Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1992

Volume 5, No. 13

[ Page 3359 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

The Speaker: Before we begin, hon. members may notice that Orders of the Day was reprinted for this afternoon, and in the rush they have retained the 10 a.m. time. But you should have the proper orders in front of you.

D. Streifel: My wife, Linda, is in the gallery. She and I enjoyed Canada Day yesterday and participated in the swearing-in on the front lawn of the Legislature, where we saw hundreds of new Canadians sworn in from 32 different countries. I was proud to be here and welcome them. My wife is accompanied in the gallery today by my aunt and uncle, Elizabeth Thomas and Harold Thomas. I bid the House make them welcome.

J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, today in the gallery I have my son Adam, who came for the day to see what's keeping Daddy down here. So we'll see how he makes out. I would like the House to make him welcome.

The Speaker: Hon. members, before we proceed to oral question period, last Friday two private members' statements were interrupted by several points of order and comments from the Chair. The Chair has now reviewed the origin of private members' statements, the specific wording of standing order 25A and the general practice of this House related thereto.

Under standing order 25A, statements must not revive discussions on matters which have already been discussed in the same session, nor anticipate matters which have been appointed for consideration by the House. However, at the discretion of the Chair, considerable latitude has been the practice with respect to this prohibition, as strict application would preclude many topics that would otherwise be within the spirit and intent of private members' statements.

Last Friday the Chair offered the further interpretation that private members' statements were not a forum for partisan political debate. Clearly, debate generally described as "partisan" is a large component of the proceedings in this and other parliaments, and there are rules, precedents and practices that govern how and when such debate can take place. However, it does not follow that every kind of partisan debate is therefore necessarily contemplated within every proceeding for which provision has been made under standing orders.

The comparatively recent innovation in 1985 to provide for private members' statements was intended to give members the opportunity to discuss a wide range of topics related to their individual constituencies or to the province at large. Perusal of the topics selected by members under standing order 25A since its inception clearly reveals this spirit and intent. Often members have used private members' time to discuss topics of personal interest or topics that did not fall within other proceedings in the House. That is not to say that members' statements have not been controversial or that there have not been clear differences of opinion and healthy debate. In that sense, partisan debate has often taken place during private members' statements.

In reviewing the practice of this House, however, highly partisan remarks that negatively reflect on individual members or groups of members in the House have not been regarded as falling within the spirit and intent of standing order 25A. Subject always to standing order 40, other opportunities for such debate are available to members, as for instance, during debate on estimates or, depending on content, during debate on bills.

The foregoing notwithstanding, if it is the will of the House, the private members' statement provision can certainly be reviewed with the intent to expand the scope or change the focus. In addition, the Chair would welcome any individual members who may wish to discuss privately with the Chair the practice of this House related to private members' statements.

Oral Questions

PULP WORKERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The province has seen labour unrest rise in the province of B.C. over the last several months. We've witnessed it in the education sector, in the health care sector, and we're now seeing a third week of a pulp and paper strike. We have a great confrontation with physicians, some of whom have walked off today for study sessions in Prince George and on the Sunshine Coast. Can the Minister of Labour tell us what specific action he plans to take with respect to the pulp and paper workers' strike so that we can have a speedy resolution on that matter?

Hon. M. Sihota: I note that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked for binding arbitration as an option, and I also note that at least one of the parties has told him to butt out of the dispute. This is a dispute that is certainly complicated. It is one that we are monitoring on a daily basis. It is one that I have had several discussions with the parties about. It is one in which we have had a mediator involved. It is one in which we have had the parties return to the table, and those negotiations again have fallen apart. Positions are relatively entrenched. I am meeting at 2:45 today to have further discussions with representatives and the IRC with regard to future options.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS

G. Wilson: With respect to the rising level of confrontation, there seems to be unrest here.

If I could address my supplementary to the Minister of Health, I wonder if the Minister of Health can tell us if she stands by the words of her colleague the Minister of Advanced Education that "deliberate confrontation with doctors is damaging to the integrity of our profession and to all British Columbians" -- these words written in a letter requesting doctors to send a $1,000 contribution, a $500 contribution or a $250 contribution to members of the NDP.

[ Page 3360 ]

Hon. E. Cull: I don't support deliberate confrontation, as I suppose all members in this House don't support that kind of confrontation. It takes two to consult. We are willing to consult. I think this government has been very fair in offering a very fair deal to the doctors. We've offered them twice the rate of inflation. We've offered to negotiate with them on their fees and benefits. We've offered conciliation and we've offered to cost-share their pension plan. I don't think that's confrontational at all.

G. Wilson: It would seem that the NDP has done an audit on their financial statements from the last provincial campaign. Perhaps the doctors didn't respond enough to the minister's request, and the construction workers perhaps top the list with fair wage....

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Wilson: My question again to the Minister of Health. Can the minister tell us why it was that out of five proposals put to her last weekend by doctors -- five proposals that would have stopped the walkouts in Prince George, the Sunshine Coast and other communities coming out -- none were considered fair enough for this government to sit down and allow for fair and open negotiations to take place with doctors in this province? Can the minister tell us why she is forcing confrontation against the doctors and creating fear among the people in this province?

Hon. E. Cull: I'll tell the Leader of the Opposition what is unacceptable to this government. What is unacceptable is the BCMA's request that we guarantee the right for them to have user fees and that we guarantee we will not prevent them opting out. What is unacceptable is their request that we extend and expand a budget -- which is very reasonable, at twice the rate of inflation -- by adding $50 million to $100 million to it. What is unacceptable is their demand that the Medical Services Commission could go for special warrants, something that is available only to cabinet. What is unacceptable is their demand that we strip the reference to the Canada Health Act, which protects British Columbians from having medically necessary services deinsured. That is what is unacceptable, and until those types of demands are off the table we're not going to be able to reach an agreement.

[2:15]

NEGOTIATIONS WITH BCGEU

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Today it was reported that the latest offer from the government to the BCGEU on behalf of taxpayers was 5.5 percent in the first year and 4 percent for the next 22 months. Given the size of this year's record deficit, and given Peat Marwick's warnings that public sector wages should not be allowed to increase beyond the rate of inflation, how on earth can he justify an offer that is twice the rate of inflation, twice the rate of settlements in the private sector and far beyond the taxpayers' ability to pay?

Hon. G. Clark: We are still negotiating with the Government Employees' Union. I don't think it's appropriate to get into negotiations in this chamber. We are working hard to get a fair settlement -- fair both to the taxpayers and to the people who work for the government.

J. Weisgerber: Supplementary to the minister. Perhaps he could tell us, then, where he would expect to get the approximately $200 million extra if the settlement put forward by the government is accepted?

Hon. G. Clark: We will ensure that any agreement that's arrived at is within the taxpayers' ability to pay and is fair to the employees.

J. Weisgerber: The surprising thing about this whole business is that even with the offer that the government has put on the table, the BCGEU are unhappy. The government, having raised the expectations of the BCGEU through the settlements that it allowed to go forward -- in spite of the compensation fairness program that limited teachers' salaries to about 4.5 percent, the government allowed them to go to 7 -- and given the effectively $6-an-hour increase the government gave to unionized construction workers on public projects, it seems reasonable...

The Speaker: The question, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: ...that the BCGEU would expect a settlement greater than the one that has been offered by the government. Will the government establish a policy for public sector wage offers?

Hon. G. Clark: I want to remind the members of the House and that member in particular that we are dealing with 16 years of anti-union behaviour by previous Social Credit governments. There are lots of legitimate demands by public sector employees to be treated fairly. We are working hard to work with our employees, to treat them with dignity and respect -- something which was never accorded them in the last 16 years. We are confident that we'll come to an agreement which is in the interest of the employees who work and do a job for the people of British Columbia and in the interest of the taxpayers.

POLLARD VEHICLE INCIDENT

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding the alleged drive-by rundown of a B.C. Ferries employee last week by this government's patronage guru, Mr. John Pollard. The minister has indicated that he will be asking B.C. Ferries to review the incident. Can he advise the House what form this investigation will take and when we can expect the review to be completed and in the hands of the public?

[ Page 3361 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I asked the B.C. Ferry Corporation to treat this incident the same way they treat any other incident. I understand that the Ferry Corporation management has apologized to individuals concerned; the individuals have apologized. It seems to me that there is a current investigation under way with respect to the police. But as far as the Ferry Corporation is concerned with the incident, I don't believe there is any further action contemplated.

W. Hurd: I'm glad the minister talked about fair and equitable treatment for government employees. I'm sure he would agree that the B.C. Ferries employee in this case is also entitled to a fair and equitable hearing on this incident by the Ferry Corporation.

As Mr. Pollard is in charge of boards and commissions in this province and of making recommendations to those boards -- including B.C. Ferries -- would it not be appropriate for this individual to resign until such time as the investigation by the Ferry Corporation and the Delta police is completed?

Hon. G. Clark: This is obviously an unfortunate and regrettable incident for all concerned. There were apologies all around. There is an ongoing complaint, I understand, being dealt with by the Delta police. At this point, I think we're best to leave it at that.

W. Hurd: One final supplemental to the Attorney General. In view of the fact that the Delta police department is investigating the incident, can we expect that his ministry will be picking up the legal costs for Mr. Pollard?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No.

LOAN-GRANT PROGRAM UNDER
FORMER NDP GOVERNMENT

D. Mitchell: I have a question today for the Minister of Social Services. This relates to what appears to be another lurking obligation that was missed by the infamous Peat Marwick review. Perhaps it's obvious why it was missed. It goes back a little ways, to the previous socialist administration. Apparently there was a loan-grant program established to help get charities established in the province. This program, under this ministry, apparently disbursed some $700,000 in grants and loans to various charities throughout the province, including the Nanaimo area. I'd like to ask the minister if she could please confirm that some of these loans are still outstanding and have never been repaid since 1974.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I thank the member for his question. I have asked senior staff to look into the number of loans still outstanding. The information I have at this point is that something like 20 percent of the total have not been repaid. Some have been written off, but that is through the Ministry of Finance. We will get the names and the numbers, and we'll be happy to table them in the House.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's answer to the question. With respect to the fact that some of the loans have been written off, we would be interested not just in having that tabled in this House. Would the minister agree that if the House isn't sitting when it's available, the information could be made public? That would be useful as well.

A supplementary question to her on this matter. Could she also confirm whether, among those people who have outstanding debts that have not been repaid to the taxpayers of the province, there are any directors of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't have all of the names yet. As I said, I have asked senior staff to provide me with a list. You should know that any grants are governed by the Society Act; none of the profits from any of the grants can go to individuals. If a society were to cease to operate, or to go bankrupt or in any way cease practising in the province, that money then must go to a like society.

The fact that the Finance ministry keeps a record of all moneys that have gone to these grants provides an excellent record for us to go back and look at what has happened with that money. There are societies in this province that continue to operate and that have been beneficiaries of these grants. Those would be the ones we would be in contact with.

EXTENTION OF RAPID TRANSIT TO RICHMOND

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Finance. A little while ago, British Columbia Transit announced three options are being considered for the expansion of the rapid transit system into Richmond. Given the commitment of the governing party now to expanding rapid transit into Richmond, how soon can we expect a final decision?

M. Farnworth: After it goes to Port Coquitlam.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll undertake to get this precise information for the members -- I know members from Richmond will be interested -- but I can't recall. We did leave in place the Richmond Citizens' Transit Advisory Committee, which included on it, I was delighted to reconfirm, Nick Loenen, who was previously on that commission. They have just reported in with it narrowed down to three options, and we'll now be proceeding with more detailed engineering work and the like to see which option is finalized. It's a fairly tight time-frame, but I don't want to mislead the House, so I'll get the information for you.

Ministerial Statement

NORAM DIRECT MARKETING LTD.

Hon. M. Sihota: I rise today to make a ministerial statement about a major scam involving consumers all over British Columbia and even in the United States.

[ Page 3362 ]

I'm told that a number of people have been taken in by the marketing techniques of a Surrey-based company known as Noram Direct Marketing. Today a writ has been filed in the B.C. Supreme Court against Noram Direct Marketing and its sole director, Mr. Thomas Taylor. Noram and Taylor are charged with violating the Trade Practice Act by using deceptive and misleading practices.

Noram has access to huge mailing lists and notifies people that they've been selected to receive valuable prizes or large sums of cash. They are told that if they do not proceed with notifying the company, they will not receive their goods, which may exceed $5,000. The prize-winners are even asked if they want to receive the money in cash, in gold or by way of certified cheque. They are also given the opportunity to receive valuable items such as complete home stereo systems for $24, or a sewing machine. When consumers try to claim these valuable items and cash prizes, they are required to forward, in advance, so-called shipping and handling charges of up to $79.

No consumer has ever won cash prizes from this company. Noram obviously operates on the principle of quantity versus quality -- a huge quantity of solicitation but absolutely no quality of goods. Hidden in the fine print of the solicitation is the actual notice of solicitation for the sale of goods. In this way, Noram thinks it is protected from prosecution.

Other companies, Home Discount Service, National Claim Center, International Warehouse Centre, Award Processing Centre and Phone for Cash, are all Noram-related companies involved.

Accordingly, I have instructed the director of trade practices to take action on his own behalf and on behalf of all consumers who have been deceived by Noram. The statement of claim filed in court today claims reparation for all consumers entrapped by this deception, and in compliance with the Trade Practice Act, demands that Noram advertise full details of any judgment against them in the media.

I urge all consumers who have lost money through dealings with Noram to contact their nearest consumer operations branch so we can advise them of the detail and the manner in which this matter will be dealt with in the courts.

G. Wilson: I thank the minister for providing us information with respect to this action against a company that, it would appear on the surface, has engaged in a less than desirable consumer practice in British Columbia.

There is no question that British Columbians want to know that when events are to unfold, they can expect that that is what is going to occur. Quite clearly, I think that when you enter into a position of trust with a company, it's not unlike entering into a position of trust in many other facets of life in British Columbia, only to find out that what you think is to occur and what you were told or read may take place is not in fact what ends up being delivered. I think that the minister's action is timely on this matter. I'm pleased that he is going to provide us with some feedback with respect to how the outcome of this case proceeds.

I think all British Columbians are leery of any scam, whether that scam is one such as we see here or others that might be attributed to other people who would make promises to the people of British Columbia and then not deliver on them.

[2:30]

C. Serwa: It's rather a pleasure to hear of scams other than the recent political scams, so this is somewhat refreshing. I certainly acknowledge the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services in this particular matter. The actions that have been taken are entirely appropriate. We certainly agree with them. The opportunity afforded the minister in this Legislature through the awareness of the media is also a valuable opportunity that the minister has taken advantage of in his ministerial statement.

There are some other questions associated with it. For example, the minister refers to a massive mailing- list. In view of the legislation that was recently passed through this Legislature, perhaps the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, while it applies primarily to government, may be important to restrict the trade of mailing-lists that tends to go on in the private sector. Certainly there has been a blatant abuse. "Let the buyer beware" has no relevancy here, and that is clear. I compliment the minister and the ministry for their appropriate actions.

Presenting Reports

J. Pullinger: I have the honour to present the report of the special committee to appoint an ombudsman. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Pullinger: I ask leave of the House to move that the report of the committee be adopted.

Leave granted.

J. Pullinger: I move that the report be adopted, and I would like to speak to the report at this time.

As the House is well aware, the committee was struck on March 17, in the first days of this session, to take on the onerous task of replacing the previous ombudsman, who stepped down to head the CORE commission, as we're all aware. The committee members from all three parties took on that very onerous responsibility. They took it very seriously and worked thoughtfully and diligently to ensure that the choice of the committee was in fact the right one. They took on the task themselves rather than hire a consultant, in respect of the difficult economic times in the province these days.

The committee met more than 20 times. In response to the ad that was put out very quickly, we received 421 responses from highly qualified people from all parts of British Columbia -- and all parts of the country, as a matter of fact. As I say, the candidates were very highly qualified and most impressive, and were from a wide

[ Page 3363 ]

variety of cultural and professional backgrounds that truly reflected the face of this province.

We shortlisted and interviewed and interviewed again. It was a great deal of work on behalf of the committee, and I would like to thank very much those members who took the time to work so hard to find a new ombudsman for the province. I would also like to express thanks on behalf of the committee to Craig James and especially to Joan Molsberry, who provided very able assistance to the committee in carrying out its mandate.

On behalf of the committee then, hon. Speaker, I am pleased to put forward the name of Ms. Dulcie McCallum as the unanimous recommendation of the committee for the position of ombudsman and, given the careful and thoughtful work of the committee and the outstanding qualifications of Ms. McCallum, I feel very confident that this Legislature will unanimously endorse that choice.

D. Symons: Having served as the Deputy Chair on the ombudsman committee, I can say we did have a good time working at this -- I don't mean that in the enjoyable sense, but working hard at it. We had a good number of very qualified people. I think it was a strain, in a sense, on the committee to look at these wonderful people and realize that we were going to come up with one. We think we've done a very good job in selecting the ombudsman, and we recommend that the House endorse our decision.

Motion approved.

J. Pullinger: I would ask leave of the House to make an introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the House Ms. Dulcie McCallum, who will be the next ombudsman for British Columbia. Dulcie comes to the post of ombudsman with over 20 years of public service as a nurse, public health official, lawyer, human rights activist and community volunteer. During that time of service, she has received all sorts of honours, which range from human rights awards to her adoption as an honorary Haida. She has volunteered on a number of community boards, including the Victoria Hospice Society. Her writing on social policy and human rights has been published across the country. She has studied nursing at BCIT and has been a RN since 1970. She studied psychology and criminology for two years. She then went on to get a law degree at the University of Victoria. I think this House and this province will be well served by Ms. McCallum.

Hon. G. Clark tabled the 1991-92 annual report of the compensation fairness program.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I'd like to call motion 60 on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Motions on Notice

REFERRAL OF LOAN PROGRAM TO
SELECT STANDING  COMMITTEE

Hon. A. Petter: I move motion 60 standing in my name on the order paper.

The purpose of the motion is to enable the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to inquire into and make recommendations with respect to all matters relating to the First Citizens' Fund loan program and, in particular, to make recommendations concerning the effectiveness of the program, its appropriateness in terms of overcoming barriers to aboriginal people's participation in business, and the design and delivery of the program.

I think most members are familiar with the fact that the First Citizens' Fund is a $25 million special fund established by the government of B.C. in 1969. The intent of the fund is to use the interest earned on it to enhance social, educational and economic development opportunities for the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia. Originally the program provided grants for economic, cultural or recreational projects, as well as funding for friendship centres and bursaries for post-secondary students. In 1988, however, legislation governing the First Citizens' Fund was amended to allow for the small business loan program in addition to grants to be made from the interest earned on the fund. The primary emphasis of the fund became economic development, and the First Citizens' Fund Advisory Committee became the Native Economic Development Advisory Board.

The current loan program provides assistance to eligible applicants by way of a 50 percent deferred contribution, which is made when program participants pay down 50 percent of their loans. Each applicant is eligible for up to $75,000 per business venture.

While the program has enjoyed great success over the past four years -- 150 conditionally approved loans, 28 successful program completions and only three defaulted loans -- it is important that the program continue to adapt to meet the changing needs of entrepreneurs and business people within aboriginal communities. A full program review was planned for 1993-94. There has been a good deal of interest on the part of the aboriginal peoples concerning the program. In keeping with this government's commitment to aboriginal economic self-sufficiency and to making better use of legislative committees, I seek the necessary support to have the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs carry out a full review of the fund loan program. I urge all members of the House to support this motion.

G. Wilson: It gives me great pleasure to stand today and to speak in favour of this motion. The Liberal opposition has been on record for a long time as

[ Page 3364 ]

suggesting that the use of the standing committees is a very important and useful tool in providing adequate and sound legislative planning for the people of British Columbia. In particular, the First Citizens' Fund is an extremely important part of the overall administration and delivery of services for aboriginal people. I think it is an excellent move by the minister.

I can tell the minister that the Liberal opposition is most anxious to make sure that this aboriginal program be run in a manner that is going to provide the very best benefit to the first nations of B.C. and to look at the prospect of making sure that where entrepreneurial development occurs among aboriginal people we do so in a way that provides them an equal opportunity to compete. I stress the words "an equal opportunity" -- so that they do not find themselves in a position, by virtue of past indiscretion, that they are not able to compete freely and equally with all citizens in the province of British Columbia.

I would say also that moving this to a standing committee provides us an opportunity, I think, to take time for reflection and take time for consultation in various areas of the province where the First Citizens' Fund is a key component to the development and establishment of new programs for aboriginal people.

This is a wise step by the minister. It is one that we fully support. It is one that we will be anxious to participate in in as constructive a manner as possible.

J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak in support of the motion. I think it's an opportune time to examine again the First Citizens' Fund, recognizing that in 1969 the fund was originally established by W.A.C. Bennett. It was, at that time, a very forward-thinking undertaking for the government.

I had the opportunity in 1988 to oversee the amendments to the act that this minister mentioned earlier. When those amendments were considered and brought forward, it was after considerable discussion with the board of directors who govern the activities of the First Citizens' Fund. That board of directors is made up almost exclusively -- if not exclusively -- of aboriginal people from all around British Columbia.

As the select standing committee undertakes its review, I can only urge them to spend a good deal of time meeting with the board of directors who have governed the fund in the past and who are presently engaged in that activity. They've done a huge amount of work considering the options for the fund. There is a wealth of information there for the select standing committee -- not to suggest that it should restrict itself to those board members, but I urge the committee not to overlook the wealth of information that already exists.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Motion 61 standing in the name of the Minister of Health. [See appendix.]

REFERRAL OF TOBACCO PRODUCT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992, TO
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE

Hon. E. Cull: This motion deals with the referral of the subject matter on the Tobacco Product Amendment Act, 1992, to the Select Standing Committee of Health and Social Services. The Tobacco Product Amendment Act is designed to reduce the accessibility and the attractiveness of tobacco to young people in our province. It's an enabling act, as opposed to one that gets into the specific details of how that would be brought about. There is broad scope within this act to regulate a number of things, including the sale of tobacco from vending machines, the licensing of vendors, the health warnings to be posted at point of sale, the minimum age at which tobacco products can be sold to individuals, and package size. These are all details that are best worked out through the proper review and discussion that can take place in a standing committee.

I have received to date, and continue to receive daily, many letters of support for this legislation, which will really be one of the most progressive tobacco regulation acts in Canada. We have on record letters of support from the Canadian Cancer Society, the Lung Association, the Heart and Stroke society and many other organizations involved in health promotion and tobacco reduction strategies.

I move the motion that is on the order paper.

[2:45]

L. Reid: It is indeed my pleasure to respond to this subject, in terms of its referral to committee of the subject matter. We believe it's an excellent starting point for discussion. However, our view was and continues to be that after second reading we should refer the entire document to the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. Parts of it, as it stands now, are not enforceable, in our view. We would like to see some more input in terms of how we flesh it out to become a more decisive document. Certainly we believe strongly that ease of access does increase use, and we would like to consider very carefully health promotion and disease prevention.

In our view, an aspect that is not covered in this legislation is sponsorship. We have a ban on tobacco advertising, but that does not preclude anyone in society from sponsoring an event and putting up a large product sign. If indeed the commitment is strong on behalf of this government to really reduce access and to make people more aware of the difficulties with smoking and of how advertising permeates society, we should be taking a look at that.

Again, I would strongly suggest that this bill go to the committee in its entirety, once we have concluded second reading.

L. Fox: I rise to support the motion. Certainly the issues being brought forward are significant. But given the array of issues we presently see within the Ministry of Health, I would have much preferred to have seen a much larger job for the standing committee than just dealing with the categories put forward. I'm sure that

[ Page 3365 ]

we could have contributed through that process to the discussion and much of the disarray around the bill, which is presently before this House. However, I see this as a first step. Perhaps the minister and the government, in their wisdom, will see fit at a later stage to give a more substantial task to this standing committee.

D. Mitchell: I too would like to speak briefly to this motion that has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Health. I'd like to add to the words that have already been spoken on this to say that, while in principle we agree with the idea of sending this matter to a select standing committee, there is a small problem I see with the actual motion. The motion refers to the Tobacco Product Amendment Act, 1992. Of course, there is no such act yet. If the bill on the order paper is passed into law, of course it will become an act of this Legislature, but there is a bill on the order paper right now to which this is referring. It's anticipating that it will become an act.

The problem is that the member for Richmond East has outlined -- and I would support her on this -- that the subject matter of the bill would ideally be referred to a select standing committee before it becomes an act of this House. So many times this session this government has got this wrong: they get consultation after the fact. It's a problem we've seen so many times. This government acts first, consults later. They've got it backwards again.

Here they are wanting to refer an act of the Legislature to a committee for consultation, and presumably, I suppose what we're getting at here.... When the hon. minister closes debate on this motion, I would appreciate her comments on this. The government is saying that they want to pass this bill into an act; they want the committee to study it and come back with amendments to the act. Is that what they're saying? It seems like a cumbersone process; the process could be smoother. It would be nice not to be so presumptuous of the Legislature itself, and to use the Legislative standing committees in a more constructive way rather than present them with a fait accompli.

The fact that the government plans to make this an act, which is what is implied in the motion, does not preclude the opportunity for consultation to be meaningful and for amendments to come into that act. We can support the motion, but again, we think procedurally this government is confused.

Hon. G. Clark: I think the members opposite, and in particular the opposition House Leader, should read the motion instead of giving us a sanctimonious speech for which he knows nothing about. In this House it is quite proper to have a select standing committee review any item that the executive council chooses. If those members opposite want to play a role in those select standing committees, then they should be standing here praising the government for moving these kinds of substantive policy discussions to parliamentary committees.

Quite frankly, it's a lot easier for government to simply make the decisions themselves, but we want the input from the opposition, because we thought that they wanted to play a constuctive role in major policy debates. This motion is quite in order. The bill does not have to be passed. Even if this bill was not passed this session, this motion is in order. It is totally in order. It is not presumptuous in any way. The bill does not have to be passed. If you read the wording, it says that the members are to make recommendations with respect to regulations. The bill will be passed this session; I can tell the members that. But it does not have to be passed for this committee to hear, nor for this motion to be in order.

Frankly, it's disappointing that the members of the opposition do not want to play a constructive role in an area of such importance, dealing with tobacco use and the controlled use of that drug, when so many people in this province are asking the government to take action. This is model legislation that we're inviting the opposition members to participate in a discussion of and to devise regulations. They do not have to participate if they choose not to do so.

G. Wilson: Once again, the Minister of Finance proves that when it comes to sanctimonious speeches, nobody in this House can top him. He has absolutely no equal; he has us all beat. There's no doubt about it.

If the minister had been listening to what we in the opposition were saying instead of simply trying to move forward on his agenda -- which I realize he's desperately trying to accomplish by Friday -- we were not saying that there is a point of order that needs to be reviewed here but that essentially the process by which this government is moving its legislation forward demonstrates once again that they're prepared to act first and consult later. That is the point. The point is that we believe that in terms of the bill that is before us, which a portion of this in fact relates to, there ought to be a referral of the entire document for review. It is certainly going to be a problem if we start to look at the proposition of making access to tobacco more difficult but this government puts in place legislation that is totally unenforceable. And that is the point that we are trying to make -- not that we are trying to be in any way less than co-operative with a government that is becoming less and less directed toward the kind of consultative process that they promised.

In principle, we believe that this should go before a standing committee of the House. However, in looking at the entire document, we believe that much more should be before a standing committee. If the minister opposite had been listening to what we were saying instead of standing ready to get into what he does best -- and that is to speak first and think later -- he would have realized that we were saying something that would have provided the people of British Columbia a much broader purview for review, which is through the standing committee process.

D. Schreck: As Chair of the select standing committee to which this matter is being referred, it gives me great pleasure to support the motion and express some shock at the stance taken by the official opposition, although I must say that I applaud the

[ Page 3366 ]

unqualified support that the third party has given to this motion. I am shocked at the stance taken by the official opposition, because we've seen once already in this House how they have stood accused of sometimes confusing the public interest with special interest. As Chair of the select standing committee, I've already received a fax from those who benefit through tobacco sales urging precisely what the official opposition has encouraged in this debate: that is, delaying and stalling on the regulation of the drug tobacco.

I do not think that either industry or government should be profiting from tobacco addiction, which many of us have suffered. It is certainly an addiction which we must stop from harming our children. It is the intent of this motion of referral and of legislation before the House to stop the addiction. I support this legislation and call on the opposition to clearly distinguish between special interest and the public interest.

W. Hurd: It's always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale in debate. He is the Chairman of the select standing committee and has taken great pains in this House to advise all members as to what is and what isn't worthy of being considered by the committee. We certainly find it rather curious that this bill meets with his unqualified approval, whereas Bill 71, which we'll be dealing with later in the day, was not worthy to be considered by the select standing committee that he chairs. This particular convener seems to be taking some rather interesting marching orders from the government of the day as to what type of health care legislation we should be dealing with in the province with a select standing committee. I must confess that I find it rather curious that a so-called independent Chair of a committee would be so outspoken in this House as to what should come before this committee. I can't help but think that his independence is drawn from the Minister of Finance, who has a....

The Speaker: Hon. member, I would urge you to address the motion before you.

W. Hurd: As I was saying, the Minister of Finance has always had a lot to say about health care bills in the province, and this appears to be another example of where the convener is arguing in favour of this motion, based on some rather interesting instructions from the Minister of Finance. It's somewhat troubling to the opposition that the convener of an all-party committee in this House continues to try to set the agenda from the government back benches.

I would again suggest that if the government is really serious about the role of legislative committees in dealing with health care issues, they should be willing to look at all aspects of health care, particularly onerous bills which have been compared to drive-by shootings of doctors. They should also be referred to select standing committees.

As I say, it's always interesting to hear the remarks from the convener of the Health and Social Services Committee on the floor of this House. We can always tell, via the pipeline from cabinet, what exact....

Speaker: Order, please. I will again remind the hon. member to address the motion before the House.

W. Hurd: Again, it was very interesting to listen to the remarks from the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale with respect to the motion before us in the chamber. It's unfortunate that there isn't a member of the opposition as co-convener of this particular committee.

An Hon. Member: Like there should be.

W. Hurd: Like there should be. Then we could have some reasoned debate in this House when the committee meets and have some sort of parameters when dealing with recommendations for legislation that it should be dealing with.

I'm always interested, as I say, to hear the member from North Vancouver-Lonsdale suggest that Bill 71 is a routine housekeeping matter not worthy of the committee's attention, that a motion on the order paper such as we're dealing with here is a matter of urgent priority in the health care field, and that he has no problem with taking his orders from the cabinet and recommends that we all support it.

C. Serwa: I rise to speak in support of the motion, first of all from the standpoint of utilizing select standing committees, but also because I think all members in this House should certainly be concerned with advertising that perhaps supports the accessibility and attractiveness of smoking to young people. We know full well that the abuse of two substances -- one is alcohol, the second is tobacco -- is weighing heavily on our medical services in B.C.

I cannot, in listening to the debate on this matter, understand anyone speaking in opposition to this motion. The only thoughts I can conclude from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Liberal Party, is that perhaps they have letters in transit to a special interest group -- perhaps the tobacco people? -- soliciting funds for this battle, or perhaps selling memberships.

[3:00]

I certainly stand in support of the motion and applaud the government for this initiative. It's very important to reinforce that fact and also the educational aspect. If we're going to succeed in decreasing or mitigating the use of tobacco products or using them in a responsible manner, what is going to succeed in the end is a far better and enhanced educational program about the negative effects of smoking on our population.

The Speaker: You have the motion before you. All those in favour, say aye.

I regret, hon. member, that I didn't see you before I called for the vote. I regret that we are in the middle of taking the vote on this motion.

All those opposed.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 75.

[ Page 3367 ]

LEGAL PROFESSION AMENTMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 75; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

A. Warnke: Just a quick point on this. It is in section 4 that there is a reference to "panels," which is in addition to benchers, executive committee and so on that we see in the previous bill. Therefore when we take a look at sections 17 and 18 of this particular bill, we'll want to elaborate on it. I just want to point out on this particular section that "panels" is not a simple addition but is in fact used frequently and is a prominent feature of this bill. It does introduce a prominently new institution.

If the Attorney General wants to leave it sections 17 and 18 to elaborate on the introduction of the term, that would be quite all right.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

A. Warnke: Just a very quick question. What is the distinction between the law firm of a member and the law corporation? I suppose if I were to put it in the context of a question, the introduction of "a law corporation" -- is this a natural development in the legal community, or is this an innovation? The purpose needs to be clarified here a bit.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Okay.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

A. Warnke: Just a very quick question again to clarify the comparison and improvements of the credentials committee as it had existed with the definition of the credentials committee in the present bill.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member knows, because I think he's had a briefing on this legislation by members of the Law Society staff, that there was a recent court decision, a relatively high-profile case, which indicated that the committees lacked powers that they had used. This legislation is simply to ensure that the courts cannot suggest that the committees lack the power to do a variety of things which are in the bill and the act.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

A. Warnke: There are just a couple of minor points. I believe the term "articled student" is dropped and replaced by "applicant." The term "credentials committee" is dropped and replaced by "panel." The latter one we'll leave until a little later on, but it's just this one: "articled student" dropped and replaced by "applicant." Why?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At 11 a.m., anticipating that this was coming up at 11:30, I indicated to the staff people in Vancouver that they needn't be here for committee stage debate, and that if it got complicated I would ask to hold it over to another day when they could be here. Unless it's in these notes, and I don't think it is, I can't answer the question in respect of why that change. What we're talking about, in effect, is someone who is making application to join the society, so I think that's a more logical way, from a drafting perspective, of describing those people, previously described as articling students, who now will be applicants for membership.

A. Warnke: I do not see this is as a contentious point; therefore, I would find that answer by the Attorney General totally satisfactory. I think we should move on.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

A. Warnke: The point has been raised to me by some people.... The term "secretary" replaces the term "treasurer." I think I can follow it through, but an argument has been put forward. I'll elaborate this way: secretary seems appropriate to me as opposed to a treasurer, and yet there is the term "audit" here. Why a secretary is involved in audits as opposed to a treasurer has created some confusion. If that's possible.... It's certainly not a contentious point with me.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The society has a practice that most of us find unusual, and that is to name their chief elected person the treasurer -- in fact, the master treasurer. The treasurer is more like the president or the chair rather than the person who does the accounting for the organization. What we're looking at here is having a staff person, the secretary, enabled to order audits on a random basis should the secretary feel that it's appropriate.

Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

A. Warnke: A very quick question. It concerns the rationale for the increase of the maximum fine from $10,000 to $20,000.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I guess it's a fact of life that $10,000 isn't very much in these circles any more.

[ Page 3368 ]

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

On section 17.

A. Warnke: It's this point that I flagged earlier. It is an innovation. I would appreciate at the outset an elaboration and the rationale from the Attorney General as to the introduction of essentially a new concept. Perhaps we could just pursue the term "panel." Have the implications of introducing a new institution been considered by the ministry?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The section is designed to consolidate, as the notes indicate, the provisions dealing with panels. I think the important new feature is that it will now allow people who are not benchers, who are not members of the executive of the Law Society, to sit on panels. Members can imagine any number of circumstances where that may be seen as an appropriate avenue.

A. Warnke: Actually, I would agree with the Attorney General. That's how it struck me as well. In fact, that may be a very positive innovation. Has there been any consideration to any adverse effects of having non-benchers serve on this panel? To put it as simply as possible, the introduction of a panel is, as I understand it, an innovation to allow non-benchers to serve in a capacity here. When we are dealing with the problems that the panel is supposed to address, the argument has been put forward that perhaps some of the areas where the panel is involved should be addressed exclusively by benchers as opposed to non-benchers.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The bill would not change that. The legislation gives the benchers authority; benchers can establish panels. We're now ensuring that the panels do in fact have the authority that was intended. On occasion, should they choose, non-benchers can be appointed to sit on panels. That doesn't mean that it would happen all the time; it's an option that's now built in. I think it's as simple as that.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

C. Tanner: Just a minor consideration. Unless the Attorney General can assure me otherwise, it seems that a lawyer, by appealing to the Court of Appeal in this province, could find himself in the situation of talking to the same people he talked to in the first case. Is that not true?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it's not true. I just want to be sure about this. If I had somebody from the society here, I could be absolutely sure. I'm certain there would not be a situation where a judge of the Court of Appeal would sit on a panel and then subsequently be involved in an appeal. That situation would not occur.

[3:15]

C. Tanner: Could the Attorney General indicate how that system works in other provinces? Do they, by any chance, appeal out of the province?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't answer that question. I'm sorry. If it's important to the member, I can find an answer for him.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

C. Serwa: Perhaps the minister could inform me on the matter of personal law corporations and law corporations. I know that the Law Society has proposed the amendments. I'm just wondering why this particular amendment has gone through, eliminating personal law corporations.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Law Society proposed to government that there be many, many amendments to the Legal Profession Act this session. In response to them, we indicated that we had a heavy legislative agenda and asked them to limit the amendments this session to those that were essential in their view. Despite the size of this bill, there are effectively two issues. One is to deal with the court decision that I referred to earlier. The second is to deal with the issue raised by the member for Okanagan West.

The reference to personal law corporations, for reasons I can't explain, has proven to be very difficult for many lawyers in British Columbia from a business practice perspective, just in terms of doing business. Members will often notice on correspondence from lawyers the term "a personal law corporation" on the letterhead. There are implications that I can't explain now, and I'm prepared to stand this down and come at it tomorrow with representatives of the benchers here, if it's important enough to members.

Hon. G. Clark: I thought they were briefed on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We had arranged for briefings in order to make this unnecessary. I'm absolutely prepared to come back tomorrow. My understanding was that we wouldn't need to have staff with us today because both parties had been briefed on this issue. I therefore can't give you the kind of answer that I would feel comfortable giving, other than a general commentary. Members need to know this isn't a government bill; this is a bill that's generated by the society, as self-governing societies do. I am obviously carrying it for them.

If members feel it's really important that they get specific answers to this in the House before passage, I'm prepared to hold it until tomorrow. If not, I'm prepared to have members continue and to ensure that the Law Society responds in writing to members with a detailed briefing in response to these questions.

C. Serwa: I'm pleased with the minister's response on that particular question, and I will accept his offer to

[ Page 3369 ]

have the Law Society provide me with a detailed explanation of the issue. I was not aware if there were any tax implications or benefits. I do know that individuals can incorporate under a law corporation in any event, so the implications evade me. I will accept the minister's kind offer.

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

A. Warnke: A very quick comment. I think I understand to a sufficient degree, and I don't think this is a contentious problem. Nonetheless, it has been raised that in this particular section we're talking about privileged information. Yet there was the concern raised whether freedom of information is compromised by this or whether freedom of information itself somehow compromises the concept of privileged information as it's used here. I'm just wondering if there is a comment on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As members know, the entire question of the application of conflict-of-interest legislation to societies and self-governing professions is yet to be determined. That legislation, should it come in and apply to groups like the Law Society, would undoubtedly supersede this legislation. It would be done in a way that would ensure that the confidential material that lawyers are often in possession of would remain confidential.

C. Serwa: This section expands and broadens the range of materials relating to complaints and discipline that are protected by privilege. Is there a potential that it will be difficult for someone from the general public to get a fair hearing with the expanded confidentiality provisions?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't answer that question with any surety. I'm advised that the section is not being amended with that purpose in mind. The member raises a question that merits an answer, and I'll ask the society to respond to that member and to the official opposition critic as well.

C. Tanner: Matters of privilege obviously are sacrosanct in many respects, but it seems to me that these are pretty far-reaching. Can the minister tell us where they came from? Are they brand-new, are they rewritten or are they from another jurisdiction?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: They came from the benchers. They came from the elected officers of the Law Society. Whether or not they borrowed them from another jurisdiction in the preparation of the wording, I don't know.

C. Tanner: I assume, since the minister brought the bill in, that he and people in his department have verified them. Could he give the House the assurance that the professional people in his department have reviewed these particular orders?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to that is yes.

Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 75, Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 81.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 81; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

On section 1.

C. Serwa: On section 1, why increase the cap, and why increase it specifically by the sum of $10 million?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's fairly simple. We have been in a recession. There have been a number of loans made by the previous administration. We want provision in case there are good projects that come along that are recommended by the Job Protection Commission or by my ministry, so that we can help save, preserve and enhance the number of jobs in the province. The $10 million is the projected amount that we might possibly need.

I can assure you that we don't have a project for $10 million at this point. It's the amount of provision that we feel we need to add, because we have used up quite a bit of the loan provision by the decisions of the previous government and by some decisions that we have made.

C. Serwa: The commitments by the previous government would have lapsed, I would understand, at the end of the fiscal year. Or is this a continuing obligation?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it is a continuing obligation. They are booked until they are repaid, and some of them have terms of ten years. They are there, and we can't loan any more. We think that it's possible, because there are substantial numbers booked against that, that we won't be able to have enough room to act -- that's all.

[3:30]

I don't have the exact figure, but I'm happy to provide you with how much is actually booked against this amount. The clear expectation is that over the next year, which is the second year in the term of the job

[ Page 3370 ]

protection commissioner, he may make recommendations for loans under this act. We don't want to be held up by not having adequate provision.

In fact, the total disbursement under the act is $174,637,000 right now, so that gives us some room. If you subtract the two, it tells you approximately what we have to loan out should some major projects come our way.

C. Serwa: With this request for more latitude in the amount of loans they can put out, and for job protection and job creation in the province -- which I applaud -- can the minister assure the members in this Legislature that there is absolutely no risk that the province will get back all of the new money that is put in? Will the minister assure this Legislature of that fact?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's pretty strong language. I'll answer your question in a minute. He wants an unequivocal statement, and I can't.... The nature of due diligence is that you assess the risks, and you try and protect the public purse. We will do that, of course.

I would like to correct what I said before. I read from the wrong line. Our total commitment now against this fund is $211 million, so the room under this act is really only $24 million. It wasn't great, and that's why we raised it. If we didn't raise it, we would only have $14 million.

C. Serwa: I appreciate the minister's remarks with respect to the reference to due diligence. That is clearly an intent of this government and the minister. I would like to suggest that it was clearly the intent of the previous administration. In reality there is always a certain risk associated with any venture. The end result of striving to provide jobs for the people of British Columbia and trying to give comfort or a little latitude or licence to those industries under pressure from a downturn in the economy is the right direction to take. I have no difficulty with this section, but I thank the minister for his clarification on it.

A. Warnke: Regrettably the member for Okanagan West is really on target these days. He pre-empted me.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

A. Warnke: I want to thank the member for Okanagan West for not pre-empting me.

One question has been raised. I'd like to add a bit of a preamble, and perhaps the Attorney General could comment on this as well. What we're talking about here is a change in the Infants Act. The term "infant" is used here, which actually can be confusing to the untrained ear. When we think of infants, actually we're talking about human beings that are extremely young. On the surface, in commonsense terms, it's very hard to explain to an infant and have it reach a point where the infant fully understands the "nature, consequences and foreseeable benefits thereof." It's a very interesting way of using the term "infants." I don't know. Somewhere down the line, is it possible that there could be some clarification here?

However, when we take a look at the amendment that's being proposed, I have just one question. Could this possibly mean that someone between the ages of 16 and 19 -- certainly not an infant, but that's in commonsense terms -- will no longer need parental consent for medical procedures?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: To the first point first, I too find the use of the term "infant" in the Infant Act to describe citizens of our society 18 years of age and under a bit unusual. My personal view is that this is not the best use of plain language. I hope some day that we might have a title that actually says what it means.

Hon. G. Clark: That would be novel.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It might be novel, but it would be long overdue.

In respect of the substantive question, as members know, common law in matters of consent by medical practitioners applies to persons under the age of 15. There are certain situations where parental consent is not required under common law. The common law is clear and specific on that point. The anomaly comes about when that "infant" reaches the age of 16. Through and including age 18, the law has required that consent be required -- clearly an anomaly and clearly something that requires redressing.

The member hasn't asked why we have gone this way to redress rather than the other way. The answer, very simply, is a social answer as opposed to a legal answer. It is that youngsters of this age who may require medical intervention should not be spooked into not securing that medical intervention by a fear of, in some cases, having to receive parental approval. Members can use their imagination, and they won't need much of it, to imagine all kinds of situations where a youngster -- say a 17-year-old -- requires some support, assistance or therapy by a medical practitioner and would not receive that therapy or response should parental support or approval be required.

Some members in our society find that a difficult concept to deal with. Some people -- hopefully it's an increasing minority -- feel that a child, right through until the age of 18, should and must have parental support for whatever. I think we're beyond that in our society now. All of us know youngsters much younger than the age of 18 who no longer have a relationship with their parents, who no longer live at home and, in many cases, don't even talk to their parents any longer, as a result of the way society has evolved -- rightly or wrongly. All of us feel uncomfortable about the fact that that has happened, but it's a reality. For a variety of reasons, we think it's important to ensure that the medical practitioner and an individual of this age who, in the view of the medical practitioner, is able to make an informed decision, be able to make that decision together.

[ Page 3371 ]

C. Serwa: Does subsection (3) create a situation where the health care provider could be held liable for decisions made respecting health care for the patient? There was some concern with respect to that, and I'd like clarification on it. Clearly the parents' approval is not sought. The individuals are in their minority. What is the situation there?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The medical practitioner must do what's said in (3)(b), and that is make reasonable efforts to determine "that the health care is in the infant's best interests." If they do that, they have met the test that this change would implement.

C. Serwa: What the minister is saying to me is that the health provider -- providing that they have met the test under subsection (3) by consulting with some other practitioner and getting support -- would not be held liable if subsequent investigation proved that perhaps the information was not quite as correct as it could have been. As long as they've met the test, they assume no other liability.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As long as they follow this test, there would be no liability.

C. Serwa: In the event of blood transfusions, for example, where some religious groups do not believe in that, if it's been indicated to the infant by the medical practitioner that this would be the appropriate, perhaps live-saving, measure to take, is there any subsequent liability of the medical health practitioner, knowing they may be in obvious contradiction to the wishes of the parents?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not at all. In that instance, if the decision was made between the doctor and the person under the age of 18, and clearly the person under the age of 18 knew what was happening, knew the consequences of what would happen with the intervention, then there would be no liability and the parents would have no comeback on the practitioner.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

A. Warnke: Perhaps I could just introduce the question that I have here in the context of an example. The owner of the land could agree to such an agreement, I suppose, on the condition that a fee be paid by the owner of the manufactured home prior to such an agreement. Since there is nothing within the amendment which stipulates that such an agreement must be made, could one say that the owner of the land has the final say as to the chattel status of the land, and accordingly, could this amendment possibly be abused?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: What we're saying with the amendment is that from this point on -- from the point of proclamation on -- the mobile home will not be part of the land as long as all parties agree. So the mobile-home park owner could choose not to agree to that, and therefore this wouldn't apply, as I understand it.

H. De Jong: I'm just wondering about this section in terms of mobile homes that may be in a mobile-home park where they were exclusively sold to that park because the owner of the park has an interest in that particular make of mobile home; and furthermore, whether this registration purpose is also designed to collect taxes from people who have a mobile home within a park situated on native lands, you might say, where the land is not taxable, but perhaps the mobile home should be because it may be owned by people other than natives.

[3:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This amendment does not affect the taxability of the mobile home. What we're trying to do here is allow for, by agreement, a situation where the manufactured home is not a fixture, if all the parties agree. This is not a tax measure by the back door, I assure the members.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the Attorney General could offer an explanation as to why this section appears in this particular form, rather than as a section in Bill 78, which we debated previously today. Is there any reason he can offer as to why we are dealing with an amendment to the Ministry of Forests Act in this particular manner?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This amendment is in the Ministry of Forests Act, rather than the Forests Act, which is what Bill 78 amended. In order to put this forward as a separate bill, it would have reopened the Ministry of Forests Act, which doesn't make sense for one small provision of this kind. The bill that was being considered, Bill 78, which the House dealt with earlier, dealt simply with the Forests Act, which this does not do.

I have a sense that I haven't explained that very well. If you're opening an act, but only in a small way, as we're doing here with the ministry act, then it's normal to do it through a miscellaneous bill.

W. Hurd: I have just a brief question with respect to section 5(2). Perhaps the Attorney General can advise us what an interest in the land would constitute, if we're not dealing with fee simple or ownership. What type of interest would we necessarily be dealing with under this particular section?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Leases or easements are examples.

C. Serwa: Would there be any potential for the government to utilize this particular section perhaps in satisfying native land claims, where large blocks may be transferred without further reference to the Legisla-

[ Page 3372 ]

ture, for example, because of the allowances in this section?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no, because this deals with land that has been acquired for the ministry's own purposes prior to the events described taking place.

C. Serwa: Then this is alienated land we are talking about, and we're not talking about Crown land that the Ministry of Forests administers. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, we're not talking about Crown provincial forest land here. We're talking about land that's under the control of the ministry for nurseries, air tanker bases or other activities of that kind.

C. Serwa: Then is it already surveyed, alienated land that has been removed from the provincial forest with title that the Ministry of Forests in fact holds? Just for confirmation, hon. Chair.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not necessarily alienated land, but it's land that is under the control of the Ministry of Forests for those purposes.

C. Serwa: I'm a bit befuddled by the description, because it's my understanding that one can only clearly have title. The Ministry of Forests controls, to the best of my understanding, all Crown lands generally in the province, not simply the working forests but virtually all Crown lands. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks only has responsibility for alienated lands, so it's not clear to me what the definition of "control" is. If it is not alienated or surveyed and removed from the Crown land as a total, then I don't understand how one can dispose of it if in fact one has no title. I can only assume that disposing means the transfer of title.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The members need to look at 5(2)(b); we're talking about land that was acquired with the intention of locating improvements on it. As I said earlier, the improvements could be improvements such as an air tanker base or a nursery. We're talking about land that may be leased, may have been leased, or may have been acquired by the ministry. We're not talking about forest land. I think that really needs to be made clear. Improvements are not planting trees on land; the improvements are actually buildings, runways, landing pads, nursery facilities or the like.

C. Serwa: For my clarification, I'm using the term "alienated." It's my understanding that alienated identifies any land that has been specifically designated in land maps with a specific title number. It may have been alienated by mining claims, leases or fee simple title. Nevertheless, it is clearly identified in blocks, generally in sections in rural areas and perhaps in quarter- or half-sections in areas closer to population centres.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're talking about land that has been acquired by the minister in the past. The land could have been acquired in fee simple; it could be land that has been leased; it could be land that has a reserve put on it by order-in-council for a purpose that's described, which would be an improvement.

Section 101 transfers from B.C. Lands, as it's now called.... I can't tell you off the top of my head what 101 is, but obviously it has to do with Crown land that can then be made available to another ministry -- in this case, Forests -- for purposes that are required by the ministry or by the Forest Service.

C. Serwa: I fail to understand where this particular clause is required, because the Ministry of Forests already has that opportunity. Often, even in an area where a parcel is not in existence, it is surveyed and then transferred over to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, which handles any other transaction. The Ministry of Forests has always, to the best of my understanding, had this particular latitude and licence to dispose of lands other than in fee simple. Certainly there are long-term leases; there are special-use permits; there are a variety of existing ways. So it's not clear to me what the intent or the necessity of this particular section is.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I asked for an example, because sometimes that's easier to deal with than trying to deal with it theoretically when neither of us know a great deal about what we're talking about, to be frank.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may; I don't.

An example would be if the Forest Service has a nursery and B.C. Gas wants to put a gas line through the nursery. This amendment is required in order to register that with the land titles branch. It's for that easement, which now cannot be registered, but with this amendment would be able to be registered.

W. Hurd: Just pursuing briefly that line of questioning, we're not talking about the title of the land being alienated from the Crown in any way. It's merely with respect to easements and other types of encumbrances.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's correct.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

A. Warnke: Just a very quick question. It is quite obvious that the amendment here will validate the decision by council, but I'm just curious why the provincial government is involved in an area that would seem to be within the jurisdiction of the corporation of the district of Maple Ridge.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I understand this, the municipality of Maple Ridge passed a bylaw in respect of parking, and it was discovered later that the passage of the bylaw was procedurally incorrect. What this does

[ Page 3373 ]

-- these are not uncommon in the Legislature, and we all refer to them as MEVAs -- is validate that particular bylaw, even though it was procedurally incorrect. With the passage of this, the bylaw would stand.

Sections 7 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

C. Serwa: Why is the coming into force of this act deferred?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The purpose for delay is to allow for consultation with the affected groups, and also for the fair amount of work required to establish the procedures that would apply. There is a lot of work to do, and it's not, in our view, doable by January 1, 1993.

Sections 15 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

C. Serwa: Perhaps the minister could indicate to me what the reason is for removing the references to the president and employees of the corporation.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's giving an ability to delegate responsibility for various activities to persons other than the president. It was narrowly based before in that.... What we're doing here, if I have this correct, is simply saying that the specific and narrow delegatory powers, which were to the president and the employees, are now broader so that in the future it can be to persons appointed under the act -- so it can be other persons in the management structure. Now if the member understands that, that's pretty good, because I don't. I'm going to try this again. Give me a minute.

C. Serwa: Perhaps, hon. Chair, the minister can consult, and make it clearer for me, because I have difficulty comprehending it. I appreciate his confidence in me, but I missed it.

[4:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm advised that the reference in the notes is incorrect. That is what confused me and perhaps confused the member. What we're doing, when you look at the legislation itself.... As members know, we have changed the structure of the Trade Corporation. The reference to president can now be expanded to include the CEO.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

J. Weisgerber: Section 25, as I understand it, extends the one and a half years' pensionable service for every year calculated to the chairman of the Trade Development Corporation. I'm curious to know the rationale for that. It's something that we recognize is extended to deputy ministers, but it's the first time I'm aware of it extending beyond that.

Furthermore, I'm curious to know whether the pension for Mr. Parasiuk will be calculated on his salary or his salary and bonuses.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The second question first: salary only. And on the first question, hopefully the member will remember that on March 18 the Minister of Finance filed with the House a document which listed Crown corporation executives' remuneration and benefits. The pension component, which we're now dealing with legislatively, was included in that list. It has been in the public domain now for almost three and a half months.

J. Weisgerber: My question was whether or not this was an isolated agreement reached with the chairman of this Crown corporation or whether it would apply to all full-time chairpersons of Crown corporations, which is a reasonably new innovation for this province.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding that other Crown corporation heads are in receipt of a similar benefit or the same pension benefit. In those cases it comes as a result of them having been deputy ministers prior to their appointment. It was our decision that Mr. Parasiuk would be provided with the same benefit that those other Crown corporation heads have in place.

J. Weisgerber: Could the minister confirm for us that this benefit applies only to service in British Columbia and only to service with the Trade Development Corporation and that there is no opportunity for him to purchase service or in other ways take advantage of his years in government in Manitoba, for example?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is for his time in that position, for his service in British Columbia as the head of the Trade Development Corporation. I don't want to leave the wrong impression, however. As all members of the House know, any public servant has the ability to come to cabinet and make proposals in respect of pensionable service. There's no suggestion of that in this case at all, but that's an option that has existed, and as members know, over the years many public servants have taken advantage of it. This provision is designed for Mr. Parasiuk to receive one and a half times, in his time as head of the Trade Development Corporation.

J. Weisgerber: I was feeling rather comforted up until the last answer. Perhaps the minister could now advise me as to whether or not a change in the formula affecting Mr. Parasiuk's salary, or more particularly his pension, would come back in the form of an amendment to this act. Would it be done by regulation or by an order-in-council? What I'm trying to get at is: would the people of British Columbia be aware of a negotiated agreement with him that would extend his pension beyond these fairly narrow, if somewhat generous, guidelines?

[ Page 3374 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Public servants in positions such as that occupied by Mr. Parasiuk have on occasion come to government. The member knows that, because he was in cabinet when many of those applications came in. There's no agreement -- I need to say that. It's not part of a deal or any arrangement of that kind. Theoretically, a public servant in a position such as the one Mr. Parasiuk occupies has the right to come to cabinet and make that application, and the public would be made aware of that in the same way that it's made aware of all orders-in-council.

C. Serwa: How can the minister think that the public can accept that Mr. Parasiuk -- who is a political patronage appointment, not a career civil servant who has worked up through the civil service to the position of deputy minister.... How can the Attorney General justify this expansion of the pensionable benefits to one and half times the service? This is a most controversial statement in this particular instance.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think members know that in recruiting senior personnel for jobs at this level, a variety of arrangements have been made over the years in an effort to induce people to take those kinds of positions. Sometimes there are very rich salaries, as members know, for some very senior public sector employees. Sometimes there are bonus arrangements; sometimes there are pension arrangements; sometimes there are other fattenings of the package in order to attract qualified people. In this case, Mr. Parasiuk has an extensive history, one that all members of the House are aware of. He was a cabinet minister in many of the senior portfolios in Manitoba. Prior to that, he had been a deputy minister in some of the senior portfolios. He comes to British Columbia with an excellent track record both as a cabinet member and as a public servant in Manitoba. Recently, he has had extensive senior experience, as members know, with VanCity Credit Union, dealing with some pretty high-level issues.

The package that Mr. Parasiuk has is very reasonable by comparative standards in the public sector -- very reasonable indeed, in my view. He could certainly command a far richer package in the private sector should he choose, but he has chosen to work in the public sector.

C. Serwa: I suppose I lament, as civil servants in the province do, when someone in that kind of position is brought in, because I think we have an excellent civil service, and they should rightfully aspire to become deputy ministers.

With respect to this section, the minister has in fact confirmed that in the agreement to induce Mr. Parasiuk to come from Manitoba to British Columbia, they certainly confirmed this settlement. Now this section is only ratifying an established agreement.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to deal with two questions here. First of all, in answer to the member's question, the legislation that we're debating in effect ratifies that component or part of the agreement reached with Mr. Parasiuk. In order to clarify my earlier answer, I need to refer members to a letter to Mr. Parasiuk from the deputy minister in respect of pension arrangements, just so the members of the House are not under the wrong impression.

In his term as head of B.C. Trade Corporation, Mr. Parasiuk's pension would be calculated at one and a half times. On application, he is able to add to that, multiplying on the basis of one, not one and a half, his years as a public servant in Manitoba, under the same conditions that other public servants have applied. So he would have the opportunity to buy in with his Manitoba public service years. This provision to limit that time to a multiple of one is a new policy. The policy of the member's government, as I understand it, was to multiply that by one and a half.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much for that clarification. Does that mean that we can bring in a senior bureaucrat from Manitoba, employ him for a year or two, and then accept the full pension responsibility for his years in the civil service in Manitoba as well as for his one or two years here in British Columbia? It seems to be an undue burden to our particularly hard-pressed taxpayers.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Any public servant who transfers from another province and elects to receive the benefits of the B.C. plan has the payments made on their behalf in the other province transferred to our plan. So the taxpayers aren't having to pay for those years past.

A. Warnke: I'm not exactly sure what happened here, but I did get up at the same time as the member for Peace River South. It's very interesting how twice I got pre-empted. I was pursuing the same line of thought.

At this point, I would also emphasize that what I was seeking here was a rationale. Indeed, I think it's still worth pursuing why one and a half years, and throw some question onto this as well. The question is: how normal is this? Considering that it's a package that is offered to Mr. Parasiuk, is this some sort of generosity on the part of the government? Was there a compromise involved? Did Mr. Parasiuk put forward a point of view? Was there some bargaining involved, and is this a compromise position? Why one and a half years and not 1 and a quarter, or something else like that?

[4:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Frankly, given the market, I would say that the government bargained hard and bargained effectively, and we got a cheap deal for the taxpayers. Ontario has a multiple of two. Our one and a half is not an arbitrary number chosen for Mr. Parasiuk's benefit; it's a number that has been in place and is in place for deputy ministers. We're not doing anything different in this respect.

A. Warnke: Then I take it by the Attorney General's remark that the Attorney General would consider the increase from one to one and a half as a pensionable service as being normal?

[ Page 3375 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know what the word "normal" means. It is the same as deputy ministers, it is the same as several other Crown corporation heads, it is less than some other provinces and it is comparable to some other provinces.

J. Weisgerber: To wind this up, I'd just like to ask the minister to confirm that the pensionable service earned by Mr. Parasiuk as a politician is not available to be brought into this format.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It is not available.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 81, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 83.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT
(No. 2), 1992

The House in committee on Bill 83; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

A. Warnke: I have just a couple of quick questions on section 2 and the rationale here as well. Perhaps the Attorney General could just elaborate on the necessity to add to the committee. I don't think that's a contentious point, but perhaps I could address that question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. A. Petter: Sorry, the member's words were so dulcet, they didn't make it all the way over here. Perhaps he could raise his voice just a little.

A. Warnke: Given that we're addressing section 2 here, and that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is in the best position to provide us with an outline on this, could that minister elaborate on the necessity to add to the committee? I did mention in the previous question that this is non-contentious, but I would appreciate it if the minister could elaborate on that.

Hon. A. Petter: I would be happy to do so. This amendment comes from recommendations made by the council and the advisory committee, and it's there to ensure that there's a better representation of all the language groups in the province on the council. It's felt that, by expanding the council to this number, it will facilitate a more representative group. It's being proposed for that reason.

A. Warnke: I'm wondering if the minister could also comment on the extent to which the government is extending remuneration here. As mentioned by the government, there is always a financial bottom line. While I would suggest that financial bottom lines should not be confused with justice in extending justice wherever possible, nonetheless I would appreciate from the minister if there is a question as to whether the government can afford any additional remuneration.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the remuneration here is fairly modest. It will be the standard government per diem of $175. It's simply because, particularly looking at representation from the aboriginal community, we want to be absolutely sure that money is not a bar to getting representation. For that modest sum we can be assured of that and overcome some of the hardships that members have experienced in the past.

A. Warnke: I would add that the rationale is perfectly logical and certainly supported from this side.

J. Weisgerber: A question with regard to the expansion from six to nine members. It was the regulation in the previous act that the Lieutenant- Governor or the minister select the members from a list put forward by the committee. Does this apply to the expanded council? Does the list still have to be generated by the committee?

Hon. A. Petter: The short answer is yes. The full answer, just so it will be absolutely clear, is: three members remain who are appointed without reference to the committee, but the nine referred to here would be appointed by the same procedure as referred to by the member opposite.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

A. Warnke: Some remarks have already been made at second reading. I flagged some concerns. It's here that I really want to pick up some of these concerns through a few questions.

We are talking about the increase of members, but it's not altogether clear just how much of an increase is involved. There are rumours floating around about how many. There has been a precise number tossed about. I want the opportunity to put forward the question: how many new members do you anticipate being appointed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't give a precise answer to that question as to whether it's one or two or another number. I suspect that it's in that range. The minister responsible for B.C. Hydro is determined that the B.C. Hydro board be representative of British

[ Page 3376 ]

Columbians: that it be inclusive of people with talents and skills and knowledge in that particular area and also reflect some of the regional and ethnic and gender concerns that this government is most concerned about. At 15 the board is limited in the minister's ability to accomplish that goal. The amendment will remove the cap. That will be consistent with boards in other Crown corporations. As to the precise number, I cannot say, other than that I don't think you'll see a large number.

A. Warnke: I recognize that there has been a precedent for this. Still I think it raises the question: why is it left open? Why is it unlimited? It's not altogether theoretical or hypothetical that one could increase the board members by a substantial amount. Theoretically you could, I suppose, expand it to a number of 1,400. One could cynically suggest that that's one way to fill in the various patronage appointments.

To be realistic here for the moment, I have another kind of concern. If the number were doubled, I could see where.... One could take British Columbia's population and divide it into many different categories among the various different ethnicities that compose, I suppose, British Columbia society. Sometimes I have some problems with artificially creating a notion of what British Columbia society is all about. Nonetheless, if one tries to expand the numbers to include so many categories of people, and then picks out a person that represents a category, one could easily come up with a figure of, let's say, 35 or 36. This injects another kind of problem: how do we know that 15 is adequate as a representation of British Columbia's cross-section? I could imagine a number of people saying: "We're not represented on the B.C. Hydro board, if that is the intention of the government." Pretty soon that number expands.

With the expansion of that number, anyone who is familiar with boards and the administration of policies generally knows that once you get in the neighbourhood of two dozen people, the directorship becomes very unmanageable. I would even agree with the Premier of this province when he considered that we needed to bring the number of cabinet ministers down to a size that was manageable. The Premier is bang on with the figure of 18. Public administrators and organizational analysts, from Herbert Simon through Northcote Parkinson himself, have come up with a magic number of 18 to 20 as an ideal size for managing or organizing.

By having an unlimited size introduced through this amendment, the problem is not altogether clear that it is desirable. If we had a more precise idea or number, it would have some advantage of, firstly, creating confidence that we will have something that is manageable and organizationally sound; and secondly, it would get us away from the idea that this is going to expand the number of appointments to cover every category of British Columbia's society. It does raise the question: why an unlimited number? Why leave it open? Why not let us go to a point of having a precise number of new appointees?

[4:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I said before, other statutes governing Crown corporations do not have a limit on the number. B.C. Hydro did -- the number of 15. I can assure members of this House that the executive council is not interested in appointing a number that would make the board unmanageable, unworkable or ineffective. That's not in anyone's interests, and that won't happen; I can assure members of that. I suppose we could have picked a number out of the air, and then the speculation would have been whatever that number was, who are those X number of people. We're simply making the language consistent with other legislation, enabling cabinet to have some flexibility on this issue. I assure members of the House that there is no intention of making this board unmanageable.

A. Warnke: In bringing it forth, perhaps there should have been some thought given to this. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the government that some thought has been given to this to ensure that we have an organization here at the directorship level. Does the government have any idea of what that threshold is? I'm pleased. As a matter of fact, I would respond positively towards the assurance given to us by the Attorney General here that we're not going to have a huge number that is unmanageable and unworkable. Nonetheless, given some basic principles of organizational behaviour, has the government any notion of an acceptable threshold?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to play with numbers. I have in my own mind -- and I think most members would have in their own minds -- a number that is workable. I know, for example, that 19 members of the executive council is a number that works quite well for making decisions. Often 75 persons in a meeting is not a number that works very well. I think different boards and different governing bodies have different functions, different purposes and, as a result, require different sizes. There is an attempt with B.C. Hydro to make it more responsive to the community to enable the public in this province to be more involved with Hydro's activities. That requires, in our view, an ability to appoint some additional members. I give the House the assurance again that we're not looking at creating a size that is unmanageable or unwieldy, because that is not in our best interests, as government, with this major Crown.

A. Warnke: Also, the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the appointments to British Columbia Hydro, appointed a full new board on May 19 and a new chair on June 25. Given that there is a new membership on the board.... Actually, I suppose, it's not really within the purview of the section that we're talking about here to discuss whether that was wise or not, or whether it was wise maybe to keep some members of the board to have some sort of transition over a period of time, so that people on the new board know what has existed in the past. Nonetheless, that has been suggested.

[ Page 3377 ]

There is another aspect here that I would like to focus on which is relevant to this particular section of the proposed bill. It has been suggested that confidence in the new board seems to be questioned, because the kinds of appointments that have been made appear, prima facie, to represent quite a wide variety of people in British Columbia. Indeed, there is gender balance on that particular board as it exists now. It's not an imbalance that exists as a result of maintaining some members of the former board -- that we need to appoint new members now to create some sort of gender balance. We have gender balance with the new board. We have quite a representation from a variety of peoples, with certain ethnic backgrounds and so forth, on this new board. One of the members opposite, the Minister of Finance, asks: "What about Socreds?" Well, that's a political criterion. I'm not sure whether the Attorney General really wants to get into that. But when we do take a look at the other criteria, it seems that we should have enough confidence in the new board. It seems to be quite representative of the British Columbia public. Therefore I'm wondering where the improvement on the board occurs, with the expansion of the board to include some additional members.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to that question will be clear to all members of the House if and when cabinet makes additional appointments.

A. Warnke: The question has been raised about the confidence in the new board as a result. Confidence in the new board seems to be in question. I'm sure the Attorney General will say that he has full confidence in the new board. Nonetheless, since that has been raised as a question and since a new board and chair have been appointed.... As it stands right now, does the Attorney General, the ministry or the cabinet as a whole have enough confidence in this particular board? There seems to be the view that this has been questioned.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Of course the cabinet has full confidence in the board that has been appointed to B.C. Hydro. We are bringing this legislation in so that we can have even more confidence than we have already, even though at the moment...

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: ...the glass is full.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

J. Weisgerber: I just want to confirm with section 4.... First of all, I stand to support it; I think section 4 is a good amendment. It's not without controversy, as I'm sure the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is aware. But what I want to get on the record, if I can, is that one of the driving motivations for this amendment is to make the fund accessible to aboriginal people, not necessarily status or treaty people who were born outside the province.

I know that in the northeast part of British Columbia the Metis population is somewhat mobile -- probably less so now than 20 or 30 years ago. I think it's important, in raising it today, to flag for Metis and other aboriginal people the fact that they qualify under the First Citizens' Fund. If that's the reason for the amendment, I'm pleased with it.

Hon. A. Petter: That is indeed the reason for the amendment, and I'm pleased to say the amendment is recommended to us by the Native Economic Development Advisory Board. It also takes care of a potential concern that might arise under the Charter about making differences about residence.

The other situation, in addition to the one mentioned by the member opposite, that I would like to flag is that many first nations boundaries don't observe the boundaries of the province. There may be people who are part of a first nation within the province who do not now qualify, because they happen to be born just on one side of the Yukon or Alberta border, for example, and have since come into the province and are now resident here. That's a further anomaly, in addition to the constituencies that he's referring to, that will be addressed by this amendment.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

Bill 83, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: Just before I call the next order of business, I'll inform the House that roughly between 6 and 8 o'clock we would like to try to complete a couple of bills from Municipal Affairs and one further bill, the Election Amendment Act. In addition, we may start for a half-hour or so on Bill 14 before we return to that debate. Assuming we can conclude this next item of business in an hour, then of course it would expedite business. But otherwise, this is just to give you a sense of what's left.

With that, I call committee on Bill 71.

MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE SERVICES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 71; H. Giesbrecht in chair.

On section 1.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[ Page 3378 ]

Section 1 defines the terms for the purposes of the act. The amendment I have introduced relates to the definition of the term "benefits." This term applies to services paid for under the Medical Services Plan which are delivered by medical practitioners, health care practitioners and diagnostic facilities. The British Columbia College of Chiropractors has pointed out that the modifying term "medically required," as used in the definition, was perhaps inappropriate in the context of non-medical practitioners. The modifier has now been changed, so that it applies just to "required services." Essentially the chiropractors were pointing out to us that not all benefits covered under the act are medically required, according to the very strict definition. We have corrected that to encompass their services as well.

On the amendment.

D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, where the amendment refers to "protocols agreed to by the commission," could the minister give an example of the kinds of protocols she's referring to? Would there be such a protocol, for instance, with the B.C. Chiropractic Association? Would that be an example?

Hon. E. Cull: One example of a protocol is the one that we have between the Medical Association and the Medical Services Commission with respect to when and how one tests for lipids.

[4:45]

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that example. Are the protocols referred to in this amendment referring to protocols that exist today between the Medical Services Commission and associations such as the BCMA, the British Columbia Chiropractic Association or the naturopaths' association? Or is it simply anticipating that protocols will be established in the future and that they will be governed by this new act?

Hon. E. Cull: It covers both situations.

D. Mitchell: Is it an intention under this act that these kinds of protocol agreements with health care practitioners will be developed in new ways? I guess I'm trying to find out whether the protocols under the terms of this amendment -- and we're dealing with a fairly important definition with respect to this act -- are going to be a significant departure from past practice. Are we looking at major new agreements with health care practitioners in the province?

Hon. E. Cull: The protocols referred to here would be negotiated with the appropriate licensing body: in the case of medical protocols, with the BCMA and the College of Physicians and Surgeons; and in the case of other services, with the appropriate body, whether it's chiropractors, optometrists or whatever.

L. Reid: For something such as cholesterol testing, would the guideline that is currently under discussion fall under this area of protocol?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes.

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

L. Reid: I would move the amendment to section 1 listed under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

If I might speak to that for a moment, it's to amend the residency requirement, which currently reads "six months," to "three months." Our feeling is that as it stands, without it including additional paperwork and additional bureaucracy if you will, we are precluding students who are taking educational programs out of province. If they are studying out of province, they would be precluded from being covered under our medical plan, especially if they were studying in a province that had the same six-month requirement. There would be very little flux in that, and we certainly don't want to be excluding our students from the province.

Hon. E. Cull: I am against the amendment. This proposed amendment would actually make it more onerous for students who are studying outside the province. As it is right now under our policy, and will be under the regulation which is referred to in the definition of resident, students can be out of the province for up to five years without coming home to maintain their residence, as long as they are in recognized studies. The proposed amendment would require them to come back for three months out of every year, which would make it difficult for some students who are in extensive studies in other countries.

What it would also do is bring us out of line with the rest of Canada, which in all cases has a longer residency period, of at least six months, although in some provinces it is longer than six months. And it would simply assist people who choose to live, in British Columbia's case, usually in the southern United States -- Arizona and wherever. They would no longer have to live here at least half of the year; they would only have to come here for three months out of the year. To our way of thinking, that would assist a group that doesn't particularly need assistance, while penalizing students.

Amendment negatived on division.

L. Fox: Just a clarification. I had trouble hearing what the minister said at the end, but she was making reference to residents of British Columbia who perhaps live in the U.S. for periods of the year. How exactly does this particular section apply, for instance, to individuals who may live during the winter months in the U.S. and be out of the province for up to six months?

Hon. E. Cull: Provided that the individual lives in British Columbia for at least six months of the year, they qualify as a resident and for benefits under the plan, but they must be resident in British Columbia for at least six months.

[ Page 3379 ]

L. Fox: So if I am six months plus one day outside of the province I don't qualify under this definition. Is that correct?

Hon. E. Cull: That's correct.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 2.1.

L. Reid: I move amendments to section 2 as they appear on the order paper, with a numbering correction to read "section 2.1" in each case. [See appendix.]

If I might speak to the first one as listed, "Section 2(3) is repealed and the following substituted: 'The chair of the commission shall be selected by a majority vote of the commission members, and shall be a member of the commission'."

On the amendment.

L. Reid: This is a crucial element for the members of the official opposition. We believe that the chair should not be appointed. We believe that the chair should be elected by the members of the tripartite commission, and we would certainly suggest that that is the healthiest route to pursue. We are hoping that if indeed this is legitimate co-management, if indeed it is something that people can recognize as having some legitimacy, it's not going to be an appointed chair; it is going to be the nine people within that framework who select the person who best represents them.

F. Randall: I'm having a very difficult time hearing and understanding what's going on up there. It's hard to hear exactly what the amendment is. I'd appreciate it if it could be clarified. Maybe the Chair could at least repeat the amendment so we can understand it. There's a meeting going on up at that end, and I can't hear a thing down here.

The Chair: It's on this afternoon's order paper on page 21.

Hon. E. Cull: If we're speaking on the amendment, I need some clarification. Is the amendment to section 2.1 to be dealt with in its entirety? Are we talking about it all at once here? I know the opposition critic only spoke to the first clause, but I'm unclear and need some guidance as to whether or not we're dealing with the entire amendment to section 2.1 that is on the order paper.

L. Reid: I would prefer to deal with them clause by clause.

Hon. E. Cull: Then on the first part of the amendment to section 2.1, with respect to the election of the chair, the position of the government is that the chair of the commission shall be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as are the chair and deputy chair of other major bodies which are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- Hydro, ICBC and a number of other important boards. The chair will be selected from one of the nine members on the commission.

L. Reid: Speaking in response to the minister, I understand that is how your government has chosen to do a number of boards in this province. We on the opposition side of this House consider that completely undemocratic. All that does, in our view, is contribute to the cynicism in politics through having friends and insiders. We want bodies that are legitimately democratic in this province, and quite frankly, the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services elects its chair and deputy chair. We would like to see that route followed in terms of this new tripartite commission, which indeed is supposed to be representative of something other than a political appointment.

D. Mitchell: I would like to speak in favour of the amendment put forward by the member for Richmond East. It would seem to me that the government's ability to appoint the chair here is a very, very significant power, and I would think one that is open to some abuse. What I think is important for the minister to respond to is the role and power of the chair of this new commission. My reading of this bill is that the chair does hold very significant powers under this bill. For instance, between meetings, if there is not a quorum, the chair may have delegated to itself all the authorities and powers of the commission -- very important powers. If that chair is simply to be appointed by the government, we wonder whether or not this commission in itself is a sham. The chair has very significant powers. It has all the powers of the commission itself in between meetings of the commission. If there is no quorum, as I said, I believe the chair has all the powers to make any decisions under this act. Could the minister clarify that with respect to the powers of the chair? Would she not agree that there is possible room for unwieldy powers to be exercised by one individual appointee of the government? That's the concern that's being expressed by the amendment from the member for Richmond East.

Hon. E. Cull: The main concern we have is that the operation of the Medical Services Commission is not something that can be done on a voluntary basis. It is something that requires day-to-day work and the supervision of many employees. Therefore the chair's job is a full-time position. It would have to be an employee of the government, in any event, and is unlikely to be an appointee, then, of the BCMA or of the public.

P. Dueck: I would like to make a remark, and this time I'm going to be in favour of the Minister of Health. One should always look with this point of view: what if we were government? I would have to say that the chair they're choosing and the method by which they're choosing is correct. If I was on that side of the House I would be defending it.

[ Page 3380 ]

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the comments made by the member for Matsqui. My question to the minister, though, is simply one of clarification. Is my reading of the bill correct here, that under this bill the chair of the commission will have some rather extraordinary powers -- will have the power, between meetings of the commission...? The minister has indicated that of course the chair can't be based upon a voluntary position, that it is a full-time position and a very important one. Between meetings of the commission, the chair itself will have all the authority of the commission. Is my reading of the bill correct?

Hon. E. Cull: The member could think of the chair appointed under this section as being not only the chair, but the chief executive officer as well. That individual will have all the powers that are conveyed in subsection (5) of this section, which are limited should the commission choose to limit the powers of the chair. In other words, the nine-member commission can limit the power of the chair.

D. Mitchell: I guess we'll be discussing in more detail the role of the commission, and that's really a key section of this whole bill -- there's no question. But when it comes to role, the minister has now likened the chair to a chief executive officer, using a kind of corporate analogy. The chair of the commission is like a CEO of a corporation, perhaps. I'm not sure that that example has really been emphasized publicly in terms of discussion or debate in the short time it has been available on this bill. We were really led to believe that the chair of this commission was going to be moderating the interests of the public, the government and the physicians of the province of British Columbia.

[5:00]

If the chair is going to be performing that kind of mediating role as a chair -- a consensus-seeking role among those different groups, in a democratic fashion -- certainly that would be different than the role of a chief executive officer of a corporation, would it not?

Hon. E. Cull: There are those where the chair and the CEO are the same; some where they are two different individuals. But the moderating role is not entrusted to the chair; it's entrusted to the commission.

L. Reid: To continue the comment of my colleague, we would have no difficulty on the opposition side of the House to have the chair act as a member of the commission but have the chief executive officer report to that corporate body, if you will -- similar to a hospital board of directors, where the person who is the hospital administrator is not necessarily a member of the board but reports to the board. We would be comfortable with that. Having the chair as the same person as the CEO is not acceptable to this side of the House.

D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, the minister did not respond to the comments of the member for Richmond East. Is that, then, what we are agreeing to, that the chair of the commission -- if we are to use the analogy that the minister herself used -- effectively will not only be the chair of the commission but the CEO of our new health care system in British Columbia, at one and the same time fulfilling both roles? Is that what we're to believe?

Hon. E. Cull: That is possible. It's also possible to separate the functions under this act should the commission desire to do so.

D. Mitchell: Would the minister see any merit in separating those roles, and why would that not be contemplated in this bill if there might be some merit in separating them? In fact, in most corporate forms of organization you would have a chair and a CEO reporting to the chair of the board or the commission. It would seem to be an idea that might have some merit. In that sense, the chair truly could be elected rather than appointed by the government, and then perhaps the government would appoint the chief executive officer, but leave it up to the commission themselves as to who would serve in the capacity of chair. Would that not be a more appropriate form?

Hon. E. Cull: In the corporate world both models are out there in existence, and this act does not preclude the second model from coming into existence.

L. Reid: This is not the private sector, hon. minister; these are taxpayers' dollars we're dealing with in terms of how we're going to fund and allocate dollars under this system.

What I'm asking is for your support for the amendment. If, in fact, your comment means it doesn't preclude the direction we wish to go in, it seems to me that you'd be supporting this amendment -- that the chair would be elected, and the CEO, the administrator of the plan, would be the government appointment. Is that not a position that you would find acceptable?

Hon. E. Cull: No, I do not support the amendment, because I prefer the alternative -- having the options open to the commission as opposed to locking them into one model.

D. Mitchell: We understand what the minister's preference is. But what we're trying to avoid here is the problem that exists to some extent outside of this Legislature, which is a perception that perhaps the new commission that is going to be established, if this bill should become an act of this Legislature, is not balanced in favour of all of the interests that seek to be represented in our health care system within the commission itself.

There is a general concern that this bill is not seeking to effect the kind of compromise that is needed in our health care system, that it is not going to be able to achieve the degree of cooperation that is required if our health care system is to move into the next stage of its development, which the minister has talked about and spoken eloquently about on many occasions. If we're going to achieve that, we're being asked to suspend our disbelief that the government is going to simply stack

[ Page 3381 ]

this commission, that they're going to appoint a CEO and chair in one and the same person who is going to dominate this commission, have very wide-sweeping discretionary powers, and that the commission itself is not simply going to be a sham in the face of a powerful government appointee.

Of course, we're simply seeking from this minister some commitment that this commission is, in fact, going to be a body that is going to represent in a very real sense the interests of all of the major stakeholders in the health care system. She certainly hasn't given us any comfort with respect to the comments that she's made. In fact, she's confirmed some of the worst suspicions that exist. I think it's important for her to allay some of those concerns. I wonder if she would comment any further on the role of the chair, in particular, and the government's intentions with respect to that chair.

Hon. E. Cull: A commission appointed with the BCMA selecting three individuals, the government selecting three individuals and another three individuals being selected from the public who are mutually agreeable to both the government and the BCMA is hardly stacked. It's a very fair and balanced commission.

The power of the chair is to vote as all of the other members can vote. That individual doesn't have any more votes than the other eight members on the commission and has equal authority with the other members in making decisions. The additional duties of the chair will be to carry out the responsibilities of the commission. As I have said now twice, the commission can limit the authority of the chair to act when the commission isn't meeting.

L. Reid: The comment you raised in terms of expanding.... We currently have a one-man commission. To add eight or nine people to that and somehow suggest that it's magically going to become democratic is highly suspect. I am not convinced that allowing this group of people that you believe will be selected carefully by all the groups and allowing them to select their own chair is somehow problematic. It seems to be the most democratic route to go. The gentleman who currently fills the role of Medical Services Commissioner will continue to act in that capacity, or whoever will continue to be the administrator of the plan, which I believe is your intention. It's unclear why you find the proposal unsatisfactory. You have an administrator for the plan. To tie eight or nine more people to that somehow suggests that that's better. It's window-dressing, in my view. These people do not, without the ability to elect their own chair, have any greater powers than the one person sitting before us today. I have extreme difficulty with that. I would ask you to expand your comments.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm sure the member didn't intend any insult to the other eight individuals who will be on this committee in terms of their ability to perform their duties.

I have to say, again, I disagree with the amendment. I think that the way we have structured it does provide for balance. As the member previously raised, it also gives the government some confidence in being able to appoint a chair and a deputy chair, as we do with many other commissions.

L. Fox: I agree with the appointment of the committee itself: the fact that the BCMA and the government both get to appoint three individuals, and the balance of the commission will be appointed by mutual consent, as I understand it.

I'm going over the BCMA draft agreement. Number seven on that was the fact that they were looking for the chair of the commission to be chosen by mutual agreement of all parties, but appointed by government. Can the minister suggest whether she is going to be consulting all the interested parties forming the commission in the appointment of the chair?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, we discussed that with the B.C. Medical Association. It is our intention to consult not only with the BCMA but with the public members before we make the final appointment.

W. Hurd: I have a question regarding the potential role of Mr. Pollard in making recommendations with respect to the make-up of this commission. The hon. minister will recall that at the time of Mr. Pollard's appointment, it was with the great hope that he would be able to scrutinize the various names and appointments to boards and commissions to ensure that there was absolute fairness. Is there a role for Mr. Pollard in scrutinizing the names put forward by the various interest groups that will comprise this commission? Would those recommendations be available to the public?

Hon. E. Cull: Because of the structure of this committee, whereby each group puts forward its nominees and then the two groups have to agree on the public nominees, I don't think we'll have the same kind of approach we have for boards that are entirely appointed by the government without reference to third parties. However, we will want to see the criteria that we apply to other boards and commissions -- namely, a representative mix of gender, ethnic background and geography -- on this board. We have discussed that generally with the BCMA, and they didn't seem to have any difficulties with it.

W. Hurd: I'm sure the minister would agree, with respect to the public involvement in this particular tripartite board, that there would be a great deal of interest out there among members of the public in serving in this capacity, in view of the importance this bill will have in the health care system. Can she perhaps give the committee any advice on how individuals who might be interested in participating in this board would...? Would they be asked to approach Mr. Pollard's office to put their names forward, or would they submit their names to the ministry direct1y? My understanding of Mr. Pollard's role is that he will

[ Page 3382 ]

religiously scrutinize the curricula vitae and resum�s of people coming forward to ensure that the "gender equality" issue and other issues of importance to all members of the House are addressed. Surely the minister isn't suggesting that Mr. Pollard has no role to play in that rather important question.

Hon. E. Cull: I'd be happy to receive offers from members of the public if they wish to serve on the commission. But when we get to the point of appointing it, we'll have to look at how we would solicit names from British Columbians to be on the commission. As I just said to the member, the minister's advisory council on the royal commission was not reviewed by Mr. Pollard. Other arrangements are made from time to time to deal with commissions. In this case, because of the unique role of the profession in having a say as to who will be on it, we will have to go about selecting the public members in a different way than we might have had we full authority to appoint them. They have to be agreeable to the BCMA as well as to the government.

C. Tanner: Unfortunately I got in just a couple of minutes too late. I wonder whether I could beg the Chair's indulgence and ask a question which actually refers to the previous section, which you've already passed. But the word is used here.

The Chair: We're on the amendment, hon. member.

C. Tanner: Okay. I'll come back later.

D. Mitchell: With respect to the question raised by the member for Surrey-White Rock regarding patronage and whether the patronage system that's been put in place by the NDP government is going to be used to fill the positions on this commission, the minister has said with respect to the three lay members of the commission that a different system might be used. Rather than resorting to the system set up by Mr. Pollard, the guru of patronage for the NDP government, she indicated that a different system might be used for those three lay members. Could the minister indicate what that would be? It's going to be different than the patronage system that's been put in place by Mr. Pollard, I understand, but is it going to be run through the Ministry of Health? Is it a different kind of a system? Could she just elaborate on that?

[5:15]

Hon. E. Cull: The Ministry of Health will select the three government representatives, the BCMA will select the three BCMA representatives and collectively they will select the public representatives.

D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, the minister is saying that neither the three government appointees nor the three lay members of the commission appointed by the general public in consultation with the BCMA, which will form two-thirds of the commission, will be appointed through the government's system of patronage, which is being funnelled through Mr. Pollard. Is that correct? Neither of them will go through that system?

Hon. E. Cull: Could you repeat that? I was getting advice.

D. Mitchell: I'll try to go through that again. I understand that the minister has a very active parliamentary secretary, who is trying to assist her.

I'm simply seeking confirmation that neither the government representatives on the commission, those appointed directly by the government, nor the three representatives appointed by the general public in consultation with the BCMA will be appointed through the government system of patronage, which is being funnelled through Mr. Pollard. Is that what she said?

Hon. E. Cull: Absolutely not, since there isn't any government system of patronage.

D. Mitchell: I'm confused by this. It's well known that Mr. Pollard has set up in office to approve or vet or come up with names for government appointments. We refer to him as the guru of patronage. If the minister takes a point of difference with that term, I'll certainly use a different term. Will none of the commission members be funnelled through Mr. Pollard's office? That's what the question was.

Hon. E. Cull: I've already indicated the answer to that question. The BCMA will designate their members, the Ministry of Health will designate their members and those six will agree on the final three.

L. Reid: What we're discussing this afternoon is co-management. It's a good concept, but in reality unless those nine individuals have the ability to share, to choose, to select their chairman, it is not co- management. It is another tool to be attached to the government appointee, but it in no way, shape or form reflects your government's commitment to co-management. I'd appreciate your comments.

Hon. E. Cull: My belief is that the system we've set up is one that will allow co-management. There will be equal representation from three groups, and they will have equal power on the board.

The Chair: The Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby North.

B. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The real parliamentary secretary, for clarification.

I want to say with respect to the amendment that the position the opposition is taking is not an illegitimate position. It's not an unreasonable model that's being proposed. It's a model that it may be evolved into over time. Down the road, over a long period of time, this commission may evolve into something like a Crown corporation, in which the board will hire the CEO, or like a school board, which is more divorced from the operations of government. Right now we're taking the first step. The first step is to set up the tripartite

[ Page 3383 ]

commission that very clearly is going to operate in the best interests of the public, physicians and government because of its composition and structure. I think anybody who has the temerity to say that the commission is stacked or one person is going to dominate really disparages (a) the people who are going to be in the process of selecting and (b) those individuals who are selected.

Very clearly those people are going to be of the highest calibre in this province. They will have to have Solomon-like abilities, and they are going to conduct the affairs and manage the budget of the Medical Services Commission in a way that I think we will all appreciate down the road.

What may happen is that the kind of position the opposition is taking may evolve. Lots of things are going to happen over time with respect to this commission, but right now the day-to-day operations are still part of the Ministry of Health. There is going to be somebody who will have to be very close to that board and is going to be responsible for the day-to-day operations and be responsible to the Ministry of Health.

That can't fit into the model that's being proposed. While it's not illegitimate or unreasonable, much of the argument that we've heard here in the last little while is. I think the argument has been illegitimate, and I think the argument has been specious. I think the argument has been faulty and mischievous. Very clearly it's not an unreasonable position, but the kind of language that is being used to disparage this very progressive step being taken by the government at this time is really unfair and unreasonable.

L. Reid: Certainly the comments just expressed are faulty. What we're looking for here is some vision in terms of health care, and we expect a healthy step for the Health Act. It's just basic reason on the part of this administration. You're saying it will evolve into something more complex. Why not start with something that's forward-thinking? Why are you advocating a regressive step? It makes no sense to me, and you've suggested somehow that the day-to-day operations of the commission are going to be in jeopardy.

The administrator, which I have spoken on in my previous comments, could easily fill that role and could easily report to a nine-member commission that is empowered to elect their own chairman. That is the position that makes sense; anything else is window-dressing. I appreciate your comments, but you have in no way reassured me that we would be adopting any reasonable stance for this act if we allowed the minister to continue to appoint the chair of this commission. That is what we have today. We're looking to improve that situation, and we're looking to have co-management.

If that indeed is the minister's wish, you must allow election of that individual by the members of the commission. If it's not, please give us your answer.

W. Hurd: I certainly thank the real parliamentary secretary for his glowing recommendations of those people who might comprise this new tripartite board. In light of the fact that they all will be excellent people, I'm sure, I fail to understand why the amendment wouldn't be supported or why one of these individuals, with the excellent credentials and qualifications they would bring to the board, should not be permitted to stand for chairman of this particular commission.

I think what the minister and the parliamentary secretary are saying is that the person elected to the board who might be eligible to serve as chairman might not have the time to take time from their professional duties to serve. Surely the individual member of the board should be given that opportunity to turn down the election as chairman of the board if their professional duties do not allow them to take the time to serve in that capacity.

Surely the principle of the commission having complete confidence of the chair of this commission is something, given the contentious issues they're going to be dealing with, that should be strived for by the minister. Anyone who is prepared to serve on this particular commission should be prepared, in the view of the opposition, to spend a lot of time at it, given the contentious and difficult issues they're going to be involved in.

Would the minister not agree that it would be prudent for the minister to give the committed and dedicated individuals, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, the opportunity to serve as the chairman of this commission, and even have the chair rotate, in fact, between the three interest groups that are represented to ensure that we didn't get into a potential partisan wrangle between the government-appointed chairman of the commission and the three interest groups who may, at times, have divergent views on the direction being taken by health care in the province? Surely that's a reasonable suggestion by the opposition, and I would certainly like to hear again from the minister why she feels that an elected chairman would in some way impair the ability of the commission to deal and grapple with the complex issues that it will be facing.

Hon. E. Cull: You asked me whether I did not agree that this was a sensible way to go, given the comments that were made about the way the commission will operate, and my answer is no, I do not agree.

A. Cowie: We've been talking about a corporate form, basically, with the CEO as chair of the commission, as well as being CEO. I want to give you two examples that work differently, where you have a CEO that is full-time and then you have a chair of the board. I want to explain how one didn't work, and now how it does, and even previously how it did, and that's the PNE. The PNE, for a number of years after Mr. Swangard became the CEO and the president, was a complete disaster. I don't think anybody would differ with me on that. The person who took his place, although he was a nice chap, was equally as bad, in my opinion, because of the structure.

You cannot be the CEO and the chair of the commission. There is too much conflict. One deals with the operation; one deals with broad policy. The Parks Board in Vancouver operates under the same system,

[ Page 3384 ]

where we have a CEO who works very well -- he is not called a CEO -- and then you have a board with an elected chair. That system was set up a number of years ago, and it works extremely well. I would thoroughly recommend that be the form.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: Yes, over the years.

I think there is too much conflict built into the system where you have the CEO also the chair. You will find that the board members will not converse with each other properly over policy. Basically they will have to follow the line, and there's no avenue for them to really explore the directions of policy. The CEO should take the directions from the policy board -- that is, the commission -- and run with them. It's the CEO's responsibility to fulfil the policies that the commission sets up. If that CEO is also the chair, then there is too much confusion and it simply, in my opinion anyway, will not work if you want it to be a real democratic board.

The way the commission is set up with their representatives, surely we can trust them to elect their own chair. Therefore I support the amendment as is put forward.

C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us how she's going to resolve the problem if the BCMA and the government can't decide on the other three members? Could the minister give us some illustration of how the commission will decide if they can't make a decision with regard to the recommendations from the BCMA and the government as to the other three members?

Hon. E. Cull: The two parties will have to work at it until they come up with names that they both agree to.

C. Tanner: Does the minister see a circumstance where an MLA could be one of the three members appointed by the two sides?

Hon. E. Cull: I hadn't thought about that.

C. Tanner: I think it's an interesting proposition, because if the government decides, for example, that they want to put one of their backbenchers on, or if the doctors decide, on the other hand, that they want an opposition member, the commission could find themselves with a problem. I think it deserves some consideration by the minister.

Hon. E. Cull: I'd be happy to keep the member's name on record if he's applying for one of the positions.

C. Tanner: The minister is being unfair; I don't want the job. I'm not even sure I like this job, let alone another one. Seriously, there could be a circumstance I can visualize, where for some reason best known to the government or to the doctors, they're insistent that an MLA be sitting on that committee. They're not excluded. If they don't want them on there, I think they should specifically exclude them.

Hon. E. Cull: If the BCMA chooses to appoint this member as one of its representatives on the commission, I would have no objections.

The Chair: The Chair recognizes the member for Saanich North and the Islands -- on the amendment, please.

C. Tanner: The minister is being cute. I'm not looking for a job, and I don't suppose she is. She's got enough on her plate as it is. But it could very well be that the circumstance could arise with the setup that you've designed here where an MLA could be appointed to the commission. I'm asking the minister to give me a straight answer as to whether or not they want MLAs on the commission, and if they don't, it seems to me that they should be specifically excluded.

[5:30]

Hon. E. Cull: There's nothing that precludes an MLA from being on here, but I might point out to the member and also to the Chair that we're on a different section. We're on an amendment with respect to the designation of the chair of the commission as opposed to whether MLAs might be on it or not.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

C. Evans: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Evans: I'm really pleased that somebody rang the division bells so that you'd all be here for this moment; it's apropos of what I'm here to do. Folks, we have an incredibly wonderful visitor here from Japan. She's been away in Japan for three years representing

[ Page 3385 ]

this wonderful province: our ambassador, my daughter, Sandi Swanigan.

L. Reid: Speaking to section 2(4), I move to delete it and to substitute the following: "The chair of the commission shall call a meeting at least once every two months, and by giving written notice to the chair, three or more members of the commission can require the chair to call a meeting."

We believe that if this bill is indeed about restructuring the health care system, the commission certainly needs to meet more regularly than was first allowed for in the act. We would stand firmly behind this amendment.

Hon. E. Cull: I have no objections to this amendment, Mr. Chair.

Amendment approved.

L. Reid: To add the following subsection under 2(4.1): "A meeting of the commission is quorate if at least six members are present at a meeting..." -- and to alert the Chair to the fact that there is a misprint here -- "...and of the six members present, there is at least one representative of the practitioners, one representative of the public and one representative of the Lieutentant-Governor-in-Council present at a meeting." Again, we stand firmly behind this amendment and would urge its support.

Hon. E. Cull: I need some clarification. When the member read the amendment, did she change the number from four to six?

Interjection.

Hon. E. Cull: I was concerned it was technically flawed.

We object to this amendment because of the potential for the structured quorum to render the commission totally ineffective should one group decide to boycott the commission.

Amendment negatived.

L. Reid: Speaking to 2(4.2): "In the event that a member of the commission is absent for more than three consecutive meetings of the commission, that member shall be replaced in accordance with subsection (1)." Our comment was that if, indeed, a member was going to boycott any meeting, if he or she continued that practice, they would be removed from their role and replaced. We think that this a reasonable amendment and would urge its support.

Hon. E. Cull: I have no objection in principle to this amendment. I'm not quite sure how to do this, whether I'm allowed at this point to suggest a minor wording change in the amendment. Is that appropriate?

On the basis of the legal advice from the Attorney General, what I would suggest is that we could accomplish this by saying: "In the event that a member of the commission is absent for more than three consecutive meetings of the commission, the member ceases to be a member of the commission." The reason that I put that phrase in instead of the one that's on the order paper is that it appears that we have to remove the member in accordance with section 1, as well as replace the member in accordance with section 1. It's easier if they just cease to be a member, and then section 1 comes back into place. I think that would, in fact, achieve what the member is desiring to have happen. If that's the case, we could probably all agree to that.

L. Reid: I have no difficulty with that.

The Chair: The amendment on the order paper is being withdrawn.

Hon. E. Cull: The amendment will be: "In the event that a member of the commission is absent for more than three consecutive meetings of the commission, the member ceases to be a member of the commission.

On the amendment.

B. Jones: A question for the minister. Suppose, for example, there are three successive meetings on three days and a member is absent from the commission meetings because of illness. I'm concerned that that wording would capture that circumstance. Somebody who was absent through no fault of their own would not be able to subsequently serve on the commission.

Hon. E. Cull: There is another amendment, which I believe the critic will be moving next. They go together, and it allows for the commission to waive that in those circumstances. I intend to accept that amendment as well; they go hand in hand.

Amendment approved.

L. Reid: Referring to section 2(4.2)(a): "Notwithstanding subsection (4.2) the commission may waive this requirement with the agreement of a majority of the commission." Indeed that satisfies the concern of the member for Burnaby North.

Amendment approved.

L. Reid: Speaking to section 2(4.3): "Each member of the commission shall have one vote." That's simply clarification for the purposes of the act. We would urge the support of this amendment.

[5:45]

Hon. E. Cull: I understand that that applies in any event. I'm not sure if it's the Interpretation Act or whatever, but I have no objections to this amendment.

Amendment approved.

[ Page 3386 ]

L. Reid: I would move the amendment 2(4.4): "Decisions of the commission shall be upon the agreement of the majority of members present at a meeting."

Hon. E. Cull: Again, the Interpretation Act does cover this in any event. But I have no objections to the amendment.

Amendment approved.

L. Reid: Speaking to amendment 2(4.5), I move the term of appointment of commission members shall be three years. If I might speak to (a) and (b) at the same time, if that is allowed, what we were hoping is that we'd be able to have some ongoing, continuous representation. So we would ask that a three-year term of office be in place but that the members come and leave the committee on a staggered basis, and that we indeed have all the points covered off. However, once a member has served three years, we would not wish to see that member eligible for reappointment. I would urge your support of amendment 2(4.5)(a) and (b).

On the amendment.

Hon. E. Cull: We're opposing this amendment for a number of reasons. Certainly the kinds of provisions that have to be made about the continuity of members, their term and when they are replaced can be dealt with in regulations, and it's our intent to do so. We've had some preliminary discussions with the B.C. Medical Association about the wisdom of having everybody replaced all at once versus a staggered replacement, and because those discussions have not been concluded, I'd like to leave the options open. I must say, though, that clause (b) causes us some concern. There may be members who are hard working and contribute a great deal to this commission, and we may want to reappoint them for more than one term.

L. Reid: Our concern with the original act is that it allows for the three members, say, of the profession and the three members of the public to be replaced at any one time. To me that puts tremendous power in the hands of the minister and certainly the commissioner. Your original document in no way suggests that anyone would be taken off on a regular basis; i.e., one member of the profession, one member of the public and one member of the government. I would not wish to see the power in the act which would allow for all three members of the public to be removed at the same time, or any three members of the group. If this is really tripartite, there has to be some sense that there is going to be continuity. So again, if I may speak to our amendment, one person from one group to be removed at a time would allow some continuity of focus. I would certainly urge your support.

Hon. E. Cull: I understand the member's intent with the amendment, but there's nothing precluding this in the way the act is now worded. In fact, it could be done under the regulation. I simply say again that some of these matters will have to be discussed further with the BCMA before a decision would be made on this one.

L. Reid: The minister has just commented that a meeting will have to be called with the BCMA to discuss this section. I am not speaking to the BCMA participation; I'm also speaking to the public participation and the government participation. I would not like to see any three individuals from the same group removed at the same time. Certainly your comment is well taken. It doesn't preclude this, but in no way does it reassure me that that's not going to happen. I need your clarification on that section.

Hon. E. Cull: I just have to say again that the intent that the member is suggesting is not precluded and can be dealt with under regulation.

C. Tanner: If you can deal with it under regulation, what's the objection to putting it in the legislation?

Hon. E. Cull: There are many matters that you don't deal with in legislation but you leave for regulation. It provides flexibility, and it also provides for more details to be worked out outside the legislation itself.

L. Reid: Since we're now discussing the creation of regulations, would the regulations become the purview of the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services, similar to those of the Tobacco Product Act? Or are we looking at another body that will be responsible for creating these regulations?

Hon. E. Cull: There hasn't been any motion to refer this to the select standing committee, but the government can always refer regulations or any other subject matter to select standing committees.

L. Reid: I appreciate that. My direct question is: who will be responsible for formulating the recommendations of which you speak, in terms of who is going to have the powers?

Hon. E. Cull: The executive council.

Amendment negatived.

L. Reid: It's my understanding, hon. Chair, that we've now concluded 2(4.5)(a) and (b). We read them together?

The Chair: Yes.

L. Reid: Superb. Section 2(5) is deleted and the following substituted: "2(6) If the commission is not meeting, the chair may exercise a power, duty and function that the commission may exercise if the commission has directed that the chair is to exercise such power, duty and function." This one is particularly valid because the act, as it stands, suggests that unless the chair is directed not to perform a function, basically it's carte blanche: the individual can go forward and take on any task. We're saying that the chair must be

[ Page 3387 ]

directed specifically to perform any function in terms of representing the tripartite commission.

I would urge your support of this amendment.

Hon. E. Cull: I am opposing this amendment, because it's unduly restrictive. The chair would not even be able to order pencils and paper clips unless that was expressly provided for by the commission. To have it so that everything that was not expressly permitted could not be done would severely hamper the operations of the commission. The member has to recognize that the chair has the function of operating and directing a department of government that requires many decisions every day.

F. Gingell: I am sure that we all appreciate that there are many administrative functions that the commission would automatically empower the chairman to perform. I'm sure they won't go short of pencils. The problem is that if some situation comes up that is absolutely new, nobody is expecting it; it is something that the commission hasn't dealt with in the past. Because of circumstances, you could have the chairman act on that particular matter in a manner that was completely contrary to the other commission members' wishes.

I'm sure that the first thing the commission would do would be to pass some administrative resolution that would ensure that the commission chairman could do all those administrative matters that are within the day-to-day scope. But so often something new comes up. It is the joint wisdom of the nine members of the commission that determine policy and help the commission to forge the way that it will go in the future.

I really would urge you to support this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Hon. G. Clark: I move 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 recess for five minutes and sit no later than midnight tonight unless otherwise ordered.

Motion carried.

The House recessed at 5:55 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:00 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 14.

PROFESSIONAL RETIREMENT SAVINGS
PLAN AGREEMENT EXTINGUISHMENT ACT

Hon. G. Clark: Bill 14, the Professional Retirement Savings Plan Agreement Extinguishment Act, removes the obligation of this government to carry through an ill-conceived commitment of the former government to pay $25 million per year to a physicians' retirement savings plan.

I will not recap the history of the previous government's forays into this venture, although it was, of course, the previous Premier who made this agreement over the wishes of British Columbians, negotiators and all the other people involved in it. Even Socred members would realize that it was the previous Premier, now discredited, who entered into this strange agreement. That history is well-known.

The government has made it clear that we do not agree with and will not accept this agreement. In this we feel that we have the backing of many physicians. Medical practitioners are astute business people, who do not need government to manage their retirements for them.

I might say that the principle of a pension plan for physicians is not a problem for the government. If it were negotiated in the same manner that other pension funds are negotiated, we wouldn't have a problem. In fact, I know that in recent discussions we've offered to cost-share a genuine pension plan for doctors, if that's their desire. This, of course, is no such thing. This is $25 million in perpetuity, signed, I think, just seven days before the election date. It's not really a pension fund at all. If they want a genuine pension fund that is cost-shared between doctors and the government, we're certainly prepared to enter into it. In fact, I'm a strong proponent of pensions for all British Columbians.

I think that many doctors will realize that in a time of limited financial resources, we need to ensure that funding is spent where it's most needed. At this time it's certainly most needed for medically required services for British Columbians. A very tough financial environment was left to us by the previous administration. As you know, we have a large deficit, about twice as large as any deficit in the history of British Columbia. This is a challenge that we all face. We expect physicians to understand the concerns that the government has with respect to trying to deal with this incredible fiscal legacy left behind by the Social Credit administration.

The previous government, in its attempts to carry through its ill-conceived commitment, exchanged numerous letters with the BCMA and purported at various times to offer various versions of a retirement or benefits plan. What became so complex to put together is not readily taken apart. Hence the bill must specifically deal with a number of different arrangements made at various times. That's why you see the different clauses. The net effect is the same: to simply undo what the previous government has purported to do.

It is never pleasant to have to rescind a previous commitment, no matter how ill-conceived, but it's vitally necessary. As never before, funding for medicare is under enormous pressure. If this plan were to be funded, $25 million per year would have to be diverted from the funding of medical services for British Columbians. We cannot afford this luxury, and I do not think the physicians of the province would want us to. It's a zero-sum game. There's only so much money. We have

[ Page 3388 ]

taken the money saved from this act and put it back into medicare and into physicians' payments, because it was not the clawback that would have been expected.

It's part of the government's overall strategy for the management of the Medical Services Plan to make the $25 million per year available to fund actual physicians' services -- that is, actual payments to physicians in the province today for services delivered to people requiring them. If this bill is not passed, payments for each of the first two years of the plan will remove funding from the system that would otherwise be available for medical services. There is no alternative source for such funding.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

It is the duty of this government to take the responsible step and rescind the former government's plan. I move second reading.

L. Reid: I rise this evening in second reading of Bill 14, Professional Retirement Savings Plan Agreement Extinguishment Act, and I can tell you at the outset that the title itself is an oxymoron. You cannot have an agreement and an extinguishment act that in any way suggests that this government is prepared to stand behind contracts that individuals in this province have duly signed with this government. My concern extends to all contracts that anyone would have with the government of British Columbia and to any individual who would plan to do business with the province of British Columbia.

This is an issue of incredible magnitude, because it's more than just Bill 14. It is the pervasive attempt to somehow suggest that the government of this province is all-powerful and that it does not need to honour contracts that come before it. Certainly the hon. minister can make reference to the financial mess that he was left by the Socreds, etc., etc., etc. It is in no way possible for him to remove his responsibility from a contract duly signed and negotiated with the province of British Columbia. That should carry tremendous weight in business circles. We should be encouraging business. We should be encouraging investment to come to British Columbia. This will be a signal that says: "No, do not trust the government of British Columbia. They cannot be relied upon to honour a contract."

That is a significant problem for me as a legislator. I believe it's a significant problem for the members of the official opposition. We have come to the point where we are extremely dissatisfied with this government's lack of economic strategy and lack of ability to create jobs in this province. Bill 14 goes a long way to suggesting to anyone who might wish to do business in this province: "Yes, you were right not to trust this government. You were right to assume that any contract you might have or might propose to have is highly suspect." This gives me tremendous concern, because I believe that somebody's word is really important. I believe that a contract is a contract, and I cannot accept that something such as this could be extinguished, that it is somehow appropriate to suggest that because it's not convenient for them as a government, they do not have to honour something that was contracted out and settled and negotiated in good faith.

Mention has been made repeatedly that this bill was done on the fly, was somehow taken apart and put back together in a matter of days. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that the negotiations that produced the original pension plan for doctors in British Columbia were done over an eleven-year period of negotiation. I would like to highlight that this evening for the record.

As the following time-line of events will illustrate, the British Columbia Medical Association has for many years been pursuing the concept of a professional benefit plan -- that is, a pension plan for doctor members of their association. The road to ratification of that plan and the long-term efforts expended by the BCMA and both the federal and provincial governments have been hard, as negotiations continued through different ministries and changing bureaucratic officials and federal and provincial ministers. This has been a journey of some 11 years, beginning in 1981, when the BCMA began talks with the provincial Ministry of Health and Revenue Canada toward the negotiation of a government-paid pension plan for British Columbia doctors. When we hear that this is somehow a brand-new idea that was vetted, passed and accepted in the dying days of the Socred administration, it is absolutely untrue. There are ten years of history that need to be elaborated on this evening.

Between 1982 and 1989, discussions continued with the bureaucrats, both federal and provincial. It was considered on three separate dates and received three positive responses. Again for the record, the dates are June 1988, December 1989 and August 1990 -- sufficient time for intense scrutiny and consideration, for anyone who had any issue with this to be involved in that discussion. Having received three positive responses, the draft of the professional benefit plan was given a favourable advance ruling from Revenue Canada. That ruling meant, in effect, that government contributions would not be taxed as income to the doctors, and tax would only be levied on individual pension benefits once pension pay-outs began. Revenue Canada fixed January 31, 1991, as the final date for the ratification of the plan between the BCMA and the provincial government. Discussions were ongoing. Again, this was not a new concept introduced at random; the homework had been done here.

January 1991: professional benefit plan agreements signed between the BCMA and the provincial government. April 1991: professional benefit plan effective date; British Columbia doctors began to accrue benefits. May 24, 1991: federal Finance issued a press release effectively quashing the longtime, negotiated terms of the professional benefit plan, a plan which required the cooperative efforts of the BCMA, Revenue Canada and the provincial government.

This brings us to October 10, 1991: professional retirement savings plan agreement signed between the provincial government and the BCMA. This agreement modified the professional benefit plan agreed to on January 31, 1991, and was drawn up in response to notice from the federal Ministry of Finance of impending legislation which would detrimentally affect those

[ Page 3389 ]

physicians eligible to enrol and become members of the professional benefit plan.

This plan is contributory; this plan is registered; this plan has evolved over 11 years of discussion and negotiation. This is not something that happened in the dying days of the previous administration, and my goal this evening is to put that one misconception to rest. This is not a brand-new idea; this idea has been around for 11 years. This idea is not unique to this jurisdiction. Many parts of the world have benefit plans for physicians which are contributory and registered. We are not breaking new ground by allowing this to go forward.

However, in my view, we are breaking ground by allowing something like Bill 14, Professional Retirement Savings Plan Agreement Extinguishment Act, to go forward. This is not good news for British Columbia. This simply says that if you have a contract with this government, do not expect it to be honoured. This is a significant departure from a government that is in place to facilitate decisions, to attract business to this province, to attract entrepreneurs, to attract investment. The Asian community is having sincere difficulties with this particular piece of legislation, and I can tell you that if this goes through, British Columbians -- the public at large -- are going to have sincere difficulties when they wish to start new businesses and attract offshore investment in their businesses. We're not talking large corporations. We're talking this particular piece of legislation impacting dramatically on the small business person who wishes to invite investment into British Columbia.

Again I would make the strong point that this was a contract, and as a contract it needs to be honoured. For the record, I would submit a letter of December 20, 1990, addressed to the past president of the B.C. Medical Association, Dr. Fry:

"I am pleased to advise you that after some five or six years of hard work by a joint committee comprising officials of the Ministry of Health and officials of the British Columbia Medical Association, I can now advise you that cabinet has empowered me to agree, and on behalf of the government of British Columbia, I now hereby agree that the government will enter into the physicians' professional benefit plan with an effective date of April 1, 1991. Benefits under the plan will begin to accrue on that date."

That is significant language. Someone entered into an agreement with the province of British Columbia -- not, I trust, a fly-by-night operation. When you enter into an agreement with the province of British Columbia, it should be something that you can count on. It should have some meaning, some sincerity and some sense that it has some future to it.

Again I would submit that every single contract out there today is highly suspect if this piece of legislation, Bill 14, goes forward. It is not acceptable. This letter was signed by the Premier of the province. That office should carry some weight. It concerns me greatly that the current New Democratic administration can nullify an agreement that was carried forward by the position of the Premier, by the government of the province. That used to carry some weight. That used to be a respected position to be in. Again, my concern is larger than this particular document. It extends to the fact that individuals in our communities -- citizens of this province -- will no longer believe that they can trust this government. That is a significant issue for the Liberal opposition.

[6:15]

I commit to the record a document written by John Jansen, the then minister, dated January 2, 1991: "As you know, cabinet has approved, on behalf of the government of British Columbia, the introduction of a professional benefit plan for fee-for-service and sessional physicians in the province." We had individuals of some regard, of some significance, making commitments on behalf of this government, which are now considered invalid. It is unacceptable for members of the Liberal opposition that by the stroke of a pen you can suggest that something is deemed to have not existed. It truly did exist, as my documentation this evening demonstrates and gives evidence to. That agreement was in place and has been formulated over some 11 years. It needs to be respected. This government needs to be sure that their word is taken seriously. I am not prepared to have this government abuse the office of the government of British Columbia. Hon. Speaker, I'm suggesting to you this evening that that is exactly what this bill will do.

Again, for the record, September 16, 1991: "Further to our earlier conversations, this letter is intended to serve as a commitment from the province of British Columbia that we intend to introduce a...retirement savings plan. The memorandum of agreement dated September 11, 1991, and signed by our representatives forms the framework...."

A commitment on paper: three separate letters, three separate dates and a chronology of some eleven years. Again, this is not something that was done quickly or without thought and intense scrutiny. Individuals in this province believed that they had a commitment from the province of British Columbia. I refuse to accept the notion that something entitled the extinguishment act....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members we have someone on their feet speaking, and I think it is extremely discourteous for members to be carrying on conversations under the circumstances. I would ask you to please come to order. Would the hon. member please proceed.

L. Reid: Once something as significant as a contract with the province of British Columbia has existed, it cannot, in my view, be deemed not to have existed. That is whimsical, magical fantasy on the part of this government if by the stroke of a pen they can somehow suggest they are all-powerful and they do not have a responsibility to fulfil commitments that were taken in good faith on behalf of the province.

Again, this office, in my view, must have more respect shown it by the people who currently occupy the office of Premier of this province and the office of the government of British Columbia, because this, I believe, will tar the entire legislative body. People will

[ Page 3390 ]

see that it's not always possible to trust the word of the government. That is an issue that I am not prepared to have carried forward by this thirty-fifth parliament. If we are sincere legislators, I think our work has to stand for something. Our word has to mean something. This makes a sham of any word that you would receive on behalf of the province of British Columbia or on behalf of any individual legislator in this province.

I want to turn, for a matter of record, to the pension agreement. I want to commit this to record because I think there's tremendous misapprehension and misinformation out there in terms of what this truly does. The pension was never fully funded by government -- it defined government's contributions. That is a fact. This is a contributory pension plan. The maximum entitlement under the plan is estimated to be about $4,000 for any physician. In 1991 the maximum allowable RRSP contribution for self-employed professionals was $11,500. That figure rises to $12,500 for 1992. It only makes sense to re-establish the plan with whatever cosmetic changes may be appropriate to satisfy the government's interests. It is not, in my view, appropriate to change the substance or the basic design.

Again, 11 years of history, 11 years of negotiation, 11 years of involvement with this province suggests that the homework had been done, that the B.C. Medical Association negotiated in good faith with the province of British Columbia.

For the record, I would like to refer to the MLAs' pensions. After only seven years of service a Member of the Legislative Assembly is entitled to a minimum pension of about $20,000 per year. A cabinet minister would receive closer to $30,000 per year. We're somehow suggesting that after seven years of service, we should be entitled to a significant amount of dollars, payable by this government from the taxpayers of British Columbia. We would, in turn, deny someone who has worked 30 or 40 years and made a significant contribution, in my view, to British Columbia. We would deny them a pension of far less value. That is completely unreasonable. I have significant difficulties with it. We are not here to be self-serving; yet to serve seven years as a member of this Legislative Assembly would entitle any member to between $20,000 and $30,000. It's excessive, in my view. Somehow we cannot debate both of these issues. We do not have a level playing-field. We are advocating discrimination in this bill to somebody who has contributed equally, if not more so, to the working life of this province and somehow suggesting that MLAs are making a greater contribution. I do not accept that notion.

Bill 14 effectively tears up a legally binding contract without any consultation, negotiation or alternative compensation. Use of the Legislature in this way is unfounded and sets a dangerous precedent for any group having or currently negotiating a contract with this government. I can't imagine why anyone would feel confident about doing business in British Columbia if Bill 14, the Professional Retirement Savings Plan Agreement Extinguishment Act, goes forward.

The pension plan was the culmination of ten years of negotiation and consultation with both the provincial and federal governments. What occurred just before the election was an amendment to the plan, which brought it into line with recent federal tax law. It was amended as a result of a ruling from Revenue Canada. It was not amended because it was somehow found to be unpalatable to the current administration of this province. It was not found to be unpalatable to the office of the Premier. It was a contract negotiated in good faith, and in my view, needs to be honoured.

An average general practitioner with a net income in the range of $85,000 after 20 years of service would have received a maximum of about $14,000 per year on retirement. Compare that to the minimum of $30,000 a cabinet minister would receive after only seven years of service. There is significant inequity here that I must speak to. I believe that this issue needs to be clearly understood in the minds of taxpayers. Frankly, hon. Speaker, I would submit to you this evening that the taxpayers would have significant difficulties with the MLA pension plan. I can assure you that the Liberal opposition in this province is prepared to take a look at that, because that is an inequitable situation, in our eyes.

We're asking this government to withdraw the ill-conceived legislation and restore the public's faith in collective bargaining and the sanctity of contractual obligations. We would ask this government to invite the BCMA to the bargaining table, as they should have done in the first place. That has been our concern regarding this government's high-handed, arrogant approach to doing business with people. Contracts need to be honoured. If it's appropriate to amend a contract, to go back to the table and discuss is the first step. The first step, in my view, is not to draft legislation. You do not legislate when you should be negotiating. This is a significant problem for me as a member of this Legislative Assembly. Again, I would submit to you, it is a significant problem for every single person who hopes to business in British Columbia.

Again, for the record, the federal government did not reject the pension plan deal. In fact, they approved it in writing on three separate occasions over the ten years it was being put together. The deal was signed with government on January 31, 1991, and amended on October 10, 1991. The plan was not 100 percent taxpayer funded, as members of this government tend to put out there, suggesting that somehow doctors don't deserve a pension plan they contribute to. Why would we discriminate against any group in our society? We have pension plans that everyone now contributes to. We are not asking the doctors to be treated differently. We are simply saying that if it's reasonable to have a contributory pension plan on behalf of teachers and other workers, it is reasonable to have a contributory pension plan on behalf of the province's physicians. That is what the original agreement said, and that is what I believe must be honoured if this government is to have any credibility in the eyes of investors coming to this province.

The government contributes approximately 2 percent, and physicians contribute up to 5 percent of their annual earnings through an RRSP-type program. In addition, the Premier has publicly stated that he has no objection to a shared-cost plan, and the British Colum-

[ Page 3391 ]

bia Medical Association does not understand how the current plan fails in this regard. The British Columbia Medical Association, which was the signing authority on this contract, has said they will come back to the table and understand fully why this pension plan, which is a contract, is not going to be followed through. That is, in my view, a compromise position; that is someone who is prepared to be conciliatory and is prepared to understand mediation and call for mediation. It is not, in my view, a radical position to suggest that they should expect a contract to be honoured. It gives me extreme difficulty that somehow they are supposed to accept that when it is appropriate and reasonable for others in the province of British Columbia -- whether they be MLAs or other workers in the field -- to receive a pension plan and to expect a deal that is signed with the province to be honoured, it is not appropriate for the physicians in this province to expect exactly the same thing. Hon. Speaker, that gives me significant difficulties. Frankly, I find it unacceptable that this government would ever introduce legislation that extinguishes a contract in this province.

This is not something I am proud of, hon. Speaker. I cannot accept the notion that somehow this government would be proud of a document such as this, which is draconian, regressive and totally inappropriate in terms of civilized people coming to understand how contracts are negotiated. At the end of the day, that is all anyone has left: their word. If your word can no longer be trusted, every single action you take following that would be highly suspect, in my view.

Again for the record, in the Victoria Times-Colonist on January 19, 1991.... This is coming from the current Premier of the province of British Columbia; however, he wrote this as the leader of the official opposition: "I referred to it as 'done deal' because British Columbians should know that the election of an NDP government in the next few months would not erase a legally binding contract." Let me reiterate that, because the fact is that the current Premier of this province, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, said: "I referred to it as a 'done deal' because British Columbians should know that the election of an NDP government in the next few months would not erase a legally binding contract."

It has been said here that once you give your word, once you recognize that a contract has been negotiated in good faith and once you come to do business with the province of British Columbia, at the very least you should be able to count on that as being something solid and that is going to weather well over time. The current demonstration of this government's inability to see what a deep-seated dilemma Bill 14 puts every citizen in this province in is amazing to me. If you cannot see that your word is not worth anything, if you cannot see that that does not have incredible ramifications for business people, citizens of the province and anyone who might wish to invest in British Columbia, and if you suggest that you can somehow erase a binding, legally defined contract with the stroke of a pen, you have done nothing for the reputation of this province and of this government. In fact, you have put every single legislator in this assembly at peril, and you have contributed, in my view, to the intense cynicism with which the public currently views politicians.

This will do nothing but contribute to the public's distaste and disgust with what is going on in this Legislature this evening. Bill 14, Professional Retirement Savings Plan Agreement Extinguishment Act, is unacceptable to the Liberal opposition in this province. If you indeed suggest somehow that your word doesn't matter once you become a member of the official opposition and a member of this government, you have done more to demoralize the entire public at large than you will ever, ever be able to regain.

This bill gives me tremendous disappointment, because when I entered the public life, if you will, and chose to run for office it was because my word stood for something. If I made a contract with someone, I would honour it. At the very least, I expect the government in British Columbia to do that. This does not suggest that they can be trusted. I would ask that this bill go down in solid defeat this evening.

[6:30]

J. Weisgerber: I rise also to speak against this Professional Retirement Savings Plan Agreement Extinguishment Act. It's rather strange, given the amount of time that the Minister of Finance spent in opposition talking about this as an unfunded pension plan, that his bill to extinguish it doesn't even mention the word pension. I think that that's appropriate, because the plan never was a pension. It was in fact a deferred income plan that was set out under the Income Tax Act, and it was done as part of a set of negotiations not unlike the negotiations going on today between the government and the BCMA.

The difference between the negotiations that went on when the deferred income plan -- the $25 million package -- was introduced and the lack of negotiations going on today is that the previous government sat down over a period of time with a lot of serious negotiations and tried to reach an agreement with the doctors that covered a whole range of things: a cap on fees, an allowance for inflation, an allowance for new technology and an acknowledgment of population growth.

One of the parts that made up the agreement was a plan to defer $25 million per year of income and set it off, rather than include it in the final cap on the doctors' income plan. While it was poor politics, and while it was poorly received -- mainly because of the attack from the opposition at the time -- the plan was sound administratively. Rather than add another $25 million to the $1.25 billion or so that made up the doctors' fee package, by taking that $25 million and setting it up on a deferred plan -- a flat $25 million a year contribution -- the government achieved a number of things. They almost immediately took that $25 million out of the escalation that comes as a part of the growth in these packages and affects the agreement from year to year -- the growth in the population, the amount of usage, inflation; all of those things drive the package. The deferred plan took a small part of that package, set it off and isolated it from all of those factors. So by taking $25 million out one year and establishing it as a flat

[ Page 3392 ]

contribution over time, government was able to avoid the escalation of that money. Administratively I think it was sound. Politically it was a disaster; I agree with that. I also understand that given the fact the government of the day.... The opposition at that time was so critical of the agreement that it would probably be unrealistic to expect them to leave the agreement in place. I concede that it would be reasonable to expect the government to come to power and look for some other method of paying, some other process.

The government has failed to recognize that there was a legally binding contract that was negotiated in good faith by both parties, an agreement that didn't sit alone, an agreement that wasn't isolated, an agreement that was part of the package. By arbitrarily bringing in legislation to cancel the agreement, it leaves the other part of the formula unrecognized. That's unfair.

The members talk and heckle rather weakly about Bill 19. Let me tell you: if labour agreements that this government enters into today are not honoured any more than this bill for the doctors' deferred income plan was, then every agreement that this government enters into isn't worth the paper its written on. If, in fact, governments won't honour commitments made by themselves and if they won't honour commitment by previous governments, then they do a disservice to government and to British Columbians. The government, as it sat down in this round of negotiations with the doctors, could and should have decided that they no longer liked the $25 million that was being contributed as deferred income, pension or whatever. The government said: "Folks, we're not going to continue with this anymore." Then there was an obligation to sit down and negotiate in the same way that the agreement was entered into -- a way to circumvent the agreement; a way to cancel the agreement. A legitimate and honourable negotiation to end the agreement was what should have happened.

We're standing here not arguing whether the agreement should have continued -- that's a decision for the government, the doctors and the people affected to make -- we're arguing about the way in which a freely negotiated contract is being broken, because it sets a precedent. It says not only to doctors but to British Columbians that if this government doesn't like the law the way it is, it will simply change it. If it doesn't like contracts that are negotiated and signed by both parties, this government won't bother trying to renegotiate. It will simply legislate.

We've seen more than one example, in the short time this government has been in power, of its willingness and eagerness, if negotiations fail very early in the process, to rely instead on legislation to cancel contracts. I think there's a principle here that bears careful consideration. If you can't enter into a contractual agreement with your own government and expect your own elected representatives to honour the contract that was entered into, then government is diminished. That diminishes all 75 of us, and it diminishes the institution that we represent.

I believe that this act is a shameful abuse of power by a government that was elected not by an overwhelming majority of British Columbians -- in fact, by fewer British Columbians than they were able to attract in 1986. They come here with a fluke of a majority of 51. Instead of relying on the honoured, legitimate processes of negotiation, they use the club of legislation. I think that's unfortunate. It's unfortunate for the people who entered into contracts with them on this particular issue and for people who consider themselves friends of the government and will enter into contracts with them over the next months and years. If this contract is no good, what would make any British Columbian believe the contract they have is any more secure than this contract was? That's the trouble here; that is the difficulty.

Had the government wanted to withdraw this at a time when there was no opportunity to renegotiate this small part of the overall doctors' compensation as part of a new package, there might have been some explanation of using legislation simply to cancel the agreement. It's being brought in in the midst of a set of negotiations and over the objections of the people who are beneficiaries of it. I believe that the handling of this issue is a disgrace. It's something that will haunt this government.

I will make an undertaking today to continue to remind British Columbians about the way this government keeps its word. This act clearly demonstrates that the government doesn't keep its word or live up to the terms of contract, and I think that's regrettable. We, on this side, will vote against this legislation as soon as we have the opportunity to do so.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move adjournment of the debate until later tonight.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Committee on Bill 76, hon. Speaker.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 76; M. Farnworth in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

A. Warnke: I think it is extremely important at this stage to reiterate some points that were raised at second reading that focused specifically on this particular section, because as I took a look at the Blues, there seemed to be some confusion. Perhaps some of the confusion and some of the debate, which the Attorney General engaged in so vigorously, obscured some fundamental issues that could be addressed here. It's important to raise these again. If everyone recalls, I did raise the question, which the Attorney General answered in detail, as to whether this is the first of at least two acts which would address some needed amending of the Election Act.

[6:45]

[ Page 3393 ]

The government is committed in one sense to having a referendum later this year -- at least at this stage it is a possible referendum -- and in that context, section 80 being repealed could be appropriate. It could be appropriate because in such a referendum the vote takes place on a provincewide basis. Therefore every British Columbian should indeed have the opportunity to vote in that particular referendum. Unlike a situation during a general election, when members are elected to this chamber on the basis of constituencies, there is a problem that has to be explored, and that is the possibility of floating votes, or the prospect that there might be floating votes.

Incidentally, I think we were distracted quite a bit last day by raising the question of illegal votes. I firmly agree with the Attorney General on this particular point: that if people vote twice or violate some other aspect of the law under the Election Act, they get prosecuted. It's as simple as that. So I think the Attorney General responded to the member for Okanagan West quite correctly when we were talking about section 80 votes, that if there are illegal votes, the best way is to get those cases forward so that we can prosecute them. However, there is the possibility, under section 80 votes, that there are a number of people who can obviously vote in one particular constituency of their choice of maybe two or three, depending on where they decide to reside. We know that can happen. There's nothing illegal about it, and indeed this is not to impugn the voters in this particular situation. The voters have every right to do that, and if they want to do it they can go ahead and do it.

I think a problem that has to be examined sometime in the future is whether there are not two kinds of voters: ones who are stationary and therefore locked into the constituency that they vote in; and another group of people who can actually float out there and allocate their vote in a strategic situation. It's not a question, therefore, of illegality or double-voting or any of that which I raised last day -- and I really want to emphasize again today -- but there is a problem with regard to section 80 voting if this is repealed and we follow this particular amendment during a general election or in a by-election.

The Attorney General assured us last day that this is a very specific bill designed for a specific situation: the possibility of a referendum this year. I'm going to take the Attorney General at his word, because I believe him in this context and it makes perfectly good.... Therefore, since it has been made very clear that it has a specific design with regard to the referendum, I do not think there should be a fundamental problem with what is proposed here. If there is a referendum, we certainly want to encourage all voters of British Columbia to participate in this. Nonetheless, I really want to flag for everyone that there is still a question here about the nature of section 80 votes with regard to a general election when members of this chamber are elected.

There is yet one other question. This is kind of a technical question that the Attorney-General could also respond to. I'm not sure about this myself, to be quite honest with you. What are the possibilities of constructing voting cards in which there are pictures of applicants, pictures of voters, in addition to the voting card itself? We do have such a thing as a voting card which corresponds with voting lists, and so forth. If there is a problem that some people have with regard to legality of voting, it's been suggested that what we need is something akin to or resembling a driver's licence with a picture on it. I'm just wondering if the Attorney- General has thought of that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me repeat some of what I said in second reading. There will be, hopefully, all going well, significant amendments to election law in general on several topics next year. It's certainly my intention. I repeat that this amendment -- as both amendments -- is designed to ensure that if there's a referendum this fall, however it's conducted, every British Columbian who is 18 and ordinarily eligible will be able to cast a vote however it is conducted. Given the time required to prepare for an enumeration should we not make this amendment, we may well be unable to conduct an enumeration in the period between the announcement of a referendum and the actual referendum date. If we don't have a full enumeration, given the state of the voters' list today, we would disqualify.... I want to say tens of thousands of British Columbians, although I think it probably would be safe to say that it would be many more than that. We're going to provide voting-day or plebiscite-day registration. This will put us in line with virtually every other province in the country and with the Lortie commission on electoral reform federally.

I appreciate the member's comments in terms of potential abuse. Historically in jurisdictions that have election-day registration, there is almost no abuse. In fact, I'm advised that in 1986, with about 1.3 million people who voted, there were only 20 potential cases of double voting, and in none of those cases were charges actually even laid, because it turned out there wasn't evidence to support that.

What are we doing? We're enabling British Columbians to vote in a referendum should there be a referendum this fall. Next spring we'll hopefully do the full review.

H. De Jong: Given the comments that the minister just made in regard to a referendum, we're dealing with the Election Act. It may be necessary to make some changes or have a separate referenda act if we're really concerned about the referendum coming up on the constitutional situation.

I think the minister knows full well that the section 80 votes created a lot of problems back in 1986. One of the reasons that section 80 votes were eliminated after 1986 was because of that. There was a gentleman, Gerry Scott, a former NDP provincial secretary, who put his name to a court document asking that this section be thrown out, because he felt that it was unconstitutional. On election day in 1986, a flood of section 80 voters created havoc -- long lines and many irregularities in polling places across the province. As many as 80 percent of the section 80 votes proved to be duplicate registrations.

[ Page 3394 ]

Whether it's for a referendum or for an election, it really doesn't make sense to have that much abuse made of a privilege. Voting is really a privilege at any time, whether it's for members of the government or for a referendum item.

I feel that while we are amending this act, perhaps the minister should have looked a little further at this whole thing. One of the reasons that there were so many section 80 votes was that normally enumerations are held about two to two and a half years after the last election. If that were brought closer to the following election -- be it six months or whatever -- that would probably be more realistic. It would be more realistic for a referendum as well. If the minister wishes to proceed, even if it is only for this referendum, I would like to see him consider that the voters on the list and those who were receiving the privilege to vote by a section 80 vote -- if I may call it that way -- would be presented with a card. The card would be punched at the registration place, so that it would lessen the opportunity for people to vote in more than one place, even on an important piece of future for Canadians in terms of a referendum on the constitution.

I would like to hear the minister's comments on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I may have missed the last point. If I did, I would like the member to repeat it.

The first substantive point the member made, as I noted, was with reference to a former provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party putting his name to a affidavit in a court application in respect of section 80 in 1986. The name Gerry Scott was mentioned. In fact, that application was to deal with what our party then felt was a restrictive section 80 ability to vote. Many people were actually denied the opportunity to use section 80 as the legislation then stood. As I recall it, in general terms, people had to say that they believed they were on the voters' list. They were given a ballot envelope, and it was sealed and then checked later. Most section 80s were never counted, because people were ineligible to vote. The government after 1986, smarting from the fact that the few section 80s that were valid overturned apparent early decisions in I think both Surrey and Point Grey, then moved to further tighten up by virtually eliminating the opportunity to vote on election day.

What this does is to take us to a different status altogether -- different from what applied in the '91 election and from what applied in the '86 election. It takes us to the point where we will say that every British Columbian who is otherwise eligible will have the right to vote, whether they are on the printed list or not. That's what this says. Don't misunderstand the court.... I know the speaker's notes that were prepared for your caucus indicate that the party took a different position; it's not so. The position that the party took then is consistent with this legislation.

The member made a statement that I totally and fundamentally disagree with: the suggestion that voting is a privilege. Voting is a right. Every citizen of this country has the right to participate in an election. There should not be any bureaucratic impediment to that right. It is more than a privilege; it is a right. Perhaps that separates us philosophically, and so be it. I just want members to know that we fundamentally believe it's a right. No one should lose that right by way of the nature of their employment, by nature of their literacy or by way of living a life in which they don't read the newspaper, listen to radio or watch TV, and so don't know there's an election until maybe a few days before the election. I know lots of people who are in that situation. To some members' minds, they may not have the same right to vote as the next person. But I think they do, because our party believes that every citizen has that right.

Those are two points, and I probably missed at least the third point that the member was making.

[7:00]

H. De Jong: I don't disagree that voting is a right. I have no disagreement with that, but at the same time.... During the war years, every citizen in the Netherlands also had the right to pick up their food coupons. They were available on certain days and at certain times of the week. That was everybody's right, but unless you were there to pick them up, you missed out on that right, you might say. Surely, with the changes that were made to the Election Act -- to allow them to enumerate from the time the writ is dropped to about a week or ten days prior to the election -- that gives the person, while he has this right to vote, an opportunity.... Certainly it's the responsibility of anyone, in order to have the full benefit of those rights, to take their responsibility and to make sure.

The advance registration offices were open on weekends; they were open at night. There were all kinds of opportunities. It wasn't because of the time element, or their work schedule, or whatever it may be that they were denied the right to come to that registration place. I can understand what the minister says in terms of rights, but rights also carry responsibilities. Since it was shown in the past that section 80 votes led to a lot of abuse, why should we go back to what was there before?

The other point I have made that the minister didn't quite get was in terms of those voting cards we have. It wasn't even necessary to take your voting card along the last time. Perhaps this would also be a good incentive to have people save those voting cards. When they go to the polling station, once they have voted or they've been given a ballot, a hole should be punched in the card so that they cannot go to another polling place without showing that card. If it was in fact punched, they wouldn't have a second chance.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to repeat the arguments in respect of the principle. We think that people exercise their responsibility on the day of the election or on the day of the advance poll by choosing to vote or not to vote, rather than choosing to register in the period that's made available for registration. We disagree about that. We've had the debate and don't need to pursue it.

In respect to voter cards, members will remember that prior to the last election, every listed voter -- not necessarily every eligible voter, but every voter on the

[ Page 3395 ]

voters' list -- received a small wallet-sized card, which most of us retained. Often in elections voters also get a card which tells them where they're to vote -- the polling station location. Many voters take one or both of those cards to the polling station with them; many don't. Many people are like some of us who don't pay a hydro bill one month because we've lost it. We wait till it comes next month and pay it late. That's the nature of human beings. Every one of us isn't in perfect control of all of our records at home and all of our systems, and sometimes we misplace pieces of paper. Sometimes we don't think they're important, because they don't mean anything or because we are maybe a part of the 30 percent of Canadians who aren't literate, who can't read. For a whole variety of reasons, people may not retain the card, or they may not have it with them on election day. They may be at a place other than their home on election day and vote as an absentee, and they may not have their card with them. It may be in safekeeping at home because they've been working in the bush for a couple of months -- as often happens in my constituency. There are a variety of reasons why taking a card wouldn't work. Let me tell you the most obvious one: people are basically honest. There are severe penalties in the legislation for violating the act by voting twice. People don't do it. There have been very few instances in Canadian history.

Think about municipal elections. The member has been involved in municipal politics. There's no list. People can register to vote in municipal elections on election day. In municipal elections in this province, how many times do we hear that certain people have been elected because people have voted twice or have voted often? It doesn't happen. If it does happen, then we bring the full force of the law down on them. It's just not a problem.

I don't want to be too strong about this statement. But we believe that people are honest, and we trust them. I think people will reciprocate that trust, as has been demonstrated many times before.

R. Neufeld: I think that most people feel that most people are honest. Voting is both a right and a privilege. It's the same as a driver's licence. You have a right to drive when you're 16, but there is something that you have to do. There's an onus on the person to go in and do the test and be registered. There's nothing wrong with registering to vote, because it is a right and a privilege -- one of the greatest rights and privileges that anybody in Canada has.

The one question I have is on the section 80 votes, if you're going to do that to accommodate 18-year-olds voting in the referendum if it's held this fall. From what I understand, that's why we're bringing in the section 80 votes. Will the section 80 votes be counted in the constituency where you reside, or will they be counted wherever you vote?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The votes are counted where you reside. You might vote absentee if you reside in another community. You can think of instances where people may have a choice as to where they reside. I think of university students in particular, whose place of residence may be their home community or the university neighbourhood. In that instance, people are going to have to choose their place of voting. In a referendum, it's not going to be of nearly as much concern as it could conceivably be in a general election. So the answer is that your residence determines where the vote is counted, not where you vote.

R. Neufeld: Let's say that I vote down here in the next election. Under the section 80 vote, my vote will be counted in Peace River North, where I really reside. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I may have inadvertently misled the member. On the section 80 vote you have to vote in your home poll in order for it to be counted, with these amendments. In other words, if the member is not on the voters' list in Peace River North, is down here but lives in Peace River North, the member will not be able to take advantage of section 80 on polling day. The member will have to go back to his home and register under section 80 there.

R. Neufeld: As I understand it, that limits me as to my voting. I believe the way it was this last election, I didn't have to be in my own constituency to vote. As long as I had my voter's card I could be here or in Vancouver and vote, but that vote was counted in Peace River North. If the bill that you're bringing forward now says the same thing.... If I'm down here and I vote, then that vote counts in Peace River North; it doesn't count in Vancouver-Point Grey or wherever. Then it's much the same thing. I don't have much problem with that other than that it's going to get awful hard to do on polling day, because you have to have so many other people there. If it works much the same, then I don't really have any problem with it. But if you're going to eliminate me from voting if I happen to be here, then I do have some problems with it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member is on the list in Peace River North and is living or visiting here and can't get back on polling day or an advance day, he can vote here as an absentee. The vote will then be counted in your home constituency.

Now just so I can complete this, because I hear another question that isn't going to be in Hansard. Students -- this is the area that I think many members might be concerned about. Let's say, for example, the referendum is in October. Students who leave their hometown and go to UBC, let's say, and are living in Vancouver, but are on the list in their home riding, will be able to vote absentee, the same way we just talked about the member being able to do. If they're not on the list anywhere in the province, then on polling day, if they don't get themselves registered in advance, they will be able to vote in the constituency in which they live in Vancouver -- or at UVic or Simon Fraser or whatever. If they're not on a list, they will be able to vote where they live at that time. There is no time requirement for residency. Where you reside the day of the vote is what counts.

[ Page 3396 ]

K. Jones: I really support the concept of what you're trying to do. I think it's very commendable that we want to give everybody the opportunity to vote who's eligible to vote.

I'd like to follow up on three different areas of concern. First of all, you're saying that students at a university or college, away from home, if they're on a voters' list, have a choice: they can vote by absentee ballot in their home riding, or they can choose to vote in the university riding. The minister acknowledges that by his nod. Yet if they became eligible to vote in the last days just prior to the election, and then file to be registered under section 80, they have a choice of voting only in the riding where the university or college is located. They don't have the right to vote for the person who is in their home community and who they've always been supporting and maybe working for in their campaign in the past -- or something like that. They would like to support that person. Yet their friend, who is already registered in that riding, has the right by absentee ballot to vote in that riding. It seems to be inequitable from just one student to the other. I think there must be some way that we could accommodate this by maybe including in the next section....

[7:15]

I'd like to go to subsection (6), the last one in this section 3, in which the names are placed into a polling book at the polling station, and they are then eligible to vote according to that. They're literally registered at that polling station. There's really no way of controlling persons who may vote at several locations. I know that you're saying it doesn't happen very often. That's fine. Let's hope it doesn't happen very often. But if it does, even if it's a small number of votes and they aren't put into a separate envelope, as is provided for under the previous section 80, there's no way of separating those votes from the overall vote. Therefore, if there's any question of the person having voted twice, it totally invalidates that entire vote. It has to. If there's a question about two votes in the election, there has to be a way that that vote can be appealed, and the appeal is to a new election. You can't just say: "We've got a count, and we know there's been an error." The error is the basis of challenge for that election.

Perhaps you could just respond to that. If we were to take that student application, and it's registered to the riding on the covering envelope, that vote could be then placed in the riding where they wanted to vote -- their home riding.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Members should remember that these amendments are not designed for anything more than a possible referendum later this year or a by-election, should that happen. Therefore the issue of which riding you're in is really of little consequence.

The issue of section 80 absentee registration is one that I want to look at for the major amendments that we deal with next year. I think there's a valid point there, because the principle that I come at this from is that everybody should have the right to vote, and therefore we shouldn't put any impediments in their way. In a referendum, because all the votes are pooled in any event, it doesn't matter whether they're counted in my riding, yours or somebody else's. That's why we have not done extensive amendments here to look at all of those kinds of questions.

The major point the member makes relates to fraud, I guess: voting twice or voting often. When voters go to vote they have to sign their name and write in their address. The address has to be in the poll in which they are voting, and they have to show identification demonstrating that is their address. So in order to circumvent the rules and vote more then once, they will have to provide another address in another polling division with another piece of ID that demonstrates that they live at that place too. As I mentioned earlier, there were suggestions that in 1986 that kind of activity might have occurred on 20 occasions. When that was checked out, in fact it hadn't occurred. When allegations are made that such activity is occurring, the elections branch has all the information available, including signatures that they can compare, and prosecutions would ensue.

I need to repeat that with the exception of Quebec, all the Canadian jurisdictions except ours have this kind of provision for election day registration, and there is no problem anywhere with it. Neither has there been any problem at the municipal level that has ever been drawn to our attention regarding this issue. If it happens once or twice then it happens once or twice, and we'll hopefully find out about it, prosecute and hopefully get a conviction.

The member talks about it happening and then elections being invalidated as a result. If one person votes twice somewhere and it happens two or three times.... Let's say two or three illegal votes occur but someone has won the riding by 5,000 votes. No court is going to overturn that result. If there's a suggestion that there may have been 50 or 60 double voters and the election was won by five or six, then a couple of things could happen. The court may well rule the election null and void, and there would be pretty vigorous efforts to take to court and prosecute those 50 or 60 people who did that. I think the penalties are so severe that people aren't going to do it, and the evidence is in that they don't do it.

K. Jones: I'd just like the Attorney General to contemplate that even if it's a very small opportunity, a minor change to your legislation would mean a small cost for envelopes to put these ballots into versus several hundred thousand dollars to rerun an election. Elections are expensive to hold; therefore, if you have an invalidation, even if it's a very small chance.... And there are occasions. I know; I experienced it in the north Island, north of your area -- including your area -- in a federal election where it was overturned by 50 votes that were found to be miscast, or something like that.

Interjection.

K. Jones: Pardon? Somebody had won the election? Well, it really doesn't matter.

This type of thing can happen. These situations occur. Therefore the small process that was in place

[ Page 3397 ]

before of having the ballot go into an envelope and be counted separately is much more effective than the cost of having a whole election again. That's what we're trying to get across; we're not trying to stop the concept. We think the concept is a good idea. It's just that a minor change to this could avoid having to go to a great deal of expense.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Members will remember, in the 1986 election, the long lineups that occured in many polling stations as a result of the section 80 procedures at that time, which required a ballot envelope and took a considerable amount of time. One of the consequences of that was that many people, having stood in line for 30 minutes or longer -- in some cases much longer -- actually went home and didn't bother voting because of the long lineups. That was a consequence of a ballot envelope system with a section 80 -- not the same section 80 procedure, but a similar one.

The member is suggesting that everyone who is registering on election day should have their ballot put in an envelope, because it should then be determined whether it's legal or not, and then count it later in order to avoid controverts. That is making an assumption that people who register on election day are registering illegally, while all the people who registered in advance of the election registered legally. I don't understand why the member would think that some people, if they wanted to vote illegally, wouldn't get themselves on the list a few days or a few weeks in advance in any event. The member has far less confidence in human beings than I have. The evidence is clear that people do not vote twice. In fact, we can get only 75 to 80 percent of them to vote once, much less getting 100 percent to vote in the first place and much less getting people to vote twice. It just doesn't happen; people don't go out and try to stuff ballot boxes. This is a legacy of novels or of times long gone by.

K. Jones: I hope the minister is prepared to foot the bill as a personal debt if this ever does occur. Perhaps that would be the best way of dealing with this.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. We are dealing with section 3, and I would ask you to confine your remarks to section 3. The Chair has allowed considerable latitude, but I would ask you to keep your remarks to section 3.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, let me just deal with the point the member is making. Controverted elections occur occasionally. They occur when the winner wins by a handful of votes -- half a dozen or occasionally as many as 15 or 20. There is a variety of reasons why an election can be controverted. More often than not they have to do with whether or not the ballot is marked in a way that's identifiable or whether it's marked in accordance with the rules in respect to X's, pencils or those kinds of rules. Those are the main reasons why a controvert could occur, but they only occur when the vote is close.

I can't remember an election that has been controverted when somebody has won by more than 100 votes. There may be, but one doesn't come to mind. In the one the member refers to in the old riding of Comox-Alberni federally, the Liberal who won, won by eight votes. There were more than eight members of the Armed Forces living in Comox who had turned out and voted illegally. As a result, given that there were more than eight, the election was controverted.

The member is suggesting that because people will have election day registration there's going to be an opportunity for more illegal votes. I just reject that. I don't think that's going to happen, and the evidence is clear it won't.

L. Fox: With respect to section 80 votes, I have a couple of concerns. In stating my concerns, I don't want to suggest that any member of this assembly would take advantage of it in the way that I am going to put it to you. I want to make that clear; I don't want to impugn anybody's integrity. But I have seen what happens with this type of voting at the municipal level. Pubs are cleaned out -- by respective candidates' workers, generally, and not the candidate -- to encourage them to go down to the polling station, one way or another, to vote for their candidate. I've seen it happen. I've seen one municipality -- and the Attorney General may be aware of it -- where beer was handed out by a worker -- again, not the candidate -- in order to induce voting. That has to be a real concern to me. A lot of the time individuals could be under the influence of alcohol and so on. Perhaps there isn't going to be that gross misuse of the system, but the opportunity is there to do that.

The other side of the coin is that I could see section 80, or an enlargement of it, being a real benefit to the voters, because I see less and less need to register. If you're not registered on the voters' list, you won't be besieged with all these candidates' literature. Perhaps that would be a benefit in this whole process; I don't know.

Given the fact that there will be less emphasis on registering, will the registrar's office be smaller? How do we see the costs in terms of this new emphasis with respect to section 80? It would appear to me that we're going to need many more clerks on election day, because the incentives will not be there to preregister. Perhaps the minister could give me some indicators on those concerns.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, in respect of the first comment, we all agree that no one in this chamber would ever resort to.... One of the distinctions in municipal elections is that if you were to clear out the beer halls, as the member suggests, and take people to the polling station, you can take them to any polling station, and they're able to vote within the wider municipality. In this case, you'll have to figure out which polling station division they live in and make sure they can get to the right one and produce their address and some ID. So I think the....

L. Fox: Not in rural B.C.

[ Page 3398 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In rural B.C. we're going on the evidence of....

K. Jones: Point of order. The minister's talking about municipal elections. This act has to do only with provincial elections.

[7:30]

The Chair: Hon. member, the minister is responding to a question. That is different from talking to a particular section.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not for me to say, but we were in order because we were trying to sort out what the consequences of this section could be. The member raises a concern that is legitimate, and I think it deserves a legitimate answer. I'm simply saying that we don't think that opening this will lead to the kind of situation the member describes. I can't say anything more than that.

With respect to costs, given the time-frame in which we're looking at notification of a possible referendum -- this fall, the costs of mounting an enumeration and doing it completely and successfully are much greater than the costs of providing additional clerks at the polling station to deal with the section 80 voters. That would be a far less expensive exercise than a comprehensive enumeration that would be required to be done in a compressed time-frame, rather than the three or four months it would ordinarily take.

In respect of what the voters' lists are going to look like, the member makes an interesting point about political parties. It will be the political parties which will lobby the hardest to keep lists that are as comprehensive as possible, because parties depend on these lists for their campaigning, as we all know.

With the cooperation which we are receiving from municipalities, we think that we will now have the ability to have a continuing list under the current system. Obviously the whole question is up for review next year, but in the present system we think we're in a position to be able to develop a more comprehensive and fuller list than we have historically been able to do. In fact, most people should be on the voters' list come referendum day.

L. Fox: Just to pick up on that point, it appears to me that in the past -- I guess it was in the 1986 election -- even though you were allowed to vote under section 80, that didn't automatically put you on the list. In fact, you came to the next election, and just because you had voted that day you weren't on the list. Is the minister now suggesting that the section 80 voters are going to be incorporated into the list?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Correct. In the old days the act of voting didn't put....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, '86 is the old days. It didn't automatically put you on the list. This system will. People not on the list who register by this section 80 system, and therefore are valid section 80 voters and are eligible otherwise, will then be automatically inscribed onto the voters' list.

A. Warnke: We've covered quite a bit of ground on this, but I want to clarify something just to make absolutely certain where we are. Let us approach it this way. From what's being described here, we are dealing with someone who votes only once. Is there a possibility that someone who votes only once can actually invalidate their vote, if they're registered in one riding but move into another riding? For example, if they lived in Richmond East, and they moved into Richmond Centre or something like that, there might be a bit of a problem. If there is some sort of confusion, is it possible that that person's vote could actually be invalidated?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. If you're on the list in Peace River North and when the referendum comes you're living in Richmond-Steveston and you're not on a list there, you can register by way of section 80 in Richmond-Steveston even though your name is still on the list in Peace River North. Your vote will be counted in Richmond-Steveston as a result of having been sworn in on election day.

C. Serwa: Section 3 is quite an interesting section. This bill is fundamentally a political bill. I recognize that it's a political bill because, for the first time this session, I saw the hon. minister become quite animated during second reading. While we had some fun on second reading, perhaps we'll have some more fun tonight.

With respect to dual registration.... Again I'll make reference to '86, when a number of dual registrations were actually involved. There was no follow-up to establish the residence, whether it was a temporary type of residence or their permanent residence. The section 80s in 1986 allowed a voter to utilize his vote where he saw that it might be best utilized. There was actually no check on that. Does the minister not feel that it contravenes the spirit of the Election Act to be registered in a constituency and then arbitrarily decide to cast your vote in another constituency, even though your residence there is only temporary?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The principle is the right to vote, first of all. Secondly, the voter has to declare and demonstrate, by way of ID, his residence. If you have lived for a few weeks or months in one constituency because you're working or studying there and have your permanent, long-term residence in another community, you therefore have the right to choose where to vote. The member is asking me if that is consistent. That's an issue that I'm interested in looking at when we do the review of the elections legislation. That point doesn't matter in the referenda that this is dealing with.

I need to remind everybody, again, that these amendments are not designed to be comprehensive. They're not designed to prepare us for the next general election where this kind of question would be a legitimate one. These amendments were done quickly; I don't mind admitting that. They were done in anticipa-

[ Page 3399 ]

tion of having a referendum this fall. It doesn't matter where you cast votes, as long as you cast your votes in British Columbia for that purpose.

In respect of the question that the member asks, as I said, it's a legitimate one. It's one that we'll look at when we review the Election Act next year. The member needs to know that I'm going to want to be very careful to ensure that people don't lose a right as a result of this. We all need to recognize that there are going to be a lot of grey areas that we'll never be able to define absolutely. Is the residence of university students, in their second or third year of study at a university, for eight months of each of those years, there or is it back home where they have their summer job and their family lives? That's a good question. That question gets answered now. People have the right to choose which of those places they vote. They cannot choose to vote somewhere else, though. They can't choose to say, "My riding is hopeless," or "My riding is a surefire winner, therefore I'm going to find one where my vote will count more effectively," and go and vote there. They have no residence there and no status in that riding.

It's not really an issue for this amendment this time because of our commitment to do a full review, which will in fact deal with general election questions.

C. Serwa: I'd like to pursue a number of questions. But if the minister is prepared to assure me that this won't become part of the permanent Election Act, then I have no difficulty with the questions. I wouldn't go into prolonged debate on this if I were assured of that. However, if this becomes part of the permanent Election Act and we have no other opportunity to address it, I have a number of very serious concerns with respect to section 80 votes that I would like to achieve some comfort on from effective communication in this Legislature.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't give an absolute guarantee. I'd like to be able to, but I can't give an absolute guarantee that the act will amended, when it is, by way of a new statute as opposed to an amending bill. So that's point No. 1. My sense is that it would be by way of a new bill rather than an amending bill, and that would guarantee the right of debate on this issue.

Secondly, I can't guarantee at this stage that if it's an amending bill, this clause would be up for debate again. It wouldn't be unless it had further changes. I suspect, however, that the member can feel comfortable on both counts that the issue will be canvassed come our major discussion on the election law. I'm not giving an absolutely categorical answer, because I'm doing this off the top of my head. But I can say to the member that it would be my view that we will have a full and complete review of the Election Act. If we do that, then the member's concern is covered. I can't make that decision in response to a question from the floor here. As the member knows, there's a fair amount of process to go through before we come to that conclusion. But I can say to the member that it's my view that it's time this Legislature had a full debate on all issues of the election law.

C. Serwa: I appreciate the integrity of the answer of the Attorney-General. I guess my problem is in knowing that it's not entirely within the domain of the Attorney-General and of the executive branch of government. That opportunity to recanvass this issue in the Legislature may or may not occur. If I perhaps had an undertaking that it would in fact occur, then my concerns with respect to the Election Amendment Act would be resolved, in that we would look at this completely.

As I indicated, there are substantial concerns with section 80 votes and the way political advantage has been taken. I'm not saying that there was any.... I'm not going to impugn any member of the Legislature, but the fact is that the realization of a political advantage was taken with section 80 votes and with dual registration. I might also inform the hon. Attorney-General that there were abuses where individuals voted twice. They were referred to the Attorney-General. It was indicated that no action would or should be taken, and the Attorney-General knows full well, too, that now the previous election records have been destroyed.

I have a great number of concerns. This may be the inappropriate time, but if I had some sort of undertaking that we would have a recurrence of this opportunity, then I would leave it for the moment. But if we do not have a recurrence of the opportunity, then I have a number of questions that I would like to ask the Attorney General, and once again I would like an undertaking, perhaps.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I could assure the member that I will be the minister responsible next spring, I would assure the House that there would be a full debate on this subject and all others inside the Election Act. I hope to be, I expect....

F. Gingell: You haven't heard any rumours?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I haven't. I expect to be, but who knows in this business from day to day what potholes one steps into. Therefore I can't give.... I can give the member my personal assurance that if I am responsible for the introduction of new election legislation in British Columbia next spring, there will be a new bill entirely and this subject will be canvassed. But I can't predict the future, I can't guarantee and I can't commit the government. There may be a new minister and a new philosophy, and there may be a minister who thinks the existing law is perfect. I doubt it, but it's possible. I think the odds are so overwhelming in favour of there being a full debate of this that the member should feel comfortable.

[7:45]

C. Serwa: I'll accept that assurance rather than prolonging the debate at this particular time. I am confident, in looking over the executive branch of government, that there is no one else that can fill the hon. Attorney General's shoes in any event. He has my highest respect for his honour and integrity. He is in fact an honourable man, let alone an hon. member. Perhaps my concern about delving into section 80 votes and the

[ Page 3400 ]

ramifications of them is not necessary at this time, and I'll reserve that opportunity for full debate on the Election Act at the appropriate time.

A. Warnke: If it's any consolation to anyone in this chamber, I will make darned sure that I will use the Attorney General's words for any possible successor, and will leave the matter at that.

K. Jones: I want to continue with a question on section 3 where it goes into the identification of the person applying and it calls for some ID that gives the person's residence and one document which has the applicant's signature. Could the minister tell us why photo ID, which is required in almost every other application, is not being required in this case? As you say, it's a right, and therefore they should be able to prove who they are as conclusively as in any other circumstances. We have a lot of people who are very good at providing residence identification, and photo ID in some cases, for many different identifications. Just go to any university and you can probably be guaranteed that there will be some sources of finding ways to meet the liquor age with falsified identification. But photo ID at least makes it a little more of a requirement to help make sure that people are the persons they claim to be.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's interesting that the pieces of identification that liquor store employees most often find used fraudulently are drivers' licences, which in fact are photo IDs. Those are the ones that are doctored more than any other, which is a concern for another debate at another time, and an administrative concern of mine.

Unlike the member and me, a lot of people don't have photo IDs. If we put a requirement in here for photo ID, it would disqualify many people from voting. Many people don't have a driver's licence, for example, and never intend to have one. There are very few other pieces of ID that include a photo. If people want to forge a document, they're going to be able to forge a photo ID as effectively as any other. What we're saying here is two pieces, and they have to have a signature on one of them. They have to sign the poll book, and they have to put their address in the poll book. We think that's sufficient to intimidate anybody who might think they want to try to abuse the system. Certainly, it's enough to ensure that we catch them if they do.

The Chair: I would just remind the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale that the issue of dual voting has been extensively canvassed.

K. Jones: I just wanted to assure the minister, when he makes statements like "it's not designed for the next election" and "I can't give an absolute guarantee," that this will be canvassed again. The minister is making the assumption that this government may not be defeated in the next period. This is a possibility.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. Your comments should be confined to section 3.

K. Jones: I'm responding to the minister's statement on section 3.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. You can ask supplementary questions, but not make responses to the minister's answer unless they confine themselves to section 3.

K. Jones: That's what we're talking about -- section 3. The Chairman has permitted that type of conversation previously.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

A. Warnke: One of the hon. members from Victoria uttered something, and it's actually one of the few times I might even agree with them.

I must ask one question. I understand the attempt here to be consistent by substituting "a person" instead of "a registered voter". Actually it's kind of relevant to section 4 as well. I just want some clarification. The procedure is a bit unclear for anyone bringing themselves to the attention of the returning officer in advance of the polling day, to the point where the returning officer actually establishes a special polling place. Why not register the person at that point, when the person is approaching the returning officer? I looked at the original act. Why call a person a person when in fact the person could register as a voter at that time? It's just a bit of clarification.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Would it help the member if I indicated to him that the special polling place is only in the office of the returning officer? Does that satisfy the concern? Otherwise we're talking about ensuring that persons have the right to register on that occasion. If you left "a registered voter" there, then the person who needs to take advantage of this isn't going to be a registered voter.

A. Warnke: Yes, that does clarify the situation.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 76, Election Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 66.

[ Page 3401 ]

ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAX
REFORM ACT,
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 66; M. Farnworth in the chair.

The Chair: We are on the amendment to section 17(a), which was moved by the member for Delta South. I shall read it for the members: "adding the word 'estimated' before 'actual' and adding the words 'applied in a consistent manner' after 'value'."

On the amendment to section 17 (continued).

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member and I have discussed his amendment. I appreciated the opportunity to consult with the member on his suggestions.

I cannot accept the first part of the amendment, which suggests "estimated," but I am prepared to accept "applied in a consistent manner" after "value." If the member is willing to change the amendment accordingly, I can accept that.

F. Gingell: I must say, as I said during the earlier debate, that I don't think actual value is definable. I think it is always estimates. They're your estimates and they're my estimates. I appreciate that there are other problems which may arise by having that word in there, and I'm thankful to the minister for his acceptance of the balance of the amendment.

The Chair: The amendment adds "applied in a consistent manner" after "value."

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

F. Gingell: This is similar to the proposed amendment in section 17. We're now dealing with section 69 of the act, which deals with the manner in which the Court of Appeal can deal with subjects that are appealed from the court of revision. In line with my previous amendment, I move that section 20(a) be amended by adding the words "applied in a consistent manner" after "value."

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member and I discussed this suggestion for amendment to section 20, and I have tried to explain to him in a fairly convivial atmosphere why I cannot accept this amendment on this section. Very quickly I'll try to give the reasons to the House. The Assessment Appeal Board is quite different than the court of revision, obviously, but the significant difference is that the Assessment Appeal Board only hears about 1,000 appeals out of 1.3 million properties in British Columbia. So the problem with that is that with such a small sample it's difficult to get a sense of consistency, which the member is trying to achieve. The court of revision, however, hears 40,000 appeals on average per year and therefore gets a sense of consistency, gets a broad-based sample and can get a sense of that issue.

[8:00]

The appeal board, as the member knows, looks at individual properties, where the court of revision often looks at the broad-based sample. By looking at the individual properties, of course, they base their decisions on the merits of individual assessments. So there are, from discussing with staff and experts in this field, some real problems in accepting your amendment on this section. I understand where the member's coming from, but hopefully I've explained that the sampling and the consistency issue is not available in the appeal board section.

Amendment negatived.

On section 20.

F. Gingell: I just cannot allow section 20 to go through without making the point that under 20(b) the proposal is to appeal section 69(1)(e). I'd just like to read that into the record, because I think it is important. Section 69(1)(e) reads: "...whether or not the value at which an individual parcel under consideration is assessed bears a fair and just relation to the value at which similar land and improvements are assessed in the municipality or rural area in which it is situated."

What you have is the government wanting to take out of this act the requirement that each piece of property is valued in a fair and consistent manner with all of the other pieces of property that have been assessed. I just wanted to put on the record my complete and absolute disagreement with the government on this subject.

Hon. R. Blencoe: My staff and I have tried diligently over the last week or two to satisfy both opposition members, and I guess it comes down to a difference of opinion. In the end, time will indeed test the issue. We feel that we are doing something substantial in terms of really protecting the average homeowner. The issue of equity really has been misinterpreted and abused. It really wasn't an issue of equity.

If, as the member suggests, we get all sorts of problems mounting, then obviously this government will have to take a look at it.

L. Fox: It's a shame that we're bouncing around from legislation to legislation. I missed the opportunity to speak on 17.

F. Gingell: Oh, did you? You spoke on it at great length.

L. Fox: Not today I didn't. I missed the opportunity in committee, because I bombed down to the bathroom for a few minutes. However, let me speak to 20.

[ Page 3402 ]

A major concern with this area of legislation is the fact that if there are properties identified through the appeal process that the Assessment Appeal Board does not consider to be of real value.... If I use two or three other properties in order to argue that my values are too high, this provides an opportunity for the Assessment Appeal Board to raise the values of those other properties to my value, or real value. I know I won't win that argument.

My concern is back to square one, which I spoke to at second reading stage. That is, given the fact that appeal deadlines have already been passed, what appeal do those individual property owners have other than paying that year's taxes based on that increased assessment and coming back the following year and arguing? I know we will fundamentally differ with respect to this section, as we did with section 17. But I can tell the minister that this particular area removes a right of due process to the homeowner. The minister might want to comment on that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think we've gone through this over and over again. I'll say to the member that the people the member is concerned about will have the same right of appeal as people have always had when adjustments are being made through the supplementary assessments. I tried to point out this afternoon that very little, if anything, has changed for the average homeowner in terms of appealing assessments or the discrepancies. I guess that's all I can really say on the issue. But the member can carry on.

L. Fox: I will carry on. This afternoon the minister read from a booklet that was the document for the appeal board prior to these amendments being in there.

Interjection.

L. Fox: Yes, but this legislation, obviously, isn't or shouldn't be in that booklet. In any case, if it is, I don't know why we're even discussing it.

Interjection.

L. Fox: It has changed. In fact earlier today the minister, in answer to points made by the Liberal critic, read from notes passed to him from the assessment board. Those notes were not even true; they were not even correct.

The concern I have is fairness to those individuals who do not realize or understand the fact that their property was going to be reassessed through the appeal process. They had not received notification of that, and under this act will not receive notification until they actually have to pay the taxes based on the increased assessment. If this bill is flawed at all, it is because it does not provide those property owners the opportunity to contest that action taken by the appeal board prior to having paid taxes on that particular increased assessment.

If the minister really wants to be fair to those homeowners, he should look upon providing an opportunity, albeit a very short one, for those taxpayers to come forth and argue against an arbitrary assessment placed on them by the appeal board.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll try to give the member some comfort again, although it seems to be difficult to do that. Section 20 allows the Assessment Appeal Board to order the assessment commissioner to reassess an area where the assessment appealed against is at fair market value, but the assessments of similar land and improvements in the area are below their actual value. Let me make a couple of points on exactly what that section does. It parallels a section that has been in the Assessment Act for many years allowing the board to order the assessment commissioner to reassess an area because assessments in that area are below actual value. That has been in the Assessment Act for years -- point one. If the member is aware of that, perhaps he doesn't recall it.

Second, it's not new. Existing section 11(1) of the Assessment Act requires assessors to reassess on a supplementary assessment roll any property that they find is assessed at less than the amount for which it is liable for assessment. These changes occur after the assessment roll is complete and, for the most part, after the current appeal period for the year has lapsed. They are a routine part of the assessment system and have been for many years. This is how assessment errors are corrected and have been corrected that way for many years. Any such changes can be appealed for the current year at the next sitting of the court of revision; that's nothing new.

The new powers are more restrictive. They allow the assessment appeal board an appeal tribunal to order the assessment commissioner -- not individual assessors -- to deal with incorrect assessments which are too low. For the assessor this is not a new power; it can be done now using current rules. The new powers, though, enable the appeal board to order such reassessments where evidence presented to it indicates that properties under appeal are correctly assessed, but there are apparent inconsistencies in the treatment of other properties.

The only new power is that which permits the board to order a reassessment. This doesn't necessarily mean that values will be changed. The assessment commissioner may find that all property in the reassessment area is at actual value and not change values following the reassessment. If values are increased, that will be because they have been assessed for less than the amount for which they are liable to assessment -- something any assessor could do under the current legislation without a order from the board. I've tried to explain that we are changing some things, but most of the things that you are concerned about are currently permitted.

F. Gingell: Is it possible for any residential property owner to have received his assessment notice and at some time after the time for appeal has lapsed -- so it's not appealable -- receive a new assessment notice increasing the assessed value of his property?

[ Page 3403 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, even under the current system.

[8:15]

F. Gingell: Seeing that's in the current act, don't you think we should sit down right now and work out a means by which someone does not have their rights of appeal stripped from them when an assessment amount has been increased on their property, and they're given notification of it after the time of appeal?

That's not the way we work in this country. That sort of thing may happen in Russia and in some South American dictatorships, but it isn't the way we work in Canada. Surely we have a history of the right of citizens to appeal decisions. If something has been changed after the date and the date of appeal has gone by, surely none of us want legislation that allows that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: There is no stripping of appeal. You can appeal your assessment to the next court of revision. But the same thing happens today.

F. Gingell: Things are changing.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member!

L. Fox: I believe the minister is not totally correct in this. As I understand it, if in fact there is an assessment adjustment under the current act, it is adjusted but not for the current tax year; it goes on the next roll. At least that has been the practice. If not, I fail to see why this amendment was even needed, if the minister is correct.

Interjection.

L. Fox: Well, that's true.

Obviously we've got a fundamental difference here about our understanding of what does happen and should happen. But it has been my understanding in talking to appeal board members that they have failed to use that section of the act in the current year, but they recommended that because the appeal process had already gone by, the following year the Assessment Authority recognize that property as being underassessed.

Section 20 approved on the following division:

Sections 21 to 43 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 66, Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act, 1992, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, by leave now.

Leave granted.

[8:30]

Bill 66, Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act, 1992, read a third time and passed on the following division:

Hon. R. Blencoe: I call committee on Bill 77.

[ Page 3404 ]

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1992

The House in committee on Bill 77; M. Farnworth in the chair.

On section 1.

A. Cowie: I have several comments to make through the Chair to the minister. Basically we see no problems with any of the sections covered under Bill 77. Under section 1, I would like to comment that I believe there are still a lot of grey areas. While agreeing with it in principle, I would expect that there will be other amendments coming along to clarify what conflict is. It has been a problem at the municipal level. This makes it clear that people leave the room and cannot speak to any part of a bylaw where there is a perceived conflict. That's clear enough, but there are many unclear issues on just what conflict is and what it isn't. I'm assured that that's going to come shortly.

Regarding section 4, I just want to point out that it regulates cutting and retaining trees on private property. This is going to be very costly to administer. I recognize that the city of Vancouver has asked for this, and so have other municipalities. Of course, the city of Vancouver has the people who can administer it, but it is costly, and in my opinion small municipalities will not be able to use this procedure. It will be too costly for them to do that. I personally believe you can do the same thing through good public relations and by teaching people why trees are important. I would rather see the money spent on that. I imagine most municipalities will in fact do that.

Under section 7, this again will be costly, because the board of variance will have to have expertise and staff to advise.

Other than that, I have no problem. As far as we're concerned on the official opposition side, this could be voted for as one. We will be not be opposing any particular section.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Very quickly on the conflict of interest. The member makes some good points. As members of this Legislature have had past conflict of interest, the Attorney General did indicate that we'll be reviewing conflict of interest of all public offices -- municipal, school boards and others. In my ministry we're also taking a look at a number of things -- the Election Act and various things. There will be substantial changes down the road.

This just takes care of the Harwood court case. It has been requested by local government to clarify or to re-enact the provisions to ensure that council members abstain from voting because they believe they're not entitled to vote, and are not deemed to have voted in the affirmative. It's a clarification.

L. Fox: A question with respect to the first one. I thought we were going to go on a one-by-one basis here.

After sitting on a municipal council for eight years.... Many times individual council members have stated the fact that they were in conflict and removed themselves from the room. That was all that was required. As I understand it, under this act they now have to state the reasons why they're in conflict. That is a concern to me. All municipal members fill out disclosure forms, and those are registered in the office. I do not believe that they should have to state each time they feel they are in conflict. The rule in municipal government is: if you think you're in conflict, you may in fact be in conflict. If they didn't feel that they wanted to disclose -- if it was an iffy situation -- this might cause them to reconsider. Would the minister comment on that?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't disagree with the member, in terms of conflict-of-interest rules that he and I worked under for years, but the Harwood court case and decision moved the goalposts, quite frankly. Simply leaving the room was not enough. In that case, if I remember the details, the member left the chamber but was still within the building, so.... I'm not going to comment on the merits of the decision.

If the member says that we are saying in this legislation that you have to give a definitive description of your conflict of interest, that is not true. You have to state the general nature of why the member considers that the member is in conflict. You don't have to go into detail.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Fox: I need some clarification with respect to this. This gives regional districts the same power as the municipality under the proposed new fire and security alarms systems section. Does that include the inspection of commercial premises with respect to fire alarms, for instance, and that kind of thing? What exactly is the minister doing here?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's just a cost-recovery item for the false alarm issue. As you know, Vancouver, for instance, is now going to be enacting the powers to set the rules. It costs the taxpayer and the police department if you have a fire alarm systems that constantly act up, and police or fire departments, or whatever, react. So it's a cost-recovery item.

L. Fox: Just one further point of clarification. This particular section says: "Regulation of fire alarm systems and other security alarm systems." Presently that's something which a lot of regional districts, because of the nature of them, don't really enforce. Are you mandating something here on regional districts that they presently do not have? I don't see anything to do with the cost recovery on false alarms here.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's only on nuisance false alarms, and it's optional.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

[ Page 3405 ]

L. Fox: Section 4 is the one that concerns me the most. It's the longest section. I have some real problems with it. I can understand a municipal council wanting to have the right to protect trees, I suppose, but I really am concerned here about legislation at any level which removes the right of a property-owner to be king over his own domain.

B. Copping: Or queen.

L. Fox: Or queen of her own domain. Good point.

This particular section actually has the possibility of giving a municipality the right to prevent you from cutting down a tree that may be hazardous to your home under wind conditions, or because it has grown beyond its original intent, it may provide shade over your garden which you don't want -- whatever the reason is. This particular legislation allows that kind of action to be taken by a municipal council.

I'm extremely concerned that once again we are not looking after and protecting the rights of citizens, but we're really reducing those rights through this action. For that reason I will be voting against this particular section and this bill.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I hear what the member is saying. I remember going through this legislation with staff in preparing it. There's always that debate about the rights of the citizen and the community versus the rights of the property-owner. You have to balance those kinds of issues out. In your line of thinking, all land use and zoning could be construed as having an effect on private property. I presume that the member doesn't say we should get rid of all community plans, zoning or regulations. No? Well, hon. member, there should be some consistency on your side.

Let me address another issue that I find surprising from your caucus, quite frankly. I recall when this concept was in the standing committee about two years ago. This was debated and came through for Vancouver when Vancouver wanted some controls. Your members supported such powers, and they forwarded it on to the Legislature. Unfortunately it was at the end of the session, and it didn't get a call. I don't know if there is a disagreement within your membership, but your former members supported this; I've even got it in Hansard from the standing committee. I'm surprised; I guess there's a change. Maybe this Social Credit caucus is further to the right than the last Social Credit caucus; I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me, hon. Chair. I find it very surprising.

To satisfy the member's ultra-right-wing views of this kind of issue, we have allowed for a board of variance appeal in this legislation. It's there. It's another court, if you will, for those aggrieved. So, hon. member, I hear you. UBCM is in favour of this; local government is in favour of this. Local councils, of course, are given the power to write wise bylaws that obviously will have public consultation.

[8:45]

J. Weisgerber: I never realized that the Social Credit caucus had such an influence on the member. Certainly there were many decisions that the caucus took. I'll look to see more of those decisions appear in legislation coming from the other side.

Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to tell us which members of this Social Credit caucus or of the previous Social Credit caucus sat on that select standing committee.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The members were: the venerable senator, Austin Pelton, who was a great supporter of this legislation; John Savage, former Minister of Agriculture, who thought this was good legislation; Hon. Angus Ree; Hon. Stan Hagen; and Mr. David Mercier, who was the only Social Credit member who spoke against it. But when it came to recording his vote, he declined to record his vote against it. There was considerable support.

But unfortunately your government at the time, for whatever reason, didn't call it forward. This government has had to bring forward this revolutionary legislation to ensure that we preserve trees in the province of British Columbia. You failed.

L. Fox: I'm really pleased. Every once in a while this minister comes forward with some of his own words, and it's really encouraging. He isn't reading them, for a change.

I have no way of knowing, because I wasn't here, but perhaps the minister does. What was being given to that particular standing committee for them to consider? Obviously it wasn't this bill in its present form.

In this bill you could require permits to cut or remove trees. In other words, you may even require a permit to trim your trees. If you wanted to prune your fruit tree, a municipal council could prevent you from doing that without coming forward and getting approval. Of course, with that approval would be a fee.

The other thing the minister talks about is the appeal process through the board of variance. That's a good point, and I just want to dwell on that for a moment. The board of variance is appointed: one member by council, one member by the provincial government. Now if they happen to be of the same political persuasion, you can well imagine that those two members are going to be in tune with the ideology of those two levels of government. How is the third person appointed? He or she is appointed by those two who have been respectively appointed by the municipal council and the provincial government. Obviously the appeal process is extremely flawed because it would be in concert with those two levels of government.

I have to say, once again -- and no matter how much the minister tries to say differently -- that this is an infringement of the rights.... It does not have the proper appeal process in it, because it's flawed during the makeup. Therefore I don't see a whole lot of reason to go on debating it, because I have seen the evidence of the long debates in this chamber and how much they achieve. I think the points have been made, and had this bill controlled on what basis trees could be cut.... For instance, even if it had suggested that if you cut a tree you must replant one -- although that goes a little bit against my grain -- I probably could have supported it

[ Page 3406 ]

because I would have known the intent of it. Under this situation and under this bill as it's written, I cannot support it because it's an infringement of the rights of people who own property.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Just a quick comment on the member's comments about local government. It's unfortunate, because that member comes from local government. This legislation is permissive. We believe local government is elected.... I'm giving them the opportunity to make decisions in a very important area that they deem in their community.... I hope the member is not saying the provincial government should control local governments -- tell them what they should do. This would allow them to.... I trust local government to make responsible bylaws to deal with the issue of trees. I think that member should have more trust in local government.

L. Fox: I'm really pleased that so many people are getting into it. It's great because we haven't seen that all day long. This minister knows very well that I have the greatest respect for municipal government and their abilities to regulate. The problem is, local governments change -- as do these governments -- and this government obviously will change by a lot of this legislation in the very near future. However, I must suggest that it's up to us, as provincial legislators, to look after the interests of the public in the legislation that we propose. If it weren't up to us, why would we have a Municipal Act at all? If we had so much trust in the municipalities, why would we have a Municipal Act at all? The reason is that there's some need for consistency throughout the province. When we allow independent municipalities to possibly take away the rights of individuals, then we have to be extremely concerned. I am extremely concerned.

Sections 4 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 77, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I call second reading of Bill 72.

TOBACCO PRODUCT AMENDMENT ACT,1992

Hon. E. Cull: The Tobacco Product Amendment Act makes important amendments to the Tobacco Product Act. These changes are primarily intended to curtail the use of tobacco by children and youth as recommended in the British Columbia Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. In addition to the grave health consequences experienced by many persons who smoke, there are significant social and economic costs which are borne by society.

A few statistics will indicate the enormity of the problem. Approximately 4,300 British Columbians die every year of smoking-related illnesses. That's approximately 16 percent of all deaths in the province. Thirty percent of all cancer deaths, including 87 percent of the deaths from lung cancer, are attributable to tobacco use. Thirty percent of all deaths due to coronary heart disease are attributable to cigarette smoking.

As a risk factor, smoking is more significant than either high blood pressure or high cholesterol. Maternal smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality, and a recent report states that environmental tobacco smoke is seriously carcinogenic and that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke is a risk factor in sudden infant death syndrome. Despite this knowledge, tobacco continues to be widely available. Virtually all new tobacco users are children, with an average age of initiation of 12 years.

In an effort to address the smoking issue in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion, the Ministry of Health through the office of health promotion has implemented a provincial tobacco use reduction strategy. This bill is but one element of that strategy, which also includes initiatives to provide education, promote cessation and support the development of clean-air indoor environments. Prince Edward Island has recently enacted legislation dealing specifically with tobacco sales to minors. Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are all preparing similar legislation.

Many of the amendments contained in this bill are of an enabling nature. That is, they provide the government with the authority, by regulation, to establish a licensing system for tobacco vendors, specify the terms and conditions that may be attached to a licensee, specify the particulars of health warnings that must be displayed with tobacco at the time tobacco is offered for sale, set a minimum package quantity for cigarettes and fix the minimum age for purchasers of tobacco. As you know, earlier today I moved and we passed a motion that would refer the regulations in this bill, the subject matter that can be regulated, to the Select Standing committee on Health and Social Services to make specific recommendations to guide the development of the regulations in the above areas.

This bill also establishes a number of very important prohibitions. For example, it forbids the sale of tobacco from a vending machine if that machine is not supervised and controlled to preclude its use by children and youth, and it forbids the sale of single cigarettes from an open package. It also requires proof of age prior to sale from persons who appear to be under the specified age. The tobacco vendor licence will be mandatory for all retailers who wish to sell tobacco, and contravention of the act or the regulation pursuant to it will be grounds for suspension or cancellation of the licence.

Just in wrapping up here, I want to bring to the members' attention a number of letters that I have received in the last week or so since we introduced this

[ Page 3407 ]

bill at first reading. The first one is from the Canadian Cancer Society, and this letter says: "We congratulate you on the commitment you have made to reducing a health problem that is eminently preventable."

The Heart and Stroke Foundation of B.C. and Yukon offers their wholehearted support for the legislation, and says: "Bill 72 is a most forward-looking piece of legislation, and is just the weapon needed to combat the incidence of tobacco smoking among our youth."

The Canadian Council on Smoking and Health expresses strong support, and they say: "These measures are essential if we are to effectively redress this serious health problem. Provincewide cigarette vendor licensing is an effective means of ensuring that retailers obey the law."

Prince Edward Island, which already has such a system in place, reports that its legislation is working well: "A ban on kiddie packs is also vital. Packs of 15 are very popular with adolescents, the most price-sensitive segment of the market. A recent survey in Nova Scotia indicates that almost half of all grade 6 students who smoke purchase this format on a regular basis."

The Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada say: "The legislation you have introduced will move British Columbia into the forefront of health promotion in Canada, and will serve as a tremendous example for other provinces to live up to."

The Canadian Oncology Society says: "You will appreciate the extreme frustrations felt by our members at the continuing epidemic of disability and death caused by the tobacco industry, and therefore understand that we are likely to complain that no legislation goes far enough to control tobacco usage in Canada." They conclude by saying: "We consider that you and your government have taken a giant step forward for British Columbia's children, and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts."

Airspace, a non-smokers' rights society, says: "This will be a positive step in reducing the carnage caused by tobacco, and will relieve the tremendous burden on the health care system in the future."

[9:00]

The B.C. Council on Smoking and Health says it lends its total support to the proposed legislation. The Nova Scotia branch of the Lung Association says: "The entire country will watch eagerly to see this legislation become law in British Columbia."

Closer to home here, the Greater Victoria Hospital Society lends its support and asks all members of the Legislature to demonstrate their concern about addiction to tobacco and its health cost to society by supporting the legislation. I have many more such letters. I won't read them all, but it has been very gratifying over the last week to receive support from people all across the country.

L. Reid: I rise this evening to support in principle the Tobacco Product Amendment Act, 1992. I believe that if we support this bill as a health promotion issue, we need to support it in principle.

It has been proven that ease of access does increase the usage of any product over time. If we can reduce the access that young British Columbians would have to this product, that's the direction we need to go in. The focus of this health mandate appears to be disease prevention, and that is the direction we want to go in.

I don't think you'd find anyone who would disagree that tobacco is a drug. The consequences of its use affect everyone in society, particularly through the cost of health care. While not all lung cancer is attributable to smoking, a very high proportion is. As a general rule, tobacco is thought to be responsible for 30 percent of all cancer deaths. I don't think you would find any members of the Liberal caucus disagreeing with the underlying premise of this legislation. We truly are in support of reducing access for young people.

An interesting trend is the increase in the number of deaths among women. British Columbia has the honour, if you will, of having the highest number of women smokers. That is not something we can be proud of. We need to look at increasing our educational programs to ensure that this kind of acceptance is decreased over time. I think this bill may go a long way toward doing that.

A lot of this, I believe, is directly related to the recommendations of the Seaton royal commission. It looks at licensing the sale of tobacco products and suspending licences. We're going into more intrusive legislation in that regard. One of the comments they make in here is that we should not permit pharmacies to sell tobacco. That's an interesting concept if you look at pharmacies as being an area where health is promoted.

One of the other comments that I would make is that setting a definite age for where we're going to go with this legislation is an interesting idea. We are very much in support of this bill in principle. We're looking at all the irregularities in the system.

One of the areas I touched on this morning was the sponsorship question. I think that it's a significant question, and this bill is lacking in that regard. As an overall comment, this bill does not touch on the current predicament of sponsorship. We have a ban on the advertising of tobacco-related products and tobacco, so you cannot see a reference to any tobacco product in advertising in Canadian magazines or on television. But when you attend many sporting events around this province and around this country, you will see those events being promoted and sponsored by tobacco companies. If we're truly committed to our campaign of reducing access for young people.... We tend to encourage young people to attend sporting events, so we are providing bulletin boards that suggest smoking is something they may wish to consider. That's one of the holes in this legislation, and I'm hoping that it's something we can come to grips with as we progress through this.

One of the other areas that we want to look at is with regard to health problems -- not just lung cancer. There are a number of things that by reducing young people's access we will hopefully be able to restrict. Again, the results of the treatment of lung cancer are very bad. Fewer than 10 percent of patients survive for five years. Those are dramatic statistics in terms of the impact on the cost of the delivery of appropriate health care in our system.

[ Page 3408 ]

One of the interesting comments that's not reflected in this particular legislation is the research that suggests physicians have the best record for encouraging their patients to be involved in programs that are going to help them stop smoking. That is something else we need to look at in terms of where we're going in the area of health care, because, quite honestly, those kinds of programs are currently not funded. I would submit that if we're going to make gains across the board, we can certainly restrict access to young people. But if we are truly committed to improving the health care of British Columbians based on their tobacco consumption, we need to look at putting funded programs in place that are going to allow folks who have been engaging in that habit to find some relief and success in reducing their smoking habits. Without the physician being involved, they say that the effectiveness of cessation programs usually average around 5 percent. Most people return to smoking over time. That is not something we should be promoting. We should be finding, as the research suggests, what is most effective and promoting only something that we know is going to make a difference.

Overall, the bill makes some reasonable points in principle, but I have some difficulties with the bill in terms of its enforceability.

If this government were truly interested in demonstrating leadership on this, they would refer this entire package to the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. There are two areas that need to be looked at in great detail. One is in terms of where young consumers are going to be allowed to purchase and at what age. We also need to have the committee very carefully consider whether or not we intend to continue having tobacco vending machines in this province.

I am not interested in pursuing the idea of restricting access to vending machines. That is unenforceable at best. If we're not going to have legislation that's truly reasonable and enforceable, we're simply wasting our time in this process. When this goes to the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services, I would hope to see the committee make a decision that outlaws vending machines in the province. That, in my view, would look at real leadership for where we want to go in terms of allowing our young people to have access to tobacco.

The Liberal opposition stands in support of this bill in principle. We would very much be in favour of seeing some refinements to it. I trust we will be proposing amendments to it as we move through the process, because at the end of the day, the intent of the Liberal opposition is to end up with decent legislation. If there is anything at all that we can do to improve it, to make it reasonable legislation and not a police state on vending machines, I think that's the direction we need to go in.

We support it in terms of its enforceability. We have some difficulty in terms of the practical aspects of it. I would speak very strongly to having committee stage of this bill moved to the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. In that area this government could finally allow some reasonable consultation and mediation time. I hope it could come back to this House with some very decent recommendations or regulations, so that once and for all the use of tobacco in this province can be restricted. Hopefully, by restricting access, we will indeed impact heavily on our health care system. We wish to reduce the number of deaths and associated illnesses as a result of the use of tobacco.

L. Fox: I rise to speak to the philosophy and principles of Bill 72, the Tobacco Product Amendment Act, 1992. While I certainly have no difficulty with the principle of the bill, it does trigger several concerns in my mind. When we talk about prohibition, as the minister did, I think we would all agree that prohibition itself really doesn't work. It's extremely difficult to legislate people to stop smoking. What we really need along with this is an educational process. I grew up and raised three children as a smoker. They didn't smoke, basically because the smell that I created in the home turned them off. Perhaps that was an education in itself.

I'm concerned about the fact that even with legislation that does not allow children under a certain age.... I notice that the age is not specified. That will probably be discussed by the standing committee and during committee stage of this bill. We all know that kids under a certain age cannot go into the liquor store and buy liquor, yet it's not difficult for them to get it. I'm concerned that we might be setting up the opportunity, through this legislation, for actually bootlegging cigarettes and setting up a new form of free enterprise, I suppose. It's obviously a concern to me, because I think we have to be very cognizant of those kinds of situations. We all know that presently.... In fact, I have native friends who suggest to me that if I need cigarettes they can get them for me without my paying tax. There are opportunities all across this province to acquire cigarettes if they really want them.

The point is that we're probably not going to stop a lot of children who are already addicted to the habit by limiting the sale of cigarettes. The issue here is: can we prevent new young people from starting into the process of becoming smokers? The question, to me, is whether or not this legislation will do that. I submit that the legislation by itself will not do that. It will make it more difficult perhaps, but it will not do that. We have to concentrate as well on more emphasis within the school system on the dangers of smoking. I have seen some of the films that are shown and have been shown pictures of lungs of smokers versus non-smokers and those kinds of things, and they do a great job of deterring young people from smoking -- those and the price of cigarettes. But I'm concerned that this legislation -- while it's well-intended, and I really believe that -- may only provide opportunities for individuals to take advantage of a situation. I happen to be on the standing committee that will be dealing with this issue, so those will be some of the concerns that I'll be putting forward there.

The other concern I have is with the licensing of vendors. What process are we going to have of inspecting this? Is this going to be policed by the public? Given the thousands of cigarette vendors we've got, what is the auditing procedure going to be? Or is there going to be one? What cost is there going to be for the vendors? And, I guess, what is a vendor? Is a vendor a motel

[ Page 3409 ]

owner who has a cigarette machine in his motel for customer convenience? Does that designate him as a vendor? These are all real concerns for me at this time. I look forward to the process. With that, I will support the principle of the bill, but I flag it with those concerns.

D. Mitchell: I, too, would like to add a few words to second reading debate on Bill 72. It's an important bill, and I think the government should be applauded for taking the initiative and bringing this kind of legislation forward. The legislation is important because it deals with a serious problem in our society. It's a problem relating to a drug. Oftentimes we do not think of tobacco as a drug, but it's a serious one and the addiction to the drug is a very powerful addiction. As a parent of two young daughters, I'm very concerned about the frequency of addiction to this powerful drug. I think the initiative is a good one in this bill, and I applaud the Minister of Health. I think it's appropriate for the Minister of Health of this government to be bringing this kind of legislation forward, because it is primarily a health issue.

There are some problems with the bill. No piece of legislation is perfect, and I think the minister would admit that. There's also a problem with the process by which the bill is being brought forward, though. We had a discussion earlier today when the minister brought forward a motion on the order paper, referring the subject matter of this bill to a select standing committee -- which I think is an excellent process. Unfortunately, now we're being asked to approve this legislation in principle, and presumably the government is going to be bringing it forward to the Committee of the Whole House before it goes to the select standing committee. I think that's problematic. The committee will then be dealing with the regulations only -- not with the legislation, but with the regulations to be passed pursuant to the act.

I have a problem with that, which I'd just like to address very briefly, because I think of paramount concern in this bill is the total delegation of legislative and regulatory power to cabinet or to officials of the Ministry of Health. In a matter this important, we in the opposition believe that a substantive matter such as that which this bill deals with would be dealt with more appropriately under review by the Legislature itself, rather than by delegating all of the powers under this bill to regulation. I think some of the details are missing from the bill itself. If this bill should be passed into an act, there are some details that should be contained within the act.

[9:15]

For instance, we believe that regulations should deal with administrative and bureaucratic details, not principles of substance. As an example, if the age of 18, which is being proposed by the government, is going to be the age for the legal sale of tobacco products in the province of British Columbia, then should that not be clearly stated in the act? We know of no other jurisdiction where the issue of age itself is dealt with by regulation rather than by legislation. Age should be enshrined in the statute itself, not by regulation and subject to change by the whim of the bureaucracy or by the government in power. That's one example of why we think there's too much authority delegated under this bill to the regulatory authorities of the ministry. There should be more substance in the bill itself, and that's why the bill itself should have been referred to the select standing committee for further study.

I think the member for Prince George-Omineca raised the question of who a vendor is under this act. The term "vendor" is not defined under the bill. Does it include a wholesaler? Does it include an importer of tobacco products into the province? Does it include anyone who would sell tobacco products or distribute tobacco products? Does it include what might be considered part of the underground economy for distribution of tobacco which, as I mentioned earlier, is a powerful drug? That's not defined in the bill. I think the consequences could be very wide-ranging, depending on what the definition of a vendor is under this bill. We'll address that more in the committee stage, but again, the bill is very vague on details such as these.

The bill specifies that the number of cigarettes in a package.... It refers to.... I think they've hit the wrong target on this one, and this is something interesting, hon. Speaker. Again, we'll speak more about this in committee. In principle, research shows that in 1991, packages of 15 cigarettes represented less than 1 percent of all packages sold in British Columbia. But if packages of 15 are banned under the terms of this bill, which may become an act, then perhaps people will simply buy packages of 20. Is the intent of the bill to encourage the small percentage of people who buy packages of 15 to now buy packages of 20? The only positive effect of that for this government is that the tobacco tax, which has been increased by the Minister of Finance, will bring more revenue into the government under the minister's tax on tobacco, which is already the highest cigarette tax in Canada. Is that what the government is trying to do here? They're seeking to bring in more revenue? Surely that should not be the principle of this bill, which should be to deal with the serious problem of tobacco addiction, not raising extra revenues for the government. We're trying to encourage young people to smoke packages of 20 rather than 15, and that could be one of the consequences. I would ask the Minister of Health to address that in her closing remarks on second reading.

The other issue deals with vending machines. I think some of the members have dealt with that issue. We know that there are less than 1,000 vending machines in this province, and that most of them are located in adult locations such as bars or nightclubs, where there is a restriction on age in any event.

What this bill is contemplating is a restriction on the sale of tobacco to people under the age of 18. How is that going to be enforced? I think the official opposition Health critic, the member for Richmond East, has raised this issue. There is a serious question of enforceability, but it's not addressed in the bill. Presumably the select standing committee of this Legislature will look at the issue of enforceability, but again, I think that needs to be defined in the bill as well -- not by regulation, but in the bill itself.

[ Page 3410 ]

Finally, on the issue of consultation that has gone into the bill up to this point, we applaud the government for referring the subject matter of this bill to a select standing committee. Unfortunately, the government wishes to pass the bill before sending it to the select standing committee. But what kind of consultation has taken place, then, up until this point, since the government is hell-bent on passing the bill first and seeking consultation later? Has there been any consultation with the retailers of British Columbia who presumably are going to be affected by this? Has there been any consultation on the issue of enforceability? Are there any law enforcement implications? That's not clear or evident from the bill.

These are issues that have not been addressed by the bill. It has some shortcomings. In principle we agree with it. We will address some of these concerns in the committee stage. I hope that when the hon. Minister of Health closes debate on second reading, though, she will address some of these issues.

G. Wilson: I also rise to support this bill in principle, but to raise some additional matters with respect to some of the potential implications of this bill and how it may create some difficulty for the government with respect to its enforcement. To carry on from the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who was talking about the problems of enforcement, we recognize the sale of cigarettes is going to be prohibited to people under the age of 18. We applaud that intention; I think it's a good idea. However, there is nothing to suggest that the possession of cigarettes by people under 18 is something that will be looked at.

If in fact it's illegal to sell cigarettes to people under the age of 18, but it's not illegal for people under 18 to be in possession of cigarettes and to smoke cigarettes, how are these people going to get these cigarettes to continue their addiction? I would suggest that the greater the restriction.... It is a perfectly legal proposition to have cigarettes. There will either be a movement to have people purchase cigarettes on their behalf or to encourage what we've already seen in some jurisdictions among youth, and particularly street youth in the province. They will simply break the law to acquire these cigarettes themselves. It is a fact that in the jurisdiction of North Vancouver, the causal effect of breaking and entering is young people who are breaking in to either procure cigarettes or gain money in order to feed a nicotine addiction.

While we applaud the intent of this bill in the restriction of a tobacco product.... As someone who has never smoked and therefore doesn't know what the addiction of nicotine does to an individual in terms of attempting to get rid of the habit, I know from people I've observed with the addiction -- and nicotine is an addiction -- that it is extremely difficult to try and break free, if I can use that term.

I think that in committee stage the government is going to have to address the question of enforcement. How is this bill to be enforced? It is silent on that question. I hope the minister will address the inherent contradiction of making it illegal to sell cigarettes to people under the age of 18 and there being be absolutely no provision for it to be illegal to possess cigarettes if you are under the age of 18. It would seem to me that if one matches it in terms of laws elsewhere, that is something where there has been some problem.

The minister acknowledges, and we do too, that it was a good administration in Prince Edward Island -- a Liberal administration -- that took a leadership role on this question nationally. I think that demonstrates how the Liberal administrations across this country do in fact lead the way on progressive legislation.

Hon. E. Cull: As I said when I was talking about the bill, this is an enabling act. The purpose of this legislation is to give a broad scope to power to limit the access and attractiveness of tobacco to young people. It's targeted particularly at new smokers, at young smokers of an average age of 12, to try to prevent people from becoming smokers. It's not designed to have people stop smoking. It's not targeted at adults. It's targeted at the group where we think we can have the most effect.

The consultation that has to take place about how the regulations will work, what the details should be -- whether around age, around the appropriate size of packaging, around how vending machines can be regulated -- really does require some broader discussion. For that reason, today we passed the motion to refer the regulations and the details of the regulations to the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. The discussions, I trust, will take place there. I have complete faith in that committee carrying out its responsibilities by having whatever discussions it thinks necessary with various groups in this province, including the retailers.

With respect to some of the specifics that were mentioned by the other speakers -- the question of prohibition and the impact prohibition had on alcohol was one that was mentioned by one of the members of the third party -- I guess I have to say that just because we know that people under the age of 18 can have others buy alcohol for them doesn't mean that we don't prohibit the sale of that product to people under that age. Likewise, because of the tremendous health impact of tobacco on people, it is also prudent for us to prohibit the sale of tobacco products to people under a certain age, knowing full well that there are always ways of getting around it should someone choose to do so.

The licensing of vendors, the definition of vendors and the manner in which vendors are regulated need to be addressed by the select standing committee when it looks at the regulations. But I point out to the member that what's happening now in the absence of this legislation is that municipalities are considering using business licences as a way to have the same impact. What some municipalities are doing -- not in British Columbia yet, although some are looking at it in B.C. -- is tying the selling of tobacco to minors to the business licence. A vendor found in violation of the federal law against selling tobacco to minors may lose their business licence, which is a far more onerous punishment for a business owner than simply losing their licence to sell tobacco. In many ways we're recognizing in this a

[ Page 3411 ]

more responsible and more sensitive approach to this whole matter.

Limiting the packs to smaller numbers of cigarettes just encourages people to buy larger packet sizes. Perhaps some adults may be buying those small packages. But if anyone was listening to the figures I was reading from other provinces -- in this case, Nova Scotia -- the primary purchasers of the so-called kiddie-packs are in fact children. The reason they buy the small packages is that they usually have access to less money, so they're more attractive. A 12-year-old may have enough money to buy a single cigarette if they are sold singly -- and they are -- but certainly enough to buy the small package.

We have to recognize that this legislation is part of a package of tobacco reduction strategies that are in place in British Columbia. It's not just legislation alone that has to work here. Obviously we have education programs that have a very important role to play. But education alone has been shown to have a very small effect on reducing illegal tobacco sales to minors, and that's what we're really zeroing in on: those individuals who sell tobacco to minors without really considering the impact on them. Unfortunately I don't have Canadian examples, because we're going to be leading the way in Canada again with this legislation.

A 1991 study in four northern California communities showed that the enforcement of laws regulating sales of tobacco products to minors had a significant effect on the over-the-counter sales, above and beyond that obtained through community and merchant education alone. In 1991, a year and a half after Woodridge, Illinois, introduced vendor licensing, the number of children who were regular smokers decreased by two-thirds, and the proportion of children who had experimented with smoking decreased by half.

I think those are very compelling statistics, and for that reason I urge all members of the House to support the passage of this legislation. Let's get it through committee stage and to the select standing committee so that we can develop the regulations and start saving the lives of young people in this province as soon as possible.

I move the bill be given second reading now.

Motion approved.

Bill 72, Tobacco Product Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I call second reading of Bill 14, hon. Speaker.

PROFESSIONAL RETIREMENT SAVINGS
PLAN AGREEMENT EXTINGUISHMENT AC0
(continued)

F. Gingell: Bill 14, the Professional Retirement Savings Plan Agreement Extinguishment Act. The word "extinguishment" is an unusual word for us to use within this Legislature. It doesn't say "cancellation"; it says extinguishment. We normally think of that word in relation to the cutting off of oxygen. When you want to extinguish a fire, you make sure that it can't get any oxygen. That's exactly what this government has done to a legally and properly negotiated pension plan with this province's doctors.

You can imagine a series of circumstances where one has the right to a pension plan, when in fact it doesn't get paid: such circumstances as the trustee of the plan absconding with all of the money, or the trustee of the plan investing the funds in some inopportune or worthless investment. In this particular case there wasn't any money. There was only the word of the government of this province that the money would be there. The trustee didn't steal the money, and the pension plan didn't fail because the investments were poor. The plan has failed because this government decided that it doesn't need to live up to the commitments that have been made. We are acting jointly in British Columbia like a tin-pot dictatorship, and we have to decide who is the dictator.

When the Minister of Finance spoke to second reading of this bill, he conceded that a commitment, however ill-conceived, had been negotiated. It doesn't matter whether it was ill-conceived; the Minister of Finance has agreed that there was a commitment. He even indicated that had it been a cost-shared plan, perhaps they wouldn't have felt so strongly about it that he would have cancelled it. But, hon. Speaker, it is a cost-shared plan. All doctors have their own pension planning arrangements. They have a retirement income that's going to come from the Canada Pension Plan, all of which they contribute from their own pockets. They may very well have a registered retirement savings plan. All of the funds which are invested come from their own pockets. They had this plan too. As far as their retirement planning is concerned, their retirement plan was cost-shared. It just happened to be that in this particular case, the provincial government's share was $25 million a year -- a clearly defined and committed amount. It is simply not a reasonable proposition to cancel it without negotiation.

The minister also, in the course of his discussion on second reading, talked briefly about the fact that they weren't going to get the $25 million paid into the retirement savings plan, but they were going to cancel the clawback, which was anticipated for this year to be roughly $25 million. That $25 million clawback was for one year only. The commitment that they made on the pension agreement was $25 million a year. Any economist, even my economist friends on the other side of this Legislature, will tell you that $25 million a year isn't the same thing as $25 million once.

I think it is important to recognize that the minister also said that the action they are taking at this point is a responsible step. I'd like to suggest to you that the first responsible step of everybody is to live up to their word. The occupants of the seats of government may change, but the government of the province does not. It is an ongoing establishment. The chairs get vacated every four or five years. Some of the occupants may well change, but the provincial government doesn't. The provincial government carries on. The people of

[ Page 3412 ]

this province have the right to understand that their government is a permanent establishment. It isn't here one day and gone tomorrow. If the provincial government wanted to get out of the responsibilities that they saw in this contract, they had to negotiate their way out of it.

Hon. Speaker, we speak of you as hon. Speaker; we speak of ourselves and our compatriots as hon. members. This is not a very honourable act; I believe it is a very dishonourable act. Let's recognize this. If the doctors' pension arrangements can be cancelled at the stroke of a pen, whose pension will be next? Surely nobody's pension, no contract, is going to be inviolate.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, probably mine. That's right. That's the way it goes.

This government knows perfectly well what they are doing. They understand perfectly well that this act is illegal, improper, ill-advised, irresponsible, or why else would they put in paragraph 5? They have gone through this whole exercise, and then read paragraph 5: no damages arise. "No action for damages or compensation against the government, the commission or any person arises by reason of this act."

That is an absolute and complete admission that this government knows what they've done is illegal and improper. It's all very well for them to sit there and say, "Oh yes, oh yes," but it is the rule of law on which this country is based. It is the most single important foundation stone of our lives and our country, and they just wipe it out and put a section in an act that says we will take away your pension, we will take away the contractual rights that we have agreed to under free negotiation, and the one thing you can't do is sue us, because they know that if it were to go to court, they would lose. This is a disreputable act by a disreputable government.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak against Bill 14. I don't imagine why I shouldn't speak against Bill 14. It's another one of the most ridiculous pieces of legislation that this government has brought forward. In fact, it's the second one. The first one was the extinguishment of the Taxpayer Protection Act, which was Bill 3. It was the third bill on the order paper that this government did away with. It would have made them accountable over a business cycle, something that they promised in their "better way" -- one of the 48 points.

Now we have Bill 14, which is going to extinguish an agreement that was reached between doctors and the government of British Columbia. That is not tolerable by the people of British Columbia. People should know that this was a contract on future earnings. It was part of a bigger deal. It was part of what they agreed to at that time, and now they have a government come along that thinks they are lily white and remove that part of that deal -- just jerk it out.

That is not what British Columbia is used to, and it's not what British Columbia should be about. But, obviously, in the first three months that we've sat here, this government is determined to do this. Listening to the Minister of Finance in his introductory remarks, it becomes a little more repugnant the farther we go along. In 1975, when the Social Credit government came back in, did they remove a bunch of legislation that the NDP put in at that time? No, they did not. They lived up to those agreements, whether they were ICBC at the time and terribly in debt, terribly disorganized.... They lived up to that, and the taxpayers paid for it. So why can this government not live up to deals that were made with the doctors before?

The Minister of Finance talked about pensions and that he agreed with pensions. I have no problem with pensions, the same as the Minister of Finance doesn't have any problem with pensions. When you go through the bills, you see the legislation that this government brought forward for the Energy Council, for instance, where you appointed someone the head of that council, a patronage appointment. But what did this government do? They made all those people on the Energy Council pensionable. So what is the difference? Was it because they were their friends? I'm not sure.

It is not correct for this government to undo what had been done before in a legal, binding agreement. People in British Columbia, and especially the doctors -- it's no wonder they're a little bit upset now, with what's taking place with this government. They're not bargaining in good faith. "Open, honest government." My goodness, I can tell you all the times I've stood up here in this House and talked about open, honest government. It's part of their "better way." Well, why don't they live up to part of their better way and be open and honest?

Right now they are in the midst of negotiations with the BCMA, and what do they do? They wait with Bill 14 until they're in the midst of those negotiations, in the midst of Bill 71. They brought in Bill 13 -- they flew a flag there. And now they bring in Bill 14 just to inflame it, right in the midst of negotiations. Hon. Speaker, how can you negotiate -- which they say they are going to -- and consult with people to get agreements if that's how you're going to go about it? You can't keep everyone inflamed. It will not work.

I'm going to read part of a letter from the Minister of Health, dated March 27, 1990. This was when she was the Health critic in British Columbia:

"Doctors, together with other health care professionals, workers and consumers, bear the brunt of the government's mismanagement of our health care system. New Democrats are committed to redressing this situation. This can only be done through honest negotiations with physicians directed towards a settlement which both the physicians and the government, on behalf of the public, recognize as fair. In addition, I believe the public interest is best served by involving the physicians and other health care workers in discussions aimed at improving the system, rather than simply dictating change from the top."

An Hon. Member: Who wrote that letter?

R. Neufeld: That's from the hon. Minister of Health right now. She wrote that letter in 1990. Direction from on top. What do we have now? We have a government that sits over there and directs from on top.

[ Page 3413 ]

They are going to remove what was negotiated, which was legal and binding, and they are going to extinguish it altogether. They even say in there that there is no recourse for anyone to come after them; no damages against the government may arise from this act. It's obvious that they know they are doing something wrong.

The Minister of Finance spoke briefly too in his opening remarks about the terrible financial situation the government faced when it became government. Well, I want to talk a bit about that, because it opened a door and gave a little latitude to maybe tell the people of British Columbia just exactly what it was. The minister himself knew very well what the deficit figures were. But what they do is continually try to construct numbers that aren't true and aren't correct. The minister himself knew that the deficit was going to be $1.2 billion, he knew that revenues were declining, and he knew that expenses were going up and that it was going to be more than $1.2 billion. But he continues to try and blame the previous government, saying they misled the province of British Columbia and that's why they can't live up to some of these agreements. Well, I call that balderdash. That's not true. That's trying to tell the people of British Columbia something that really isn't true.

Maybe we should talk a little bit about the terrible financial situation in the past six years -- six years before this government took over. Yes, hon. Speaker, I'm speaking in reply to what the Minister of Finance opened his statements with. I will just quickly put on the record that the previous government in six years put the province of British Columbia in debt by $2.3 billion. That's everything -- Crown corporations, direct government debt, the bottom line that had to be borrowed. Well, I can tell you, hon. Speaker, when you want to talk about really being in a financial crunch, this government, in its first year of administration, plans on $3.4 billion in one year. You talk about a financial situation. I'm afraid they have made their own financial situation. It's untenable. They're trying to go back to see what they can take away from negotiated settlements.

Reducing the amount paid to the doctors is not in any way going to solve the health care problems we have in British Columbia. Taking away the $25 million that was promised to the doctors in a legally binding agreement is not going to help the health care program at all. It has to be attacked in a totally different way. We can't have unhappy doctors, or you're going to have an unhappy system. As the Minister of Health says, you cannot dictate change from the top. That's exactly what this government is doing now.

I listened with interest to the Minister of Municipal Affairs talk across the floor and heckle me about Vander Zalm agreements, Vander Zalm this and Vander Zalm that, that he was a discredited Premier. I think the Minister of Finance talked about that too. When I hear that and I know the man just went to court and was cleared, I wonder where this gentleman gets this from. Maybe we should compare it to the Premier of the province right now. Maybe we should compare it to him on TV in Kamloops during the election promising a cancer clinic to Kamloops. He stood right there so all of British Columbia could see and said: "We will have a cancer clinic in Kamloops." Is that right?

To remove the doctors' $25 million pension is totally unfair. We cannot do that. We have a Premier who is on record as saying.... We talk about discredited Premiers; I wonder where this fits. He said that he would not erase a legally binding contract, even though he didn't agree with it. What does he do? Bill 14.

Bill 3 was the removal of the Taxpayer Protection Act, which was one thing that he also promised. He promised the people of British Columbia that he would live within his means in a business cycle. Third bill up, boom, it's gone. I don't know the date that Bill 14 was introduced, but it was quite a while ago. What did they do? They left it on the order paper, until the very end when they're dealing with the doctors, and all that does is inflame the situation.

We have to deal with it. I agree that it's not easy. I don't begrudge them their job, not one bit. But just taking money off the top from the doctors from a legally binding contract is not going to settle the ills of health care.

As I said at the start, it was part of a big deal. The members opposite seem to think that the $25 million was just an extra little thing thrown in for the doctors. That's not true. It's obvious that none of them have read the contract to see what it's all about. They just parrot the NDP's position. That's all they're saying. Why don't they read up on it to find out what happened in that whole agreement so that they know what it's all about?

It's totally unethical for a government to come in and take away a legal, binding document such as this. Would this government do that to any other union? Would they do that to a union right now? Would they do that to the BCGEU? Would they? Well, I tell you, if I was Mr. Shields I'd be a little bit nervous, because obviously they have no qualms about doing these types of things. They just remove it at will. They think because they've elected 51 members -- just barely -- to the Legislature, they can just carry on with anything they wish. This is unfair and unethical, and it should not happen in the province of British Columbia.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I hadn't planned to rise in debate on second reading, but I thought I would say a few remarks today, just very briefly, on Bill 14. If these words sound a little bit familiar, we may have heard words very similar a couple of days ago. I would like to point to some of the policies that have been stated by the very Minister of Finance who brought forward this bill, which is obviously going to have far-reaching impacts on our medical system in general and on our physicians in particular.

This being the brainchild of the Minister of Finance, I'd like to point out that the Minister of Finance is talking about cooperation in the medicare system. Well, you don't cooperate with them by banging them over the head with a broken contract. That's exactly what this government has decided to do. This undermines medicare, and it's contrary to any stated policy of the government. Really, to me, when you put together Bill 13, Bill 14 and then Bill 71, you really can see the agenda

[ Page 3414 ]

of the government and the way in which they are treating the physicians in general.

This Minister of Finance, who I guess is too busy to participate in the debate right now, stated in the House that there's a great deal of pressure across the country to undermine the medicare system. Well, this is one of the critical pressures being brought to bear on the system as we speak here. How can we possibly have any confidence in a medicare system where duly negotiated legal contracts are being broken without consultation, and when the bill that's being brought in doesn't even allow for the affected parties -- for the injured parties -- to sue?

Obviously there's going to be a loss of confidence on the part of the health care workers, when they see on the one hand broken contracts for the doctors and, on the other hand, fair wages for the construction workers.

We had this very Minister of Finance stand up in the House and talk about the policy of his party vis-�-vis the Liberal Party. He was talking about the fact that we have been consulting with the people who are affected by this bill, the BCMA. Well, who else are we supposed to consult with? They're the ones being directly affected.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

J. Tyabji: These members are shouting: "The taxpayers." I put to these members that taxpayers do not want to see a government that decides it's going to save money by breaking duly negotiated contracts. If they really want to save the taxpayers some money, they will move back on their fair wages regulations. That to me is one obvious area where they can save some tax dollars.

Obviously the Minister of Finance doesn't understand the concept of consultation with the affected parties, including the BCMA. I stand up very proudly in this House and say the Liberal Party has been very open to consulting with anybody who is going to be affected by the legislation this government is bringing forward.

I would also put to the members on that side of the House that they have legislation with regard to labour laws that is coming forward. I wonder who they've been consulting with in regard to that. It's ridiculous for anyone to stand up in this House and try to pretend that legislation and debate appear magically on the initiative of elected members. We should be consulting with the people affected. We should be consulting with the people who are trying to deal with the legislation being brought forward. In the final analysis, we as elected members come forward to this House with our own policies and perspectives. I'm proud to say that we on the Liberal side consult first.

What I find truly unfortunate is that here we are, at 10 o'clock at night, in the eleventh hour of the session, discussing a bill that was brought forward over two months ago. Is this a sign of lack of competence? Did you just forget about it? Was it left on the order paper by mistake? Perhaps it was the $200 million shortfall that this government has experienced since the budget was introduced that is calling them forward to try and penny-pinch despite the fact that it's going to result in a broken legal contract. If it is that, then I say, shame on you! If it is the $200 million shortfall that you are responsible for because of all of the legislation that we've seen here on resource industries, then I say, shame on you! It should not be taken out by breaking duly negotiated contracts through legislation.

We had the Minister of Finance stand up in the House and talk about medically necessary services being in jeopardy. The effect of the Liberal opposition's dispute with regard to this legislation was going to jeopardize medically necessary services if we decided to consult with the BCMA on their terms. We in the Liberal opposition have maintained from the beginning that it is the government's responsibility to prioritize necessary medical services. They should not be leaving that to a profession like the BCMA. We have been accused of being too close to the BCMA, of allowing the BCMA to affect our policy. They are not only allowing but are legislating the BCMA to determine a prioritized list of medical services and then penalizing them for going beyond their own budget.

I would say with regard to Bill 14, the broken contract that we are talking about and the implications that this has on the health care industry and profession, that we have to start rebuilding confidence in the health care industry. The Hospital Employees' Union didn't feel very happy about that settlement in light of fair wages.

Doctors see a duly negotiated contract being broken, with comments from one of the ministers over there of "Oh, the poor doctors." Yes, the poor doctors. Any one group that gets singled out as a victim of legislation or of poor budget planning should definitely be sympathized with, even if it is doctors. We tend to recognize that doctors are not the impoverished, but doctors do work very hard. Any group that is singled out and victimized through legislation should definitely be heard through this House. We would not be doing our job as opposition if we didn't allow representation of all of the people affected by legislation in the chambers of the House.

It is unfortunate that the government does not accept responsibility with regard to the budget shortfall and therefore re-examine their own priorities rather than breaking the contract. It is unfortunate that they choose not to prioritize medicare themselves.

[10:00]

My own hon. leader will be standing up later with regard to some of the measures in this bill and some of the comments of the Minister of Finance in the House with regard to the direction this government is taking with the doctors' profession, the health care profession, and with regard to how the opposition here is dealing with our own apparatus outside the House. He will be talking about a letter that we have as opposed to the Minister of Finance's letter that he was so proud to present to the House the other day.

I find that it is really shamefully sanctimonious to be standing here feeling that you are safeguarding the taxpayer through breaking a contract. I find that you cannot stand and try to be championing democracy and

[ Page 3415 ]

the taxpayer by breaking the very legislation that protects any one group or profession. We had people within the labour movement, when this bill was introduced, stand up and say, "Well, we see the implications immediately in Bill 14 as labour union representatives." We all know they have supported the party on the governing side of the House during the election. They felt threatened by this bill because this bill sets a precedent for this government breaking a duly negotiated contract. The only comfort that the labour unions can take in this setting of precedent is that this government has targeted the health care profession, particularly doctors, to break contracts in. At this stage, anyway, the labour unions are safe.

Unfortunately, we have the Minister of Finance talking about the thousands of hard-working doctors who deserve to be paid well, which is obviously a reversal of earlier comments that were made in this House by both the Minister of Finance and many of the other members who are trying to act as if the only just thing to do in a tight economy is to try to immediately cut any possible moneys that are going to people who make beyond what they feel to be an acceptable level of income. I think it is arbitrary, and it's disheartening in the extreme to see that kind of attitude being taken, that there is some kind of arbitrary moral judgment being placed on the incomes of particularly the health care profession in this case. Obviously, we've seen it also with the lawyers, the corporations and the resource sector. This government has decided arbitrarily that they're making too much money, and they're going to do everything in their power to take it away from them. They will even go to the extent of breaking a duly negotiated contract.

The Minister of Finance, who I wish was here participating in the debate....

J. Beattie: Point of order. It's rather a shame that the Liberals have to be reminded constantly about the rules of the House with regard to the mentioning of members who may not be in the House for whatever particular reason.

An Hon. Member: Where is he?

J. Beattie: The hon. House Leader of the Liberals seems to continue on that trend. I think the Liberals should be reminded again of some of the more basic rules of the House.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has reminded all hon. members that it is not the practice in this House to comment on the absence or presence of members in the chamber.

J. Tyabji: It's unfortunate that I cannot refer to the fact that the Minister of Finance is not here, so I won't do that anymore. However, with regard to some of the comments that the Minister of Finance made in the House previously....

An Hon. Member: When he was here.

J. Tyabji: We're still waiting for an answer on a question that I can no longer ask. I'm sure that he will provide it when he has the opportunity to do so.

The final point that I'd like to make is with regard to the Finance minister's comments on medicare. The implications of the legislation that this government has chosen to bring forward directly target the health care profession and are leading to the crisis in the health care community as we stand here and debate this now. I quote: "The vast majority of doctors who have an interest in medicare in this province will work with the government of British Columbia." That is patent nonsense. You cannot expect one group.....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Exactly -- it is a form of blackmail. You cannot expect one group that has been specifically and repeatedly targeted through legislation to then turn around and say: "Oh well, the legislation was passed. I guess we'll get down to business and work with them."

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The member behind me is absolutely correct when he says the Socreds targeted the teachers, and now we see this government targeting the doctors. It is equally reprehensible in both instances.

The only thing I can conclude from the Finance minister's comments the other day is that obviously he got a bit carried away with himself. He made many comments that cannot possibly be supported. This bill is a shameful piece of legislation. Only someone who has an ivory-tower view of the way government works could have possibly made those comments that the doctors will immediately turn around and work with the government of B.C.

We know that since Bill 14 was introduced the doctors have worked to try to show the government that this is an unfair way of dealing with them and with people in the health care profession. Bill 14 is being called at the last minute. The government had a long time to do it. We don't know what their motivation could possibly be, except that perhaps they're a little upset that some of their other legislation hasn't gone through as quickly as they would have liked.

The only thing I can conclude is that the Minister of Finance has an ivory-tower view of the way B.C. politics functions. I wonder who he has been talking to in trying to determine what kind of impact this legislation will have, because we of the Liberal opposition have been talking with people throughout British Columbia, including -- and we are proud to say it -- the BCMA, because we recognize that they are a critical part of the health care profession. We would like to convince the government that it doesn't do us any good to be targeting one specific group in the medicare community, although we could argue that the Hospital Employees' Union also had a hard time with this government. It is with this very strong view that we want to put to the government that the Liberal opposition has been listening to the people, and the people do not agree with the Minister of Finance. They do not

[ Page 3416 ]

believe that he has been given a mandate to go out and break a duly negotiated, legally binding contract, and then bring in a provision so nobody can even sue for damages beyond that.

The issue of pension or no pension was settled with the last administration. It is not the mandate of this administration to roll back duly passed legislation. They are going to have to realize that if we want to have a healthy medicare system in B.C., we must bring all players to the table -- as we of the Liberal opposition have been exemplary in doing. We have worked with everyone, we have consulted with everyone.

We are proud to say that, yes, we have even written to people throughout the medicare community to show them that we are communicating with them, that we welcome their input to the party, and we welcome them into the party, because eventually, with the direction that the Minister of Finance....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

J. Tyabji: The last comment I'd like to make is that, yes, we have invited them to join the party and to participate in the fullest way with the party. At the rate that this Minister of Finance and this government are going, we will have a very large party when we form government in three and a half years.

J. Beattie: I don't have quite as much stuff as the hon. member for Okanagan East. She said she was going to make a few brief comments, and she has let us down in that regard. I'll be very brief. I'd like to speak specifically to this bill. I'd like to say that I don't feel uncomfortable with this bill, either morally or ethically.

J. Tyabji: Tell us why.

J. Beattie: I'll tell you why I don't feel uncomfortable with this bill.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members, please.

J. Beattie: The first thing is that as a New Democrat I feel quite confident about the depth of the belief of this party in a very important medical system. It has been made very clear in the debate over the last number of days that the New Democratic Party did generate the initial grains, the seeds of the medicare system in this country. Whether we were the first party in power to institute it or not, the fact of the matter is that the New Democratic Party represents to most people in this country who think about it the founders of the health care system in this country.

That means something to the members of the New Democratic Party caucus in a very deep way. It's not something that we're playing politics with. We've made it very clear that our intention is to preserve the medicare system in this province. I want to preface my remarks with the fact that we are deeply rooted in a social medicare system, unlike the Liberals -- when you scratch them, you may find a Socred or you may find, as in Okanagan East, a New Democrat once in a while; it just depends which way the wind is blowing.

On Bill 14, regardless of the quotes that have been read, we were very clear from the beginning that we were adamantly opposed....

J. Tyabji: Point of order. Hon. Speaker, I'm offended that this member has tried to imply that I am anything other than a Liberal. I am fundamentally a Liberal, and I don't want to hear anything other than that from this member, particularly not in this House.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. Thank you for your point of order, but we are discussing Bill 14, second reading. Please proceed, hon. member.

J. Beattie: I didn't mean to impugn the motives of the hon. member. What I did state was that at one time she was a New Democrat, and now she's a Liberal.

The Speaker: Bill 14, please, hon. member.

J. Beattie: At any rate, we were very clear that we were adamantly opposed to this legislation when it was introduced in the House by the Social Credit Party -- this agreement that was arrived at with the doctors. I think we've acted in a way that the public has indicated they wanted us to, which was to get rid of a pension plan which did not have to have matched input by the medical profession and which went on in perpetuity. Somehow the Liberals have managed to reconcile some wage concession with a pension plan that goes on forever. It doesn't make sense. What the Liberals refuse to recognize is that those concessions in 1991 will bear no relationship to the compounded funds that represent this pension over 50, 75 or a 100 years.

F. Gingell: You negotiate your way out of it.

J. Beattie: The fact of the matter is that we were very clear that we were going to get rid of the bill, and we have. That's what we're doing tonight.

The other thing that I'd like to comment on is the hypocrisy of the Social Credit Party...

C. Tanner: The hypocrisy is on your side.

J. Beattie: ...to speak about free collective bargaining.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order! Would the member take his seat for a moment, please.

Hon. members, only one person can have the floor for debate at one time. It's very difficult for other members to hear the debate when there are four or five speaking at once.

J. Beattie: I'm going to wrap up my comments pretty quickly here. First I'm going to say that we

[ Page 3417 ]

understand better than most what free collective bargaining is. We understand what a bad deal this pension plan was for the people of British Columbia. It was a burden on the taxpayer which we were committed to removing at the beginning of our mandate.

Interjection.

J. Beattie: The hon. member for Okanagan East was explaining to me that she was at an Ogopogo launching on the weekend. Maybe the hon. member's party believes in the Ogopogo.

Going back to my initial comments -- and I'll say it again -- I have no moral or ethical problem with Bill 14 to remove this pension. Fundamentally, I believe that it's the proper thing to do, because the pension plan was flawed from the beginning. We will negotiate a pension plan which makes good sense to the people of this province. With that, I'd like to conclude my remarks.

[10:15]

L. Fox: I rise to speak against Bill 14, the essence of which is to do away with the deferred income plan for the doctors. I was thinking earlier about how I might express that action. A tune came into mind, and I put a few words to it -- but I'm not going to sing it, I promise you -- so it accurately depicts this action. It is: "The government got the gold mine, and the doctors got the shaft." I think that really depicts the action of this bill.

I listened extremely carefully when the minister spoke at the introduction of second reading. What really concerned me -- and perhaps it's why we who have a free enterprise philosophy see things differently than this particular government -- was that there is very little worth in an individual other than the value of his word. If that individual breaks his word, he cannot make it in the free enterprise world, because most of your business is based around your word.

Let me quote very briefly from a letter that was referred to earlier, and that's why I mention that honouring your word is the key to success. This is a letter that was written back in March 27, 1990, by the current Minister of Health, and I just want to quote a very short part of it: "While I welcome the royal commission, I believe its timing is a cynical attempt to avoid the immediate problems facing our health care system, not the least of which is the question of adequate and fair remuneration for physicians." That individual is now the Minister of Health. I have some problems, if she believed that was the case when she wrote this letter to the doctors. We now have to wonder if that was truly her word. I will not speculate; I leave that question to the hon. members.

We're not talking about doctors' pensions here; we're talking about breaking a contract. If this government believed that the pension was not adequate or was not the proper thing on behalf of the taxpayers, I could understand that. But what should the action have been? The action should have been to go back to the table and say: "Look, we have to renegotiate this in the best interests of the taxpayers." That's what the action should have been. We shouldn't be surprised that this government broke the contract, and that's what it did.

It has broken many promises over the last eight months, not the least of which was a cancer clinic in Kamloops. The same individual also promised a cancer clinic to Prince George; that promise has been broken. I could go on and on and list broken promises. Why should we be surprised that they broke a contract?

Let's sit back and re-examine how this arrangement was made with the physicians. In the midst of negotiations of their fees in 1990, collectively between the physicians and the government, they decided they would take a portion of their increase in a tax-deferred plan that would strike a pension. If the government of that day had not pulled the $25 million out of the doctors' fees and placed it in a separate plan, that would already have compounded by the increases given in this year's budget. There would have been more of an impact on the actual budget of this year than the $25 million, because it would have also been in the grid and therefore subject to the percentage of increase.

Hon. Speaker, I'm surprised these people claim to understand collective bargaining, yet they don't understand that very simple fact. When you add to the grid, it's going to compound every year that the grid is increased by a percentage. That's what is not understood by the backbenchers of this government.

As a free-enterpriser I understand that when I buy a business, I am obligated to honour the agreements on the benefit and holiday packages that that particular employee group within that business enjoys. I cannot break that contract even though I buy that business. Under the law -- the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Regulation Act -- I must honour the agreements made by the previous employer. Why should private business have to do that, and this government can break those kinds of agreements?

Interjections.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I hear the babbling across the way. They talk about not being thick, but as long as they talk they can't listen. I wish they would listen for a little while.

That party claims to champion medicare in British Columbia. That party did not champion medicare in British Columbia. In fact, it was the Social Credit Party that championed medicare in British Columbia. They were Johnny-come-latelies.

I go back to my original statement: if we can't honour our word and we can't honour an agreement, we're not worth the salt that we eat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. Again, hon. members, I call the House to order.

L. Fox: I'm enjoying it, hon. Speaker. It gets me going. I don't very often get excited.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! The Chair is having difficulty hearing the debate.

[ Page 3418 ]

An Hon. Member: Speak up.

L. Fox: I'll speak a little louder.

I'm really surprised at how lightly this government takes the breaking of a contract. If I were a backbencher in that government, I would be concerned about my integrity; I would be concerned about the public perception of my party; I would be concerned about future negotiations with organizations, as to whether I could be trusted. That has got to be the underlying factor in the removal of this particular pension.

Interjections.

L. Fox: I think it's extremely great that these particular backbenchers will shout across the floor, but they will not stand up and put on the record exactly what their feelings are with respect to this bill. What do they do? They attempt to shout insults across the floor. Actually, I'm really enjoying it.

I'll make one final attempt: will this government please try to regain some credibility in the whole process with respect to the doctors by reconsidering Bill 14? Let's get back to the consultative process. Let's get back to honouring our word. Let's get back to honouring a written contract. Let's show this province that we're a government of principles.

The Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam. [Applause.]

M. Farnworth: If you're doing that at the end, I will be very pleased.

Bill 14 is what we're debating tonight. There has been a lot of caterwauling from the opposition benches. I'm not surprised at some of the arguments we've heard tonight, because I can understand why the Liberal Party in particular is a little gun-shy these days. They don't want to be accused of parroting the BCMA line, so they've switched the argument. The don't want to talk about the pension; they don't want to talk about this deal. They want to talk about an economic argument. The member for Richmond East talked about an economic argument. They said a deal is a deal is a deal, and that we have to honour deals.

The fact is that this was a bad deal to begin with, and it is a bad deal today. The government of British Columbia has a responsibility to address that, and we are addressing it. We have stated that we want to see a pension deal on the same basis as every other British Columbian, a cost-shared arrangement where both parties contribute. We do not want to see a pension deal that no other British Columbian gets -- not even those in this House -- and that is totally funded by the government.

L. Reid: Point of order. I find it offensive that this member would mislead the House. The pension plan under debate this evening is contributory and it is registered. It is not 100 percent government-funded. Stick to the facts.

The Speaker: While the hon. member may disagree with what the member has said, I did not hear anything out of order.

M. Farnworth: This is a bad pension deal, a government-funded pension deal unlike any other arrangement in the province. The member for Richmond East used an economic argument that this was going to be bad for business; that it sends the wrong message overseas to foreign investors; that it sends the wrong message to Hong Kong, to Japan, to Taiwan, to Thailand, to Europe, to our other trading partners. That's the biggest load of rubbish the opposition has spouted this session. Let's look at some of the Liberal positions on agreements in this province and really see what type of message they would send....

J. Tyabji: Point of order. This member is starting to discuss Liberal policy on economics. I don't think that has anything to do with second reading. We're talking about a contract that's been broken. He's starting to talk about Liberal policy, which has nothing to do with it.

The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member who has the floor will move very quickly to discussing Bill 14.

[10:30]

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I am definitely discussing Bill 14. I am discussing it in the context in which it was addressed by the member for Richmond East: that it was a bad signal to send to foreign investors. I am making the argument that there are business deals in this province that would send a far worse signal overseas. The Liberals would have us rip up Kemano. The Liberals would have us rip up Fraser Valley natural gas drilling tomorrow. A deal is a deal is a deal. Bill 14 is a deal. The deals in the Fraser Valley are a deal, but they would have us rip that up tomorrow. They want us to do that. They are picking and choosing because they are parroting the line of the BCMA.

J. Tyabji: I would like to raise the same point of order. We're not talking about Kemano, we're not talking about Fraser Valley drilling, and we're not talking about what this member thinks the Liberal policy might be on those issues. We're talking about this bill and his position on the bill.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. I think all of us recognize it is getting late in the evening, and I would ask the hon. member to proceed with his discussion on Bill 14.

M. Farnworth: This is a government bill. It involves government funds and government input, and the hon. members across the floor don't seem to recognize that. They are saying that we should not be looking after this bill, but they're willing to do every other contentious issue. We have heard a lot of codswallop from the opposition. It's a good Newfie term. I'd like to ask the Liberal opposition, and in particular the Leader of the Opposition, what his own personal

[ Page 3419 ]

messiah, Clyde Wells in Newfoundland, would do with the Churchill Falls project?

An Hon. Member: What does Churchill Falls have to do with anything?

M. Farnworth: It's a bad deal.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the House come to order.

G. Wilson: I find it totally out of order and offensive in the extreme that this member would be referring to a Premier of the Newfoundland government, Mr. Clyde Wells -- a man who is greatly respected across this nation -- as anybody's personal messiah. If this member would simply address the question of the bill, perhaps we could get through the business of this House more quickly.

The Speaker: While members may feel strongly about the debate and may disagree with what hon. members are debating, we need to remember that we usually allow fairly broad-ranging debate under second reading of bills. In return, I'm sure hon. members will continue to try to relate their remarks directly to second readings. I encourage the hon. member to do so.

M. Farnworth: The purpose of second reading is to debate the philosophy of the bill, and it is also to examine arguments put forward by the opposition, and to refute them. The arguments advanced by the opposition do not hold water. What they are saying is that they do not want us to change this bill. They don't want to parrot the BCMA, so they're trying another series of arguments. They're saying a deal is a deal is a deal.

Government has a responsibility to address a bad deal. As I said a few minutes ago, the Premier of Newfoundland would give his right arm to rip up that Churchill Falls agreement with Quebec tomorrow. What I'm saying....

D. Mitchell: Point of order. I've taken a look at Bill 14 in some detail, and I see no reference to Churchill Falls. What is the member talking about? Would he please address the bill so we can get the business of this House done?

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

J. Tyabji: Quit filibustering.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The Chair has reminded hon. members several times tonight to confine their comments to the business at hand; however, I also would remind hon. members that at some point points of order also become disorderly. I would ask the member who has the floor to please take into consideration the comments that have been made and try to relate his remarks closely to second reading of Bill 14.

M. Farnworth: On the principle of the bill and on the arguments that have been made as to why this is a bad deal, there were questions as to why I mentioned Churchill Falls. The reason I mentioned Churchill Falls is that it is an example of a bad deal that was negotiated between one Liberal Premier and another Liberal Premier. What I'm saying is that the Liberals would renegotiate a bad deal. They would love to do that tomorrow. In fact, there are those who would argue...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Would the House come to order. Continue with your comments, hon. member.

M. Farnworth: ...that that deal has kept that province impoverished for years, and it should be renegotiated. There are those who say a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal. That is why I raise the point, which brings us back to this bill in this province at this time.

As I said before, we have Kemano, which they want to rip up -- a $400 million investment. You ask the mining industry what type of signal that would send overseas. You ask the Japanese what type of signal that would send overseas. You ask the Taiwanese what type of signal that would send overseas. Natural gas drilling in the Fraser Valley is another issue. It's the same issue: it is a bad deal. It is the responsibility of the government to re-examine a deal. This is a bad deal.

If this government signed a 50-year agreement with the BCGEU....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the House come to order.

M. Farnworth: I will slow my remarks down to give more time for the opposition to understand the problems that I have with their arguments concerning Bill 14. They seem to feel that a deal is a deal is a deal. They would have this province commit itself no matter what, judging from their arguments. No matter how bad a deal is, they would hamstring this province in perpetuity. That is what they're arguing.

We want to bring in a deal that is fair to everybody. It's unfortunate they can't understand that. It's unfortunate that they try to find arguments so they don't have to parrot the BCMA line.

As I said earlier, I can understand why they're gun-shy. I guess I must have been hitting some nerves, because they must have had about 18 points of order tonight. As the hon. leader of the third party once said: "I must be striking a nerve if they're protesting." I definitely seem to have struck a nerve. I hope they have learned. I'm not going to hold my breath, but their arguments on Bill 14....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

[ Page 3420 ]

M. Farnworth: Their arguments on Bill 14 -- and I thank them for their applause -- don't hold water. It's as simple as that.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The Leader of the Opposition says that dams do hold water. Unfortunately, he would tear up the Kemano contract just like that -- that's what he'd do. I ask you, hon. Speaker: what type of message would that send to overseas investors?

W. Hurd: I'd like to thank the hon. member for that wonderful travelogue from Churchill, Manitoba, to the Fraser Valley to the Kemano project -- and we hope he holds his breath all the way.

It's always a pleasure for me to rise during the government's most miserable hour, and surely this is one of those miserable hours. We're debating Bill 14 in the dying days of the session. It has been on the order paper for the entire four or five months we've been here, and we finally see it in the last days because this government didn't have the guts to bring it into this session before the last or second-last day of the session. Furthermore, this government, when it was in opposition, didn't have the guts to talk about it during the election campaign either.

It's somewhat appropriate that we're debating this bill on the last day of the House, because it gives me a chance to do what I should have done at the start of this session with the government's 48-point better way: put it where it belongs -- in the bucket! We've seen every promise broken of that 48 points, and it's somehow appropriate that at the end of the session we see one more promise broken with respect to the province's doctors.

How low can this government stoop? How low can this party stoop? Well, we have a letter sent by the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain as a fellow physician to the physicians of this province, in which he points out: "We are now in a provincial election, and as physicians, you and I have a special stake in the outcome." Well, we certainly do. And as I look through this letter, there's not one mention of the doctors' pension plan being extinguished. For that they should hang their heads in shame, because they have lied to the physicians of this province. They lied during the election, and they stand accused of that during this session. They have not leveled with the doctors of British Columbia.

Hon. L. Boone: On a point of order, I would ask the member to withdraw that. As you know, it's not honourable to accuse any member of lying.

The Speaker: Did the hon. member intend to imply that any other hon. member in this House had lied?

W. Hurd: Absolutely not, hon. Speaker. I was merely talking from the government standpoint and not identifying any individual member of the House.

The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.

W. Hurd: It's always interesting to compare the approach that this government is taking with the doctors to the approach that it would take with the labour unions. In short order the government will be sitting down to negotiate with the B.C. Government Employees' Union, and I can just imagine if the chief government negotiator went to Mr. Shields and advised him: "We didn't like your pension deal last time. We're going to cut it out of the contract. We don't feel we should even have to honour a letter or a dime in it, because it was a bad deal last time, and we're not going to honour this time." This government would never do that; they would never say that, because one is a union and the other is a professional association. This government doesn't understand the difference, and doesn't even care to understand the difference. It's a shameful episode in the history of this government. As we look back on this session, we will remember the 48 points in the election platform of this government and how many were broken, because we're dealing with one of the biggest shams and frauds that this government has perpetrated right here in the session and in this situation tonight.

[10:45]

It's a display, hon. Speaker, by a government that has no credibility with the province's doctors and is fast losing credibility with the people. This government believes, somehow, that they can wilfully ignore every promise that they have given to the people and that nobody will remember three years from now. Let me tell you this: the doctors and the patients will remember this government's broken promise tonight, and they will hold this government accountable in four years time -- that I can guarantee you. They will remember that this government had one rule for the trade unions in this province and a different rule for the doctors and professional people, and that they will not forget. That I can guarantee this government, because the day is long gone when governments can step on their campaign promises on the floor of this House and then go forth in three years and suggest: "We inherited a mess, and we can't honour any of the commitments we made a scant six months ago."

As I look at this particular letter, this offensive letter that was sent to the doctors of this province under what amounts to fraud and false pretences during the last election, there are no members of this government who should not hang their heads in shame that a letter went out from the only physician in their midst....

The Speaker: As I have reminded other hon. members, I would urge the member to address second reading of Bill 14.

W. Hurd: It's always a pleasure to return to Bill 14, which is about hypocrisy anyway. I was only referring to the letter that was sent out during the campaign. It illustrates that kind of hypocrisy in dealing with the province's doctors, who have had a pension plan ripped up by this government and a clause put in it so that no redress is possible. There's not one member of the

[ Page 3421 ]

government side of the House who would stand for that kind of treatment with a labour union in this province. Not one of them would stand and defend that method of bargaining with the BCGEU or anybody in the B.C. Federation of Labour, because when it suits this government's purposes in dealing with organized labour, a deal's a deal. When it comes to the province's doctors, it's a deal to be ripped up and thrown away with the rest of the 48-point election platform.

The thing that disturbs us in opposition is that not one ounce of shame is being expressed by any member of the government, and indeed, hardly a backbencher has risen to speak. The only one who did took us on a convoluted travelogue from one end of the country to the other without ever addressing the bill we're dealing with in this chamber tonight. Not one mention of it. They have not risen to defend this bill in any of its forms. They have attempted a subterfuge to deal with "Liberal policy." Not one has risen to defend the principle of this bill. That tells the opposition everything it needs to know about how this government really feels about this bill, and why not one member of this government has risen to defend it in anything other than a convoluted travelogue and a convoluted appreciation of what it all means.

I tell you this: the people of the province will not forget this first session of the B.C. Legislature. They will not forget the broken promises of this government. They will not forget the way in which the government has ripped up agreements because it suits their whim. I tell you one thing they will not forget either: the Minister of Finance was not in this chamber when the most offensive bill in this House was brought forward.

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, I'm very pleased to enter into the debate on the philosophy and principles of Bill 14. I come from a background where a person's word or handshake is their bond. This afternoon I accepted the word of the Attorney General; his word is his bond. I know the gentleman, and I know that to be a fact.

At issue here is something that I find very serious and substantially different than perhaps the mood of the House is willing to address at this particular point in time. The issue is very serious. It's a fundamental principle which has been breached. I personally, from my perspective, find that breaching of a fundamental principle very offensive, whatever the reason. The question is not the validity of the deal or whether it was good, bad or indifferent. The fact is that a formal, written contract had been freely negotiated between the government of the day and a group of individuals. In this case they happened to be doctors.

Hon. Speaker, I would feel as offended if that agreement had been breached with a union or any other group or individual in the province of British Columbia, when an agreement had been concluded between the government of the day and that individual or whatever the other group may be. I think all members in this Legislature would find it offensive. This is a most serious issue -- far more serious than the matter has been treated tonight. It is fundamentally wrong to break a contract between a government and any other body. I think most members in this Legislature are aware of that. Why was it done? Was it done because of the campaign promise? If that campaign promise was made, then that campaign promise should be broken.

Fundamentally what we have is more important than any one of us. Fundamentally what we're discussing tonight is more important than any party represented in this Legislature. We're talking about a level of cynicism that we're breeding out there because of the lightness we place on a contractual obligation that was freely negotiated between two independent parties without any external pressure; a conclusion was reached and a contract made.

Hon. Speaker, from my background I have a great deal of difficulty with the extinguishment of that particular contractual agreement. I'm well aware of the fundamental basis on which the agreement was reached. Yes, the former Premier of the province of British Columbia was involved in the negotiations. Yes, it was deemed to be financially attractive to go into that particular agreement with a deferred income -- or call it a pension if you wish. The reality, with recognition of the billings by the medical practitioners in the province, is that the sum involved is approximately 2 percent or 2.25 percent of gross billings by the medical practitioners. It had been reached as part of the package agreement between a negotiated cap -- again, negotiated in fair and open bargaining with the doctors -- and hard negotiation. Obviously the government of the day was not necessarily popular with the doctors for that, but that's part and parcel of the reality of the responsibility of government. It's not simply always the merits of the popularity contest.

When they had reached an agreement -- we're looking at the $25 million -- there were a number of factors that were in favour of that particular agreement. One was the purchasing power of the dollar; decreased with inflation it would cost less and less. It was a fixed amount of money over a period of time. It also decreased as a percentage of gross billings, because of increased population and utilization. So it was a good deal for the government of the day. The reality is that we're not talking whether it was good, bad or indifferent, as I said at the onset of my conversation; the reality is that we're talking about a contract.

If the government of the day is uncomfortable with a contract that was reached in open and fair negotiation, there are options other than through the heavy-handed stick of legislation. The government of the day is fully conversant of this. I'm confident that most of the ministers are well aware that this is a short-circuiting mechanism, the heavy hand of government, that is being utilized here. It's unjust; it's unfair; it's unreasonable. It sets a terrible precedent. Are we saying that might is right here tonight? Is that what we said in presenting Bill 14 for second reading? I hope not. We've spent eons, generations, civilizations striving to reach beyond might is right, because it never was right. It only proves something that is wrong. We talk about equality of women today. Is might right? I think not. Hopefully we have risen beyond that. The reality is that government has an obligation to honour that contract.

Do you want suggestions on what can be done? Clearly, negotiate. If you find the agreement unpalat-

[ Page 3422 ]

able, it clearly opens the door for negotiation with the government. But that has to be the only option available to government. Bill 14, with its purported heavy-handed direction, is wrong and inappropriate, as I've said. The negotiation path is in fact open. The government of the day can negotiate with the doctors and reach some other agreement. For comparison, I would like to inform the members, in case they're not aware of it, that other public sector employees have negotiated agreements where the government of the day contributes 8 to 8.75 percent of their gross earnings as the government's share towards a pension plan. In this case, with the doctors, we're talking about 2 or 2.25 percent of gross billings. When you look at the reality, you'll find that the agreement was in fact a good one: it was a good one for the government; it was a good one for the taxpayer of the province; and it was a fair one for the doctors of the province.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Perhaps the government of the day feels that they have a vested interest to do what they will because (a) they're government; and (b) as they've pointed out, and quite rightfully, the government of Saskatchewan was the first government -- a CCF government -- to bring in medicare in Canada. But I have to remind them, as others have reminded those hon. members, that the government of British Columbia that brought in medicare -- the second government in Canada to bring it into a province -- was a Social Credit government. Along with the New Democrats, we supported universal medicare in Canada because of a strong social conscience. That's a shared bit of heritage that I'm proud of. I'm confident that the government members are proud of it, but that gives us no vested right to arbitrarily break a contract in a heavy-handed manner. Whether the contract is reached in a private matter between you and I, whether it's a handshake or a word, it is in fact a contract, and it must be honoured, and as is normal in contractual obligations, to all heirs and successors. Those are the realities. That's the fundamental law; it's common law; it's universal. Without that we have virtually nothing. That's the issue at stake.

The $25 million? It sounds like a lot of money to me. I suppose it is a lot of money to me, and it's a lot of money to most members and certainly to members of the general public. But in reality, when we're talking about a $5.5 billion plus budget to the Ministry of Health, we're not talking an enormous sum of money. That deferred income was a cost-effective manner of settling a dispute between doctors and the government of the day.

I am not here to inflame the discussion. I would earnestly ask the government -- people of depth and hon. ministers with strong convictions and a strong sense of justice and fairness -- not to take an arbitrary position and say: "We can hit those guys, because they happen to be fairly well off, we think, and they don't really deserve all of that income. So we'll be arbitrary in our principles." We can't be arbitrary in our principles; we have to be responsible. Regardless of what it is, we have to set a standard and precedent for business, industry and individuals in the province. I think this is a horrid precedent to set where, because might is right and we're government, we can unilaterally break a deal. I wouldn't be very proud of that, and I don't think that government members on a one-to-one basis or any member of this Legislative Assembly could be very proud of that type of an action.

[11:00]

In conclusion, I sincerely ask the government to reconsider Bill 14 and to take a course -- time is not a critical issue -- and negotiate with the medical doctors in this particular area and come to some sort of a reasonable agreement. The medical doctors are reasonable, hard-working, caring individuals in society. So are members of government, and they have an incumbent responsibility to choose the honourable route that they have stood and said they would as open and honest government.

For the people of British Columbia, I think that everyone sees it as clearly evident to consult only when it's in your best interest to consult, to negotiate only when it's in your best interest to negotiate and perhaps to bulldoze when that's the most convenient or expeditious route to take. I don't think that the government can lower these standards of behaviour to that element. I honestly believe and I fervently hope that the government will reconsider this particular unilateral and punitive action directed in this case against one specific group in society. I earnestly ask the Minister of Health, along with the Minister of Finance, to freely and openly negotiate with doctors with goodwill to come to a reasonable settlement and agreement. In the end, the precedent that is set will be a good one for the people of the province.

L. Krog: I thank the hon. member for Okanagan West for lowering the tone of debate here tonight, because I think that's appropriate. I want to thank the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock for offering an invitation to members of Her Majesty's government to rise and speak in support of this particular bill. I must say that we are talking about principles tonight. Everybody's talking about their principles. But principles are often competing principles as well. The government is saying through this bill that ultimately the Legislature is paramount. When this so-called agreement, this arrangement, was entered into by the former government, there was no question that if a contract existed between the electorate in this province and the government of the day, the basis of that contract, the trust and the support and the willingness of the people to support that government was long gone. What happened in the election in October is that the people of this province, in the system of government that we enjoy, changed governments. They sent a message, if you will, and that message was quite simply this: no government has the right to enter into arrangements like this without the mandate of the people.

The hon. opposition has spoken long and hard about principles. I put this question to them: if the government of the day had entered into an agreement with the doctors that it required the people of this province to pay a billion dollars a year in perpetuity, would they 

[ Page 3423 ]

stand in this chamber and support it so wildly and loudly? Of course they wouldn't.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.

L. Krog: I'm grateful to members on both sides of the House for assisting me in my short remarks here tonight. I'll try to keep them short in view of their generous assistance.

That is the fundamental principle here before this Legislature. A deal that was wrong in principle, that was entered into behind closed doors, that was entered into behind the back of the then Minister of Health, a deal that was ratified by a government three days before it realized that it would have to go to the people of this province and face its just deserts, cannot be supported by any legitimately elected government. What is happening here tonight is that the people's will is being delivered via Bill 14. This arrangement will not continue.

The hon. member for Okanagan West talked about the physicians of this province. The opposition would love to characterize this government as seeking out doctors in this province to punish and hurt somehow. There's not a member on this side of the House who doesn't believe for one minute that the physicians of this province work hard and deserve to be properly remunerated for the services they provide, but this pension arrangement is nothing less than an awful blight inflicted upon the voters of this province by a government that had lost its mandate. So I have no difficulty in saying to the people of British Columbia tonight and to the doctors of this province in particular that I support this bill because it is the right thing to do. As much as the opposition may wail about it, they know that as well. They would not, as I said earlier, support the previous government in this arrangement if we were talking about much more money. To commit the taxpayers of this province to $25 million a year in perpetuity is ridiculous.

Every pension fund legitimately set up recognizes the principle that at some point the employer or the employees may not have to contribute, because it builds up an income. What this arrangement and the way in which it was entered into clearly indicates is that it was not entered into with any thoughtfulness whatsoever.

Interjections.

L. Krog: I'm always grateful for the advice of the learned opposition. They have so much to say of such value.

I hope I have satisfied the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock who was so afraid that the members of the back bench of the government were somehow afraid to stand and address this issue tonight, and I'm happy to have the opportunity to speak on this.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to raise a few points about Bill 14. We've just heard some words from a private member on the government side of the House who talked about how he believes that this bill is something that he can support personally and individually as a member of this Legislature. He believes he can support it because the deal was a bad deal. We're not here tonight to debate whether or not the deal was a good deal or a bad deal. We're here to talk about this bill and the way that it deals with the pension plan that was freely negotiated between the government of British Columbia and the British Columbia Medical Association. Now whether that was a good deal or a bad deal is open to question. It's probably open to some debate. The issue that the member for Parksville-Qualicum totally ignores is the manner in which this bill deals with that agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask you whether or not you would agree that this bill is the proper way to deal with an agreement freely negotiated in a modern democratic society. It harkens back to something from the Middle Ages, from the Dark Ages.

Let me just tell you a little bit about what the bill says. There might be some members of this House who haven't familiarized themselves with the bill. It's a very short bill. The bill says that: "All rights and obligations...under the agreement are extinguished." The bill says: "The obligation of the government...is extinguished." The pension plan "shall be deemed not to have been established." Furthermore, the bill says that the pension plan "is terminated," and that "the association and other persons are not entitled to any entitlement arising from the plan." It says one or two more things. "No contractual arrangements between the government and the association...shall be deemed to exist on the date this act comes into force." It also says that: "No undertaking by the government to the association or its members...shall be deemed to exist on the date that this act comes into force." Finally, it says that: "No action for damages or compensation against the government, the commission or any person arises by reason of this act." No damages; no compensation.

When has this Legislature, in its entire history, since it was first established back in colonial times, ever had a piece of legislation come before it with language as heavy-handed as this? I can tell you: never. Never in the history of a democratic Legislature would we see legislation coming forward that is this heavy-handed. Who drafted this bill? Was it Darth Vader? There may be some members of this Legislature who believe they can recall legislation that was heavy-handed, but I would argue that nothing compares with this. This bill is almost -- and I stress almost -- as arrogant as the minister who sponsored this bill, who refuses to be here tonight.

At the very start of this session, going back some months, the government brought in two bills and put them on the order paper: Bills 13 and 14. It placed them on the order paper as threatening, menacing, bullying pieces of legislation hanging over the heads of this province. Shameful pieces of legislation. What have they done? They put them there to threaten people. Apparently they're going to let Bill 13 die on the order paper, but they brought it in in a Trojan horse in the form of Bill 71. It's hidden in there.

[ Page 3424 ]

What have they done with Bill 14? I really had hoped and wanted to believe that they would never bring this bill forward for debate, because it's shameful, odious, worthy of contempt and not worthy of debate in this Legislature. But no, they have brought it forward. They should be ashamed of themselves. Those members who had the bravery to get up and try to speak to this bill obviously haven't read it or thought about the implications of a deal not being a deal.

Mr. Speaker, I've got to ask you: when in British Columbia is a deal not a deal? I can tell you. It's when the NDP is in office that a deal is not a deal. What they're saying with this bill is very simple. They're saying that a contract exists. They're admitting in this bill that a contract does exist, but now they're saying they're going to tear up the contract. They're going to rip it up and pretend that it never existed. They're going to say that you can't bother to appeal that. Don't bother trying to sue the government, because you can't do that either. They're taking away that free and democratic right, a fundamental right of all Canadians and all British Columbians, to seek recourse through the courts. They're saying: "No, you can't have that either." That's what is wrong with this bill. That's one of the many things that's wrong with this bill -- no recourse to the courts.

They're saying one other thing that's disturbing here. They're saying that this holier-than-thou government can come into office and tear up any agreement made by any previous administration, and that that's okay. What is the implication of that? What they're really saying is that any agreement they enter into while they're in government -- hopefully that's not going to be for very long -- over the next few years, which are going to be difficult years for our province, can likewise be torn up by a future Liberal government.

That's not something that we wish to contemplate. That's not something that we want to be invited to do, as this government is inviting us to consider. When we are on the government side of this Legislature, when we form government in three years' time, they're basically inviting us to tear up any agreement that they enter into. What kind of signal is that sending to British Columbians and to people outside of our province? What kind of signal is that sending to the world -- that an agreement in British Columbia is not an agreement, because the government of the day can rip it up and say that it never existed and that there is no recourse to the courts? It's shameful.

This bill is so wrong that the government should be ashamed they're bringing it forward. We can't support it, and there are many reasons we can't. I would like to propose an amendment to second reading of this bill, because we can't approve this bill in principle. Our constituents would be ashamed of us, as elected representatives in this House, if we approved this bill in principle. There are many reasons we'd like to oppose this bill, but I'd like to tell you one of the most important ones.

I'd like to move this amendment right now to second reading of this bill. I would like to move that this bill not now be read a second time, because it denies the fundamental freedom of recourse to the courts to seek action for damages or compensation against the arbitrary and despotic acts of this government. I invite members of this Legislature to support this amendment, to put this bill to rest, to let it die on the order paper -- an undignified death, as it may be. Let's get on with the business of this session.

[11:15]

L. Reid: I rise this evening to speak in support of the amendment that this bill not be read a second time now, because it denies the fundamental freedom of recourse to the courts to seek action for damages or compensation against the arbitrary and idiotic acts of this government -- oh, pardon me, the despotic acts of this government.

I have no patience with this ongoing debate, because quite frankly, this government needs to respect the word of an elected official. This government needs to understand that it cannot bring forward legislation which denies individuals in this community access to legal recourse. It is fundamentally not appropriate. It is somehow suggesting that these people do not have a belief system that they are prepared to stand by. It is somehow suggesting that their word doesn't mean anything. I have significant difficulties with that.

I want to read into the record the words of the previous leader of the official opposition, who is now the Premier of this province: "I referred to...a 'done deal' because British Columbians should know that the election of an NDP government in the next few months would not erase a legally binding contract."

D. Mitchell: Who said that?

L. Reid: The current Premier of the province: "...the election of an NDP government...would not erase a legally binding contract." That is significant, hon. Speaker. It suggests that there was some principle involved, that he truly understood that a contract is a contract. Where are we today? If you look at the explanatory note for Bill 14, Professional Retirement Savings Plan Agreement Extinguishment Act.... Never did I believe that I would see a piece of legislation that starts: "The purpose of this bill is to extinguish rights and obligations under an agreement dated October 10, 1991...." Never did I expect to see that. It is a fallacy that because you believe it should not have existed, you can somehow wipe it off the map. That kind of arrogance cannot be tolerated. British Columbians don't expect their elected officials to represent them badly. This is bad legislation.

This debate, in my view, is about honour. This debate is about standing up because you believe in something. We believe that a deal is a deal. In the Liberal opposition in British Columbia, you honour your commitments. This government needs to honour a commitment that was negotiated in good faith. It was indeed a legal commitment. We're looking for consistency when this government interacts with different groups in the province. Whether it is with the construction industry or doctors in this province, there must be consistency. We have not seen that.

[ Page 3425 ]

This debate is going well past the eleventh hour, because to the Liberal opposition it truly means something when you give someone your word. We need to have some commitment.

J. Tyabji: Where's the minister?

L. Reid: The minister is not present.

This lack of commitment is shocking. We need to ensure that we stand for the taxpayers in this province and for the fact that everyone needs to be treated fairly. This legislation is unfair to British Columbians.

Bill 14 is a stick. Decent people don't use sticks; decent people talk. They sit down and negotiate. If they have negotiated badly, they renegotiate; they don't take out a stick and club something to death. It is not appropriate to suggest it doesn't exist because your side of the House says it doesn't exist. It exists. This is an agreement that was reached between the province of British Columbia and the physicians. It is still in effect, and it is our view that it is a legally binding agreement that must be honoured by this government.

F. Randall: On a point of order, I just want to ask a question. Is the amendment in order? Is it not completely contrary to the main motion?

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, some comments contained in the amendment are argumentative. The Chair allowed the member to proceed. But if you are rising on a point of order with respect to the wording of the amendment, the amendment has some questionable language in it. Since you are raising it, I will advise the committee that it uses the term "despotic," which is argumentative, at the least, and perhaps even inflammatory.

F. Randall: I would suggest that the Chair rule the amendment out of order.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair takes the point as valid.

The point has been raised that the motion is out of order on the basis of the argument in it. The mover may wish to reconsider the motion. But the Chair will have to rule that the motion is technically not in order.

D. Mitchell: Speaking to the point of order, if the Chair has ruled that there is a problem with the amendment, and if the specific problem relates to the word "despotic," I would be pleased to delete that word in order that the debate can continue and we can get the business of the House done. If the Speaker would take the amendment as read without that term in it, then we could proceed. If that's the sense of the House, then perhaps we could do so.

Deputy Speaker: That would satisfy the concern, hon. House Leader.

W. Hurd: I'm sorry not to be able to speak to the word despotic, because it certainly applies to the bill. Since it's been stricken from the record, "arbitrary" and "denial of fundamental freedom" will certainly fit. I'm sorry that I threw away my 48-point election platform, because I believe another promise was broken when I was out of the chamber, with respect to the government's pension plan -- promises to the doctors. I see there are extra copies, and I'm sure that there will be extra copies for some months and years to come in British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Here's one for you, Wilf.

W. Hurd: I thank the committee for passing me a copy.

It's a privilege for me to support this amendment. If ever a bill didn't need to be read a second time in principle, this is it. The reason is that there's not a principle in the bill that doesn't involve the extinguishment of doctors' pension plans. This bill is a particularly offensive piece of work, and it stems from the Minister of Finance. I'm certainly delighted that he has finally returned to the chamber to face the music on one of the most onerous pieces of legislation to come before this chamber, as the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has stated. Surely in the history of this assembly we have not had to deal with an act that basically says the previous act was never on the books. Can you imagine? They wouldn't even pass a bill like that in eastern Europe during the height of the communist Cold War. If ever a bill deserved to disappear, as many of the people in the Kremlin wall disappeared, this bill is it. It deserves to disappear into history and not be passed before this assembly finishes its work.

It's almost incredible to us that a member of the government side of the House could stand to defend a bill with this kind of heavy-handed language -- a bill that suggests that the previous act never existed, and that there's no right of recourse to the courts in the province. We see the pattern with this government of not even recognizing the fact that there's any law beyond this assembly or any redress to the court system in this country. There's not even a suggestion that there's any remorse for this type of heavy-handed approach.

I would remind this government that recourse to the courts in this province and in this country is one of the basic freedoms we enjoy under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Surely any government that purports to be fair and that says that this is a fair piece of legislation would not shrink from the possibility of those affected taking their concerns to a court of law and having them interpreted. What is the government afraid of by inserting this onerous clause of no redress or compensation before the courts? How can they stand and defend that basic principle, which runs roughshod over the very principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which I remind the members opposite was brought forth in this country by a Liberal government.

I can tell you that Liberals will always stand up in the province of British Columbia against bills that seek to eliminate the basic rights of the citizens in this province, whether they be doctors, trade unionists or any other members of our society. We will stand on this side of the House and speak against onerous bills like 

[ Page 3426 ]

this, because apparently only one party in this province recognizes that people's rights are being extinguished by this onerous bill. We haven't heard one member of the government side of the House stand and suggest there is anything wrong with this kind of heavy-handed language. I tell the members opposite, as I told them earlier this evening, that the people of this province will not forget. They will talk to their physicians, and they will be advised that they will not forget this kind of heavy-handed legislation.

This is certainly an opportunity for the government to hook this bill off the order paper, to have it not be read a second time and have it die on the order paper, so that we can all go back to our homes throughout British Columbia with at least a shred of dignity attached to the proceedings of this assembly. There's no dignity in this bill for any member of this assembly. I tell the members opposite that as a member of the Liberal caucus I will have no problem going home to face my doctor and talk about this bill and about what we did to oppose it. I wonder how many members opposite will be able to go home and talk to their physician and try to explain the fairness and equity in this piece of offensive legislation. They're not offering any explanations to this chamber. All I can hope is that by the time they get to their next checkup, they offer a better explanation to the doctors of the province than they've offered here in this chamber tonight.

S. Hammell: On the principle of Bill 14, the undoing of a bad deal by a previous government, after an election which left those members with the numerical strength of seven, clearly the electorate lost confidence in the decisions being made by that administration and chose another. I find it somewhat sanctimonious for one of the previous speakers to speak so piously about a deal being a deal when the previous government destroyed the contract signed in good faith by the teachers and their school boards through Bill 82. They believed they were looking after the best interests of the electorate, and they were prepared to break signed contracts. History has proven them wrong. The difference is that the electorate knows that this is not a normal contract. They know that the pension is a bad deal and a sweetheart deal, and they know they will be well served when it is renegotiated.

J. Tyabji: I'm glad to see that the Finance minister has climbed down from the ivory tower he was on, as I said in my speech on second reading. It's unfortunate he wasn't here for that.

As I said in second reading of this bill, I find the entire action, intent and principle of the bill reprehensible. The reason I support the amendment is that I feel that the Minister of Finance has been misled in terms of his motives for introducing Bill 14. It's now 11:30, the day before we are hoping to adjourn the House, and we're bringing forward a bill that's been on the order paper for almost four months.

[11:30]

I want to be very brief in speaking to the amendment. I just want to leave this image. I feel that the Finance minister has been misled, that he thinks he is some kind of Batman and is saving the taxpayers from the nasty BCMA. I think he feels he's on some kind of crusade and that he's some kind of caped crusader, saving the taxpayers from the BCMA. In actual fact, I would put to you that he's the Joker, in that he's relishing his reprehensible acts of breaking legal contracts, which would be right in line with the kind of dastardly deeds we would expect from the Joker.

The Chair: Making references to members other than by their constituency is highly unparliamentary, and I would ask that the member try to conduct herself accordingly. Please proceed.

J. Tyabji: I would just like to conclude by saying that I hope the Minister of Finance will depart from this erroneous course, reconsider this bill and leave it on the order paper, where it deserves to be. Certainly the Liberals support the motion to kill the bill, and we urge the Finance minister to do the same thing. He should take this amendment to heart and adjourn the House as soon as possible, so we will not see this bill become an act.

A. Warnke: Much like watching an extra-inning baseball game, I do rise. I've been sitting in this seat for hours, it seems, listening to this debate. It is a seventh-inning stretch that I'm warrnted, I believe.

I want to speak especially and particularly to this amendment. The amendment states very clearly that this bill not be read a second time because it denies the fundamental freedom of recourse to the courts to seek action for damages and compensation against the arbitrary acts of this government. It is this that I want to focus specifically on.

I believe one other member of this assembly said earlier this evening that the basic cornerstone of a democratic government and society is contract law. My good friend from Delta South is responsible for saying that, and it is so true. The basic cornerstone of contract law is that agreements are honoured by successive governments. In jurisprudence there is a basic principle....

Interjections.

A. Warnke: Well, if you can't hear, I'll yell all the louder, because in jurisprudence a basic principle has been observed by every government. Whether it's a democratic government or an authoritarian government, there is a basic principle: pacta sunt servanda. For those who do not know that principle.... I'm not surprised that some of those members do not understand it because this particular principle in basic jurisprudence stipulates that a deal that a government makes with another government, and a deal that a government makes with any one of its citizens, must be honoured by successive governments. Pacta sunt servanda applies not only to domestic law but to international relations, and these people should know that. Imagine an international negotiated agreement that does not observe this basic principle. Guess what 

[ Page 3427 ]

happens: chaos, anarchy, war in the world. Surely that's one thing to avoid.

Hon. Speaker, when you apply that principle to constitutional negotiations between the various provinces, guess what? If that principle is not observed, then the constitution falls apart and the country falls apart. If that principle is not observed, guess what? It is possible that the citizens cannot get together, including the native community. Imagine if this government negotiated a deal with the native people of this country, and they turned right around in the next administration and said the deal is null and void, what kind of a reaction we would get then from the native community.

A contract is a promise. There is a term that is used from time to time: a sacred promise. A contract is a sacred promise, and it's one.... Now some members are starting to laugh. It's interesting that in so many ways this government resembles another government that talks about sacred trust, yet they don't practise it: the federal government. It's amazing that they base some of their principles on the model of that federal government.

A contract is a promise. The pursuit of prosperity, the pursuit of subsistence and the pursuit of basic life and liberty depends on such basic principles of jurisprudence.

Hon. J. Cashore: On a point of order, I think we should all remember that this is about health. I'm very concerned about the health of this member. He's getting extremely upset here, and it could be very bad for his heart. I would like to ask him to calm down.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister. That is not a valid point of order. The hon. member continues.

A. Warnke: Any time I place my health in the hands of the Minister of Environment, I'm in deep trouble. I assure you that I have no intention of placing my health in the hands of the Minister of Environment, and I have no intention of placing my health in the hands of this government.

The point that I'm making is so important in the context of the amendment being put forward. There is the very famous phrase by a student of jurisprudence, Roscoe Pound, who once said: "Nowhere is the reciprocal action of legal rules and philosophical theories more strikingly manifest than in our law of contractual liability." When a contract is unilaterally violated, as in this particular case, it must be opposed.

I find it very troublesome that this particular bill was introduced by the Minister of Finance. Therefore, when we bring forth the amendment, it's very appropriate that we say to that minister that he doesn't even understand the basic rules of jurisprudence. That Minister of Finance doesn't even understand some of the basic principles of law in a democratic society. Shame on that minister!

Anyone who understands the evolution of the nature of law in our society must understand first that in order to keep the peace in society, we have to keep our negotiated agreements. We have to adhere to the basic fundamental principles of contract law and contract agreements. That is how disputes are resolved. Therefore any breach of an agreement or contract such as this is darned serious, because it reopens conflicts. That is precisely what this government and this Minister of Finance are doing. This government ought to be opposed, and that is why I'm in favour of this particular amendment.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, there being no further speakers, the Chair is prepared to call the question on the amendment. The amendment is that "this bill not now be read a second time, because it denies the fundamental freedom of recourse to the courts to seek action for damages or compensation against the arbitrary acts of this government."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[11:45]

On the main motion.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I rise to speak against this motion. I have followed this debate very carefully, especially the debate from members opposite. I see a notice that some of the members opposite have held active positions in trade unions and are very familiar with the trade union movement, as I myself have held a position as president of a union and chief negotiator in labour contract negotiations.

I find it amazing, quite frankly, that those members opposite who are members of a trade union, many of whom I have a great respect for personally, can vote in favour of this bill. Let me read to you what Mr. Ken Georgetti, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, has to say about this bill. He said on March 31, 1992: "The measures against the doctors constitute a form of legalized contract-breaking." Mr. Ken Georgetti 

[ Page 3428 ]

says he indicated that the union would call it "bargaining in bad faith." It is amazing to me that, as I said, the members opposite who are members of the trade union movement can now vote for this bill and can, in effect, put the government in a position of bargaining in bad faith.

As I followed this debate, I noticed that it was the member for Parksville-Qualicum who came closest to establishing the reason why this government feels it so easy to simply put this through, feels compelled that this should be law in British Columbia. It was the member for Parksville-Qualicum who said it was because they have a competing set of principles. That's what he said. Indeed, that is quite true, because this government does go to the people of British Columbia and say: "These are our principles, and if you don't like them, then we've got these set of principles, and if you don't like these, we'll find another set of principles."

That is precisely why not one member opposite would allow this kind of high-handed action to take place among the trade unions. In fact, interestingly enough, I notice when we look at the comments and the rather long travelogue we had from the member for Port Coquitlam, who talked about the fact that we can't have a contract or a pension plan which is wholly contributed to by the government.... Let each one of us as MLAs, then, commit to rescinding the pension plan that is enjoyed by every Member of the Legislative Assembly. Let us do so retroactively, and let us deny every former member of this assembly his pension plan, if that is the principle of that government opposite.

There isn't a single member of that government opposite who would have stood there and said that they are indeed prepared to remove the pension plan that so many of their colleagues have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy. Yet here we find, interestingly enough, a government that says that it's perfectly fine to do this to doctors, because doctors negotiated a bad deal with the former government.

In that interesting travelogue we had from the member for Port Coquitlam, we learned some exciting and interesting new policy initiatives. We learned that the government is approving the Alcan project. We learned from him that the government was going to approve drilling in the Fraser Valley. The reason that I enter this into debate -- and we will be certain to send his comments to all people affected by these projects -- is that it demonstrates quite clearly that the word of this government cannot be trusted at all.

Perhaps the most telling of the comments in debate was put forward in an eloquent manner by the member for Richmond-Steveston, who said in a most telling way: how can we send a signal to the aboriginal peoples, the first nations of this province with whom this government is currently in negotiations, that what is negotiated or what may be litigated in the courts will be a deal that they can count on, when they have just witnessed the government with the stroke of a pen remove and break a contract because it was a bad deal?

I stood in support of an act that was taken by the members opposite when they were in opposition. They spoke out against Bill 82, because it did precisely what is being intended in this bill that we are debating right now. Bill 82 removed the agreements between school boards and teachers; it removed the same contract -- a deal that was made in a freely negotiated collective agreement between two parties. When this government that now sits there was in opposition, they took up a strong position of principle against the action and activities of Bill 82. It was a principle that said when you negotiate a contract in British Columbia, you honour the contract. If you don't like the contract, then you renegotiate another one.

When we look at some of the members of this House who are active members of a trade union, when we start to recognize that they are in active negotiation right now with the BCGEU, when we witness what they have just gone through in the settlement of a contract with HEU, how can any active, practising trade union member in this province, brother or sister of any organization, vote for this bill in good conscience and hold their head high and say that a deal is a deal in the province of British Columbia? They cannot, and if they have any integrity they will stand up and vote against it.

Let me say that the Minister of Finance himself, prior to taking on elected office, was active in the trade union movement as an organizer. He is somebody who believed at that time in the integrity of a deal that was made, and believed that when a deal had been signed it should be maintained. Let me say this: this Minister of Finance, who stood in this House to accuse the Liberal opposition of being in the pockets of the BCMA, and who says it was shameful that we should have open communication and dialogue with the members of the BCMA, must have forgotten the letters written in the many numbers by their own members.

For example, the member who is now the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology wrote: "Deliberate confrontation with doctors is damaging to the integrity of our profession and to all British Columbians." That letter was written to doctors. Then, he doesn't say: "We want your continued support." What he says is: "Please consider giving a donation of $1,000 or, if it's possible, $500 or $250."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

G. Wilson: Let me say this. When we hear the piety in the debate opposite, when they stand and say that somehow we are in the pockets of the doctors of this province, when they suggest that we are, then I turn to them and say: explain to your trade union friends how it's possible that a deal is no longer a deal in the province of British Columbia.

This has to be the most offensive of bills. I realize quite clearly, as I stand to speak to this bill, that as the Minister of Finance will stand to close debate, we can expect the diatribe that we have heard before. Then we'll hear a lot of rhetoric about Liberals. We'll hear a lot of rhetoric about how this government sees the opposition in the pockets of the doctors. We'll hear a lot of rhetoric as this minister stands to get his clip for the 

[ Page 3429 ]

television and to satisfy his desire for the publicity that is needed. We are likely to hear a lot of rhetoric and a lot of Liberal-bashing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

G. Wilson: When the minister closes debate, I hope we will hear an answer to the words of the president of the Federation of Labour in British Columbia, who says that this bill constitutes bargaining in bad faith. Let this minister explain why there's one set of rules and principles that will apply to unionized workers and another set of rules and principles that apply to the rest of the province.

In closing this debate, let me say that if this government is to be trusted by those who will enter into negotiation and contracts with them, be they the first nations of this province, the BCGEU, the HEU or any other group, let them be forewarned that this is a government that does not honour a collective agreement, bargains in bad faith and does not believe that a deal is a deal in British Columbia. Let me say that the words of the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Mr. Ken Georgetti, ring true. This indeed is legalized contract-breaking and constitutes bargaining in bad faith.

Hon. G. Clark: As tempting as it is to finish with a rhetorical flourish, I am going to resist the urge to do that. I congratulate the opposition leader on his very fine speech and hope that the ten people watching at home will appreciate it.

I want to say on the bill that there is another principle called parliamentary supremacy. The parliament is supreme; the will of the people is what counts in this business. Members of the New Democratic Party campaigned against this pension. We were extremely clear all the way through discussion in the House and during the election campaign. We were, however, surprised to learn that some seven days before the election date, the government of the day, in secret, signed a perpetual contract that was not open for renegotiation at any time. Parliamentary supremacy to override a contract is something that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances, and this clearly qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance.

[12:00]

I want to make the further point that one should not be quite as excited by this legislation as the opposition makes out. We took the $25 million and extinguished a $25 million debt that was owed to the government, to the people of British Columbia, by doctors. We rolled the $25 million into the base to pay for the medical services of British Columbians. Rather than a 100 percent taxpayer-funded pension, money is now being spent on medical services for British Columbians. A 100 percent taxpayer-funded pension was not in the cards at this time, given the financial situation the province faces. We acted very prudently, calmly and rationally. In many respects the doctors are better off as a result of rolling this money into the base rate.

People have made this issue some kind of holy grail. The reality is that this contract was signed during the election campaign because they knew, as we had campaigned on and talked about for some time, that a perpetual contract that was not open for renegotiation left the government with only one choice: to follow through on our election campaign, follow through on our commitment to bring in legislation to deal with this very serious problem and, at the same time, move the money into an area of medical services that would benefit the people of British Columbia.

On this side of the House we have been clear that we are quite prepared to get into a discussion of a real pension for doctors should they desire one, as long as it's negotiated so that they pay some of the costs and the government pays some of the costs; it's a real pension plan. If that's their wish, we are certainly prepared to do that within the ability of the taxpayers to pay.

In terms of parliament taking this action today, it should not happen very often, does not happen very often, will not happen very often. We feel confident that this was something that British Columbians knew and expected the new administration to take action on, and we have taken that money and put it to better use in the medical system. I ask all members to vote in favour of second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 14, Professional Retirement Savings Plan Agreement Extinguishment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House.

Hon. L. Boone tabled the 1989-90 and 1990-91 annual reports of the Ministry of Government Management Services and Minister Responsible for Women's Pro-

[ Page 3430 ]

grams, and the 1990-91 annual report of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary.

Hon. G. Clark: Just before I move the appropriate motion, I want to advise members of a couple of things, just so we understand tomorrow's business. Today at 10 a.m. there will be question period. After that, I'm advised that by agreement we will not have private members' statements, but we'll move into committee stage of Bill 71 and Bill 14, and then we will do the three readings of Bill 82 and committee stage of Bill 72. I believe that will conclude the business. We will sit until that business is complete.

With that, I move that this House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:10 a.m.

Note: Appendices (Amendments to Bill 71 and Motions on Notice)

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada