle. The legislation that I introduced this week to reduce the access to tobacco for minors and young people will go a long way in future years to bring that trend down. Other things are being done through nutritionists and other preventive measures which will have to have a long-term impact, which I guess is where we need to be to have a real impact on health in the long run.
L. Fox: It's interesting to listen to the debate that's happening and the emphasis being placed on our senior citizens and their need for health care. Without attempting to be facetious, but being extremely genuine, and speaking on the wellness aspect of our senior citizens, the question to the minister is this. In a discussion I had earlier today with your House Leader, he indicated that he's not prepared to allow Bill M202, my private member's bill, to come to the House for debate, not because he doesn't believe it's in the best interests of those who would be affected, but because it's come from a member in opposition. He says that historically members in opposition don't get a chance to bring bills to the House. If I withdraw the bill....
The Chair: Hon. member, the bill is before the House and is out of order in committee in any event.
L. Fox: I was going to withdraw it and allow her to bring it forward.
The Chair: That's not a matter to be dealt with in this committee.
L. Fox: Okay, I'll leave it. I was really trying to be genuine. I was really trying to give government the opportunity to bring that initiative forward so we might contribute to the well-being of seniors.
I hope I pronounce this name right: Krysia Strawczynski. I look across the floor at the gender mix in the staff, and it leads me to ask the question: why did this minister discharge a deputy who was part of what I believe would have been a fairer gender mix?
Hon. E. Cull: I think there is a long way that the civil service has to go with respect to promoting women in management. That is not going to be overcome or undone overnight. We're going to have to work very hard to promote women into those kinds of positions. If you had been here last night, you would have heard my answer to the question as to why the change in deputy. I have to tell you that we are doing a national search for a new deputy. Mr. Allen, as competent as he is, will not be here permanently. I'm sure we will have many qualified women applying for this job.
L. Fox: I didn't really get an answer to my question, but that's fine.
I am concerned, though. In all fairness, I do want to ask some very serious questions. The first question I'd like to ask is one the member from Vernon touched on briefly. How many beds have been closed in the province since your budget was announced? How does that compare to last year in terms of bed closures?
Hon. E. Cull: This is going to require a little bit more work on the part of my staff to get the exact numbers. I wonder whether you have a series of questions. Perhaps you could go through them, and we could continue to get the answers for you.
L. Fox: Given that in the Prince George Regional Hospital 61 beds were closed, which cost that community a total of 78.9 full-time positions, perhaps the minister -- as well as telling me how many beds are closed or are on the verge of being closed -- could also tell me how many layoffs have resulted from those bed closures.
Hon. E. Cull: I was just checking to be certain that I understood the procedure on this, because I haven't yet had to go through this process. When there is a permanent bed closure, it has to be applied for and approved by the ministry. To date there have been no requests for permanent bed closures. At this early stage after the budget, it is difficult to determine precisely what is going on. Many hospitals will not permanently close beds. They commonly close beds during the summer and Christmas periods, and they may extend those periods a little longer to adjust their operations with respect to their budgets.
In answer to your question about how many beds have been permanently closed to date, I have not yet received any requests for permanent closures.
L. Fox: If the formal process hasn't been gone through totally, there must be some projections by the ministry in terms of how many bed closures they are going to see and how many layoffs we're going to be dealing with. Could the minister provide me with those projections? I know that there has been ongoing dialogue with the administrators and the staff provincewide.
Hon. E. Cull: Again, at this point hospitals are finalizing their budgets and making some decisions around beds. It's difficult to have a precise number of beds that I can give as an answer to the member. Our best guess, from what we have heard now from the hospitals, is about 300 beds.
I might point out to the member that the number of beds per thousand population has been declining steadily over time as a result of the change in the way that hospitals provide their services to the population. Hospitals are switching more and more to day surgery and out-patient surgery. These procedures that only a few years ago would have had to take place inside a hospital can now take place outside the hospital. Procedures that a few years ago might have required a stay of four or five days in a hospital now require a shorter stay. So as a result of advances in medicine,
[ Page 2982 ]
technology and operating and management practice in hospitals, there has been a relatively steady decline over the years.
L. Fox: Just to reiterate the second part of that question: are there any estimates in terms of the layoffs that will be expected from these bed closures?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry, hon. member. The layoffs are even more difficult to determine at this point, because again we have to rely on the hospitals to give us this information through their budgeting process. We are currently gathering this as part of the exercise that we're working through with the labour adjustment strategy.
Some of the hospitals I have answers for and others I don't, but in terms of an aggregate amount, it's still a little too early to have totalled them all. Part of the difficulty in some cases, if you're closing beds that are not being used, is there may not be a big staff impact, depending on how those resources may be reallocated in the hospital. If you're shifting into more out-patient and day surgery, you can close beds and still employ people. So if there was a nice easy relationship, one bed meant X number of FTEs, then I'd be able to give you something. But at this point it's not really clear.
L. Fox: The point that I was trying to get to was the fact that in Prince George you're closing 61 beds. That will effectively cost that community 78.9 full-time positions. If we take a guesstimation that Prince George is an average regional hospital, that would suggest that we're going to lose somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 jobs in the industry.
My purpose for trying to come down to some kind of number was once again to put emphasis on identifying and providing those individuals with an opportunity to upgrade their skills to fill the areas you're advertising for outside this province. Since I raised that issue yesterday in the estimates, I've come to understand that along with the hiring of individuals from outside the province, there will be moving and relocation costs for the ministry. If we're going to relocate somebody from Quebec to take a position here, there's going to be a substantial cost. Respectfully, I would much rather see those costs go into upgrading our own citizens, rather than relocating unemployed from another area of Canada into our province. I guess what I'm looking for is some commitment that we're going to identify those numbers as quickly as possible, that we're going to look at the costs of upgrading their skills, that we're also going to look through our own programs in the areas that you specifically advertised for -- specifically in the area of the minorities that you specified in your ad in the Montreal Gazette -- and we're going to use those anticipated costs that we might have to relocate people from other regions of Canada to B.C. to upgrade the skills of our own people in this province.
Hon. E. Cull: I have to assume that the member was not here for the full debate yesterday evening, because on at least two occasions I made it clear that the hiring process will be those who are displaced first, those in the community second, those in B.C. third and out-of-province fourth and final -- and only if we can't find those people in British Columbia. We are also, as I said last night, working with the major hospital unions with respect to a labour adjustment strategy. Hospitals that are reducing beds.... We are attempting to get all of the information on those bed closures, or layoffs that may result from them, by the end of this month. I might also mention that there are hospitals that are increasing beds. We have 50 new beds in Richmond and 30 new beds, on top of another 30 beds they had last year, in Kelowna. Parts of the province are expanding because of increased population.
As a result of those hospitals increasing beds, we're also identifying new positions that will be becoming available in our hospitals and trying to match people who wish to move from one institution to another institution to take those particular positions. We are, as a result of our discussions around the labour adjustment strategy, delaying filling all of those community positions so that we can identify people who will be displaced from hospitals and who may be able to make the move into the community-based programs. We are looking at ways to assist them to do that, including short-term training and upgrading of skills, so that an operating room nurse, perhaps, who might not be able to walk directly into a community nursing job may be able to get the kind of assistance he or she needs to be able to make that kind of transfer.
[10:30]
L. Fox: In fact, I was here. The reason I asked the question is that I wasn't satisfied last evening that you had addressed the issue. You tell me and you tell the House that you're not going to hire outside employees until you can identify those that you can relocate and retrain within the province, until you can look not only at displaced health workers but at other unemployed people within the province, and that you'll do all of this before you hire outside the province. My question, then, is: why did we pay $9,000 for an ad in the Montreal Gazette if we haven't gone through the process yet of identifying what kind of talent is available in this province for retraining? We go ahead and advertise and spend that kind of money when we may not even have to hire anybody from that area of the country. I don't understand the logic. Therefore I'm not sure that I respect the earlier answer.
Hon. E. Cull: Let me tell the member that the advertising costs for placing the ads in all the papers represents less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the increased funding that is going into the community sector this year. It is a tiny amount relative to the amount that's going into the community sector. The reason we're doing it is that we have had experience with some of these positions in the past. In the past 12-month period in the area of public health, 21 separate positions required reposting and readvertising outside of B.C. because we couldn't get people in British Columbia to fill those positions. This is something I'm sure you'll be interested in in terms of the part of the province that you represent: we have vacancy durations
[ Page 2983 ]
for positions in rural locations that go on as long as four or five months. In extreme cases, they go on for a year and a half.
I think it's important that we put in place a very comprehensive search for these people, because it is a rather large number to be hiring all at once. Seven hundred people is a major job creation in the health sector under this program of community health this year. If we had to go through a process where we advertised locally, and if that didn't get us anybody we would advertise provincially, and if that didn't get us anybody.... Then what would we do? Alberta next? There has to be some kind of comprehensiveness. I think it's better to advertise broadly and then set a policy that says we will give preference to people who are immediately affected.
Unfortunately, given the demand for some of these professional services, in the last 12 months we have had to hire a number of professional people from outside of this province -- not because we prefer to hire people from outside British Columbia but because there is a shortage in many of these jobs. They're highly specialized and in great demand, because we're not the only province in Canada that is increasing community-based health care. In many cases, the kinds of positions they are filling are being sought right across the country.
L. Fox: I don't want to belabour the point. With all due respect to the minister, I tried to make the point that we have an opportunity here to train individuals who are being displaced. I understand that you want to make this shift into community care, and I support the shift. I think it's the right way to go.
I'm really concerned, though, that we're making it in such a way that we're going to displace people and not give them the opportunity to upgrade their skills before we fill those positions. The minister makes a reference to opportunities in Richmond and in some lower mainland areas, and I appreciate that. But many of our nursing staff in the north and in the rural parts of the province have spouses and families, and while they are laid off in their respective areas, they will not have the opportunity to transfer to other areas of the province. Their only opportunities will come by retraining to give them the necessary skills to fulfill some of the needs that will be in the community care program.
I have one other point on that. This as an issue that I have been addressing for some time as a northern individual. I didn't have any success with the previous administration either. But I tell you, and a lot of the northern and rural communities will tell you the same thing, there are opportunities to train our own youth to fill these gaps, but we have to provide them with the resources. I think UNBC will help us a lot in our area to train our own people. As far back as 15 years ago, when I was a school trustee, I put forward a program with our school board that would see us help to finance our young people in the areas of medicine. My question is....
The Chair: Just a moment, hon. member. I believe the level of chatter has increased in the last few minutes, and some of the members can't hear the debate. Would the members please keep their comments quiet, unless they are in their place speaking.
L. Fox: Thank you, hon. Chairman. I thought I had a loud enough voice that people could hear me.
Anyway, my question to the minister is: have you and the ministry given any consideration to developing some kind of program which would enhance rural and northern children to become doctors, health care deliverers, community health nurses and so forth?
Hon. E. Cull: There are a number of programs that we have in the ministry. I don't have all the details here with me right now with respect to some of the things that we're doing to try to encourage training of people from the northern part of the province, because I think if you have people who already live there, and they receive the training, they establish themselves in those communities, they discover that those communities are wonderful places to live, and they tend to want to stay and practise health care in those communities.
We have a bursary program to encourage natives to be trained as health care workers. We have a program, which, unfortunately, I can't seem to get any information on right here, that is trying to encourage doctors to be trained in the north and to receive family practice training.
You hit the nail on the head when you said that you didn't have much success with the former government on this one either. I think one of the difficulties we have is that we have an inadequate training program that, again, is not going to be fixed overnight; it's one that we do have to address. In the last eight months that I've been in this portfolio, I haven't been able to give the attention that I would like to give to human resource planning issues. There are a number of initiatives in the ministry that have been underway for a while around nursing and some of the other human resources planning and strategy -- what our needs are over time, where our needs are, how to get them out there.
I have to be honest with the member and say that with the number of things that have been on my plate, I haven't been able to move that high enough up on the priority list. I know it's a problem. Particularly with the area of recruiting physicians to the north, I think there are a number of things that we can look at and be more aggressive about in terms of providing incentives for physicians to move to the north. We'll have to start working on those very quickly, because I know the problems that we have in trying to find trained personnel to work in all the areas that we need in some of our rural communities.
L. Fox: While I refer to the north, the problems in the north are not unlike the problems in the East Kootenay or on the north Island or in other rural areas of the province. In the throne speech two years ago, I believe there was the promise of a travel assistance program for people needing health care. I understand that the initiative came forward and, meaning no disrespect to the ministry staff, it wasn't comprehensive enough to meet the demands. Have there been any deliberations by the ministry staff or the minister with
[ Page 2984 ]
respect to looking at a travel assistance program for the rural parts of the province?
Hon. E. Cull: The former Health critic -- not the last one, but the one before that; the hon. member for Prince George-Mount Robson -- has long promoted in this Legislature that the government get into that program. She has certainly championed the needs of the people in the north to have assistance when they have to travel for necessary health care.
I've had a preliminary look at the costs of providing such a program. In fact, I looked at it in advance of this budget, and with the preliminary estimates that we had and the money that we had to allocate this year, it didn't look like it was going to work. I had some very serious questions about the models that had been developed by the ministry and, I guess, about some of the work that may have been initiated under the former government, because I wanted to make sure that if we're going to put a program in place, it really does assist people; it's more than just a token program.
One of the ideas that I'm exploring right now -- and again I offer this in the spirit of putting out ideas in debate -- is certainly at a very formative stage in where we're going with this. It's to look at whether we might rethink the Pharmacare program into being a program that deals with extraordinary health costs that people might face, whether for drugs or ambulance service charges or travel costs if they have to travel to Vancouver for a certain level of treatment. The principle that I'm looking at is that there comes a point when these services are not covered under medicare, under the Canada Health Act, but they can become a tremendous burden on families if they have to repeatedly incur these kinds of costs. I think we have to look at whether we can provide some assistance to them so that no family or individual has to bear a horrendous burden of additional health care costs.
[10:45]
We'll be continuing to look at that one. If we are successful with our initiatives to move services closer to home, we should be able to reduce the need for people in rural parts of the province to have to travel to Vancouver for their various health care needs. There will always be a level of service that we will only be able to provide in Vancouver. The tertiary level of service will always have to be in a central location, and I think that we need to have a look at how we can assist people so that they're not burdened unnecessarily because they have to keep travelling to get services that are only available many, many miles from their home.
L. Fox: I'll try to be brief. One follow-up question and then a member from the official opposition wants to ask some questions.
The follow-up on that, I guess, has to be that one of the approaches to less travel would have been to locate a cancer clinic in Prince George. The other thing that I think might enhance it, especially for those with real need, is the fact that we now have a scheduled government flight service. Should there be vacancies on that scheduled service, which I'm sure there are on occasion, perhaps the minister might look at making those seats available to people who are in extreme need of getting to the lower mainland.
Hon. E. Cull: I actually think that is very interesting idea that bears some looking into. I'll take it under advisement and see whether there isn't something that we might be able to do in that area.
With respect to your comments on the cancer clinic in Prince George, yes, it would have reduced travel for people in Prince George, but there are many more people in the Kelowna area who would have had to travel to Vancouver or conceivably, I guess, to Prince George. As you know full well, it was a question of the numbers of people and the density of population requiring cancer treatment clearly being in the Kelowna area.
D. Jarvis: I have a couple of questions to the minister. I know the time is waning, and I won't be here tomorrow -- voluntarily. So I'm going to group some of these questions together.
I believe the minister received a letter about a month ago from the mayor of North Vancouver pertaining to the North Shore Neighbourhood House, which covers the three ridings of Lonsdale, Seymour and Capilano. It requested funding of $14,300 for one full-time position for a pregnant and parenting teen program. I noticed that last night, just about this time -- about 10:37 -- you brought up the aspect that you had lots of money. I was wondering if you could say whether you had considered that or not.
Hon. E. Cull: I'd be happy to get the information for the hon. member, and I'll have staff dig up what's going on with that. Once we get down to those single individuals in single non-profit agencies, it's pretty hard to keep it all off the top of our head. We employ about 8,000 directly in the ministry. I would be at a loss to say how many we employ indirectly through hospitals and non-profit agencies. But I will be quite happy to track down the information for you.
D. Jarvis: I'll lump these all together, minister. Do we have enough RNs in this province? If we have a shortage of nurses, have you considered perhaps opening up or extending nursing or teaching hospitals either in the lower mainland or in the north?
Hon. E. Cull: I am pleased to tell the member that right now we actually have very few chronic vacancies with respect to RNs. We are able to fill most of those positions. There are a few areas. The numbers are very small with respect to certain parts of the province and certain specialties, where we are still having difficulty doing recruiting. I'm not sure that I understand your logic in the second part of the question. I don't know how having a teaching hospital would increase the supply of RNs, if in fact there was a shortage.
D. Jarvis: I was just asking, if there was a shortage, would you not want more...? As you were saying, you are having a hard time getting staff in the north and in other parts of the province. It would maybe be advisable to have another teaching hospital to teach more RNs.
[ Page 2985 ]
In any event, I had an inquiry on the Vancouver General -- I don't know if this is a policy of the hospital, or what -- that their administration staff were laying off RNs for clerical people at that time. There was a situation where an RN's expertise would probably be better than just a clerical person. Is that a policy of all the hospitals right at the moment?
Hon. E. Cull: Again, I'm still puzzled with the teaching hospital aspect. If the member is under the impression that nurses are trained in teaching hospitals.... That is not where they receive their training. Having a teaching hospital is not going to increase the supply.
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: Well, yes, but the majority of nurses are now coming through the educational process in a different fashion. The question of clerical versus RNs versus whatever staff are employed to do specific jobs is a decision that the hospital makes. They decide what personnel they're going to hire and what qualifications they require to do those jobs. It's not a matter that the ministry can direct in terms of who is hired, who isn't hired and what their job description is.
D. Jarvis: Again on nurses, as they are public servants and are ostensibly in direct correlation with, say, firefighters and policemen, has there been any talk about lowering the retirement age to 55?
Hon. E. Cull: There's been a lot of talk about it. It is a matter of negotiations with their employer, which, in the case of hospitals, is the Hospital Labour Relations Association. They negotiate that directly as they negotiate other benefits. I believe it was on the table during this last round of bargaining, and it was not lowered in any fashion.
It is, I understand from my discussions with the Hospital Labour Relations Association, an expensive item for them to consider, but I also understand why nurses feel that they need to move in that direction. I assume that they will continue to work in the years ahead to resolve that with their employers.
D. Jarvis: I take it that the minister is in favour of it.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm always in favour of having employees being able to get on with retirement. I wish that I could sign up for early retirement some days. I think 41 might be nice sometimes.
D. Jarvis: Surely you're not that old.
Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!
D. Jarvis: I was sent a recent survey showing that approximately 72 percent of nurses have received abuse or threats. There was a question about violence in the workplace. I just wondered what your ministry's plan are to try to stop this violence in the workplace against the nurses.
Hon. E. Cull: With all due respect, that question was asked of me only a short while ago. I gave an answer, and I direct you to have a look at the Blues tomorrow. I think that if we get into answering the same question over and over as members come and leave this debate.... So you can look at that.
I note that it's starting to get late. I would now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 12 p.m. tomorrow.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.
MOTION ON NOTICE
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada