1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 12, Number 5
[ Page 8569 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
B. Jones: It's with great pleasure that I introduce to the House today a couple of distinguished guests from what I call the FOI community: firstly, Darrell Evans, executive director of FIPA, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, which has been most influential in assisting the government in developing what we think is outstanding legislation in this area; secondly, David Flaherty, one of the world's leading experts on privacy and data protection. Would the House please make these two gentlemen very welcome.
Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery today is Mr. Norman Thomas, registrar of the College of Pharmacists. He's here this afternoon to listen to committee stage of the pharmacy bill. I believe he has been waiting up to 15 years to see this bill to come through this Legislature. Would the House please make him welcome.
W. Hartley: Visiting Victoria and the Legislature today are two guests, George and Jean Scargill, from Crofton, England. They are travelling throughout our province. Escorting the Scargills are two good friends of mine from Maple Ridge: Bob and Betty Spiers. Please make them all welcome.
E. Barnes: It's with considerable sadness that I take my place this afternoon to advise the House of the sudden passing of Rev. Hartley Dent, the former MLA for Skeena. He was elected in 1972, along with myself and the hon. Attorney General, the MLA for North Island. I believe that the Attorney General and I are the only two members remaining in this chamber who were sitting when Hartley Dent was first elected under the Dave Barrett regime. Hartley served for a while in the position I now hold, that of Deputy Speaker. He was also at one time a provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party. It's very sad news. I had no opportunity to get very many details, as I just found out about it this afternoon. I would like to ask that the House ask the Speaker to send condolences on behalf of all members.
The Speaker: Is it the will of the House that the Speaker do so on behalf of members?
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
D. Mitchell presented a bill intituled Parliamentary Calendar Act.
D. Mitchell: This bill is one that I'm sure all members will support, especially at this time of the year, as it establishes a fixed parliamentary calendar.
Under the bill there are two sessions of the Legislature each year. The first would commence on the first Monday in March and last no longer than four months. The second would commence the day after Thanksgiving in October and would be for a maximum of two months' duration. Furthermore, at the opening of a new session of parliament the Speaker of the House, with the advice of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, must draw up a parliamentary calendar to comply with these provisions. Nothing, however, prevents the Legislative Assembly from amending the parliamentary calendar or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from recalling the House between sessions to deal with emergencies related to the health, safety or economic well-being of the people of British Columbia. The requirement for a sitting to commence can also be waived when a provincial general election occurs within 60 days of the dates fixed for a legislative session.
The most progressive legislatures in the world have fixed parliamentary calendars. It's interesting to note that in Ottawa this reform has been a very surprising success in the House of Commons, in that it has forced the government to discipline itself by bringing in legislation well enough in advance to have it pass before the end of the session. Likewise, it has imposed discipline on the opposition parties in the House of Commons in Ottawa to do their work of scrutiny and accountability in time to get the work done within the parliamentary calendar. It is time to end the ad hoc approach here in B.C. and to have a parliamentary calendar of our own. The current ad hoc approach often results in a costly and inefficient use of the time of the House and in legislation by exhaustion. I am very pleased to commend this bill to all members of the House.
With those few words, I move the bill be read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Bill M225 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
MISQUOTES ATTRIBUTED TO FINANCE MINISTER
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Finance. In a recent speech to members of the Health Employees' Union, the Minister of Finance is quoted as making some interesting remarks: "Socred bureaucrats who inhabit the Health ministry...." And he talks about the minister telling union members: "You can all identify the fascists who now work on your hospital administrations." But he said: "We simply can't fire and replace them all. We'll have to change the way these people think." My question to the minister is: rather than conduct behaviour modification experiments on public servants that he suspects of being Socred fascists, does he not agree that his own behaviour should be modified and that he should apologize for this outrageous insult?
[ Page 8570 ]
Hon. G. Clark: Obviously those are very unfortunate remarks. Fortunately, I didn't make them. I have here before me -- and I'll ask leave after question period to table it in the House -- a letter from the Hospital Employees' Union. I'll just read parts of it. It says:
"I hope you will agree that errors of this nature are understandable in publications produced by first-time newsletter editors who were working on a class exercise for an audience of fellow students. A very small number of copies of the Bugle were produced at the school for the enjoyment of students, and the newsletter went no further. Its first issue was its last." It goes on to say that there were quotes attributed to me which were incorrect. "Please accept my sincere apology for this error and any embarrassment it may have caused you.
"Yours sincerely Geoff Meggs
Communications Director"
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: Again to the Minister of Finance. Other remarks were attributed to this individual, and if he wishes to deny the fact that he said them, that's absolutely fine. But using the same beer-hall style, the minister described Socreds who sit on hospital boards as enemies of Canadians. Are you taking the same diplomacy courses as Kim Campbell and Brian Mulroney?
B.C. RAIL LABOUR DISPUTE
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the minister confirm that B.C. Rail, because of uncertainty around rotating strikes and lockouts, is currently losing about $250,000 a day?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No labour action is occurring in B.C. Rail at the present time. The parties are back to the table, successfully working their way through negotiations. Within a reasonable period of time I anticipate hearing that all matters have been settled.
J. Weisgerber: There is certainly a great deal of concern in northern and central British Columbia, and uncertainty about the future actions of B.C. Rail. Can the minister confirm whether or not he has instructed B.C. Rail not to lock out its employees in the event of rotating strikes?
[2:15]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Negotiations are being carried on between the corporation and its employees, and I will leave that matter between the corporation and its employees. I share your concern with regard to the impact of any labour action, but I don't know that you could point to any country in the world that deals with its labour problems in a more responsible way. We certainly know there are some that do a far worse job, and I would hope the member opposite would not encourage us in that direction.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, Leader of the Third Party.
J. Weisgerber: In his enthusiasm for the free collective bargaining process, will the minister answer the question? Did you or did you not instruct B.C. Rail not to lock out its employees?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, I did not. I am pleased to say that the CEO and the management of B.C. Rail understand perfectly well that lockout is not a good way to deal with any labour problem. That advice came to me directly from the president of B.C. Rail.
MINISTRY OF FORESTS BUILDING IN NANAIMO
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. On June 24 the opposition asked the minister about the purchase of land in Nanaimo for a new Ministry of Forests building. At that time the minister said: "It's strictly in the planning stages, and there are no dollars involved at this point in time." Can the minister confirm that on June 17, seven days prior to her statement in this House, the B.C. Buildings Corporation closed a property deal on 2.5 acres in Nanaimo at a purchase price of $960,000 for a Ministry of Forests building?
Hon. L. Boone: I will take that question on notice.
The Speaker: The hon. minister has taken the question on notice; therefore I cannot allow a supplemental on that question.
GRANTS TO NON-PROFIT GROUPS BY LOTTERY CORPORATION
L. Fox: My question goes to the same minister, the minister responsible for B.C. Lotteries. Can the minister tell us what authority, if any, the Lottery Corporation now has to make direct contributions to non-profit societies, schools or cultural groups? Can the minister further tell us what procedures or policies exist, if any, for accessing and awarding such grants?
Hon. L. Boone: The lottery board would make any decisions with regard to any grants that were given. But to my knowledge, they have not been giving out any grants to groups or corporations. They have supported the Canada Summer Games in Kamloops through the purchase of ads, which is strictly a business deal, but they haven't actually given dollars to the Canada Games.
L. Fox: Supplementary to the same minister. Can the minister advise us whether the chair of the Lottery Corporation has any authority or mandate to direct
[ Page 8571 ]
lottery staff to give money to non-profit groups, including schools?
Hon. L. Boone: It is not the Lottery Corporation chair but the board that has the ability to make some decisions with regard to whether they would give donations to schools or what have you -- not the chair on her own.
JET FUEL TAX EXEMPTION FOR CARGO FLIGHTS
D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Further to last week's question regarding the jet fuel exemption on all cargo flights: why did the minister not allow pro rata exemptions on mixed flights to enable Canadian airlines -- and that's small-case letters -- to compete on a level airfield?
Hon. G. Clark: It's an odd question. As part of the prebudget consultation process, we met with a variety of groups, including the airport authority. Like most groups, they asked for elimination of all the taxes associated with their venue. Obviously, in dealing with our fiscal situation, that wasn't possible.
They then suggested that we were losing dedicated cargo traffic out of the Vancouver port and that we would now have no traffic for international air cargo. As a result of that, we made a fairly major move to promote that kind of new business initiative in British Columbia -- to exempt new international air cargo transportation from Vancouver Airport in order to exempt them from the tax. For any Canadian airline which proceeds with international air cargo, designated cargo traffic will be exempt as well from the tax, so there is no discrimination against Canadian airlines.
D. Symons: Since the minister spoke to the people at the Vancouver Airport Authority, I am wondering if he also spoke to the two Canadian airlines that operate out of that airport and included them in this decision, to see that they had some input into it -- because they are impacted by this government's decision.
Hon. G. Clark: I have had discussion with both airlines on a variety of issues. I believe that Mr. Harris is now the chair of the board of trade. I met with him very recently on this question. They are seeking, as most groups are, tax concessions for their industry. I gave them a commitment, as I have consistently, that we will monitor this. Our purpose is to build a brand-new business opportunity in British Columbia. We are very confident that with aggressive marketing we can do that. This is new business which does not take place now in British Columbia. We will work with the airlines to ensure they are not inhibited.
Just one last point, hon. speaker: our taxes on jet fuel are exactly the same as Alberta's.
AIRCARE LABOUR DISPUTE
A. Warnke: My question is to the Attorney General. During the AirCare strike the Attorney General stated that no loss of revenue would occur, because cars not tested during the moratorium would later be tested. After the AirCare strike was over the Attorney General conceded the impossibility of processing all these cars through the AirCare stations. When did the Attorney General realize this impossibility? Was it perhaps when the union said it was okay to say so?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I must confess I'm not sure precisely what the question is. If he is asking me the date that I realized we couldn't process all the cars that weren't tested during the course of the strike, I can't give him that answer. But during the course of that dispute it became evident that it would be very difficult for us to test all the remaining vehicles in this calendar year. However, I am encouraging motorists in Vancouver who have not had their cars tested to do their bit for clean air by going in and having their cars tested this month.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
A. Warnke: Since the Attorney General concedes the impossibility of processing all these cars, and since a loss of revenue is obvious, when will the government reimburse Ebco-Hamilton for the loss of revenue?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is making assumptions I'm not prepared to concede.
B.C. FISHING INDUSTRY
R. Chisholm: To the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister taken time to call or meet with the new federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans -- the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs, Ross Reid -- to inform the minister of the potentially disastrous season for the fishing industry in British Columbia?
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, I was just in Newfoundland. Their fish stocks are in dreadful shape. We had a fisheries conference. Unfortunately, in that Liberal province they've lost 30,000 jobs. We've gained 30,000 in the last month, by the way. They are very envious not only of our position, but of our success in that particular area. Ross Reid is indeed the new Fisheries minister, and he is carrying on the policies of the former Fisheries minister, the Hon. John Crosbie.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the minister to conclude his remarks.
Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly. So we are monitoring the situation. We explained to the federal government, and indeed Ross Reid knows this, that the experiment on the Fraser River last year was an abominable failure. We are looking at it very closely. We insist that they conserve the stock. Our stocks, by the way, are in excellent shape.
[ Page 8572 ]
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
R. Chisholm: So much for political rhetoric.
The track record of the former federal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Crosbie, speaks for itself in the fisheries on the eastern seaboard. So you can blame that individual. We have a new one that's following the same policies. The stakes are very high, and the issue is urgent in this province. What have you told the federal Minister of Fisheries about how to handle the fisheries on the British Columbia coast, before they end up in the same state as the fisheries on the east coast?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have told the minister to handle it very carefully.
CORRESPONDENCE ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Can he explain why it took his office a full nine months -- from October 15, 1992, until June 18, 1993 -- to reply to correspondence from a gentleman from Kamloops with a workers' compensation claim?
Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member will be kind enough to give me the details of the situation, I will be happy to give him an answer.
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that the minister knows what correspondence does and does not go out of his office. Can the minister then tell me why it took a full 12 months for me to get a reply to a letter of June 15, 1992, from his office concerning information he had promised me at that time?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: I presume that the very reason this House is sitting here today in mid-July is because of irresponsible management by the Minister of Labour. When individual workers with claims in this province write a letter to the Minister of Labour they should get a answer fast, not nine months later.
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that there was no question in those comments. I would remind all hon. members about the rules for question period. The intent is to obtain information, not to give it.
ALCAN AND THE KEMANO REVIEW PROCESS
L. Fox: I have a question for the Premier. Given that Alcan has now made a commitment to be part of the Kemano review process, are the Premier and his government prepared to extend the length of that process to allow adequate time for the public to preview the massive amounts of information that Alcan will contribute to that review?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think we should leave that with the Utilities Commission inquiry that is sculpting out and talking with the parties about the range of the inquiry and the length of time.
Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave of the House to table a letter of apology from the Hospital Employees' Union.
Hon. G. Clark tabled a letter of apology from the Hospital Employees' Union.
Hon. A. Hagen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights for the year July 1, 1991-June 30, 1992.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to table the 1992 annual report of the ombudsman. I would like to advise hon. members that the report will be available on audio-cassettes distributed to all members for their constituents.
B. Jones: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint an Information and Privacy Commissioner. I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
B. Jones: I ask leave to move adoption of the report.
Leave granted.
B. Jones: It is certainly a great pleasure for me to move that the report of the special committee be adopted. I'd like to begin by thanking all members of the committee, representing all parties in this Legislature, for the unanimous recommendation. In fact, the difficult exercise that we went through was, I think, a model of cooperation among parties in this House.
[2:30]
I'd also like to thank the Clerk of Committees and his staff -- in particular, Adrienne Cossom -- for the tremendous support they gave to the committee since last December. I might note that the process we engaged in saved the taxpayers of this province some $70,000, the difference in cost between doing it in-house and doing it through a consulting firm.
The committee is certainly very pleased at the overwhelming response to our advertisement: some 222 applications from across British Columbia, across Canada and in fact Europe as well, with some very high-calibre applicants for this position. I would certainly like to express sincere appreciation to all those who expressed interest in this very important position in British Columbia.
[ Page 8573 ]
The committee work, involving some 22 meetings, was certainly onerous and demanding on committee members, but I think all members found this a most educational and satisfying process. We have selected a candidate to serve this Legislature in the very important position that was created on June 23, 1992, when we adopted the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The commissioner is, as I mentioned, an officer of the Legislature, like the ombudsman, the auditor general and the conflict-of-interest commissioner. Like the ombudsman, whose annual report we have just seen, he will also report to this Legislature; however, unlike most officers of legislatures across the country in this particular area, the information and privacy commissioner will have the power to issue binding orders. The commissioner will hold office for a single six-year term. He will be paid a salary equivalent to that of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia. And he will be responsible for monitoring how the act is administered to ensure that the purposes of increased accountability of public bodies and protection of personal privacy are achieved, as well as for reviewing decisions by public bodies in B.C.
It's with great pleasure today that I introduce to the Legislature the successful applicant, David Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty has over 20 years of experience with privacy protection and access to information as an academic, a teacher, an adviser, a consultant and a lobbyist. He is recognized internationally as an expert on privacy and data protection. Since completing his doctoral work at Columbia University, Mr. Flaherty has studied various aspects of law as either a faculty member or a visiting scholar at the University of Virginia, Princeton University, Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School, and he has recently completed a one-year sabbatical during which he was a fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. He was also a visiting scholar of Georgetown National Law Center, a fellow of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, and a Fulbright scholar in law from Canada to the United States.
Mr. Flaherty has been a consultant and adviser to all of the privacy commissioners of Canada, the information and privacy commissioner of Ontario and la Commission d'acc�s � l'information de Qu�bec. He has written and published four books and edited two international bibliographies on privacy and data protection policy as well as numerous other publications. I know that British Columbians will be very well served by Mr. Flaherty as its first information and privacy commissioner. [Applause.]
The Speaker: The motion before you is the adoption of the report.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I believe we have a report from Committee A with regard to the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES
L. Fox: As is typical with this government, there's no organization or advance warning as to what the next agenda item is going to be. I'm actually quite surprised, but I shouldn't be. Day after day we see the same thing: the agenda is adjusted without any consultation at the last moment, and we are asked to contribute in a meaningful way. Sometimes it's extremely difficult.
We went through countless hours of debate on Municipal Affairs estimates. While most often there was a cordial exchange, what troubled me the most through that whole process was the lack of understanding by the minister himself. Certainly the bureaucrats have a good understanding of where the ministry is, but the minister himself has very little understanding of his ministry.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the member just take a moment until the House comes to order. Please proceed, hon. member.
L. Fox: The key issue during the estimates was that the government should encourage growth in sectors of the province other than those that are enjoying growth at the present time. When the minister first made that observation available to me and to other members of the committee, I was encouraged that we were looking at economic development and taxation policies that would encourage growth outside the lower mainland area and the Okanagan. But in canvassing that subject further, I found that the minister's key ingredient for encouraging that development was to look at the infrastructure grant process. I found that rather interesting, because in my experience, it seems to me that if you don't have growth in a region, there's no need for infrastructure. While there may be a point made for infrastructure encouraging development, along with those infrastructure policies, we also have to have economic and energy policies that reflect and encourage development in the regions of the province; taxation policies that allow for investors to make a return on their investments; and respect on the part of this government for the resource industries of this province, which is something we don't have right now. The minister had a lack of understanding as to what kinds of needs had to be there in order to provide opportunities for other parts of the province. Geographically, probably 90 percent of the province is not enjoying the same growth as the southern parts of the province and the Okanagan. While I have some appreciation for the housing policies of the ministry and the attempts the ministry is making regarding its housing programs, I'm extremely disappointed that this minister does not understand the economic problems of municipalities in the rural parts of this province. He is not prepared to take a leadership role at the cabinet table to make sure that policies are in place that would encourage economic growth in those rural areas.
[ Page 8574 ]
A. Cowie: I wish to say that we on the Liberal side were informed. I guess it shows that our House Leader is a little more organized.
I want to thank the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs for responding freely and, I believe, genuinely to questions during the estimates. This ministry is a very wide-ranging ministry, and it's my personal feeling that it could be contracted slightly. Some minor responsibilities such as electrical inspection could be given to the municipalities, which could make a profit on such a service. The ministry might want to think about that. From my own point of view, transportation planning could be transferred from Highways to Municipal Affairs. We hear even more about a great need to combine land use and transportation planning in order to handle the growth that we have today. I hope that is something the government will think about in time. That was mentioned during the estimates.
Especially in the greater Vancouver, Okanagan and greater Victoria areas, we are witnessing unprecedented growth. There were a number of other issues that were referred to. We spent some time on the Islands Trust, which has recently issued a paper on the direction they are going in. There's certainly a need to rationalize that authority. The Islands Trust is right in the middle of the Georgia strait. A recent report by the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy stated that the population in that area, down to Washington and up the valley of the greater Vancouver area, is going to double over the next 20 to 40 years. We have to get a grip on how the future of that area is going to go; we have to direct it. There's a requirement for a great deal of leadership, certainly on land use, air quality and pollution, which cross all boundaries.
Housing is another issue that we spent considerable time on. I have to commend the minister on the progress that he's making in that area by implementing some 17 recommendations of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options. I'm looking forward to the 30 more that are in the works. We're moving in that direction, and the minister is certainly being flexible and responding to the needs.
We looked at provincial grants for a while. I'm a little disappointed about some of the areas there, especially revenue-sharing. The municipalities are looking for more certainty on how they get money from the provincial government. More work has to be put into that area. The minister informed us during estimates that approximately 80 municipalities or local authorities are looking at restructuring. I'm looking forward to more rationalizations there. For instance, three regional districts in the lower mainland, apart from the Greater Vancouver Regional District, are looking at getting together. I see that as a very positive thing, and I'm looking forward to more information there.
As for reassessment of regional districts elsewhere, I believe that more energy will have to go into that, so we can achieve a better use of the funds expended on regional government. As the minister knows, that's something I feel quite deeply about. I'm looking forward to the next year, when we will progress further in Municipal Affairs, especially in the housing area. I await much progress.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Firstly, I'd like to thank my Liberal critic for his kind comments. Indeed, I think that the issues he raised were excellent. For the most part, he and I had an excellent dialogue, which I think speaks well for the process here. Due to the nature of the system, obviously there are some things we don't agree on. But I think there was a consensus on many areas he brought up, particularly on restructuring, regional planning, growth management and housing. I thank the member for his comments on the housing report. Indeed, we are moving ahead. The ministry is very active, and we think we have a very successful agenda to accommodate.
I'm disappointed that my colleague from the third party took the position he did in preparing for this discussion this afternoon. I think the standing orders are clear. The information is there in terms of when we bring forth reports. Be that as it may, I felt that the discussion I had with my critic from the Social Credit Party was, for the most part, good and informative, and good questions were asked. My style and my approach is that if information is required, we will give it.
[2:45]
In municipal government, and in Municipal Affairs in particular, we're all working in the interest of local government. At times there will obviously be political or partisan issues that we'll disagree on, but most of the time those of us who work in the municipal field or who come from the municipal field recognize that the issues faced by local government need the consensus of all of us in this House. I think that was imparted, to some degree, during the estimates in the Douglas Fir Room.
We talked at length about regional planning and growth management strategies. I indicated to my good colleagues that we are in the process of research; extensive consultation is about to begin, and we hope that in 1994 there will be legislation providing local government with more tools for growth management strategies. My good colleague the Liberal critic is interested in this topic, and has provided excellent ideas and suggestions for moving ahead on this agenda, which I appreciate.
We talked briefly about sport and recreation, which comes under my ministry, and the things we are doing there in terms of expanding opportunities, particularly at the community level. It is a part of my ministry that I have a lot of time for, in terms of young people and coaching and providing support for our excellent athletes while they go to school. We didn't get into the Commonwealth Games or the Canada Games, or the number of other multisport games that we participate in, which provide opportunities for British Columbians to participate and to actively seek a healthy lifestyle through sport and recreation.
We talked about the fire commissioner, and the support my ministry gives to the firefighting community. We also talked about the close to 30 percent increase that I have given it this year to support the Fire Academy, fulfilling a longstanding request by the
[ Page 8575 ]
firefighting community for more money for fire training.
We talked about revenue-sharing, and the concerns that local governments have for more grants and time, and the requirement that.... We have said to local government that we want to review the revenue-sharing system to make sure that it works for the future. We had a good discussion about that.
As I mentioned, we also talked about the Provincial Commission on Housing Options report and the housing matters that are before the province. I clearly stated that in terms of the political agenda, housing is a high priority for this government. We are moving ahead on a policy. B.C. Housing has been revamped, with a new board and a new executive director. We have a whole new system of allocating units, a streamlined process. We thank the member for mentioning that we have introduced 17 recommendations already and we are moving ahead on 30 more. In the next week or two I will be announcing the appointment of a special advisory committee to the Ministry of Housing to get advice from all stakeholders for developing the policy in the next year.
In conclusion, I want to thank the men and women in my ministry who work diligently behind the scenes. They are loyal public servants who believe in the public service, work hard for it, serve long hours and are available when the minister requests it. We have had a very active year in my ministry. Many agendas have come forward, and long hours have been spent. Sometimes the system does get a little overloaded, but it is always responsive. I really want to pay special tribute to the staff in my ministry, who are always there and serving who we are serve: the public of British Columbia. I thank my critics, I thank my staff and I thank the House for allowing me the honour of presenting my estimates this year.
Hon. M. Sihota: I think that marks the first time the Minister of Municipal Affairs hasn't taken up his full allotment of time.
In any event, I call committee on Bill 51, the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act.
I also wish to advise all hon. members that Committee A will convene in the Douglas Fir Room to deliberate upon the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.
HEALTH CARE (CONSENT) AND CARE FACILITY (ADMISSION) ACT
The House in committee on Bill 51; J. Pullinger in the chair.
Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.
On section 13.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 13, by deleting the proposed section 13 and substituting the following:
Exception -- informed consent not required for preliminary examination
13. A health care provider may undertake triage or another kind of preliminary examination, treatment or diagnosis of an adult without complying with section 6 if
(a) the adult indicates that he or she wants to be provided with health care, or
(b) in the absence of any indication by the adult, the adult's spouse, relative or friend indicates that he or she wants the adult to be provided with health care.]
Amendment approved.
Section 13 as amended approved.
On section 14.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to section 14 standing under my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 14,
(a) in the proposed subsection (1)(d) by deleting "subsections (4) and (7).", and substituting "subsections (4) to (7)," and
(b) in the proposed subsections (2)(a) and (5)(a) by adding "or the decision about the adult's incapability" after "major health care".]
Amendment approved.
On section 14 as amended.
L. Reid: I have a quick question about assessment. Under section 14(2)(b), it says: "The health care provider must arrange for an assessment, in accordance with the regulations...." Very briefly, could the minister advise what that assessment may look like, and how it will follow under the regulations?
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Hon. E. Cull: The details of that are still to be determined.
I'm going to make this comment now, because it will apply to many details that members may want as we move into this legislation. This act is part of companion legislation that is going forward dealing with adult guardianship. These four acts are intended to be implemented over a number of years, because many detailed steps will have to be sorted out once the legislation is brought into place.
With respect to the assessment, we're anticipating an interdisciplinary team would be responsible.
Section 14 as amended approved.
Sections 15 to 20 inclusive approved.
On section 21.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[ Page 8576 ]
[SECTION 21, by deleting the proposed subsections (1) and (2) and substituting the following:
(1) If the adult rejects the facility care proposal, any one of the following who has reason to believe that the adult
(a) needs and would benefit from admission to the care facility mentioned in the facility care proposal, and
(b) is incapable of deciding to reject the proposal,
may arrange for a designated agency to assess whether the adult is incapable of making that decision:
(c) a substitute decision maker, guardian or representative who is authorized to make decisions about the adult's personal care;
(d) the adult's spouse;
(e) a relative referred to in section 22(2)(b) to (e);
(f) the adult's medical practitioner;
(g) the Public Trustee, if no one else is available.]
On the amendment.
L. Fox: As I understand it, the amendment is supporting the B.C. Health Association and our concerns regarding (a), (b) and (c). That's commendable. But one thing that should be observed at this time is the lack of time that such associations have had to consult on these particular issues and concerns. This minister and others are constantly standing up and talking about the consultation process. This amendment may not have been necessary had there been more consultation in the beginning. That's just an observation. I think it's commendable that the minister listened to those associations and clarified their concerns with this amendment.
Hon. E. Cull: I have to point out to all members in this House that this legislation, and the other three pieces under the Attorney General, have been under consultation for the last two years. In fact, all stakeholders have had extensive involvement in the concepts that led to the legislation -- and in earlier drafts of the legislation as well. While there may be times when members opposite can talk about inadequate consultation, this certainly isn't one of them.
Amendment approved.
Section 21 as amended approved.
On Section 22.
L. Reid: I have a brief question to the minister on the best-interest test under section 22. The relative or substitute decision-maker has a duty to consult with relatives and friends and apply a best-interest test before making a decision. I understand that may fall under the regulation, but could you elaborate on what that may look like?
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, the best-interest test looks first at what the individual's wishes are, should they be known, and then at what facility might suit them or whether a facility placement is in their best interest, having taken the wishes and desires of the individual into consideration to the extent possible.
Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.
On section 25.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 25 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 25, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (b), by adding ", and" at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following paragraph:
(d) the necessity for the restraint is periodically reassessed in accordance with the regulations.]
Amendment approved.
Section 25 as amended approved.
Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.
On section 29.
L. Reid: Section 29 refers to hearings; they must be in seven days. There seems to be some discussion, hon. minister, about whether or not that's a reasonable time frame for people who may be travelling from out of town. Has there been any discussion of whether some exceptions may be permitted?
Hon. E. Cull: The panels will be structured regionally, which should eliminate the need for people to have to make lengthy travel to, say, Vancouver. We'll be trying to take the panels to where the people are, as opposed to the other way around.
L. Fox: Just for some clarification, in this section you suggest that a party is entitled to be represented by counsel or an agent. It's probably worthwhile asking if it's a good idea to have lawyers involved in what should be a family matter or a matter between close friends. What is the rationale for that?
Hon. E. Cull: The section doesn't say that legal representation -- counsel or an agent -- must be there, but under administrative law they would be entitled to. There are elements of this legislation which have to reflect good administrative law practice. When someone is before a hearing like this, they would normally have the right to have someone there with them -- counsel or an agent.
[3:00]
Sections 29 to 32 inclusive approved.
On section 33.
L. Reid: This section states that any person acting in good faith is protected from liability under this act, and that providers and operators can rely on reasonable evidence for the authority of a substitute decision-maker under this act. If there was a question of
[ Page 8577 ]
competence or liability, would the minister or this act allow someone to stand forward to represent that individual? Would legal counsel be a provision of this act?
Hon. E. Cull: Are you asking whether we would provide legal counsel, or are you asking whether legal counsel would be entitled to be there?
L. Reid: Both.
Hon. E. Cull: Certainly legal counsel would be entitled to be there. I'm not sure that we would provide legal counsel, as we don't as a policy provide legal counsel anyway, except through legal aid processes.
Sections 33 and 34 approved.
On section 35.
L. Fox: Section 35 suggests to me that there will be no offences under this act. I'm wondering if the minister has considered whether that isn't a bit of a paradox if a contravention of section 25 respecting restraining people.... Given the rights of individuals with respect to that clause, is there any contradiction here between sections 35 and 25?
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, this is a very common clause in many of the acts we have been debating in this session -- or would debate in any session. The member should be aware that it's quite common to see this in legislation. Essentially, what section 35 says is that contravention of the act or a regulation is not an offence under the Offence Act unless it is specifically stated to be an offence in this legislation. That means that it doesn't become a criminal issue; it becomes a matter of civil law. If the act is contravened, someone is entitled to a remedy under civil law, but it doesn't make it a criminal offence to do so.
Sections 35 to 40 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. E. Cull: This is the first bill I have taken through to the end of committee stage, so I'm a little rusty in my motions here, but I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 51, Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. E. Cull: I call committee on Bill 55, hon. Speaker.
HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 55; E. Barnes in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On section 4.
L. Reid: In section 4(2) we are talking about the council seeking ministerial approval, as before, for a decision not to allow a particular profession to be designated. Are there any applications before the council at the present time other than the ones we have considered in terms of briefing?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, there are a number of applications. I haven't received a report in at least eight weeks, so I couldn't be absolutely up to date on those that are there. When my staff member joins us I'm sure he'll be able to give a complete listing, but I don't have them at my fingertips -- I'm sorry.
Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.
On section 8.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 8, by deleting the proposed section 15.1(2) and substituting the following:
(2) A college has the following objects:
(a) to superintend the practice of the profession;
(b) to govern registrants according to this Act, the regulations and the bylaws of the college;
(c) to establish, monitor and enforce standards of education and qualifications for registration of registrants;
(d) to establish, monitor and enforce standards of practice to enhance the quality of practice and reduce incompetent, impaired or unethical practice amongst registrants;
(e) to establish and maintain a continuing competency program to promote high practice standards amongst registrants;
(f) to establish, for a college designated under section 12(2)(h), a patient relations program to seek to prevent professional misconduct of a sexual nature;
(g) to establish, monitor and enforce standards of professional ethics amongst registrants;
(h) to require registrants to provide to an individual access to the individual's health care records in appropriate circumstances;
(i) to inform individuals of their rights under this Act, the regulations and the bylaws of the college and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(j) administer the affairs of the college and perform other duties through the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act, the regulations or the bylaws.]
L. Reid: If I may just seek clarification, subsection 2(f) in the amendment refers to the establishment of a
[ Page 8578 ]
patient relations program to seek to prevent professional misconduct of a sexual nature. There has been a discussion in the press over the last number of days in terms of the College of Physicians and Surgeons not putting in place a complaints officer. Does this piece of legislation enable the minister to intervene to ensure that the public truly is protected? I know that a number of British Columbians are looking to this legislation to give them that assurance. Does it indeed do that, in your mind?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't believe it would provide exactly what the member is looking for. What this says is that a college must have a patient relations program to seek to prevent professional misconduct of a sexual nature. So essentially it says that they must have a program; it doesn't stipulate what the program should be or how the program should be carried out.
Unfortunately, the debate that has been taking place recently with respect to the College of Physicians and Surgeons refers to a recommendation from a task force that they struck, which reported about a year ago and recommended a separate complaints officer -- actually separate from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, to a considerable extent -- which the college has, for various reasons, chosen not to accept as part of the recommendations. This does not mean that they're not going to have complaints officers; they just haven't supported the recommendation from the "Crossing the Boundaries" report. I don't believe this particular clause would have anything to say on that, because it just says that they must deal with the issue. How they deal with it is up to the college, and they will have to continue to deal with this particular one.
L. Reid: Is the hon. minister of the opinion that Bill 55 does further the public safety issue for British Columbians? It may not get us all the way down the road in terms of what I might like to see, or perhaps what you might like to see, but can British Columbians, particularly women, feel better about this piece of legislation than about previous college structures that may or may not have put in place something they could rely upon?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes. The reason for the amendments to the Health Professions Act, and also the ones that we are going to be debating next under the Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, is to make a number of changes to the rules that apply to the self-governing professions so that it is absolutely clear that these bodies are regulating in the public interest. The major feature of the legislation to accomplish this is a change to specify the duties and objects of the college, to stipulate very clearly what it is that they are established to do, and to build in things such as the patient relations program that we've been discussing and other objectives that require them to regulate in the public interest. To use the example of doctors again, there will be an increase in the number of lay or non-college members, if you like. There will be other people besides doctors serving on the college board so that there can be representation from the general public.
Those particular changes will, I think, have quite an impact on clarifying the roles of the college and making abundantly clear our expectations as a government and as legislators with respect to these bodies.
Amendment approved.
On section 8 as amended.
L. Reid: Section 15.1(1) states: "It is the duty of a college at all times...(b) to exercise its powers and discharge its responsibilities under all enactments in the public interest." Is it the position of the Minister of Health that the public interest is going to be determined by or will rest with the minister? If indeed that is the case, could she perhaps give us some parameters for that discussion today?
Hon. E. Cull: The definition of public interest has two applications with respect to this act. I'm not sure whether the member is asking about one or the other, or probably both. In one case, the Health Professions Council is required to make its decisions based on the public interest. Their decision to recommend the formation of a college or not has to be based on it being in the public interest. What is that? We worked very hard last year to establish the public interest criteria through regulations, which are there now to guide the council. The other application of the term "public interest" would be in the direction that we're giving these colleges -- that they are supposed to be conducting their business in the public interest. There certainly may be some direction from the other set of public interest criteria that I spoke of a minute ago, which were developed under regulation, but I assume that we will also have to refine that and make it directly applicable to the business of the college.
Section 8 as amended approved.
Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. E. Cull: 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 55, Health Professions Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. E. Cull: I call committee on Bill 71.
[3:15]
[ Page 8579 ]
HEALTH PROFESSIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 71; E. Barnes in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
L. Reid: I begin debate this afternoon by suggesting that the number of this bill does not warm my heart, because I know that the Minister of Health and I were in extensive debate during last spring on a Bill 71.
Hon. E. Cull: Hopefully this will be much shorter.
L. Reid: This will definitely be shorter.
The intent of Bill 71, the Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, has the support of the opposition in terms of whether or not it is possible to create a relationship the public can have some confidence in and where they wish to be with respect to the very precious trust relationships referred to: the relationship between a teacher and student and between a physician and patient.
We have tremendous support for the introduction of laypeople on the council. I have a concern under section 2, the duties of the college. I agree with where this legislation is headed in terms of public accountability. Would the minister be able to give us any indication this afternoon as to how she's going to scrutinize that level of accountability and whether or not we will be able to see that this legislation has made a difference in accountability to the public?
Hon. E. Cull: Coming up in another section of the bill is a requirement that there be an annual report prepared by each college and given to the minister, which is a change over past practice. These colleges haven't been required to do that in the past. The provision of an annual report will certainly help in terms of accountability, and will give an indication to the minister of where there may need to be follow-up.
I think the other place where this will occur, though, is with the increase in the number of public members serving on the college. One of the things we will be doing is providing orientation to those new appointees, so that they have a clear understanding of what their duty and function is on the college board they will be sitting on. Probably the best route for accountability is to have people who are clearly there to represent only one interest, and that's the public interest.
L. Fox: In reviewing section 2.1, the clause here is different from the clause in section 15.1(2) of Bill 55. I'm just trying to compare the amendment.... It still appears to be inconsistent. Section 15.1(2)(i) states: "...to inform individuals of their rights under this Act, the regulations and the bylaws of the college and under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.... Is there no need to have the wording of those two consistent?
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, if I might just take a minute here, I'll make another comment which I hope will have a general application throughout the remainder of this debate. This bill amends 15 separate statutes. While it makes essentially the same amendment to each statute, we had to go back to each statute and look at how it was originally structured and work with the structure that's there right now, because we weren't going to rewrite all the bills, and we certainly weren't going to collapse them all into an omnibus bill, as had been suggested by the royal commission. We respected the fact that some of these statutes had particular significance for the bodies they were regulating. So we have tried to bring in the amendments within the structure that exists in each of those 15 acts. Naturally there will be some differences from one act to another, and there will be differences with the Health Professions Act, which has the standardized generic version, if you like, of the objects in it.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
As we go through each one of these.... We're looking at section 2 right now, dealing with chiropractors. If we pulled out the Chiropractors Act and had a look at it, we would see that many of the things in here reflect what is already part and parcel of their legislation. That's why you'll see a difference from one to the next. I think you'll find, though, that the overall intent is consistent throughout.
L. Fox: Just for the record, the minister might answer a question. If there is a conflict between Bill 71 and Bill 55, which would be the key legislation? Would it be the legislation contained within Bill 71 or would it revert back to 55, which seems to be the main bill?
Hon. E. Cull: No conflict is possible in the legislation, with the exception of the one section which we have yet to come to, which makes an amendment to the Health Professions Act. Professions are only regulated by one act. Chiropractors are regulated by the Chiropractors Act; they are not regulated by the Health Professions Act. When midwives are established as a college they will be governed by the Health Professions Act, not a separate act, because that is the procedure that we are moving into now with the health professions legislation that was brought in a couple of years ago. The Health Professions Act only applies to designated professions. Other professions not designated under the Health Professions Act have their own legislation, and only that applies to them. They don't have the situation where more than one act applies to them.
L. Reid: I know I have shared my concerns with the minister in the past in terms of former patients. How do they have recourse? Does this new legislation provide any recourse for patients who have -- in their view and in the view of the courts at some time -- been mistreated by their practitioner, but the practitioner has since left the practice of their profession? Certainly the minister knows of the case I speak, Mr. John Evaniuk,
[ Page 8580 ]
who continues to receive no reasonable response. Does this piece of legislation allow him, as a former patient, to receive some compensation?
Hon. E. Cull: We have to be clear about the difference between the responsibilities of a college to protect the public and the use of the courts for redress. The role of the college is restricted to regulating who will be permitted to practise a profession, and under what circumstances. Thus the jurisdiction over former members is important for the public protection, because it provides a means to limit the entitlement of an unethical or incompetent practitioner to re-enter practice at a later date, except under circumstances deemed to be safe by the college. So the role of the college is to regulate who can practise and under what conditions they can practise. It may go as far as removing the licence to practise from individuals should they be found to be incompetent or practising in an unethical way.
With respect to compensation and damages due to the irresponsibility of a practitioner, that still remains with the courts. That hasn't changed.
I will point out to the member, because we have discussed this matter on a number of occasions, that many of the health professions have already put in place jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against former members. So it's disciplinary action, which doesn't deal with the compensation issue, that the member mentions.
L. Reid: So, for clarification, there is no mandate for a college, whose mandate is to protect the public, to directly compensate someone for malpractice.
Hon. E. Cull: That is correct. The college itself is not liable for malpractice; the individual practitioner is, which is why they have malpractice insurance. One would have to sue that individual practitioner for compensation or damages.
L. Reid: To continue the discussion, if the patient at that point needs to go back and sue the individual practitioner.... In the case you and I speak of, that individual practitioner was licensed to practise by the college. He will say that he has no dollars to reimburse the individual. Even though the college licensed him, and its duty is to serve and protect the public, it has no liability. Is that my understanding at this point?
Hon. E. Cull: The only time liability would fall to the college would be if it was negligent in its role. If it failed to respond to a complaint or dealt with a complaint in a way that was negligent or somehow remiss, then the college would be liable. But if it is carrying on its responsibilities in good faith and acting appropriately in terms of hearing complaints and making decisions on them, then no, it would not be liable.
V. Anderson: Under (2)(g), "to establish, maintain and enforce standards of professional ethics," which is in each of the sections, would the minister like to comment on how she assumes that professional ethics are going to be arrived at? Are they different for each of the professions related here, or is there a similar kind of guideline or background for these professional ethics?
Hon. E. Cull: Part of the self-governing arrangement for all of these professions is that they develop their own codes of ethics. While there may be similarities between them -- in fact, I would think that we would probably see quite a bit of similarity if we were to get them all out and have a look at them -- they are up to each individual profession to determine.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
V. Anderson: As I understand section 3, the eight members of the Board of Chiropractors are elected from among the chiropractors themselves, and the four who are not chiropractors are appointed by the minister. Does the minister have some selection guidelines for these members? Or are there characteristics or some indication of the kinds of characteristics that would be looked for in the appointed members? Will they be other medical people? Will they be lawyers? Will they be community people? What kind of expertise will they bring to the college board?
Hon. E. Cull: These individuals are to represent the public. Therefore they would not be targeted as members of any other particular profession, such as physicians or lawyers or what have you -- although there is no reason why such individuals would be ruled out from being there in a public role. We will be looking for people who have an interest in the profession and in public service, and who can represent a wide range of situations and individuals in our province. So in some cases we will be looking for people who live in a larger centre, or in small towns or northern areas who might have a different view on how the profession is governing itself. That may not always be applicable. We might be looking for people of aboriginal background, for example, in some cases where that might be very useful. But generally we will be looking for people who have interest and integrity, and who can represent a sector of the public.
V. Anderson: Following up on that question, in what manner will these people be discovered? There are a lot of boards, so quite a few people will be needed in the representation. Will there be advertisements in the community asking for people who might be interested? What will be the process for finding the kind of people throughout the province who would be interested in serving and who could make a contribution? Will there be approaches to voluntary agencies? How will the reach-out be to these people, so that they will feel the community at large has adequate opportunity to suggest representation?
[3:30]
[ Page 8581 ]
Hon. E. Cull: The member is right that there will be quite a number of appointments possible with these changes. At this point, we haven't made any decisions about the process that would be used, but we make dozens -- probably hundreds -- of appointments to hospital boards on a rotating basis. I would think that we would probably draw on a similar process to the one that we use there, where we ask local people for advice or names, and to send us r�sum�s so we know something about the individuals, because we wouldn't always know about them. We certainly would seek advice, as we do with hospitals, from the current board as to whether there are suggestions, but we would be going well beyond that. We would want to give a bit of thought to the process that we could use to generate names. The objective here is to come up with a large pool of people who we could potentially appoint to these bodies who would be as representative of the province as possible. I'm quite open to suggestions on how we might go about gathering those names beyond the channels that are currently known to us through the hospital board process.
Sections 3 to 10 inclusive approved.
On section 11.
L. Fox: Generally, from our discussions with the College of Dental Surgeons, they support this section. But I have one observation, which probably runs through sections 11 to 16. The reworked legislation that was passed in 1988 already contains many of the changes. Their main concern was that there is too much legislation to digest in such a hurry. The registrar of the college complained that the consultations were too brief -- in fact, "most of them were conducted over the phone." That's a direct quote. I just want to put that on the record. As well, the college sees some further administrative problems.
That being said, I have to come back to the question I asked at the very beginning. The minister is correct when she says it runs through each section, but in section 11, section 2.1(2)(i), we get back to that same statement. If it was necessary to make it mandatory that individuals be apprised of the bylaws of the college in Bill 55, why does it not run through each of these? I understand the minister said that this reflects what each act already has in place, but I just have to wonder why it was not necessary in each section of this act.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm going to ask my staff person to check this. I didn't look for this particular section earlier, but when I was asking similar questions about why something was in one place and not in another, when I went back and looked at the acts, I found that it was already in some of them. So I am assuming that this section, where it does not appear in this amendment, already appears in those newer acts that were amended most recently. But we can check that for you, because that should be there.
With respect to the College of Dental Surgeons, I'm sorry that they don't feel they had sufficient time to discuss it. In addition to telephone calls, there were facsimile copies submitted to them of what we were talking about so that they could see things in hard copy. There were lengthy discussions with the college's lawyers as well. So we felt that we had a good opportunity to discuss them with them.
From second reading debate on this bill, you will also recall that it was and is my intention this fall -- as a result of the passage of Bill 55, which will allow us to expand the Health Professions Council -- to ask the Health Professions Council to review all legislation pertaining to the individual statutes and make comprehensive amendments. Because of a number of situations that have come up in the last year, particularly in the last number of months, it was felt that it was important to get on with making these amendments now, and that we could not afford to wait for another year with some of them. In fact, in some cases the colleges themselves have been asking for these changes to be made so that they could get on with protecting the public interest in a way that they felt would be more effective.
I should introduce my staff person. This is Alan Moyes from our policy and legislation planning unit. He points out to me that it is in all of the amendments; it's just not always itemized. It moves around from statute to statute, depending on other changes that reflect the structure of the act that we're amending.
Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.
On section 15.
L. Fox: In section 15, section 39.4 is being repealed and replaced. This section states that a person who makes a seizure with a court order must report that the seizure has been made to the same judge who issued the order, unless not practical. The college believes that if this is going to go back to the same judge, it's going to be a waste of time.... Who decides if it's not practical?
Hon. E. Cull: This is a function of the court registrar, who has to schedule chambers. If a matter is thought to be very urgent and the judge is not available, then another judge would be scheduled to hear it.
Sections 15 and 16 approved.
On section 17.
V. Anderson: I notice that they have designated emergency medical assistant as a profession. Perhaps the minister could explain the nature of the training or the designation by which an emergency medical assistant comes into being in order that this would then be regarded as a profession. What is the nature of the designation, and why particularly at this point is emergency medical assistant designated as a profession? Is this someone who has taken a college course? What is the indication of a profession in this clause?
Hon. E. Cull: This is a somewhat unusual section in this act, in that there is an overlap with the
[ Page 8582 ]
Emergency Medical Assistants Licensing Board, which also has some responsibilities with respect to these particular individuals. All this does is designate an emergency medical assistant as somebody in the profession. The determination is through the licensing board itself -- and the Emergency Health Services Commission -- which licenses individuals under their regulations. I think this is somewhat confusing -- it's certainly a little bit confusing to me -- with respect to the dual roles. For that reason, very few amendments are made to this particular act, because more time needs to be given to sorting out the dual responsibilities between the act and the commission.
V. Anderson: Do I understand, then, that the licensing board you are referring to is separate from the Health Emergency Act? Or is it contained within and does it operate under that act?
Hon. E. Cull: No, both bodies are established under this act.
Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.
On section 20.
L. Fox: The first question I have to ask the minister is: why do we see an amendment to the Health Professions Act in this particular bill when we just passed Bill 55, which amended that act? It seems to me that we see here a lack of organization in terms of how we are going to deal with the respective acts. On a day-to-day basis we seem to come up with ideas and changes that are required in the legislation. I would think that this particular section would have been contained in Bill 55. I look forward to a comment from the minister on that.
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct. There are two acts that make amendments to the Health Professions Act. They do, though, deal with slightly different objectives. I suppose that a decision could be made as to whether to put them in one or the other: to put them in the act that was amending it to primarily deal with expanding the Health Professions Council; or to put them into this bill, which deals with all the health professions. The simple fact is that after Bill 55 had been put together, we had further consultation. We are responding to that consultation with these amendments.
Sections 20 and 21 approved.
On section 22.
V. Anderson: I have a similar question to the one I asked previously. This concerns the definition of "the practice of a hearing aid dealer and consultant." Normally when you think of a hearing aid dealer, you think of a salesman, but there is much more required here. I am asking for the meaning of the definitions, as they are included here, for both "hearing aid dealer" and "consultant." What standards and professional qualities are indicated by this act?
Hon. E. Cull: Again, this is somewhat similar to your last question. Maybe I can be a little clearer in the answer this time. Subsection (2)(a) under section 2.1 says that one of the objects of the college is: "to superintend the practice of the profession." That is described there as an object of the board. "Profession" is defined under section 22 of this act to mean "the practice of a hearing aid dealer and consultant," simply so it's clear as to what is being referred to on the next page when we get to the word "profession."
[3:45]
The society representing hearing aid dealers presently has an application before the Health Professions Council to be designated as a separate health profession. So the legislation here and in the Health Professions Act will become applicable to them.
V. Anderson: I understand that you're right: they have an application in to be recognized as a profession and to have an act. What kinds of standards or process do they put forward in order to do that?
Hon. E. Cull: They make an application to the Health Professions Council, which conducts a hearing and receives written submissions on the application. The Health Professions Council is guided by the public interest criteria that exist in regulation, which determines what criteria they must use to answer the question of whether or not the establishment of this group as a self-regulating health profession is in the public interest. That criteria, with a bit more embellishment than I've just given it right now, is used by the Health Professions Council to make their determination.
They hold the hearing and produce a report. You have seen some of those reports, because they have completed three, which I have publicly released. Those reports then come to me. I review them and take a recommendation to cabinet, which then makes the decision on whether or not to support the Health Professions Council. So it's a very straightforward process.
I could give you more information about it, if you wish. It's new. While the act was brought into place and passed in 1990, I believe the first hearings were held in 1992. So the council is just starting to get its procedures down. As the minister, I've been trying to standardize the procedures as much as possible from my end as soon as I receive the reports, so that we do the same thing with each health profession's application as it comes forward.
V. Anderson: Just to follow up on that, if I understand it properly, a process is now in place which was not there previously. A number of groups, such as the one we were just discussing, are now in a position to come forward. So many groups that were stymied before because of different interpretations now have a channel through which to come forward and get consideration, and other groups that might object to
[ Page 8583 ]
them coming forward have an opportunity to be heard in those hearings as well.
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, that's the case. Mr. Moyes said at the very beginning of this debate that there are more than a dozen applications before the Health Professions Council. The opposition critic asked whether there were applications before them that haven't yet been released or heard. There are a dozen. I don't know exactly who they are, but certainly I'd be willing to share that with the member. It's public knowledge, once an application has been made. It's just a tracking procedure we're able to use to determine where they're at and what we're likely to hear about next.
From talking to the chair of the council, I know that they try to scrupulously follow the practice of dealing with the applications in the order they have been received. So they do them in the order of the filing of the application.
Sections 22 and 23 approved.
On section 24.
L. Fox: This section deals with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Prior to drafting sections 24 to 28, I wonder if there was any consultation with the surgeons and physicians around the independent committee report called "Crossing the Boundaries," which I understand had some recommendations around the appointment of independent officers to investigate charges with regard to sexual issues.
Hon. E. Cull: As the member is aware, the College of Physicians and Surgeons just last week released its response to the "Crossing the Boundaries" report, so an official position was not available until last week. I received a copy of the report a few hours before it was publicly released, and that's the extent of the notice we had with respect to their final deliberation. However, we did meet with them prior to the conclusion of their work on "Crossing the Boundaries" to gain an understanding of the direction they were going in, particularly to gain an understanding of what legislative support would need to be done by the province to be able to support the final recommendation. I also met with the co-chairs of the "Crossing the Boundaries" report so that I could understand the legislative implications coming from the report.
The timing of this legislation and the final report of the college have perhaps not been as good as we would have liked. It would have been better to have had their final report in our hands well in advance of the drafting of the legislation, which as you know was tabled prior to our receiving the report, and to then have been able to move on all of the things that they wanted. Unfortunately, we had no indication of how soon they would be able to complete their report, and we feared that we wouldn't get it until after the session had concluded. As I said earlier in my remarks, I think a number of the changes here are just too important to wait for the next session of the Legislature.
L. Fox: When I look at the Province of Sunday, July 11, and read that particular issue where the individual -- I don't want to name names, although obviously it's public -- was extremely concerned because the college would not hire an independent investigator to investigate the issues, it just seems to me that it might have been more important. Perhaps this particular section could have been done in an independent way, because the section as it is now reflects pretty much the existing act. There are not a lot of amendments. If we had held off, perhaps there might have been an opportunity to look after some of those concerns. That's just an observation. I don't really expect a response.
Hon. E. Cull: Nonetheless, I will offer one, because I think it's important. The "Crossing the Boundaries" report contains, I believe, something like 97 separate recommendations. The vast majority of those recommendations do not require legislation to put them into place; they are administrative. They have to be undertaken by the college, which struck the task force in the first place, and which I hope will listen to the good advice that the task force provided to them and perhaps reconsider some of the decisions they've made with respect to an independent complaints officer. In any event, the establishment of a complaints officer or an independent complaints officer, or one complaints officer or 50 complaints officers -- however you do it procedurally or administratively -- is not something that's subject to legislation unless you're suggesting that we would actually legislate the "Crossing the Boundaries" report not only for the College of Physicians and Surgeons but for all professions right across the board.
While the sentiments that have been expressed around the college's decision are worthy of further investigation and discussion, I think the legislation enables the college to do what it needs to do and what the report recommended that it do. In fact, it makes it quite clear that we expect all colleges to have a program that deals with this. Prior to these amendments, there was no explicit requirement in legislation that professional colleges deal with this subject in this manner. What we're saying is: do it.
Certainly the administrative details may be different from one organization to another. We're saying that all colleges have to have them. Some colleges are very small in terms of the number of members they have, and they may find another procedure would work as well in terms of protecting the public interest.
I certainly wouldn't, without a great deal more discussion and thought, recommend that the "Crossing the Boundaries" report be applied without change to all of the health professions. Essentially, what we've done is to say: "Do one. Have a "Crossing the Boundaries" report if you need to have one in your profession. Put in place a system to deal with sexual misconduct." But with respect to the details, at this point we have left it up to the colleges to sort out how best to do that. I think that's perhaps the most appropriate way to approach it.
L. Reid: In concert with my colleague from Prince George-Omineca, the issue for me is confidence. Can
[ Page 8584 ]
the public have confidence in the bodies that exist? Hon. minister, I would suggest that if you or I were assaulted on the street, or even if we were assaulted in a medical facility of some sort, it wouldn't make any difference in terms of what college processes were in place. I believe you and I would still seek counsel from the sexual assault services and from the police. Is that your recommendation to British Columbia women -- that this is criminal activity and that it should not simply be shuffled off into the college structure if the colleges are not prepared to stand up and give the public some confidence surrounding these issues?
Hon. E. Cull: There are two issues here that we have to be careful not to confuse. There is the criminal issue around sexual assault, for which we have a system which you and I might fault in many places in terms of the legal system that's in place to protect women; but it is there. With continuing improvements, I think it will do a better job of protecting women in that regard and giving them redress should they find themselves in that situation.
What we're dealing with here is a question of ethical behaviour and whether a physician, first of all, has any implied permission from his or her peers to engage in sexual activity with patients. The "Crossing the Boundaries" report and the college's response make it absolutely clear that there are no circumstances in which a physician can be engaged in a sexual relationship with a patient that are considered to be ethical.
That is the point of what we're trying to do here: making sure that not only do the individual colleges have a statement about what is and isn't ethical with respect to this kind of behaviour between a practitioner and his or her patient, but also that there is a program to hear complaints. Because you're absolutely correct. What the "Crossing the Boundaries" report told us -- and I think what many of us already knew -- is that the public didn't have confidence that complaints of that nature were being heard by the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
The task force was struck to try to determine the extent of the problem not only in terms of how many patients and physicians were engaged in this activity but also what women felt about the processes available to them. A great many shortcomings were pointed out to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Their report has now tried to address the vast majority of them. There are, though, some outstanding issues which I believe will continue to be a subject of debate for some time, because the college has not accepted all of the recommendations. We are now reviewing those recommendations, including the ones that they have not accepted, to determine what further action needs to be taken, if any.
Sections 24 to 32 inclusive approved.
On section 33.
V. Anderson: Section 33 says: "'practical nursing' means practising as a practical nurse." Section 43 says: "'psychiatric nursing' means practise as a psychiatric nurse registered under this Act." I'm wondering why in one case it says "registered under this Act," whereas it doesn't indicate that designation with a practical nurse. That relates partly to the questions I was raising earlier.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not sure that I have a particularly good answer for why there is that difference in terms of "registered under this Act." I think the intent of both sections is the same. Some of it may come up around concerns regarding exclusive use to title and how we describe the different types of nursing and different regulatory bodies that already exist, such as psychiatric nurses, licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, etc. But the intent of the section is that they be read the same.
V. Anderson: I probably understand the intent, but it would be clearer for people if it was saying the same thing under section 33, namely that it means practising as a practical nurse "registered under this act." If the minister is willing to just make that minor change, it would clarify that and avoid difficulty in the future.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm somewhat apprehensive about accepting that recommendation at this point. I'd have to go back and look at the act. I think there is a distinction between a practical nurse and a licensed practical nurse. Rather than make an amendment on the floor that we might live to regret, we'll take this under advisement.
[4:00]
V. Anderson: Could we step this down until it can be clarified? I appreciate the need to check it out. I agree that action shouldn't be taken until it is clarified.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not sure if it's possible, but if we can put this section to the very end of this committee stage, then perhaps in that time my staff can see whether in fact there is something in the existing legislation.
Section 33 stood down.
Sections 34 to 44 inclusive approved.
On section 45.
V. Anderson: I am curious about the board of directors under section 45. In nearly all other cases where the movements have been the same, the number of persons who are on the board and who are appointed by the minister have been indicated. This particular board seems to be unique: there are no designated numbers, either by the officers of the board or by the minister.
Hon. E. Cull: I said earlier that these amendments reflect the existing acts. In this case, there is no number specified in the act, so we go to the one-third rule as opposed to an absolute number.
[ Page 8585 ]
Sections 45 to 47 inclusive approved.
On section 48.
V. Anderson: This has to do with Optometrists Act. I'm wondering why, instead of just being referred to as the "board" like other boards all the way through the act, the board in section 48(1) is particularly referred to as the "board of examiners."
Hon. E. Cull: My answer is the same as last time: this is in the existing legislation and is the name of their board.
Sections 48 to 50 inclusive approved.
On section 51.
V. Anderson: I notice this is the Physiotherapist Act, yet when we turn to section 53, it is referred to as the "Council of Physiotherapist and Massage Practitioners." I'm wondering if both of those names should properly be in the act, or whether that's just another one of these differences.
Hon. E. Cull: It is indeed another one of these differences. The Physiotherapists Act covers massage practitioners as well; their name does not.
Sections 51 to 65 inclusive approved.
On section 33.
Hon. E. Cull: The answer to the question that was asked by the member is again historical. The title "nurse" is reserved for three groups: registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses and licensed practical nurses. There are, however, a number of practical nurses who are not licensed but who have been brought in under new legislation. They have been grandfathered, if you like, to be able to continue in their profession without being one of these other three categories. That's why it doesn't make a reference to licence under the act, because then we wouldn't include those other people who have been recognized.
Section 33 approved.
Section 66 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Bill 71, Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. E. Cull: I call committee on Bill 61, the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, 1993.
PHARMACISTS, PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND DRUG SCHEDULING ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 61; R. Kasper in the chair.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to section 1 standing under my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 1,
(a) in the proposed definition of "costs" by deleting "46, 49" and substituting "46, 47, 49",
(b) in the proposed definition of "practitioner" by deleting "health care profession established by regulation under any enactment of the Province" and substituting "prescribed health care profession",
(c) in the proposed definition of "prescription" by deleting "or supplementary practitioner", and
(d) by deleting the definition "regulations".]
Amendment approved.
Section 1 as amended approved.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.
On section 7.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to section 7 standing under my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 7, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting the following paragraph:
(c) members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council who must not be registrants, former registrants, the equivalent in other jurisdictions of registrants or former registrants, owners of a pharmacy or directors of a corporation that owns a pharmacy.]
Amendment approved.
Section 7 as amended approved.
Sections 8 through 15 inclusive approved.
On section 16.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to section 16 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 16,
(a) by deleting "registrant" wherever it appears and substituting "pharmacist", and
(b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "registrant's registration" and substituting "pharmacist's registration".]
Amendment approved.
[ Page 8586 ]
Section 16 as amended approved.
Sections 17 through 24 inclusive approved.
On section 25.
L. Fox: I want to get some clarification; I am trying to understand the situation. Many department store chains operate drug departments within their facilities. I am not sure whether a pharmacist has the controlling share or what the arrangements are, but I can't find any situation in this area where a department chain could continue to run a pharmacy under the direction of a pharmacist. I want to know whether that is contained within this, because it is my understanding that that option is there today. Would the minister like to clarify that?
[4:15]
Hon. E. Cull: With the corporations and the large chains, my understanding is that they set up a small corporation for the pharmacy with a pharmacist in a position to comply with the act.
L. Fox: I will accept that there is no change to the present practice contained within this legislation. Is that correct? Is that what the minister is suggesting? If so, I accept that there is no change in this legislation from what is presently in place.
Hon. E. Cull: That is the case.
Section 25 approved.
On section 26.
L. Reid: Section 26 deals with change of management to ownership. I want to pay particular attention to subsection (3): "In the case of a sole proprietorship, if the owner of a pharmacy dies, the personal representatives or trustees of the sole proprietor's estate may continue to operate the pharmacy subject to any terms the council may impose for a period of not more than 5 years...." A question was posed to the minister in second reading debate, and I would pose the question again: is there an ability to have an exception to that five-year period?
A number of families of pharmacists believe that they would be unnecessarily penalized if they were forced to sell the family business within a period of five years. It may be that five years is not in the best interest of that company or that the market at that time is not supportive of getting the best price for that business. And this is about regulating the sale of a business. Are there opportunities for exceptions to be made, or is five years an item that will stand in stone?
Hon. E. Cull: The college believes, as does the government, that the public interest is best protected by having a pharmacist in control of the pharmacy operation, so that there isn't any potential for conflict between good professional practice and counselling and dealing with patients on pharmaceutical matters and the profit-making motives that might be there -- and probably are there -- in the case of just the business owner.
With respect to the concern that the member is raising, which is obviously a compassionate one, about what happens if a pharmacist dies and the spouse is left owning the pharmacy, and whether the five years is reasonable, I think the five years is quite a reasonable period of time to make whatever changes need to be made. In any event, although the form of ownership has to change within the five years, it doesn't mean that the survivor can no longer derive income from the pharmacy. For example, a corporation could be formed to take over the pharmacy, and the spouse could own the corporation and receive all of the profits from it.
In terms of whether a spouse who is left behind would suddenly be cut off after five years, the answer is no, but there is a requirement that certain changes be made to respect the act.
L. Fox: If a pharmacist decided to go into volunteer receivership and the bank worked it out so that the pharmacist would continue to manage the receivership, this clause appears to limit that to a six-month period, during which he wouldn't have time to work it back out of the receivership. My concern is that this would prevent a situation where the bank and the owner could collectively work in a receivership mode to bring it back out. Quite often they go into receivership because the pressure of the creditors is so great that the bank decides it's going to manage it, but the pharmacist could continue to operate it, signed by a trustee of the bank.
This clause would appear to limit what in my view is an opportunity for most other businesses. Has the minister given that any consideration?
Hon. E. Cull: The six months is the recommendation of the College of Pharmacists. We're really taking their advice as to what is a reasonable period of time to wind up the affairs in this circumstance and also protect the public interest. I suppose it could have been eight, ten or 12 months, but the recommendation with respect to time came from the pharmacists themselves.
L. Fox: I could understand this if the business were to be wound down, but it is possible to operate some receiverships and bring them out of the receivership classification. This clause prevents that, and that's my concern.
Hon. E. Cull: We're really into an area here that I don't feel totally confident about, and that's bankruptcy legislation and all of the things that would come about because of it. But I don't see that this clause actually prevents a pharmacist or trustee involved in a bankruptcy from doing what the member suggests. It just says that in the case of a bankruptcy, the pharmacy can operate for six months provided the pharmacy is under the bona fide management of the pharmacist. But if during that period of time a recovery plan has been started to be put into place, provided the requirement of the act is that there is a pharmacist in place, I don't
[ Page 8587 ]
see that what you are suggesting is prohibited from this at all.
L. Fox: I'm not a specialist in this either, but I do have considerable business experience. I can only suggest that while this particular clause doesn't prevent it, the six-month clause prevents it. If a business is indeed suffering, perhaps because of the economics of the community, and there is going to be any recovery, it may take a lot more than six months to go through the process. An individual, in consultation with his bank or creditors, should have that opportunity. They do in virtually any other business. They should have the same opportunity to work it out, in cooperation with their creditors. This would force it, so if after six months you could not get out of the receivership classification, you would no longer have permission to prescribe drugs. That has to be a limitation on that pharmacist's rights.
Hon. E. Cull: It doesn't restrict the pharmacist; it restricts the trustee, with respect to operating beyond the bankruptcy, by six months.
L. Fox: If the scenario is being put forward as I am describing it, the pharmacist could in fact be the trustee. In many cases the bank will appoint the owner to be the trustee of the bankruptcy, if there is that kind of cooperation. That is the concern. So in actual fact you are limiting that pharmacist through this legislation.
Hon. E. Cull: I am afraid that since I am not an expert in bankruptcy matters and neither is the hon. member, we are going to have to trust that the pharmacists who advised us on this, who are also business people, are comfortable with this six-month time line, and we'll stay with it.
Sections 26 to 29 inclusive approved.
On section 30.
L. Fox: This section deals with generic drugs. It's not clear anywhere in this section that the pharmacist has to indicate to the person receiving the prescription that they are in fact giving them a generic drug. Is that something that would be done by regulation or is that something that the minister deems is not necessary?
Hon. E. Cull: That is a practice standard that the college itself could require. As you will recall, one of the things that the colleges are required to do is set practice standards. In this case, this would perhaps be a candidate for such a standard, and it might already be in place in terms of pharmacists giving this kind of information to their patients. But I would expect that the college would deal with this under their own authority.
L. Fox: I have just one other concern with this, because I have had several people approach me on the generic drug issue. Under this act would an individual be obligated to take a generic drug over a regular prescribed drug? In other words, is that decision going to be made through the Ministry of Health and through this act to force that individual to use generic drugs? Or do they have the choice of the original drug?
Hon. E. Cull: Some provinces do require a mandatory substitution of a generic when it is equivalent to a brand-name drug. We don't do that here in British Columbia; this act doesn't do that. At this point we have no intention of bringing in such a regulation. I say "at this point" because as you know I do have a review team looking at Pharmacare, and I would not want to preclude them from bringing forward any recommendations that they may have for us. In this case it is a pharmacist acting in his or her professional capability, which is one of the things I would like to encourage to the maximum extent possible; that pharmacists do become involved with the matters concerning their patients, that they consult with their patients, provide information on other drugs that may be possible, and work with doctors to ensure that we are providing them with the most effective formulation and the most effective drug in that case.
[4:30]
Our Pharmacare network will provide a computerized system so that all pharmacists will be able to call up your patient drug record. When we are able to implement the network, I expect that pharmacists, too, will be in a much better position to start advising patients when there are drugs that they shouldn't be taking at the same time, or drugs that are perhaps outdated that they have been on for a long time that they may want to reconsider or check about with their physicians. So in this case, yes, I would expect that if a patient wanted the brand-name drug and asked for it, a discussion would take place between the pharmacist and the patient, and a decision would be arrived at mutually.
L. Reid: Under section 30, "Interchangeable drugs," subsection (2) reads: "If a practitioner has not made the indication described in subsection (1), a pharmacist may dispense an interchangeable drug provided its price to the purchaser does not exceed that of the prescribed drug." My question looks at an example of a very young child whose parent will know that they cannot take capsules for any reason, and wants to have, say, an antibiotic liquid prescribed. They arrive at the pharmacist's, the liquid is more expensive than the tablet, it is a weekend, it is an evening and they are not able to contact the physician. In fact, this would not stand us well in terms of providing immediate care and treatment to very young children. Often, a liquid antibiotic is going to be much more expensive than a tablet form. Will there be some exception made to that? That is certainly the reality today.
Hon. E. Cull: What I think you are talking about here is the same drug in two different forms, whether it is in liquid or capsule or some other form. This section doesn't deal with that at all. It just deals with whether you substitute another drug that is essentially the same, but not precisely the drug that was listed on the prescription. This would not apply in that case, in any
[ Page 8588 ]
event, but I think common sense would dictate that if a pharmacist has the choice of two formulations of the product and the parent says, "My child has difficulty with this formulation," then the other formulation would be made available. The parent could talk to the physician about that at the prescribing stage, too. But this just talks about -- and I wish I could readily think of two drugs by their chemical and generic names -- substituting generics for brand-name drugs, not the different formulations of a drug.
L. Reid: Hon. minister, I understand your point. But my point is that the case may arise where it is a different product: one is a tablet and one is a liquid. The only one that will be useful to the child is the liquid. This does touch on whether or not you can interchange a drug because of its actual formulation, so I believe it is a reasonable comment under this section. I'm only asking for clarification. If the two products were different brands, would the pharmacist be precluded from prescribing the liquid under this section?
Hon. E. Cull: No, because the section says "may." It gives the pharmacist the ability to make a change, but it doesn't require the pharmacist to do so.
L. Reid: I don't wish to belabour this point, but it says: "...may dispense an interchangeable drug provided its price to the purchasers does not exceed that of the prescribed drug." My point initially was that a liquid is going to be more expensive. It does not fall under this section -- i.e., provided it does not increase the cost. It would indeed increase the cost. Does the pharmacist still have the option to prescribe the more expensive product?
Hon. E. Cull: In the case that you've described, yes, because it wouldn't be the pharmacist who would be using his professional judgment to make the change; it would be at the request of the patient. So, yes, the section that stipulates that it can't be more than the prescribed drug would not apply.
Section 30 approved.
On section 31.
L. Reid: Section 31, "Terms of a prescription," says: "(1) A registrant must not dispense a prescription drug or device in any manner or in a quantity that is not authorized in the prescription unless the change is permitted by subsection (2) or section 30." Is it the intent of the minister under this section to restrict professional judgment? My understanding of where this would flow next is that we would end up in a situation where there would be numerous bylaws dictating specific sections. Are we moving into the area of trying to restrict the professional judgment of a pharmacist?
Hon. E. Cull: Absolutely not.
Section 31 approved.
On section 32.
L. Reid: The section on misrepresentation says: "(1) A registrant must not knowingly make a misleading or untruthful statement about a drug or device." My concern is whether or not this is going to restrict clinical practice in this province. My suggestion to you today is that yes, indeed it would. There are a number of instances in research in this province where clinical trials are employed, and clinical trials do use placebos. We certainly have an open-ended situation here today. I would hope to discuss in some detail an amendment that I propose to this section. It is the position of the opposition that we're not here to restrict research and development. Indeed, we must look at whether or not qualified researchers and qualified practitioners should be able to engage in clinical research. Certainly this section as it reads now, to my understanding, precludes that.
I move the following motion -- notice of which has been given to the table -- to amend section 32 to add a new subsection (4): "Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2), nothing shall preclude the use of placebos by qualified researchers or practitioners in drug research or medical treatment protocols."
On the amendment.
Hon. E. Cull: Despite the fact that the chair of the college's legislative committee is very much involved in this type of drug research at the University of British Columbia and didn't see any problems with this section -- and certainly it's not our intent to in any way thwart legitimate drug research -- we would be willing to have a look at a variation on this amendment, but with not quite that wording. There is one technical error in terms of the citing of the sections. If we just stand it down for a few minutes, we could probably draft something.
The Chair: Is it agreed by general consent that section 32 be stood down?
Leave granted.
On section 33.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 33, by deleting "presence" and substituting "presence on business premises".]
Amendment approved.
Section 33 as amended approved.
Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.
On section 37.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[ Page 8589 ]
[SECTION 37, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "or other employee" and substituting ", a registrant who is not a pharmacist, or other employee".]
Amendment approved.
On section 37 as amended.
L. Fox: I guess section 37 deals with computerization aspects and record-keeping. The question here has to be: will it be a requirement for the pharmacist to purchase the hardware necessary to link into a central database? Is that the intent of this section? What might that demand be in terms of the pharmacist?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't believe the section requires that, but the intent is that all pharmacists will be linked to the Pharmacare network, so they will have to have not only necessary hardware but also software. Indeed, we're working right now with various software manufacturers to develop the software that is necessary to link us all into the Pharmacare system. The intent of the network is that the benefits available under the Pharmacare program will be instantly available at the cash register or at the pharmacist's counter to the beneficiary. For example, instead of having to save up your receipts until you have reached your deductible and then submitting them manually, on paper forms and all the rest, through the mail, there will actually be an electronic record of your account kept with Pharmacare. Once you've reached your deductible, you will start getting your benefits; and once you've reached your annual limit, you will get additional benefits, etc. That's the intent of it. We will expect all pharmacies to come on-line to that system. In fact, when it's fully implemented, it would be very undesirable for pharmacies to not be part and parcel of it, because customers will prefer to have the quick benefits that would be available through a network system.
L. Fox: Given the history of payments by government, will this expedite payment to pharmacies for medicines under the Pharmacare program? As well as the other data that's collected, will those payments be made through this?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry, I don't have information about the payments here, and unfortunately we don't have the Pharmacare expert in the House with us today. It's really not part and parcel of the legislation; it's part of our program elsewhere. I'll make a note of it and ask John Greschner, head of our Pharmacare department, to drop you a line explaining it all.
Section 37 as amended approved.
Sections 38 to 42 inclusive approved.
On section 43.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[Section 43, in the proposed subsection (2)(b)(vii) by deleting "or mental condition" and substituting ", mental, financial or other condition".]
Amendment approved.
Section 43 as amended approved.
Sections 44 to 48 inclusive approved.
On section 49.
L. Fox: This section allows the college to revoke the licence of a pharmacy or the registration of a pharmacist pending a hearing. That seems to me a fairly substantial action if there's any doubt. The hearing process could be some time away, and even if he's not guilty of any of it he is deemed to be guilty, and it appears to me that he loses his right to prescribe pending the hearing. Do I interpret that correctly?
[4:45]
Hon. E. Cull: This particular section, which applies to the licence of the pharmacy as opposed to the pharmacist, mirrors the changes that have been made to all of the health professions as part of the package of amendments that we have been discussing this afternoon. It deals with the very problem that people have been seeking to have addressed, whereby someone can have a complaint made about them and the process goes to a hearing, which may take months or a very long period of time, and in the meantime the practitioner continues to practise. We believe that at some point the college or the body that has the responsibility for regulating a professional has to say that in their opinion they believe the situation to be so dangerous to the public interest that the person should not be allowed to continue to practise. That's the situation in front of us with respect to the College of Physicians and Surgeons which has been carried in the media over the last number of weeks.
Obviously a balance is required. You can't have a situation where every time a complaint is made, somebody loses their ability to make a living because their licence has been suspended while a hearing goes on. In other cases, justice is not served well if a person can go on practising when information is known about them that would lead any responsible person to conclude that the public may be at risk if that practice continues. That's the provision that occurs with a professional; there is a similar provision with respect to the operation of the pharmacy itself. When the college receives a complaint starts the work to conduct a hearing, which may require the gathering of evidence, etc., and they become aware of information that is so concerning to them that in the opinion of the college the public safety would be at risk if that pharmacy continued to operate, then the college has to have the ability to take action in that situation, just as it would in the other situations I've described. There is recourse to the pharmacy owner, however, to appeal to the Supreme Court, which would give a very prompt hearing to such a claim because of the immediate
[ Page 8590 ]
concern about the loss of income and livelihood that would occur if someone's licence was suspended for any lengthy time.
L. Fox: I understand what the minister is saying. The college has the right to make the determination that it's in the best interests of the public to suspend a particular licence. My concern is that if I am a partner within a business -- perhaps the largest shareholder -- and there may be other shareholders involved, does this particular section allow the college to suspend just that pharmacist and allow the pharmacy to continue to do business without that pharmacist? It's not clear to me, but it may be a lot clearer to the minister.
Hon. E. Cull: The college has the ability to deal with either the pharmacist or the pharmacy licence, whichever is applicable.
Sections 49 and 50 approved.
On section 51.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 51, in the proposed subsection (6) by deleting "under subsection (6)" and substituting "under subsection (5)".]
Amendment approved.
Section 51 as amended approved.
On section 52.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 52, in the proposed subsection (1)(f) by deleting "or mental condition" and substituting ", mental, financial or other condition".]
Amendment approved.
Section 52 as amended approved.
Section 53 approved.
On section 54.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. chair, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 54, by deleting "section 52" and substituting "section 51(7) or 52".]
Amendment approved.
Section 54 as amended approved.
Sections 55 to 57 inclusive approved.
On section 58.
L. Fox: This section places a mandatory obligation on a pharmacist or a practitioner to report a misconduct of a pharmacist. To date there are no cases where a physician has reported a misconduct. I'm wondering how the minister sees this particular section being applied and how she sees it working. It would appear that it's putting an onus on an individual who is not covered under this act and is in fact covered under another act. I'm wondering how all that's going to work.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not clear on the question that the member is asking. Is he asking how this act can require a practitioner who is not covered by this act to do something? Is that the concern, or is it what he's being asked to do in this case? I'm not sure what he has been asking me.
L. Fox: Let me clarify the question. This particular section requires a practitioner to report a pharmacist should they know of excessive personal use of alcohol or drugs, or whatever may constitute a danger to the public. If the practitioner does not do that, given that they're not covered under this act, how is he going to be disciplined for failing to report what he knows about a pharmacist?
Hon. E. Cull: In the case of a doctor, it would be for the College of Physicians and Surgeons should it come to their attention that one of their members was aware of a situation that they did not report. Therefore it would fall under the standards of practice and ethical behaviour imposed on physicians to take whatever steps would be appropriate in that situation. The College of Pharmacists would not have any recourse over another practitioner.
L. Fox: I understand that the practitioner would in fact be disciplined under the previous act that we discussed and through the clause that the minister suggested, but I see no process here for a recommendation from this body to that other body, and I wonder what the mechanics are going to be. Are there perhaps going to be regulations to determine the process, or is it left up to the college to determine that? I would have thought there would be some mention under this legislation of an action that would be necessary to recommend a disciplinary action from this body to another college. I have some difficulty understanding how that's going to work, because they are two independent structures. I see nothing here that suggests what the process is going to be or, for that matter, how much weight this college will have in influencing the other college as to what disciplinary action it should take. That's where I'm having difficulty.
Hon. E. Cull: I don't think it would be appropriate for one college to be recommending to another college disciplinary action or action that they should take. Each college has to be governed by its own legislation and bylaws and regulations and other things that apply to them. However, I would imagine that the College of Pharmacists, should they discover that a physician has been aware of an excessive personal use of alcohol, for example, and did not make any statement, could obviously make a complaint to the College of
[ Page 8591 ]
Physicians and Surgeons, which would be handled in the normal way of complaints.
Essentially, this section is here to provide some moral obligation on the part of other professionals, who may be in contact with a registrant of the College of Pharmacists, to act on suspicions -- in this case, where someone suspects that a person might have these problems and could potentially be a danger. We're trying to create a moral situation here, and the practice of how it is actually policed will come about under the regulations and bylaws of each college.
L. Fox: Just one final point, and I don't want to belabour it. As I understand it, there has never been a situation where this circumstance has been before the medical profession or the pharmaceutical group. I would ask why there wasn't some specific mention of this in the other act. I know the minister mentioned the clause under which it would be considered, but it seemed to be fairly broad. It seems to me that there should have been something a little more specific in the previous act dealing with this requirement of the pharmacists and pharmacy operations in the drug scheduling act.
[5:00]
Hon. E. Cull: This bill is a complete rewrite of the legislation that applies to pharmacists and pharmacy operations. The other amendments, as I indicated in both my second reading and committee stage remarks, were a specific set of amendments put in place to address rather pressing matters that we felt couldn't wait for the full overhaul of the acts. When the other acts are done later this year by the Health Professions Council and there is a further review of them, these kinds of cross-linkages between this act, which has now been completely rewritten, and others which are still waiting to be completely rewritten, will be taken into consideration and addressed at that point.
Section 58 approved.
On section 59.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 59, in the proposed subsection (2)(j) by deleting "facilities" and substituting "facilities, care centres".]
Amendment approved.
Section 59 as amended approved.
Sections 60 to 62 inclusive approved.
On section 63.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 63, by adding the following definition:
"regulation" means a regulation made under section 69;.]
Amendment approved.
Section 63 as amended approved.
On section 64.
H. De Jong: I would like some confirmation from the minister whether there is any change in the current practice where a veterinarian can supply a farmer with various types of drugs for illnesses of animals so that they can be treated quickly, which is quite often the case in emergency situations that arise from time to time.
Hon. E. Cull: No, I don't believe that that practice is at all affected by these changes.
H. De Jong: I'm not quite sure what the minister meant when she said: "I believe." This is a very important situation for the agriculture community, because if there would be some change, where the supply of medicine could not be made available to the farmer and the farmer had to call out a veterinarian every time application of those medicines was required, that would be a very costly procedure. Not only costly in terms of the veterinarian having to come out, but also very dangerous in terms of diseases such as milk fever and grass tetany, which need immediate attention. I want some confirmation from the minister that that in fact is not the case.
Hon. E. Cull: I said "I believe" because I stopped to read the section again just to make sure that there wasn't something in there that the member had seen that I had missed. But this section simply says that you can't "manufacture or sell medicated feeds or sell veterinary drugs" unless you have a valid licence. Basically, it says that to manufacture or sell them you have to have a licence, and you have to be governed by this act and a number of other things that are listed in this section. I don't think it would preclude the situation that the member is talking about.
H. De Jong: I have a final question. Do the veterinaries carry that licence at the present time, or is this something new that the veterinaries will have to carry in order to sell those drugs to the farmer?
Hon. E. Cull: Again, going back to the section, it says that a person other than a pharmacist, or a veterinarian registered under the Veterinarians Act, cannot do so. Veterinarians must be registered under the Veterinarians Act, otherwise they would not be licensed to practise veterinary medicine.
Sections 64 to 66 inclusive approved.
On section 67.
R. Chisholm: Section 67 is about disposal of drugs. How and where are these drugs to be disposed of? It doesn't state how that will happen.
In subsection (3) it says: "The minister and the Provincial government are not liable to pay
[ Page 8592 ]
compensation for an economic loss that may occur as a result of any action taken in good faith under this section." I'm just wondering, in case of a mistake, how the individuals who have been charged will appeal. How will they get justice if a mistake is made in this system?
Hon. E. Cull: The disposal of medicated feeds or other illegal veterinary drugs seized under part 8 of the bill will occur through the existing biomedical disposal system used by the animal health branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. For the member's information, the feed or drugs are packed in special boxes and collected by BFI medical waste systems. They dispose of the material either by autoclaving it or incinerating it in a biomedical incinerator. The member is probably also aware that a complete review of hazardous and biomedical waste is now underway in the Ministry of Environment. There may be future changes to practice as a result of that particular work.
With respect to what happens if the provincial government does not act in good faith and there has been a contravention of the act, then the laws would apply. There would be civil recourse to go after the government for any loss of revenue. But where the government acts in good faith and abides by the law, they are protected from liability.
L. Fox: The only thing that's not clear within section 67 is who is going to bear the costs of a ministry action. It says that the minister may cause the thing to be destroyed, or prohibit its sale. If it's in a location where it has been packaged in a special way and delivered by truck, is the ministry going to bear the brunt of its action if it has instructed that the thing be destroyed, or is it going to be at the expense of the individual who had it on their premises?
Hon. E. Cull: The chief veterinarian has advised us that they don't expect much volume at all under this section. But again, I think common sense would dictate that if you have seized an item, the disposal of it would be the responsibility of the branch that seized it. So I would assume that the Ministry of Agriculture, which is going to be responsible for these sections in the act, will be bearing the cost of disposing of any material they seize.
L. Fox: By way of exploring this just a little further, if we're going to look to veterinarians, in particular, to be conscious about the product....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
L. Fox: It becomes increasingly difficult to hear in this building.
If veterinarians are conscious of these outdated drugs -- which I assume some of these may be -- would they not be better off to leave them on their shelves until such time as an inspector comes around and lifts them, rather than being proactive about destroying them? It seems to me that the ultimate thing here is to get rid of them. Given the difficulty of getting rid of biomedical waste in some of the rural areas, I would think that through that policy we might be encouraging people to leave it in a remote spot until the inspector comes in and literally removes it, in order to save that cost.
Hon. E. Cull: I suppose if that became the practice, we'd have to revisit the matter of who pays the cost. I don't want to belabour the point. I can think of another scenario, which would make it just as advantageous for them to go the other route. If we weren't picking up the cost, they could still leave it there until someone caught them with it.
I think what we have to recognize here is that most good veterinary practices would not want to have inspectors coming through on a regular basis, and they would not want to be found in violation of the act. For the most part, veterinarians, and others, will want to have a clean record when it comes to complying with this act. I don't think they would want to use this as a way of disposing of products they have difficulty disposing of.
The bigger question about how we deal with hazardous biomedical waste, which is now actively under review, will be providing the answers that those individuals need, no matter what their location is. While I haven't investigated the issue at hand, I have spent a lot of time talking to the commissioner about biomedical waste from hospitals, and I know that the answers have to be regionally based and close to the hospital facilities.
Sections 67 to 75 inclusive approved.
On section 76.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I move an amendment to section 76 by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection: (2) A person who contravenes section 19, 21, 25(1), 27, 29, 36, 37(1), (5) or (6), 41, 64 or 71 commits an offence.
Amendment approved.
On section 76 as amended.
L. Reid: I seek clarification from the minister in terms of section 76(2): "A person who contravenes sections 21, 25(1), 27, 29, 36, 37(1), (4) or (5), 41, 64 or 71 commits an offence." Why are only some of these items considered offences? Certainly the feedback I have received is that it's very difficult for discipline committees to take this information and make some kind of determination on what would indeed be an offence over time.
Hon. E. Cull: When a contravention of the act becomes an offence, it is moved outside of the jurisdiction of the college and becomes something for the justice system to investigate. All it's doing is separating out some things, such as: selling a drug
[ Page 8593 ]
listed in the drug schedules in a manner other than specified in the bylaws in the drug schedules. For example, one of those sections refers to that particular activity. If that is done, that's not something for college disciplinary concern; it becomes a higher-level issue, one that would involve the police and the courts.
L. Reid: If that is indeed the case, hon. minister, why would something like section 32, which refers to misrepresentation, be missing from the offence section?
[5:15]
Hon. E. Cull: As another example, you decide whether you want this to be a police matter or a college matter. I'm not sure that you would want to send these people to jail for that particular offence. It becomes one that's better handled by either restricting or removing their ability to practise as a pharmacist, not by sending them off to a penal institution.
L. Fox: I just have one brief observation. After sitting through up to this point, I can't help but exhibit my feelings. We've seen 12 amendments come forward of a technical nature, which I think displays extremely poorly drafted legislation brought in in a hurry. Even the ministry itself must, I'm sure, feel very poorly about the quality of legislation that they've drafted in such a hurry that they had to bring 12 technical amendments in just to straighten it out. I'm sure we're going to see amendments next year that will correct some of the errors that we have overlooked in our discussions and examination of this bill because of the haste with which it has been brought in.
Section 76 as amended approved.
Section 77 approved.
On section 78.
L. Reid: Section 78 would put the onus on the defendant: "If evidence is introduced in a prosecution under this Act that a sign, title, advertisement or word has been published or used contrary to this Act, the regulations or the bylaws, the onus is on a defendant to prove that it was not published or used by the defendant." Hon. minister, is that an unconstitutional position for this legislation to have taken?
Hon. E. Cull: All of the legislation is reviewed by legislative counsel -- in fact, drafted by legislative counsel -- who keep a sharp eye out for unconstitutionality.
R. Chisholm: In section 78, the onus is on the defendant, as my colleague has stated. It is stating here that the accused is guilty before guilt is proven, and he's got to prove he's innocent. Somehow or other this seems backwards to our normal way of operating in this society.
Hon. E. Cull: I am getting a quick legal lesson here. I gather that such provisions are not uncommon in legislation and statutes. They are called a rebuttable assumption, which means that there is an assumption that you have done this, and you have the opportunity then to refute it. It is quite a common practice under various acts, and it is a common legal practice.
L. Reid: For the record, the minister's comments -- that you may have to prove your innocence, and may be considered guilty prior to any discussion taking place -- do not give us any comfort. I hope that we can seek further clarification on that over time.
Sections 78 to 83 inclusive approved.
The Chair: We will now go back to section 32.
On section 32.
L. Reid: I withdraw the amendment to section 32 that was proposed earlier, and I move the following amendment -- notice of which has been given to the Clerks' table -- as a new subsection (4): "Despite subsections (1) and (2), nothing shall preclude the use of placebos by qualified researchers or practitioners in drug research or medical treatment protocols."
On the amendment.
Hon. E. Cull: As I said earlier, I don't have any problems with the intent of the amendment, but I think it is important that we put some qualifiers around "drug research or medical treatment protocols." If the amendment as it has been read to us by the hon. member could include the words, "when done in accordance with the protocols established in the bylaws," or something to that effect, to indicate that we are talking about drug or medical research approved in accordance with the bylaws, we could then, through the bylaws of the college, make sure that we define the drug and medical research done at a university, or done under some kind of authorized process that would allow us to have bona fide research and not just something called research. I know that these words were suggested to you, and you didn't find them acceptable, but I can't accept it without some reference to the type of medical research.
L. Reid: If we may stand this down for a moment to confer directly with the minister, we shall return to the discussion. That would be my suggestion.
The Committee recessed at 5:22 p.m.
The Committee resumed at 5:24 p.m.
L. Reid: I'll withdraw my earlier amendment and move the following amendment, notice of which has been given to the table: "Despite subsections (1) and (2), nothing shall preclude the use of placebos by qualified researchers or practitioners in drug research or medical treatment protocols when done in accordance with protocols established in the bylaws."
[ Page 8594 ]
Amendment approved.
Section 32 as amended approved.
Title approved.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Bill 61, Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, 1993, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. E. Cull: I call second reading of Bill 68.
HEALTH COUNCIL ACT
(continued)
On the amendment (continued).
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara adjourned debate.
V. Anderson: We were discussing this bill the other day and were comparing it to the report of the health commission and pointing out that this Health Council Act did not follow the recommendations of the royal commission in setting up the provincial council. It is a different undertaking than the provincial council. It uses that name, but the regulations regarding it, the manner of its being established and the manner of its operation are different from the royal commission's recommendations. We have, therefore, some grave concerns about this act, its significance and its importance to the whole realm of health planning in British Columbia.
Contrary to the health bill we were discussing earlier today, which certainly came out of community planning, this bill has not come as a direct result of community planning; rather, it has come as a result of the minister placing her own imprint and design upon whatever community input there was. What we have being established here is a health council which turns out to be a health corporation. It is quite clear: the Provincial Health Council is established as a corporation. Instead of a health council, which was envisioned, we have a health corporation. That new corporation has 12 to 15 members who do not come from the community but who are nominated by the minister to operate it. In the operation of this new corporation, these are paid positions; they are not volunteer positions, as many people assumed they might have been. The remuneration granted to them is not outlined, but they receive remuneration as well as expenses. So we have quite a different organization -- different beast, if you like -- than people were thinking of when this process came into being.
This new corporation has a strange set of purposes for a corporation. The first purpose is to increase public awareness and knowledge in British Columbia about health. It's an educational process to educate the community on behalf of the Minister of Health, so there is a certain bias in the direction of this corporation. It is also to set out and monitor the health goals of British Columbia. But a clear mandate is not given within the purposes as to the power of this corporation, nor does this act have any reference to the community and regional councils.
[5:30]
As we look at this act, we find the community councils operating on one stream, the regional councils operating on another stream, and there is some relationship between those two and the community. The idea of those councils was that they would be from the ground up -- from the local community, who would have an opportunity to do the planning within the local community. But there is no direct relationship, no direct representation from the regional or community council to the provincial council. The provincial council operates in a track completely on its own, unrelated in any direct fashion to the community or regional council. It is the minister's role to appoint, select and direct membership on the council. This council reports only if and when the council should decide, as far as the public is concerned. They are going to be called upon to give a report only if they feel that the public will be served by it.
When we look at their powers, we find that they only really have power over internal management concerns. At least in the initial phase, it looks like they have power over internal management concerns, but as we look further into the act, we discover that even the internal powers they are given in the early part of the act are overruled. As they do an overview of the so-called health processes within the province, they may, whenever they desire, have closed meetings if those are in the public interest. That's strange wording. If it's in the public interest to have closed meetings rather than open meetings, it is within their mandate to have those. This council, as a corporation, may own and dispose of property. So with no real description of what the council is about, we have a corporation that may own and dispose of property.
The council will be made up of 12 to 15 persons appointed by the minister, with an educational role on the one hand and a role to set and monitor health goals on the other hand. But in their planning and decision-making, they are completely and only responsible to the minister. When they set out these health goals for the province, as I indicated earlier, there is no direct relationship between this council, the community councils and the regional councils.
Not only do they have this group of 12 to 15 people, all of whom may be working on salary, they also have the authority to hire professionals and consultants. So we have a large corporation that may own and dispose of property and may hire consultants in their working relationships with the ministry. But there is no reference in this act to where they will get their money, how they will be funded or how much money they will
[ Page 8595 ]
be responsible for. We can only assume that their money may come from two or three different sources. One source might be money that is allocated by the ministry out of its funds, but we have no indication how much money the ministry may allocate for this council. We may also assume that money will be coming to this new corporation from Build B.C. -- money which is in a whole new project outside the overview of the Legislative Assembly. We also assume that as a corporation they can "carry on business," and that in business they can undertake ways to raise money and to expend those moneys under their mandate.
As part of this process, they are given authority to have hearings throughout the province. These hearings are for the purposes of this act, which, as we defined before, are to increase public awareness and knowledge. We always thought that hearings were to receive information -- not to put out information to the public and set the health goals of the province. But these are not necessarily public hearings, because the corporation has the authority to decide who is entitled to speak. So they are not necessarily open public forums; they are select forums for a select group of people to deal with a select topic that the corporation decides.
Also in these hearings, or in their consultations or activities, they have the power to receive information under oath. They have the power to receive information under oath that is not even acceptable in a court. When this question was put to the Premier the other day on an open-line program, he was stumped as to what this meant and whether it was an acceptable way for this present government to go. It was only after he had done some research -- phoning back, no doubt, to his ministry -- that he discovered this. Even though he's a lawyer and should be in touch with these processes, it was only then that he was able to come back and say that this meant that one could take hearsay evidence, evidence which is not allowable in a court. This corporation in its hearings is available to take evidence which is allowable in a court plus evidence which is not allowable in a court, namely hearsay evidence. Of course, that makes us very uncertain about the actual purpose and meaning of this particular board.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Also, we understand that this corporation can own, buy and sell property. We presume it has to do with health care. I'm not sure if they can also expropriate property. You begin to wonder as you look at the possibilities, and those are certainly questions which need to be asked.
It also states fairly clearly -- and this is what municipalities should be concerned about -- that there is an exemption from taxation, so that the property of this corporation, which will be using the services of municipalities, will no doubt be exempt from taxation. This is a concern. There are so many unanswered questions within this health council corporation.
The regulations, which would give us some indication of how the council will operate and what it will do, are left to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to decide. There are no directions or details as to how this council will operate. It is completely open-ended, a complete blank cheque for which we, the public, have no understanding. We assume the minister may have some understanding, but the minister has not explained to us -- even in her introduction -- how this council will operate. What, if any, will be its relationship to the community and to the regional councils? Why was the council not established on a provincial level according to the recommendations of the health commission? We are not sure what this creature is, what it does or how it relates to the promises of "New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia."
We also read about certain powers of the council to set and manage their own affairs. On the other hand, we read further and discover that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can set regulations listed earlier in the act that override the powers of the council. We do not know what these new regulations will be, but they can dictate the practices and procedures of the council. Over and above what the council might dictate, the practices and procedures of the council can be directed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. They can also be directed to include any further powers in their activities, without limitation, that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council might give to this new corporation called the Health Council.
There is one aspect that we might approve within this act. It's probably the only one, because it does -- contrary to most of the acts that are coming forward -- have a requirement to report directly to the Legislative Assembly each year. This came from the royal commission, and this part of the act does reflect the royal commission. We know that reports coming from the government are late and after the fact, so whatever damage is going to be done, whatever process is going to be in place, will already be functioning before we discover, in the Legislative Assembly, what we are about.
The promise of the new directions for health was that they would come from the community up, and the government would respond. What we have here is a top-down organization. In fact it's not even top-down, because it's an organization which is independent of the community and regional councils, an organization which, on its own, will set health goals within the province. Because of its very nature, it would become the lackey of the minister, and that is something to be concerned about. We have no assurance that the members of this council will be representative of community or regional concerns. We are most concerned about this lack of assurance. This lack of responsibility to the community and the Legislature is something we need to be very concerned about.
[5:45]
We have put forward this hoist motion because it is fundamentally important that this particular bill has an opportunity to see the light of day, so that the whole community may respond to it and hear from the minister and the government exactly what it is about. It is important that we take time to deal with what the minister has said is a fundamental change to the direction of health within this province. She has said
[ Page 8596 ]
time and time again that that has to be done on behalf of and with the people of the province. That will not happen if we rush this bill through without the people having had the opportunity to speak to it and become part of it.
It is important that we go back and reflect on how the community and regional councils will relate to the Health Council Act. Since the minister is about to organize community and regional councils, it is very important that she puts this Health Council Act on the back burner and that she sends it out to the community and regional councils to get a response from them as to the future directions they would like us to go in and the future directions they would have this Health Council take into account. What kind of knowledge, what kind of direction, do they wish to receive from this body? It is our understanding that this body will be -- or should be -- the servant of the people, not the servant of the Minister of Health. If it is going to be the servant of the people, it must go to the people before it becomes legislation, so that they have the opportunity to review it, to correct it and to make it their own.
If that is done, it will give an opportunity for the new directions the minister is so proud of talking about to really be a part of the directions of the people of this province. If they're to be successful, they must be just that. So I would urge the minister to take the opportunity to send this Health Council Act out with information clarifying for the people what it is about, clarifying the opportunity for them to respond and to have input into this process, and giving them the opportunity to really be a part of the function which is now before us.
Seeing that it's getting close to the time of adjournment, I move that we adjourn this debate until later in the evening.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
The House recessed at 5:49 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:35 p.m.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 68.
HEALTH COUNCIL ACT
(continued)
On the amendment (continued).
A. Cowie: At supper it was decided that we would change our speaking order, and I won. It gives me great pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara on this hoist motion, because the member spoke so eloquently, as he does, on consultation. Since the minister is a planner, it was felt that we should have an injection of maybe five minutes of planning into this process. Since planning requires a great deal of consultation in order to be successful, it was felt that I should speak on the matter.
A number of years ago when I was dealing with public consultation, Rand Iredale, an architect friend of mine, said: "You know, Art, sometimes it takes less time to get something done if you let everybody speak and have their say." It does. That is a truism. I have found that over the years, and I have taken the advice whenever I have had any consultation and tried to get through any projects. I have tried very hard, even though I had an objective in mind, to make it a plan that everybody could feel part of. That is part of our whole society. In our discussions just before coming in here, it was more or less resolved that that is the whole problem with this process that we are talking about now. We need this hoist motion passed so that we can have true consultation.
Three levels of health care are being proposed. One is at the provincial level -- the corporation. The corporation will be appointed by the minister, and that corporation will have virtually all the power. Then there are regional boards. Of course, guess what? In the first instance anyway, those regional boards are going to be appointed by the minister. Then there are community boards. Guess what? These boards are all appointed by the minister, in the first instance in any case. That tells me there is a sense of insecurity here -- the people will not make the right decisions. I think that is really unfortunate, because in the long run we are perhaps going for the best system. I've looked at the whole system that's being set up and it seems to be rational and reasonable, but it doesn't belong to the people. The doctors feel insecure about it because there doesn't seem to be a place at any one of those levels where the doctors are really involved. They are certainly not involved at the local level. At the small community level, such as Marpole or Dunbar-Kerrisdale, there is going to be a lay group, more or less. There won't be any doctors involved there. At the next level there may be medical practitioners and specialists giving advice. But we really don't know, because we don't know who's going to be appointed to these boards. It seems to me that there's a missed opportunity here. A single interest is taking over where we could have used the Healthy Communities plan and the hospital structure to reinforce that, rather than separating it out and getting a whole bunch of other boards. It would have been better to work with the Healthy Communities plan where in fact we're dealing with social services, parks, recreation and all the community things.
Those people at the lower level, if I can put it that way -- it isn't really the lower level, because that's where this planning starts, and it works up toward the provincial level -- have been asked to gather themselves together and discuss these interests. Surprisingly, they're probably going to come up with the same system in the end because they're going to look at it rationally. I'm very confident that the minister is rational. That's not the problem. It's that the minister seems to be in too much of a hurry. I was told by a number of members of the medical profession that to change the health system takes time. I know it can take quite a while to change doctors' minds. My father was a
[ Page 8597 ]
doctor, and I never could change his mind. But doctors are trained, they feel and they are dedicated. You really have to work with them, just as you have to work with the whole community.
I feel the one problem here is that we've got the process backwards. We're working down to and not up from the local community. While a number of us were speaking together before I came in here tonight, that was the message about what is perhaps the single most important flaw in this system. That's why I would appeal to the House, and why I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara who spoke before me. Let's take it back; let's give it another six months and go out into the community. When we do that, perhaps Rand Iredale's message will come true. It will actually take less time to implement this process if we make it everybody's plan, not just the minister's -- or what appears to be the minister's.
L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise and speak this evening to the motion to scrutinize Bill 68, the Health Council Act, for at least six months. I speak to the amount of time that will be required to understand the necessity for this particular piece of legislation. I'm not convinced that any exists.
This House has heard me speak on many occasions of the need for research and development in British Columbia. I stand firmly behind that. I would like to see at least 1 percent of the overall health care budget go towards research and development. This legislation looks at a mandate similar to what we already have in place with the Health Research Foundation; it looks at a mandate similar to that of the health promotion department within the Ministry of Health. We believe the jobs that are outlined in the Health Council Act are already being performed.
Taking six months to examine if any opportunities exist to see if these jobs are not being performed in their entirety or to the satisfaction.... That hasn't been my understanding to date. We have looked at the jobs being done, and we believe that those agencies are performing. If that's the case, why would we want to duplicate services that are already in place, and why would we wish to do it at the expense of the taxpayer? That is the question I would pose to the House and to British Columbia this evening. It seems to me that this is the government that stands up and talks about needing more dollars to invest in other avenues and more services to put at people's disposal. If that's the case, if this government is truly committed to direct service, certainly in the case of medicine, that is an issue. That is often the opportunity that is taken to say that there's not enough money. Probably every single member of the opposition bench has had a discussion with their corresponding minister during the estimates process about the fact that there simply is not enough money. If that's the case, why are we paying out somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million to duplicate services that already exist? That is the issue for this evening, and that is the issue in terms of needing six months to examine the necessity for this piece of legislation.
It is a costly piece of legislation. We are looking at creating opportunities for 12 to 15 British Columbians to come together. If I may quote from "Purposes of the council," it says: "...(a) to increase public awareness and knowledge of the underlying factors that promote or impair the health of the people of British Columbia, and (b) to set health goals for the people of British Columbia and monitor the achievement of these goals." Hon. Speaker, I'm sure you would agree, as would the members opposite, how broadly based these goals are. These are huge undertakings. Is that a reasonable use of taxpayers' dollars, in that these functions are currently being performed and, I believe, being performed very, very well? It's an opportunity to broaden some of those services, but we don't need to replicate what we currently have in place. That is our issue.
[6:45]
The minister will talk about the social determinants of health: to look at the impact of poverty, to look at the impact of lifestyle. The opposition doesn't take issue with that, but the opposition knows that those services are currently being performed under the Ministry of Health and health promotion. Those activities are already in place. What this opposition critic and what this opposition would like to see is some commitment to outcome analysis in terms of the existing ministries. This doesn't address that. It does not address that in any way, shape or form.
We are going to, again, duplicate service, expend the taxpayers' dollars, and we're not necessarily providing a finer product. As the hon. members across the floor will know, the goals of this particular piece of legislation are so broad as to be a receptacle for endless taxpayers' dollars, in our view. We do not see any opportunity in place to examine the necessity for creating duplicating services. That is the issue.
We have some significant problems with the intention of this government to establish a permanent royal commission. However, this royal commission has a twist: it's going to be a permanent body and it's going to have the ability to acquire and dispose of real property. Section 10, which refers to the acquisition of real property, allows for this property to be exempt from the Municipal Act, etc. It says that this property is being used for the purposes of this act, which are to examine health goals in British Columbia, create health goals in British Columbia and increase public awareness and knowledge. Every opportunity exists to acquire and dispose of property under that mandate. No significant guideline is contained within such a broad mandate. I would have to ask this House what the necessity is for this body to acquire and dispose of real property. Are they a monitoring body that's going to come together monthly to look at the knowledge we possess about the delivery of health care in this province? If that is the case, do they need their own building to do it in? I would submit not.
This opposition has significant difficulty with the concept of Bill 68, the Health Council Act. It is Bill 21 -- Bilk B.C. -- revisited. There are endless opportunities to abuse the taxpayer and to move away from intense debate in this legislative chamber. There is no opportunity to hold this new body accountable. That is a significant concern for the members of the opposition.
[ Page 8598 ]
Bill 68, the Health Council Act, creates a statutory corporation. Are we looking at a consultant's bonanza? Section 6 of this act looks at professional services: "The council may engage or retain specialists or consultants that the council considers necessary to carry out the powers, duties and functions of the office and may determine their remuneration, and the Public Service Act does not apply to the retention, engagement or remuneration of these specialists or consultants." Are we looking at the taxpayer in this province having direct accountability for these positions? I would suggest not. If this legislation goes forward, we are creating an organization with an incredibly broad mandate and limited criteria. Anyone can make the case to retain a specialist or a consultant, because the only criterion is that the council considers them necessary. That is not good enough for the taxpayers of this province. If this goes forward, we are looking for this entity to return some kind of cost-benefit analysis. It is not contained within here.
This legislation is broad and vague, but it's certainly not innocuous. It gives sweeping powers that we do not believe British Columbians wish to put at the disposal of this government, frankly.
The minister will stand up and make strong claims that this is an independent body. Twelve or 15 British Columbians chosen by the minister to reflect and represent the people of British Columbia.... It's an oxymoron; it cannot be independent and appointed by the minister. That does not make for an arm's-length entity that is somehow magically going to create material that appears to come from an independent source. I do not accept that notion. There is no opportunity in this legislation for anyone but the minister to make those appointments. The minister's appointees are not at arm's length; that is very clear.
The aspect of whether or not this will be a useful body is certainly one that is open to debate. This entity has the option of reporting on a random or regular basis to British Columbia. Neither of those factors takes away from my point, because we have to ask whether or not the mandate will ever be something that will provide useful documentation for the province. It is such a broad brush in terms of evaluating the delivery of health care -- and I have a strong bias in favour of reasonable evaluation. As an educator, I need to see some kind of cost-benefit analysis tied in to legislation that comes forward. It hasn't happened in a lot of the legislation that we have seen, and it is not reflected in this particular piece of legislation.
The budget is an interesting discussion. Again, I ask that the hoist motion be supported so that there is some opportunity for British Columbians to decide if they would like to spend between $500,000 and $1 million on a mandate which is as broad as this one is stated to be. It's not just that it's interpreted to be so by the opposition; it is stated as broadly as possible in the legislation. It does not preclude any look at how we deliver or how we receive health care. The issue is whether or not taxpayers should be paying for something that is as broadly based as that.
My original point when I rose this evening was whether there is a necessity to duplicate services that we currently have in place. Extensive reading of this particular piece of legislation does not suggest it is going to return a different product than the one agencies employed in this province are currently providing.
If we look at the health research council, we see that this minister somehow believed the information they provided was not all that necessary -- because she chose not to fund them earlier on to the extent that they've been funded in the past. Is it a coincidence that we now see the new Provincial Health Council receiving funding? Why would we not support an agency that has worked extremely well in this province? Why would we turn over to a new entity the responsibilities that the research council performed in the past? Again, the members of that council would very much like the opportunity to look at this legislation for the next six months to validate whether or not it makes sense. Right now, very few British Columbians are standing up to say that this legislation makes sense to them. They look at this government, which rises up repeatedly and talks about the need for dollars, and they hear the phrase constantly that there is not enough money. Magically, there's now enough money to find $1 million and two staff people to create a new council.
The confidence level in this province is going down. We had a bill before us a year ago, the Health Special Account Act. It was somehow going to reduce the surgical wait-list in this province. Has that happened as a result of that piece of legislation? No. British Columbians are once again led down the garden path, and they're not that content with the direction that this piece of legislation is taking. It's more dollars and, in their minds, they're not going to see a reasonable product. Frankly, they have my support for the assumptions that they have arrived at, because this legislation is not clear. This legislation is not something that the opposition can stand behind. We are prepared to take six months to examine it in great detail. We have some significant issues, and one of them is the legitimacy of this legislation.
I don't believe it's the purpose of this council to conduct hearings. It's not the intention of the committee to prejudice hearings that may occur under health professions legislation. Yet Bill 68, the Health Council Act, allows that eventuality to occur. It gives that opportunity. We've discussed Bill 55, the Health Professions Amendment Act, 1993, in some detail this afternoon in committee, and Bill 71, the Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993. We must not dilute the services we're currently receiving. If that legislation was designed to do a particular thing, fine, let it go forward and do that. Ensure that this piece of legislation, Bill 68, does not confuse or complicate the issue. It's not an appropriate mandate to have in a piece of legislation such as this when we were told this afternoon that the reason the other two pieces of legislation were coming to the table for debate was to cover off those issues.
Again, we have serious concerns about the acquisition of property. Are we looking at a future health corporation, with buildings such as ICBC and the
[ Page 8599 ]
Workers' Compensation Board on Westminster Highway in Richmond all over this province? Are we looking at physical entities such as that to be funded under Bill 68, the Health Council Act? I need an answer, as do many British Columbians, as to the necessity for this piece of legislation to allow the acquisition and disposal of real property. I'm sure we will be told that it is a housekeeping option, that there is somehow a need for the ability to acquire and dispose of property. I'm not convinced. On the surface this bill says that the goal is to bring together 12 to 15 British Columbians to examine the purposes of this particular legislation, which is to look at increasing public awareness and to set health goals. So why would that type of agency need the ability to acquire property? I don't know the answer to the question. I find it interesting that members on the government benches leap up and say: "Standard practice, standard practice. Absolutely, they should have the ability to buy a building." I'm not convinced that this is a reasonable answer. It's certainly the answer I've been given to date. I have some serious concerns that we're going to start with a requirement for two full-time staff to support 12 advisory British Columbians who come together once a month, and the next step will be a building in which to house their work project, if you will.
I'm not convinced that this legislation is above board. I look at what happens under health promotion in the Ministry of Health, and I see that as their role. It was certainly discussed as their role during the estimates process. Have they somehow given up that job since we concluded the estimates process? I don't think so. That was their job three weeks ago; that was their job for the last number of years. Are they not doing it well? Are we somehow removing their responsibilities? We certainly have no intention, under the estimates process this year, of reducing the department. We're adding more people to health promotion and to various aspects of the ministry. It comes back to the questions on Build B.C. Are we duplicating services? Are we allowing ministry employees to stay in their positions while creating outside agencies to take over their workload? The question is: why? We are already paying the salaries of the support staff in the office of health promotion within the ministry. Are we somehow saying that they're not going to be able to accomplish those tasks and that we're going to calve off those tasks and put them into another agency? If that's the case, we need to discuss that. At the end of the day, this bill smacks of out-and-out duplication. It looks at creating more bodies to do more jobs, at an increased cost to the taxpayer.
If this minister is going to come back to this chamber and say that we're going to give this job to this new council because it's not being performed adequately in the ministry, or in the public and private sector in terms of health research, that's a discussion I would be prepared to listen to. As it stands, we're simply told that we need this overlay and that we need an opportunity for these extra bodies to come together at the taxpayers' expense to acquire and dispose of property and hire consultants at will. I'm not convinced that this is the direction British Columbians should be heading in, and I'm not convinced that British Columbia would head in this direction if they understood the full intent of this legislation.
Getting back to our hoist motion, six months is a reasonable request, to enable people to determine whether or not this piece of legislation is necessary to the enterprise of health care. Again, I would submit that it is not. We have British Columbians on surgery waiting lists and British Columbians who can't get a hip replacement unless months and months have elapsed. This act, Bill 68, is not about direct medicine or about direct dollars to British Columbians who fund it, and that is the issue. You will not see the opposition supporting another opportunity to diminish services to British Columbians by creating entities we don't believe we need.
At the end of the day, this discussion is about whether a separate health council is needed. Is there a necessity to proceed in this direction? We're not convinced that that necessity exists. We haven't heard anything from the members of the government benches that would suggest this is integral and critical to the future of the health of British Columbians. We haven't heard it, and it's not reflected in the pieces of paper we have before us today in Bill 68, entitled the Health Council Act.
[7:00]
The purposes of the act are the purposes of the office of health promotion and the B.C. Health Research Foundation. This job is being performed. If the minister rises and tells us that it's not being performed adequately, we will listen to that discussion, but we will not support a duplication of services at the taxpayers' expense, without intense scrutiny.
Hon. Speaker, you have before you this evening a number of individuals who will be speaking to this bill, because they see it as I do: another walk in the park for this government -- Build B.C. 21 revisited. Is this the direction we wish to proceed in? No, we do not, for very significant reasons. We want to see direct services improved for British Columbians. We don't wish to see British Columbians on waiting lists in this province. Does this Health Council Act move us in that direction? No. We are already funding agencies that provide this service.
If the minister believes that the product of such a council would be useful, why aren't the products of the office of health promotion or the Health Research Foundation useful? I believe, as do many of my colleagues, that we are performing these functions. Frankly, we are currently paying the salaries of individuals who work in the office of health promotion, whose mandate is to perform a number of these functions, if not all of them.
Again, we have some issues surrounding the need for this. Our particular concerns rest with whether or not this could ever be considered an arm's-length agency. We're suggesting this evening that it absolutely could not be. Hon. Speaker, you or I could not choose 15 of our friends to give us advice and then somehow suggest that that's an arm's-length option. It won't happen; it doesn't make sense.
[ Page 8600 ]
The professional services category under section 6 is not an appropriate opening for consultation. It's not appropriate that we would ever have a section of any bill that is so broadly based as to allow any member of this committee to engage as many specialists and consultants as they would see necessary to their enterprise. That is a blank cheque; that is giving the minister's appointees a blank cheque at the taxpayers' expense. It is not an option that we can afford to put into place. I think that is the issue tonight. This is a piece of legislation that British Columbia cannot afford. We don't believe it's necessary, and we believe that the price tag is completely open-ended.
I have significant issues with this. I know you will hear a number of my colleagues this evening who also share my concerns. I will yield the floor to allow as many individuals as possible to participate in debate.
A. Warnke: I'm not exactly sure whether it's cookies and milk time or what. I must admit that the more I look at this bill.... I really wonder why the minister has taken all the trouble with it, because there are really some very specific aspects. The member for Richmond East put her finger right on it: really, this bill doesn't add anything to the health services in B.C., insofar as it duplicates some services that are already available.
What I'm going to do with this bill is to really bring it down to its most simplified form, because in a way it has a very simple objective. I don't want to proceed clause by clause; it's extremely tempting to do so in this bill. Really, section 2 just announces the establishment of a provincial health council. Section 3 is important insofar as it establishes the purposes, and I will talk about that. Actually, there are two purposes of the council. Then you just go through the rest of the sections.
Really, what do section 4 and all of section 5 do? They just elaborate a bit on the administrative procedure. In fact, when I go through sections 6, 7, most of 8 -- I will make an exception of subsection 8(1) -- 9, 10.... As I go through all of the sections, all they do is outline the administrative and financial aspects of just two sections. The only two sections I see as exceptions.... As a result, the essence of the bill is section 3. Section 3 establishes the purposes of the council, which are very clear: "...to increase public awareness and knowledge of the underlying factors that promote or impair the health of the people of British Columbia...." To a certain extent, that duplicates.... As the hon. member for Richmond East says, it's a duplicating bill. It duplicates what, in a sense, the Minister of Health should be doing.
Then the second purpose is: "...to set health goals for the people of British Columbia and monitor the achievement of these goals." Well, setting the goals is the responsibility of the Minister of Health. To monitor the achievement of these goals, there is the minister, who sets the goals of the province.... And then, of course, one purpose of the administrative apparatus -- and certainly of her senior deputy ministers -- is to monitor whether these various goals are going to be achieved. I suppose that section describes the essence of what this bill is all about.
The only other section of this bill that is on its own is section 8(1): "The council may conduct hearings for the purposes of this Act and may determine the procedures to be followed for the purposes of these hearings." It's that latter part, "may determine the procedures to be followed for the purposes of these hearings," in which I see all these other sectors elaborating that one part. So the real essence of the bill is that the council may conduct hearings for the purposes of this act. In short, the nature of this act is extremely simple: it's to establish hearings. That's all it does. This is interesting. We have an elaborate bill....
C. Serwa: The minister agreed with you, let the record clearly state.
A. Warnke: Let the record clearly state that the minister agreed with me. We are establishing a very clear, very simple purpose of establishing hearings. Yet we have an elaborate bill before us, we have an elaborate administrative apparatus being set up -- something called the Provincial Health Council -- to conduct hearings for the province, and the hearing is to reflect its purpose: to increase public awareness and knowledge.
I find this interesting as well: to conduct hearings, but at the same time to increase public awareness. The member for Vancouver-Langara really hit the nail on the head in one aspect -- the purpose of a hearing is to hear people. The purpose of a hearing is not to disseminate information, yet clearly the first purpose of this bill is to increase public awareness and knowledge, etc. In other words, the purpose of this council is to disseminate information, yet the essence of this council is to do no more than conduct hearings. So to a certain extent, the member for Vancouver-Langara really gets at the nub of the issue.
What has this minister done? Has the minister made up her mind whether she wants the Provincial Health Council to hear, or is it nothing but a glorified advertising agency? It's supposed to represent the people of British Columbia through setting health goals for the people of the province. On the other hand, the Minister of Health can do that. It doesn't have to be the Provincial Health Council. I thought that was the whole purpose of a minister. The minister makes up one's mind as to the future direction of policy, whether it's health or education or some other service. It's very strange. The essence of the objective is extremely simple, yet we have an elaborate bill to simply say that. There is obviously a problem here in that one has to ask why there is an elaborate bill around some very simple prospects.
The establishment of a Provincial Health Council to do a very modest job.... A Provincial Health Council which is appointed by the Minister of Health can only be suggested as a glorified body of patronage, pure and simple: a patronage council that goes around the province hearing, but at the same time trying to educate people on health issues and health goals as defined by the minister. What kind of council is this? I would
[ Page 8601 ]
suggest that when you strip the bill right down to its bare bones, it is really the establishment of a patronage body called the Provincial Health Council, which does nothing but exhibit. It is nothing but public relations for the minister -- nothing else. It does not get at the essence of what the problems are. Even if it does get at the problems of the province with regard to health, what sort of advisory role does it have? This particular bill is really loosey-goosey, especially when you get toward the tail-end. Holy cow. Look at section 14: "Each year the council must give to the Speaker a report for the Legislative Assembly...as soon as practicable." What the objectives are or what the time frame is are not even clearly defined. What the council is to establish is really unclear.
The administrative and financial features are outlined in detail, but that is quite straightforward, as it is in setting up any public body. The administrative apparatus comes afterwards. If you strip away the administrative apparatus, we don't have a whole heck of a lot in this bill other than a great camouflage, as I see it, for setting up a glorified patronage body -- nothing more.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara and the hon. member for Richmond East had also, I think, made the correct assumption that this is somehow connected to Build B.C. I am somewhat persuaded by their argument, and I can't help but suspect that there is some attempt here to get moneys and sort of float it within this council, and that is really all there is to it.
What is the purpose? To disseminate information? To tell us that we should conduct ourselves in good health, and all the rest of it? I thought that that is what the Ministry of Health should be doing anyway.
On the other hand, even if we were to make the assumption that what we need is a body to go around and hear whatever problems exist in British Columbia with regard to health service, in one section, the committee can be very restrictive as to what kind of evidence they hear, and the evidence can be very selective. In other words, as the member for Vancouver-Langara has pointed out, the committee decides who speaks, what the forum should be, and who should submit what evidence at those forums. It is not an attempt, like other legislative committees, to go around the province and try to solicit ideas. Sometimes who we recruit, of course, and who shows up at our various legislative committees.... It can't be said that they are recruited on some sort of scientific or objective basis, but at least the attempt is made to hear input from the public, no matter what the source is. That is not the case here. The hearings are quite selective as to what they want to hear and who they want to hear it from. It points back to a point that the member for Vancouver-Langara put so eloquently: "This body is a creature, and it is a creature that we really do not know what it is."
[7:15]
We have a vague idea of its purpose. The purpose is so general that it borders on being meaningless. Does this body really get at what the community wants? There is nothing in this bill that demonstrates an attempt to go out of its way to solicit the genuine problems of the people and the community and get their evaluation of health services in this province. In that way, this bill is terribly meaningless. It's meaningless regarding the whole idea of administering health services in this province. I really honestly do not know why this bill is here. I don't know why a whole ministry and a minister took all this trouble to write it up. When you strip down this bill, other than trying to set up a patronage machine, I can't really see why this bill is before us. It has wasted the time of the Attorney General's ministry. It's amazing.
I don't know -- and I unfortunately really did not hear anything from the Ministry of Health on this -- how this bill benefits the people of British Columbia. It's still a creature of the Health ministry insofar as the appointments to this committee are conducted by that ministry. Where this bill should be specific, tight and have clear objectives to it, it's tremendously vague. And perhaps where it should be vague in terms of the linkages between the ministry and the commission, it's terribly specific -- so specific that it's actually duplicating the services, because the purpose of this committee can easily be conducted in statements by the Ministry of Health. I really do not know why it's here.
For that reason, the amendment before us -- the motion to hoist this bill for six months -- is, at minimum, something I would like to support. Frankly, I would like to just see the bill withdrawn altogether. It's a totally useless bill. It's really wasting our time here in July -- although to be quite honest, I don't care if I'm here in August, September or October. I don't care if I'm here until Christmas. Merry Christmas! I'm quite willing to be around. If the government wants to waste time, fine. But a number of people have pointed out that given the amount of legislation before us perhaps we should focus our attention on more important items than this.
In quick summary, I have to agree with my colleague for Richmond East that the agencies and organizations already in place actually do the work and can do the work that is supposedly the objective of this bill. The Ministry of Health, and the minister herself, are in the position to deal with purposes such as establishing health goals for the province. The mandate in the ministry is certainly sufficient to deal with those purposes. I can look at it cynically and say that this is nothing but a glorified attempt to establish a patronage body that does nothing more than conduct public relations for the government. If that's the real intention of the bill -- and that's all I've been able to find -- then this bill is something not only to be hoisted for six months but it's a bill that has to be eliminated altogether. Frankly, given the fact that it appears to be nothing but a great glorified patronage machine, and that other than that it's totally useless, I would prefer to see it bumped out of the government's agenda altogether. It accomplishes nothing, to say the least. Sometimes I praise government for bringing forward certain kinds of bills, because they're really trying to do something. Even if one disagrees with the bill, at least one can see that the government is trying to achieve something. But in this particular case, nothing is achieved. It's a totally useless bill that just wastes our
[ Page 8602 ]
time, as far as I'm concerned, and I would like to see it gone altogether. But given how everything has progressed, the best I can do is at least support the amendment to hoist the bill for six months. Defeating the bill by supporting the amendment just might bring the minister to her senses.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak in support of the hoist motion on Bill 68, the Health Council Act. It's not often that I get a sincere opportunity to support an amendment put forward by the official opposition, but my hon. colleague who just finished speaking made a lot of sense. When you look at the bill and this particular issue, I think he hit the nail right on the head. Without question, what we're seeing here is nothing more than another government boondoggle, pure and simple; no camouflage at all. It's an opportunity for more friends and insiders to participate in a growing bureaucracy with no point, no aim, no focus, no accountability and no real purpose. All it does is enlarge the bureaucracy, which the government seems to consider the creation of economic activity. Maybe it's designed to accommodate the socialists who are now flocking to B.C. from Alberta. It's certainly applicable to find homes for spouses, brothers and sisters in the context of union, but family as well. We're seeing a great deal of that infused in the civil service at the present time.
The explanatory note on the bill says:
"This bill establishes a Provincial Health Council which represents the people of British Columbia. Its purpose is to increase public awareness and knowledge of the basic factors that promote or impair health in British Columbia and to set and monitor the achievement of better health in British Columbia. The Council has the duty to report directly to the people of British Columbia on health issues or on the need for change in practice, policy or legislation respecting health in British Columbia."
It really does sound very good, but the reality is that if you look through the philosophy and principles and sections of the bill, as my hon. colleague did, it doesn't relate. As a matter of fact, the explanatory note is a little bit like the newspaper headlines for news items or columns -- it bears very little relationship to the actual contents of the bill. So for individuals who read just the explanatory note and are comforted by it, I suggest that they read a little bit further. The bill does not follow the comfort given in that explanatory note.
An office of health promotion already exists in the ministry. This bill duplicates something that is already funded and paid for in the day-to-day operations of the Ministry of Health. The way that this council is structured is not at the recommendation of the royal commission on health. The reporting is obviously not to the Legislature, as suggested by the royal commission. There are a number of factors. It's simply a camouflage to the general population. The government must consider the general population to be very gullible, because all this does is camouflage the influence and control of the Minister of Health through the proposed Health Council. If you look through the bill you find that the minister's powers are not diminished from decentralization. In fact, contrary to that, the minister's powers are enhanced through effective centralization. Who appoints the members? The members are appointed from a list that the minister provides. I would suggest that you'd have as much opportunity of finding a cross-representation of philosophical ideas or approaches from the different interest groups in the B.C. public as you would find teeth in a hen. I think that's the reality. I suggest this will be nothing more than a front.
For a government that obtains a great deal of support from elements in the civil service and the upper echelons of the unions, it's strange to me that in acts such as this and others that have been presented before this Legislature they are building up parallel non-governmental bodies duplicating work that is already done by the government. In the case of the Bilk B.C. legislation that was discussed earlier, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways transferred its responsibilities onto a Crown corporation. I suppose they can now say: "Well, we didn't do it; they are at fault. They are supposed to do all of these things."
We talked earlier about the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, where again the government is not going to be responsible to the people who elected them. They are setting up structural groups, a front type of an organization like the Health Council to take the impact. But those groups are fundamentally controlled, appointed and influenced directly by government. I don't think that's the way a responsible government should conduct its business and affairs. This Health Council Act is precisely the same thing. It's duplicating services already tendered by civil servants within the Ministry of Health.
If the minister was really concerned about doing something, I think we should look at a greater appropriation of funds for preventive health measures. That would go a long way to reducing the amount of demand on the Ministry of Health from the acute care segment. This isn't going to do it at all. As I've said earlier, it's a smokescreen or fa�ade. The public are not gullible and they will certainly see through this. This is just another boondoggle to hire more people, pay them handsome fees and expenses and give them a few perks and a little bit of recognition and privilege. That's about all that the taxpayer is going to get out of this.
[7:30]
The Minister of Health achieves enormous power and authority. The power and authority is in the minister's ability to define the type and quantity of health services and where and by whom they will be delivered. Again the friends and insiders of the socialists are going to build an expensive bureaucracy. Those are the elements that are not contained in the explanatory notes. As I continue to discuss the philosophy and principles of the bill, you will see that the unabashed aim of this is to build up a growing bureaucracy. I'm really uncomfortable with the tack that the government is taking on a consistent basis to continue to abuse the taxpayers of British Columbia. There's no question about it. Perhaps the most perverse type of abuse is being heaped upon senior citizens, who have worked so hard. We stand on the shoulders of those individuals. With this type of legislation we are
[ Page 8603 ]
taking their last shred of disposable fixed income to provide monetary fodder for a new Health Council, the friends and insiders of the current government.
I would gladly retract that if someone could prove to me that any one of their appointments was chosen from the public at large on the basis of merit because of their background, knowledge or interest, be it in health affairs or any other commission or board. I would certainly like to see something like that tabled in the Legislature.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Excuse me if I seem a little bit cynical of the aims and ambitions of the current government. If the hon. Minister of Government Services is so confident, perhaps she will canvass the ministers and table that. I would be most interested, and I think the public would be very interested, in finding out how objective and impartial the current government is.
I anticipated a look from the hon. Speaker, so I have to get back to the philosophy and principals of this important piece of legislation.
The Health Council is going to be selected from a number of names suggested by the Minister of Health. Twelve to 15 new individuals will be appointed to the Provincial Health Council, a council with no structured goal. Everything is really wishy-washy. There's no real objective or purpose; there will be no real benefit. It's just a wonderful thing because we can give some of our friends and insiders a splendid opportunity for perks. Naturally, we don't expect our friends and insiders to participate without substantial remuneration, so the taxpayers of the province will pick up all of the expenses and the appropriate fees, which are fairly substantial, set for the chair and members of the council.
What is the purpose of the council? The purposes are to increase public awareness and knowledge of the underlying factors that promote or impair the health of the people of British Columbia and to set health goals for those people and monitor the achievement of those goals. I think we've got all of that in place. We have the public need, public interest, hospital boards and the Ministry of Health, which is staffed by an enormous number of very competent civil servants who have the educational background, experience, knowledge and the wisdom, accumulated over a period of time, to work with the needs of the people of B.C.
We're ignoring all that. What is the purpose of ignoring it? It appears to be to legitimately -- as my hon. opposition colleague said before me -- create more jobs in the public sector in the province. That is abuse of the taxpayer and the senior citizen. That continued abuse draws money from the economy of the province and denies our young people and others looking for work jobs in the workplace.
What about the philosophy and principals behind the reporting? This is really interesting. If the council thinks that the interests of the people of the province are best served by making a public report on health issues in British Columbia, on the need for legislation or a change of policy or practice respecting health in British Columbia, the council must make this report in the manner the council considers most appropriate. What is the council for if it wasn't for the processes?
But the interesting thing later on in the bill, because of the public interest -- and I think that was the word.... It's typical of the end result of this particular legislation, and it's very close to a farce because it denies what the current government of the day is saying about open and honest government. It goes on to say in a section: "...but the council may exclude the public from a meeting if the council considers that, in order to protect the interests of a person or the public interest, the desirability of avoiding disclosure of information being presented outweighs the desirability of public disclosure of the information."
We've just appointed a commissioner for the freedom of information and privacy -- a landmark piece of legislation that the government can rightfully be proud of. Certainly I think we have selected one of the best possible candidates for the commissioner. I'm very proud of that, but here we have where the public interest is the desirability of withholding information. I can't believe that particular clause.
How often does the council meet? Well, they must meet four times a year. As I read the explanatory note, if this council is so important, why would it only meet four times a year? It doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me. It confirms a suspicion we hold on this side that it's simply a boondoggle and a smokescreen for the Minister of Health to carry on her iron-fisted destruction of the health care system in the province.
There is a disaster occurring in health care in British Columbia, and all British Columbians are becoming more and more acutely aware of that. The accord agreed to by the government earlier this year with the health employees union workers is costing hospitals approximately 14 percent. Where is that 14 percent going to come from? It's going to come, and it has to come, directly from the reduction of the services provided to the constituents of the hon. Minister of Health and to all of the constituents of the hon. members in this Legislative Assembly. There's no deep pocket to reach down into to pull up an additional 14 percent, but the reality is that hospitals are going to have to get that out of their operating budget.
When I make the comment with respect to the destruction of the health care system as we know it in British Columbia, that's what I'm alluding to. This again is not a major draw, it's not a major financial drain, but it's going to get that way. It's going to grow and grow. How is it going to grow? Well, it's just a ready-made little council that is designed to develop a bureaucracy.
In one part in section 5, they "...establish committees and specify the functions and duties of these committees, and delegate administrative or management duties to its employees." Here we come -- another bureaucracy in its infancy. But I know bureaucracies, and this one will grow and grow. If the minister really meant what she said in the explanatory notes at the start of this bill, there's no need for a situation where you structure in the legislation the potential for a growing bureaucracy -- but we've done this.
[ Page 8604 ]
And then we get into a peculiar situation, and the situation is: who's in charge? The minister? The Ministry of Health? The Health Council? We've got so many balls up in the air at one time, what is the protocol? Who responds to whom? What happens? We induce confusion by a very complicated organization.
We see this in the Legislature virtually on a daily basis with the organization of the affairs of the Legislature. Why does that happen? Because we have a number of individuals who are all contributing to the confusion rather than leaving the responsibility of setting the agenda through the Government House Leader and working with the Official Opposition House Leader and myself. We have a number of players, we have members of caucus, we have deputy whips and caucus chairs and everybody is talking to the Government House Leader. Everybody is cooking up deals, and we see an inordinate amount of confusion.
When you look at the philosophy and principles of this bill, even though the intentions of the hon. Minister of Health are probably noble, I think she is being misled. I think that the Minister of Health, in her zeal to try and accomplish some of the parameters and objectives set out in the Closer to Home report, is being misled, and the drafters of this legislation are probably clones of Bob Williams or maybe the fine hand of Bob Williams is in the drafting of this report to make room and accommodation for friends and insiders of the current government. I am distressed, and the victims will be the quality of health care in British Columbia and the taxpayer of the province.
This government is not very fiscally responsible. It's rather interesting that the report on financial administration and accountability is not to the public at large or to the Legislature; the accountability is to the minister. The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations may direct the comptroller general to examine and report to the Treasury Board. But the word is "may." It's not set up; it's not mandated. Public accountability is lacking in the structural design of this legislation.
We're talking about taxpayers' dollars. They are hard to come by. Not all that many members of the public work for the government, although the minister and the government of the day are certainly doing their utmost to bring that level up. I don't know whether 20 percent of the labour force in the province is employed by the collective governments. It may be higher than that. Nevertheless, if the government of the day continues on, we will soon achieve 50 percent. That seems to be their ultimate goal.
Contained in this are all sorts of options for exemptions from fees and taxes. That makes one wonder what the philosophy and principle of the bill is. Why should this Health Council be empowered to act as a person and accumulate property? It doesn't make a lot of rational sense to me.
The Ministry of Health has handled health matters in an extraordinarily competent manner for a number of years, meeting the growing challenges of today and the expectations of the public for a quality health care system. Why do we have to structure this Health Council with the ability to have all sorts of employees, with the ability to hold and own property, with no requirement of public accountability, to a degree, to the hon. Minister of Health?
[7:45]
When I speak in support of the hoist motion to Bill 68, the Health Council Act, I have to agree with the member who spoke immediately before me. If I had my druthers, we would hoist it for a great deal longer.
If there is merit -- and there must have been -- in the concept that was put forward by the royal commission, and the recommendations of Chief Justice Seaton, then those recommendations should be followed. But what we have here is a bureaucracy not charged with any significant responsibility, competing with responsibility and an arena of activity that's already ably covered by dedicated, well-educated employees in a very competent Ministry of Health.
I speak in support of the six-month hoist. But if I had my druthers, I would suggest and recommend that the Minister of Health withdraw this particular act, get together with ministry staff and rethink this with the idea of achieving what the recommendations of the royal commission were. If that were achieved, I would endorse a subsequent Health Council.
The idea is very good, but when we see what has happened in the philosophy and principles of Bill 68 -- the Health Council Act, 1993 -- I suggest that something has gone awry. There has been a severe.... It may have been unintentional, but I'd suggest the fine hand of someone is in this, and that this distortion is only going to serve the need of the current government to find well-paid resting places for friends and insiders. With that, I conclude my remarks in strong support of at least a six-month hoist.
G. Wilson: As I rise on the amendment, I once again remind the Speaker that I'm a designated speaker on this bill, as I was in second reading when I was unceremoniously interrupted by a refusal to go for lunch, as we may recall.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
But let me say that the six-month hoist motion is a motion to allow this government an opportunity to reflect on the introduction of the Health Council Act, which is a most undesirable piece of legislation. I hope it also provides them an opportunity to reflect a little more clearly on the kind and level of government that is being directed to the people of British Columbia from this regime.
For members of the government who believe that this chamber is simply an execution box -- it's a box that is set up to execute the will of the government without any kind of adherence to amendment or comment from the opposition. I would say that the same level of scrutiny is needed in this Health Council Act as has been wisely provided by the Attorney General of this government who, recognizing in Bill 54 that there were enormous problems, has sought to amend, and possibly even withdraw, that bill now, not bringing it in until next year, after greater thought and understanding. Similarly, with respect to the bill on the
[ Page 8605 ]
emergency measures, the points raised by members of the opposition -- the member from Okanagan East, initially -- were in fact valid. Their legal counsel has suggested they were valid, and the Attorney General has wisely decided that they need amendment.
Opposition is putting forward sensible reasoned positions on these bills that deserve the attention of government to think about carefully what we're putting forward in our opposition to the bill. This is so they recognize that we -- unlike themselves when they were in opposition, often sinking the opposition role quickly to the level of personal attack or political rhetoric -- are trying to provide honest, sensible advice to the government with respect to an opposing point of view, one that is different from this government.
I realize that members of this government have a difficult time recognizing that there is indeed a different or opposite point of view to the one they're putting forward, but nevertheless, let me go through this bill clause by clause. We will explain why it is desirous, from our point of view, to have a hoist amendment at this point.
To begin with, let's take a look at what is being proposed by this Health Council Act. I will once again restate some of my earlier commentary, and in so doing I will attempt to avoid becoming repetitious.
Let us understand the purpose of this council, this new creation of government that is yet one more expensive level of government the taxpayers are going to have to finance. This new level of health council will be absorbing money that ordinarily could and should go to the delivery of health care service but instead is going to go to this administrative branch. The purposes of this council, according to this act, are: "to increase public awareness and knowledge of the underlying factors that promote or impair the health of the people of British Columbia, and" -- the conjunctive "and" means these two must be read together; they can't be read apart -- "to set health goals for the people of British Columbia and monitor the achievement of these goals."
We have just seen a Closer to Home strategy unveiled by this government in which they are talking about putting regional health care authorities in place throughout the province. For the first time, we have today an unveiling of the map of what these new regional health authorities are going to be, of how the geography of this province is going to be subdivided so that we can have these regional authorities. People in communities all throughout the province have been promised by this government that they would have input and that they would in fact have one-third elected members, albeit they will have to wait until 1996 until they see some of those elected members. The long-term plan, nevertheless, is that there would be these people brought forward and elected, and that we would have local government represented. That is necessary and important, because local government obviously has a considerable amount of concern for the capital facilities and the construction facilities, as well as for the provision of services to the communities they represent. There were also going to be some people, one-third, coming from government.
If we are setting up an expensive bureaucracy, let's be very clear on that regional bureaucracy of health care. I challenged this government to tell me how this was different than the establishment of the regional levels of government, which have mushroomed into yet another level of municipal government and authority, and this government failed to be able to defend itself adequately on that point. If we are setting up this very expensive level of government on the regional base, then why do we need a health council whose job it is to promote and create an underlying knowledge of the impairments to health care and then to set health goals for the people? Surely to goodness, one very expensive bureaucracy that is the creation of this government will do that within the regions; we don't need to set up a health council whose job is also to do that.
It isn't just so much the fact that they are going to be setting health goals. This government-appointed group of people is going to be pushing down the tube to the local communities the edict of this government's view of what's good for the people of British Columbia. As we start to see the weight of bills that have come down in the last little while, we recognize that what's unveiling before our very eyes is the real social agenda of this government. I find it incredible, to say the least, that we've actually gone through Bills 51, 55, 61 and 71 in such short order today. An enormous amount of health care legislation has passed in this House today, affecting the lives of every single British Columbian. I would say....
J. Beattie: It's your party that stopped debate.
G. Wilson: We hear from the member opposite that it's our party that let that go through. Let me say that if we were to take the detail of every single line and bill as we would like.... What we would have hoped is that this government would have introduced its legislation in a timely manner that would have afforded us the opportunity to be able to do that. Instead, this government waits and drops it in the middle of July; they were unable to have this material together in March. This is an agenda that we are supposed to hear....
Hon. R. Blencoe: Cry, cry, cry.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying that we're just crying. The people of British Columbia are crying at the decision they made in the last election. They wish to goodness they hadn't elected this government and, believe me, those tears will turn to anger and by the time the next election is here, this government will be gone. It will be gone for the next 20 years, and that's exactly as it should be.
R. Neufeld: This government will be toast.
G. Wilson: I hear somebody say that this government will be toast. I would say that I am not sure that we should say toast, because at least toast has some fibre which is of some use to the body. This one has no
[ Page 8606 ]
fibre at all and is of no use to anyone. But the point is that when we start to look at the purposes of this Health Council, we have to recognize that we are going to have a means of monitoring the achievement of these goals. Remember, this is the government that brought you the bill that took away the freedom of speech; that has no problem annexing a private company in British Columbia, simply by legislation; and that is prepared to come forward and extinguish the individual rights and freedoms of British Columbians at every turn, because they believe that they have somehow found the tolerance mark of what the people are prepared to put up with. I believe they're wrong.
Let's look at what we're talking about in terms of the monitoring of the achievement of these goals. They going to do that by reporting to the people of British Columbia in a manner that the council considers to be appropriate. In recognizing why we're trying to hoist the motion before us, let's just read section 4. How does this council report to government? It says: "If the council considers that the interests of the people of British Columbia are best served by making a public report on health issues in British Columbia, or on the need for legislation...." This council is going to be proposing legislation; not the people and not the health care providers. It's not the people who are elected into this assembly who are going to be advocating, through private members' bills -- which are never heard in this House, because this government will never give us a private members' day, which is our due right as elected members.... It isn't this government that rides rough-shod over the rights of the elected members here. No, this hand-picked council is going to propose legislation, or "a change of policy or practice" -- and not only government policy; we're talking about the practice of health care delivery, and a government-appointed council that has the right to recommend the change of practice respecting health in British Columbia.
Then it says that "...the council must make this report in the manner the council considers most appropriate." It isn't even required by legislation to file a document or report in a manner consistent with any other Crown agencies in this province, which have to file a report and table it with government in a manner stipulated in this act. The council can choose how it does it, whether it does it or whether it does it with any degree of authority. This is unacceptable; on that section alone we should be hoisting this bill, not just for six months but hoisting it, period.
Then we take a look at the powers and the procedures of this council. If there is a second clause that would require us to vote in favour of a hoist amendment, it's the powers and procedures of this council, because in section 5(1), as has been pointed out by other members of the opposition: "The council has the powers of a natural person of full capacity for the purposes of carrying out its powers, duties and functions under this Act." Why? Why do we need this authority, given that we've gone to a regional system, which is yet another huge bureaucratic drain on the tax base and is taking money and putting it into administration rather than where it belongs, in the delivery of health care? Section 5(2) says: "Subject to this Act and the regulations, the council may, by bylaw, determine its own procedure...." This council can decide whether or not it reports to this body and how it does. This council is able to provide for legislative change and to determine how the practice of health care should be provided in British Columbia. It can now determine its own procedures, provide for the control and conduct of its meetings and provide for the election of officers of the council, including the chair and the member acting as the chair in the absence of the chair.
[8:00]
The discretion of these committees.... It goes on to suggest that there's a delegation of administration and management duties to its employees. Well, how many employees are we talking about here? Are we talking about one, ten, 15 or 20? This is the government that likes big government. This is the government that has increased its size, as if it was the single employment agency for the province. The greatest make-work project in British Columbia is this government. They're employing more and more, not recognizing that this government has no money of its own. The only money it has to spend is what the taxpayers provide, and the taxpayers are taxed beyond their limit because this government doesn't recognize that there is a limit to their capacity to grow without putting enormous burden on the people of this province.
We recognize that the professional services that are required by this particular authority and body provide for this council to hire their own specialists and consultants. When we look at that, it's interesting that section 6 is another section that supports a hoist motion 100 percent. Why is that, hon. Speaker? Well, let me tell you why it does. These specialists or consultants may be retained when the council considers it necessary to carry out the powers, duties and functions of the office. Is the salary being paid to these consultants set by the Public Service Act, which sets the salaries and range of salaries? Is how much they should be paid set out in a schedule of events?
Let's look at what this bill says about how much these consultants are going to be paid. They're going to be paid by this council, which will determine their remuneration, and the Public Service Act does not apply to the retention, engagement or remuneration of these specialists or consultants. Why is that, hon. Speaker? I suspect that the reason this doesn't apply is that we've just amended the Public Service Act, because this government believes in a quota hiring. This government is talking about an amendment to the Public Service Act, and it no longer has merit as its primary and first consideration -- except when these consultant are being brought in.
Where are these consultants going to come from -- Manitoba, Saskatchewan or maybe Ontario? We know that this government is already reviewing the private medical laboratories in this province in a manner similar to what was done in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We know that that review is going threaten private laboratories in this province. We know that this government wants to have large, intrusive government that will take over the interests of those private-sector interests. So it doesn't surprise us,
[ Page 8607 ]
when we look at the hiring of these consultants, that those consultants will fall outside the regulations that this government would put in place for middle management personnel, but isn't prepared to put in place for their hand-appointed, hand-picked consultants, who are going to come forward and have their remunerations retained.
Let's take a look at what happens with respect to the finances of this before we get into the nuts and bolts of what causes our primary and major concern with this bill. The financial administration, section 7, is another section that supports a six-month hoist for this government to rethink more clearly what it is attempting to do. Clearly it's going to establish an accounting system that's satisfactory to the minister; that we would expect. "All books or records of account, documents and other financial records of the council must at all times be open for inspection by the minister or a person designated for that purpose by the minister." If we're dealing with public disclosure in this province, and if we want to have an open government that's prepared to have open and full disclosure, why not have their accounts and books open to the public? This is after all an agency of government that is going to be looking after the Health Council. If this council is going to be given the weight and authority this act determines it will have, surely to goodness this government would see the wisdom of having at least the fiscal accounting of this particular authority set in place. But, no, it isn't; it's directed. By whom is it directed? Well, it's directed by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations -- who else would we expect to be there? -- to examine the report of Treasury Board on any or all of the financial accounting operations.
Where is the duly-constituted and elected opposition in this province going to have an opportunity to do the scrutiny and review of the operation of this all-powerful council that is going to be setting policy, advising on legislation and, by the very words of this act, setting the direction that health care in the province is going to be taking? Where will we have an opportunity to see a detailed financial accounting of this particular authority? The answer to that question is that we will not. There will be no full and open accounting for this system because this government has no intention to have that.
I know that we're trying to rush these bills through now because members opposite and ministers have vacations planned in Costa Rica, and they've got a plane to catch. We've got to get through this in the last hours of this summer day. I know that when we look at "Financial administration," section 7, the people of British Columbia will find it totally and absolutely unacceptable, because we've just set up one of the most expensive administrative sections under the regional health care provisions of any health care act in Canada and in the history British Columbia. Now we're setting up yet another authoritarian council that is going to have an opportunity to spend money without adequate and proper accounting. The hallmark of this government is Crown agencies that have a greater mandate and a greater degree of authority. And we've only just begun to see the extent to which we're finding an executive style and an executive branch of government coming forward in this kind of material.
What does this council get to do? In the pursuit, under section 4 -- and this is yet one more section that supports our hoist motion -- it says that this is going to be an authority that is going to be determining policies or practice respecting health care, and it is essentially going to be addressing the manner by which this is going to happen through keeping an adherence to these policies by examination. These examinations are going to take place in the form of hearings, which the council may conduct for the purposes of this act. This all-powerful council will determine its own makeup and structure; whether it reports, how it reports and to whom it reports; and what's in the public interest and what is not. This council will be financed by this government without proper authority or accountability.
How is it going to do that? It's going to set up its own procedures to be followed for the hearings. It says that this all-powerful council may conduct hearings for the purpose of this act and may determine the procedures to be followed. The council itself will determine its procedures. Members opposite say that that's just dreadful, and they're right. The government recognizes it is, but they take comfort in the fact that they have full control over this council, because they will appoint its members. Through the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance, they will control this Health Council. This will be a government agency, one arm controlled by the executive council of government, which will allow this council full authority and weight.
It says that for the purposes of this section the council has the powers and council and its members have the protection and privileges given under sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act. First, section 12 of the Inquiry Act says that the directors of this council will have the same level of protection as afforded a Supreme Court judge in the hearing procedure and the recommendations and actions taken by it. This hand-picked, hand-appointed council, a quasi-legal authority that has no legal authority outside of this act, is going to be given that kind of protection under the Inquiry Act. Secondly, sections 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act say that this council has the opportunity to subpoena information. It can have the weight of a court of law in the subpoena and introduction of evidence, and it can require evidence to be brought before this council. An individual has no protection for appeal to another court -- to a legitimate court.
When we look at this section, we have to ask: what information is going to be there? We have had a longstanding protection of the physician-client relationship. We have had a longstanding protection in the health care provision, so we have an interesting set of recommendations with respect to the new Freedom of Information Act. Don't you find it rather interesting and rather bizarre that this government, which just introduced a privacy act, will not introduce in that act the right of a patient to access their files without going to court? In the act that's before us, if the health care providers say no, they won't give the patient the right to get their own material in their own file, but by gosh they'll give this council the right to get it. This council
[ Page 8608 ]
will have the right to simply subpoena the records. I find that more than a little crazy; I find it reprehensible. When they have the right to get that, we recognize also that they may then undertake to accept, either under oath or otherwise.... They don't even have to have a person sworn under oath; they can accept evidence whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law.
I find this an interesting point, and let me explain why. In talking to the hoist motion that's before us right now, one of the points we've raised -- I've raised it, and I know that a number of other members in the Liberal opposition have raised it -- is that we have serious concerns about the implication of the language. On the "Bill Good Show" the other day, the Premier was read this particular section of the act and asked whether he understood its implication. He said he did not. He was asked if he even knew that it existed, and he said that he couldn't be expected to know all the legislation and to read every section of it. The Premier isn't supposed to know what's in every bill, but surely the opposition is supposed to know; that's our job. And when we do find these things, the Premier then says that he has no idea, but that as a lawyer he does have some concerns and he'll get back to us. He gets back, as reported on CKNW news a little later in the afternoon, and says: "This isn't uncommon at all. It happens in many bills. It's a perfectly acceptable procedure. This is the way it normally happens in British Columbia."
We're doing a detailed search of every statute in this province, and I want the Premier to show me where this is a common practice. When you are dealing with materials that may be brought into a hearing process dealing with matters that may be sensitive enough to be protected by a court of law such as you will have between a physician and client, you show me another statute that takes that kind of material and allows it to come forward subject to hearsay material that is not under oath. Oh, I know that he'll find some statutes that say hearsay evidence is allowed in a hearing. I know that in the Municipal Act, hearsay evidence is admissible in a public hearing on matters of property and conduct. Don't think for a moment that we haven't done some homework on this question. I want the Premier to show me where the powers invested in a council, such as the powers here, are in another statute. That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about a hearing process set up in a public manner that will simply allow for an open flow of information. What we're talking about is a quasi-judicial system that has empowerment in this particular act that it does not have in other legislation. Before this second reading debate passes, let the Premier come forward and defend it. Let us see the Premier standing by what he said on the "Bill Good Show." Let him say it in the Legislature where debate is supposed to happen, not out there on an open-line talk show. Let me tell you that this particular situation is offensive to British Columbians.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: I hear members opposite bantering about open-line talk shows and how a lot of information flows over them. They talk about various leadership campaigns. You see how confused those poor minions are who sit on the back bench. They are simply here to stand when the dogs of council bark.
[8:15]
We know that authority is vested through the Lieutenant-Governor in the executive council to administer the laws of the province and to change and introduce new laws. This minion over here, this group of back bench wannabes who would like to be in these seats over here, don't understand the difference between an opposition member fighting legislation and a Premier who has the right to write it, undertake it and make it law.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: As the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove points out correctly, it would be helpful if at some point he knew what it meant. This is a contentious point. Notwithstanding the fact that there are other matters relating to....
Hon. Speaker, I see the government opposite is waving a white flag, and so they should wave a white flag in this debate. If they are prepared to support this motion and hoist this bill right now, it's no problem; we'll move on to other matters. A lot of other matters are going to take several weeks, if not months, to debate in the Legislature.
D. Lovick: Have you ever read The Caine Mutiny?
G. Wilson: I'm not going to engage the member for Nanaimo in literary references to various works. The answer to his question on The Caine Mutiny is that I have; in fact, I'm rereading it. I'm reviewing the videotape of the film to see if I can get some tips, like you would review the former plays of a football game to check out the backfield.
Let me get back to the seriousness of this particular bill and the hoist question. What we're dealing with is a bill that simply introduces an authority -- a body, quite honestly -- that we do not believe is in the interests of the people of British Columbia. What is this government trying to achieve with this particular council? What is it that this government needs to put in place?
When we look at this particular act, we recognize the strategy of this Minister of Health. It is to set up a regional level of health care with a centralized council that will have as its authority -- and, presumably, a delegation of authority or a surrogate authority for this minister -- the right to determine and direct the provision of health care services in the province. What we thought was a decentralization of system with a greater degree of control within the communities, we find is not. Why do we need to enter into yet one more very expensive and unwieldy centralized system of authority and power in this province?
We do not support this bill, and that will come as no surprise to anyone who has listened to this debate, and we don't support it for a sound and logical reason. We do not believe that the vast majority of the people of British Columbia support this legislation for precisely
[ Page 8609 ]
the same reason: the fact that we've got an opportunity to see once again the hand of government reach out, appoint its members and direct -- at an expense -- the health care provisions without providing adequate input and control by the communities and the people who are most affected.
A six-month hoist is really not enough. It's a provision that we have under the rather restricted rules of this House. I don't know that the people of British Columbia understand the limited potential which the opposition has to obstruct or to stop the movement of legislation put forward by a government that has a majority of the size that this government has. When they've got 50 seats as opposed to 26 seats over here, it's clear that almost half of the members opposite can be on holiday having a good summer vacation and they can still be passing legislation. Even if every single sitting member in opposition is here, this government can simply turn off their ears and pass their legislation.
What is the power that we have? We can introduce hoist motions. We can try to delay, we can try to protract the debate, and we can try to get this government to see the light. We can do whatever we can, while these guys book their tickets to Costa Rica, Puerto Vallarta or wherever it is that they're going to go on holiday. The opposition will be here doing what we can. The point is that if we start to look at the implication of this bill, a six-month hoist is clearly not enough. What the government has to start to do is listen. It needs to start to listen at least to the people who elected them, if not to the voices of the opposition.
Over the last number of weeks, I have had an opportunity to travel all over this province and talk to various communities. What they don't understand when we say I have an opportunity....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The Minister of Transportation and Highways will know that I've had the opportunity to travel the great highways and goat trails of this province on the weekends, which is when consultation must take place. The people have spoken, and spoken loudly and consistently over and over again: this is bad government, it's big government, it's expensive government, it's intrusive government, and it's a government that's lost touch with the people on every single facet of legislation that's come forward. It's a government that has an intention to make an omelette that no one can unscramble, as one member who now sits as the czar of the Crown corporations said when defeated in 1975.
Let's be serious about what will happen if this kind of legislation goes through, coupled with the remaining sections on the bills that are before us now and the health care provisions, plus the changes to the Public Service Act and the executive council -- if indeed they have the courage to bring forth Bill 54. I understand that they've seen the light on that and they're going to put it off until next spring, which is a victory at least for the members in the opposition. If this government doesn't see the light and does not change its attitude and course of direction, my prediction is that the people of this province will rise up and defeat this government in such record numbers that you will not have an elected NDP government back in this province for not one or two, but possibly three to four decades -- if the party can survive it.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I hear a lone voice opposite saying what if I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, it will be six to ten decades -- that's the only way I could be wrong.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's the 60-year plan.
G. Wilson: The 60-year plan clearly is to put them out of office for long or for good.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The banter from the members opposite cannot detract at all from the substance of this particular bill. We need to hoist it because a six-month hoist is one of the options and weapons the opposition has. When they suggest that we're hoisting everything....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: We are not hoisting everything. To point out how wrong the member who said that is, may I point out Bills 51, 55, 71 and 61 that passed today. We didn't hoist those, although there were some concerns in committee -- as we put forward. We are doing our job in opposition in the most responsible manner we can under the conditions brought forward by this government -- this government that couldn't get its collective act together earlier on, or had its collective act together and decided that this was the time, when people of were taking a needed summer break, that they were going to unveil and drop their social agenda on the people of British Columbia.
What they didn't count on is the fact that the opposition wasn't going to take a break and was going to be here to hold them accountable, and we will. We are going to resist this bill with everything we have in our power. This government has lost touch with the people. Bill 68 is bad legislation. The hoist is necessary as the weapon we in opposition have to hopefully give this government six more months to reflect on the errors of their ways and allow them to put together something that's a little bit more appropriate.
Hon. Speaker, I speak in favour of the hoist motion; I look forward to speaking in favour of the various other motions and amendments we might bring forward on Bill 68. This government must listen and reconsider on the Health Council Act. It is draconian legislation.
J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak to the amendment that would see the implementation of Bill 68, the Health Council Act, delayed for up to six months.
When I was contemplating this legislation and preparing to come in and speak to the legislation and the hoist motion, I went back and had another look at
[ Page 8610 ]
the Seaton report, the Closer to Home document. It seemed to me to be worthwhile to reflect on the need for us to reform our health care system, to find a better way to deliver health care in British Columbia. I think Judge Seaton and the group of people who worked with him did an outstanding job of assessing health care needs in British Columbia and examining new ways to deliver health care in this province.
As I looked at the Seaton report, it occurred to me that the first recommendation of Judge Seaton and the commission was to establish a provincial health council. It seemed to me that the vision Judge Seaton had for a reformed health care delivery system had as an integral part of it a provincial health council.
So it was interesting to note that the minister had, in fact, brought forward a bill to establish something called exactly that: the Provincial Health Council. It's worthwhile, I believe, to look at the recommendations of the Seaton commission and the Closer to Home document. The commission said, in the little paraphrase of this section of the report, that the development of an articulated vision and a clear direction for the health care system of the province is a first prerequisite for achieving improvements in its delivery and cost-effective management. That certainly seemed to me to be a goal that we had all anticipated, that we had all hoped for when the royal commission was first established and started its hearings on reforming the health care system and improving the delivery and the cost-effectiveness of the health care system in British Columbia.
I'll quote again from the Closer to Home report: "...the province needs the guidance of a permanent, independent council." It goes on to say that this council "must be completely independent of the government, the Ministry of Health and the health care industry." So what started out as a sound idea and an important, integral part of the recommendations of Judge Seaton and the report of the British Columbia Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs -- including a provincial health council -- has gone astray and awry of the recommendations.
Indeed, when we look at the recommendations made by Judge Seaton, he suggests that this provincial health council must be a creature of, and report to, the Legislative Assembly, not the Ministry of Health. He goes on to suggest that the health council should consist of six members appointed for two three-year terms, with two terms expiring each year -- a long way from the provincial health council laid out in the Health Council Act.
When you compare the Seaton report recommendations on the provincial health council and Bill 68, legislation which would create a provincial health council in British Columbia, the only similarity is the name. The only similarity between the two health care councils is that they share a common name.
Indeed, this legislation proposes, rather than six independent members reporting to the Legislative Assembly, a corporation consisting of 12 to 15 members recommended by the minister and appointed by cabinet, with no definite terms. Instead of an independent body that's free to give advice, criticize and make recommendations, the government has created a creature of the Minister of Health. A ministry that now manages a third of the budget in this province and has enormous resources already available has not the courage to create an independent body, board or independent council free to make recommendations from outside of the bureaucracy and the influence of government and the minister. You have instead a council that is a creature of the ministry, the minister and the cabinet.
[8:30]
The only similarity between that and what started out as a sound idea, an integral and first recommendation by Judge Seaton in his report on health care delivery, is the name. I think it's ironic that the government would have the audacity to take the name when it has rejected all of the other recommendations. Surely the minister and the government are simply trying to leave British Columbians with the impression that they are paying attention to the recommendations made by Judge Seaton, while going ahead on their own agenda.
It's unfortunate, because there are solid recommendations that would create a council that is the foundation of the entire Closer to Home report. This council, as envisioned by Judge Seaton, is an integral part of the new delivery of health care in the province. Instead we have this council, which bears absolutely no resemblance -- except in name -- to the one that was recommended -- a council that is a corporation, can buy and sell property, has no set terms and is anything but independent of the minister and the government. Indeed, rather than report to the Legislature, the legislation suggests that this group will report regularly to cabinet, making its recommendations to the very body that created it and appoints its members. Why in the world would the government be afraid to go out and seek truly independent advice from six people appointed by the Legislature? Why in the world would the government be so afraid of the advice it might get from six independent British Columbians on the delivery of the health care system?
The Seaton Report is clear: it doesn't recommend that the authority of the ministry or the minister be undermined by this council, and it doesn't suggest that the council should take over the delivery of health care in the province. It suggests that there should be an independent six-member, provincial health care council, free in every way to provide advice, criticism, critiques, evaluations and recommendations on the delivery of health care. Instead, we have this creature created by Bill 68. No wonder we are here speaking in favour of the hoist motion and against the legislation that would create this council. It is so different and so contrary in every sense to the one recommended by Judge Seaton.
When one goes through the Closer to Home report section dealing with a provincial health council and compares that section with this legislation, it is truly incredible that the government could choose to ignore every recommendation made by Judge Seaton in the report, and then give the council the name suggested by the royal commission. The only similarity is the name. It
[ Page 8611 ]
is so indicative of the approach that the government is taking to governing in this province, and I am afraid it is going to be an indication of what the government does section by section with the recommendations made by Judge Seaton.
It is pretty clear to me that the government is going to take the good work done by the royal commission, twist it to meet the government's own needs, and bring in legislation and regulations under the guise of paying attention to and being guided by one of the most complete assessments of the health care system ever done in British Columbia. Rather than have the courage to say, "We don't want any part of this royal commission; it was done by a former government; we have a plan of our own," this government is going to go through the royal commission report section by section. It is going to twist and turn the recommendations here so that it can maintain the pretence it is acting on the recommendations of the royal commission, when it sets out to do the opposite.
This is a very poor start in dealing with recommendations that are important and have real significance for British Columbia and British Columbians. There is nothing more important to the average person in British Columbia than their health care system and the way in which it is delivered.
There should be a degree of comfort taken from the fact that a royal commission examined the needs in the health care system and made recommendations. But there is none, given the way the government has dealt with the first recommendation of Judge Seaton, the way the government has chosen to deal with the Provincial Health Council. One must assume that every one of the future recommendations of the council will be twisted in a similar way, manipulated and used by the government to introduce its own agenda. That's a prerogative of government.
Government clearly has the ability to bring in its own agenda. The government has every authority and opportunity to say: "We don't like this recommendation. We don't like the approach recommended by the royal commission. We're going to do it our way." But what I find particularly offensive is the government structuring its own model under the guise of following the recommendations of the commission. I am sure that the people who worked with Judge Seaton must find it offensive that their work, done under the important authority of a royal commission, would be back in the Legislature and being used in a way that Bill 68 uses the recommendations around the Provincial Health Council.
We have heard a good and very complete critique of the legislation itself. I am not going to repeat some of the excellent points made by my colleague from Okanagan West, our critic -- the member for Prince George-Omineca -- and other members of the Legislative Assembly. But I do think that it's worth recognizing the way in which this legislation sets out to use the recommendations of the royal commission and at the same time ignores every recommendation in the report as it deals with the provincial health council. I want to be sure that as many British Columbians as possible understand that the Provincial Health Council proposed under Bill 68 has no resemblance at all, except in name, to the Provincial Health Council recommended as the first item in the Royal Commission on Health Care.
I would support the amendment. My regrets are that it couldn't be moved six months further down the road. This legislation deserves a place on the shelf gathering dust, which is where the royal commission report is, except when the government chooses to dust it off, pull some recommendation out and use it to justify its own agenda. It's an unfortunate misuse of the royal commission report, and I find it offensive.
J. Tyabji: I rise to speak in favour of the hoist motion before us in debate. I'll wait for the Minister of Labour to finish his conversation.
I want to preface my comments by saying that one reason the Liberal opposition is proposing this hoist motion and one reason the opposition members are supporting it is that this binder contains some of the bills that we still have to deal with before the end of the session. In addition to that we have four more bills, and these pages have to be debated section by section. We have to read, analyze and cross-reference them not only with the other bills that are before us, but with the statutes that are currently in existence and, in some cases, with federal statutes.
Given the fact that we have a record number of pages before us, primarily tabled since the beginning of June, I think it's unfortunate that when we have a Crown corporation for health, and when we have some of the most radical changes to the health care system in the history of the province before us, the government is not giving us adequate time to review the Health Council Act.
We heard the Leader of the Third Party stand up and say he found it amazing that the Seaton report had one set of recommendations for a health council, that this had no resemblance to it, and yet it was still called a health council. He went on to expand from there.
Unfortunately I don't find it amazing that the report of a commission doesn't bear any resemblance to the government's legislation, but that it's used as a reference point to justify what the government is trying to do. We've seen repeatedly, whether it be in the labour code, in environmental assessment or in Bill 71 that was before us earlier today, that recommendations come forward in one form through a consultation process that is a legitimate process, and then we've seen a piece of legislation before us for debate that has little or no resemblance to the recommendations that came forward from that process. Yet that process is used to justify the laws that are coming before us, as if there's no further need for consultation. That is extremely unfortunate.
As the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was saying earlier, it's one thing to come forward and say that this is where we're trying to take things, this is our agenda for doing things, and this is why we're doing it. It's another thing to say here's the commission, here's the consultation process, and based on that we're bringing some legislation forward, when it has very little resemblance to it.
[8:45]
[ Page 8612 ]
In terms of the content of the bill before us and the things that I find worthy of public debate and worthy of a fair amount of reflection, we have, for example, the establishment of the health council from a list that is nominated by the minister to represent the people. Why wouldn't we have a list that has come forward through some kind of grass-roots process? Why wouldn't we have a list not nominated by the minister but by a third party that is, at the minimum, arm's length from the minister and from the cabinet, to allow for non-partisan appointments to the health council and certainly to allow for even an open election of some of the people on this?
There was room for creativity on the part of the minister, and if nothing else, if the minister is choosing to go this route, then this route should be open to some kind of public debate and public discourse before it goes forward in a bill.
I think that no one can pretend to have the ability to take this bill and cross-reference it with all the other bills that we saw go through here quickly. There are some concerns in the opposition with some of the other bills that refer to this that will be within the jurisdiction of the health council. When we have to cross-reference it not only to the existing statutes but to the existing provisions in the federal statutes -- and there might be some overlap -- it means that because of the haste with which the government is tabling the legislation and because none of our hoist motions are being followed through on, after the session is over we're going to have to be reviewing these bills, reviewing the statutes and coming to a conclusion as to just how radically altered the system that we now have before us is going to be.
That is not a process that serves the people. I think the government clearly can see that the public elected 75 members with a variety of perspectives, with differences in ideology and mandates. Every single perspective in this Legislature is legitimate, and even if the government is determined to have this bill go through as is, at the very least there could be some adequate time for us to go to the people we are representing -- whether that is in a partisan or non-partisan way, whether it is regional or local -- and ask them for their feedback on this.
We have seen health bills here and have had discussion from the government side saying that all the stakeholders who helped draft the bill were aware that the bill is before the House. Yet I know that when the leader of the Liberal Party was in his own riding, he met with the regional health representative, who was shocked to find out that the bill had already passed second reading. The concerns that were brought forward could never be brought up in a second reading debate, because it had already gone through the House.
That's the kind of response to the way legislation is coming forward that we've heard from around the province. Even in terms of Bill 32, when you look at the amendments that are coming forward from other people, there has been enough time to get preliminary feedback. Everybody is in a lot of haste to get their feedback into the bill. In Bill 68 there hasn't even been enough time to go outside the field -- not just the health care field.
Let's face it: this is a new Crown corporation, which means it's financed by everyone. The Health Council is going to be responsible to all the taxpayers. If there's one thing the taxpayers are saying consistently throughout the province, it's that they are overtaxed; there is too much money being taken out; they are overgoverned; and we have too many layers of government. Here we have the Health Council, and we have the other bill with the regional health councils and the local health councils, which will be able to draft bylaws and will be acting as a form of local government for health. Every one of these bodies is going to cost money and will need a separate capital infrastructure. They are going to need their own building and a physical space to exist in.
Unless the government is going to unravel some of the bureaucracy that's there at the end of the session, I think our party leader mentioned that Bill 54, which will radically change the functions of the executive council, might not go through. The only hope that was held out for Bill 54 -- which we would have to have an ardent debate about -- was that the tools that were provided to the executive council through that would unravel some of the bureaucracy that exists in some of the ministries like Health. Instead of having layers and layers of government being added on -- bureaucracy, civil service and elected officials in some cases -- we would have some dismantling and regionalization of the delivery of health services. Because of the regionalization, we would have lower costs for administration. Yet we don't see any signs of that.
When we're debating these bills, we have to keep coming back to the fact that these days, when people are already overtaxed and can't afford the government they have, they are not going to be prepared to see not only another level of government with far-reaching powers, but also that it's being done in a manner that is not only different from what the Seaton report brought out -- the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs -- but being done at the discretion of the minister, with the reporting process back to the minister and the minister being the person who puts forward the list of nominees and drives the entire process. Just as in all the other bills, we see a greater centralization of authority and power in the minister's office. We've seen less ability for the grass roots or the general membership.... We had 15 statutes amended in Bill 71, and in every single one of those 15 professions greater power was given to the minister. The Health Council becomes a machine of the minister. In this case, there's no other way to read this. The power is entrenched in the offices of the minister, and greater and greater authority is given to the bureaucracy empowered by the minister -- no doubt an ideologically based group of people and a very highly partisan group of people. If there is one field where the NDP definitely have very strong partisan interests, it's in the field of health. We've seen that since the first few months of this government.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I hear one of the hecklers in the back asking me if I'd run for leader. Actually, I don't see it as
[ Page 8613 ]
a leadership race as much as a test of loyalty. So no, there's no question on that count.
With regard to Bill 68, I really hope the government will take some indication from the debate that we're putting forward that the hoist motion is not something we're putting forward because we like to be here at 9 p.m. on a Tuesday night. It's not something that we decided we'd like to do on a lovely July evening because we wouldn't rather be somewhere else. There isn't....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, just to give the government members some perspective on what's happening here, every day we get questioned -- not only by our constituents, not only by members of the media, but by the very people who work here: "How long are we going to have to be in session? How much longer will it be? When are we going to have our summer?" At which point we say: "We're not sure, because we have to do justice to the bills being brought before us." This represents what we have left to debate. Yet we have the government acting indignant that we are trying to have proper debate and an adequate process in second reading of Bill 68.
The Health Council Act will change the way in which the Ministry of Health will be empowered and will change the direction and drive of that ministry. As our party leader, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, was saying earlier, take some of the other bills -- Bill 66 and the multiculturalism bill that was before us -- that were rushed through second reading. The government was able to immediately put them through, and that set an unfortunate precedent in legislating government policy. We would have liked to have been able to spend more time in second reading taking the government to task on that one -- not for the objective, not for the ideals, but for the precedent that was set in laying out ideological policy in legislation. By tying that to the Public Service Act, with the quotas that will be brought in -- where you have a quota system rather than a merit system -- and tying that to the Health Council Act, and then also looking at the regional governments that will be coming into health, we see an enormous social engineering project underway.
The goals that the government is pursuing are laudable; but the means by which those goals are being pursued is absolutely reprehensible if you have a perspective that champions civil rights, civil liberties, individual liberties, and freedom for the people to be able to come to solutions.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The Minister of Transportation is saying: "Not to mention motherhood." I just want to say, for the purpose of the House, that the waving I was doing a little bit earlier -- for those of you who saw me doing that -- was to my children as they were going to bed. So there's our tribute to motherhood, I guess. Some of us would actually rather be somewhere else right now, but we have a job to do.
When we look at how the Health Council Act changes the power structure in the Ministry of Health, and when we cross-reference that with the other bills before us, bills with the quotas, with the new precedent in legislating the policy of government, which is absolutely unprecedented.... In the multiculturalism act, which unfortunately we didn't.... I think we should have debated that at great length in second reading, because that's going to impact this. That's very much going to impact this, because we can see that as the ministers are beginning to have discretion in appointing their councils, as they begin to have their quota of seats to centralize the power base in the ministry, they will be making those appointments on the basis of the other bills before us -- the other bills being the bills for quotas.
Hon. Speaker, many people, I think, are curious to see me speaking out against a quota system when, quite obviously, I'd probably be one of the people who would be in a position to gain from it. In fact, I know it's a running joke with my sisters that with the NDP government they've never had a better chance of getting a provincial job. But the corollary to that is that it's a joke for them, because they don't want to be hired on that basis. Not only people in my family, but members of the Indo-Canadian community, the Chinese community, or many of the other communities who I have discussions with are telling me repeatedly that they don't want tokenism; they don't want to be part of a quota system; they just want to be judged on the basis of merit, and on that basis be hired.
When we deal with the Health Council Act, we need to have adequate debate before it passes second reading.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. In order to enter the debate you should be recognized and take your place. The hon. member continues.
J. Tyabji: I can only hope that the member for Nanaimo will entertain us, as he so often does, with some of his frivolous comments on where he is coming from. I heard him yelling out something about socialist philosophy. We'd certainly like to hear about it.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. On the bill, please.
J. Tyabji: I'll direct my comments to the hoist motion before us.
The opposition is speaking up in favour of the hoist motion because.... If there was some choice about going through the long and detailed process that we have to go through to do justice to these bills and the job that we've been elected to do, we would take it. In fact, if the government agreed to the hoist motion we could be out of here by 9 p.m. -- if the government were to agree that there is a point here. This is a major restructuring of the power of the Ministry of Health, especially when you cross-reference it with the direction that all the other bills are taking. There is no
[ Page 8614 ]
way that the Health Council Act should pass without adequate review, not just in the health community but outside it by the people who are most important to any of the processes here -- the taxpayers and voting public, who are often but not always one and the same. That's who we're here to represent.
We're not here to drive forward a particular ideological perspective, although as has been said earlier, the government clearly has a very strong ideological perspective. Initially that didn't come out in the platform that was brought forward in the last election, and it wasn't brought forward by many of the present cabinet members in leading up to the election. Given that this government has a certain philosophical base, they will move forward with a certain partisan and ideological perspective. The government should recognize that not everyone in the province shares that ideological perspective. Not everyone believes in large intrusive government and, if you will, a benevolent dictatorship where government knows best and will take care of you. If we happen to run a deficit we'll just increase taxes -- not everybody subscribes to that. Many people say that we are already overtaxed, overgoverned and underserved. The solutions lie in the public. The true way to achieve proper reform is to dismantle government and empower the people, and in doing that, have a legitimate process that recognizes the ideological and partisan differences within the taxpaying base.
[9:00]
I hope the members of the government will stand up and tell us in great detail why we shouldn't have a hoist motion, given the legislation that's before us, the time that we have had to review it, the magnitude of the changes the bill represents and the fact that it's such a large departure from the royal commission. If the government can come forward and articulate a good reasoned argument about why we shouldn't have it, then I am sure the opposition would be more than happy for a good excuse to go home early tonight. In the event that's not forthcoming....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Perhaps the member for Nanaimo, in his ultimate wisdom, would like to stand up and share his discourse with us in more legitimate form.
I would hope that the government members would join us in recognizing the need for a radical change that will represent the people. In recognizing the people, the Legislature will also know that this bill should be hoisted because it is a major departure. There should be an adequate process for input now that it's drafted. It should be more along the lines of a royal commission. Given that, the government would support the hoist motion.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of the hoist motion. In doing so, I think one must examine why it is that we are discussing a hoist motion here at 9 o'clock on July 13. If we recall, a few days ago at the lunch break, when the leader of the Liberal Party was.... Through the standing orders, the government decided they were going to gang up on him and cut him out of his opportunity to speak for two hours as a designated speaker. In fact, when the Finance minister came into the House a little later and found out what had happened, he tried to rectify that by asking leave of the House to allow that member to continue. It's that kind of arrogance that was exhibited that day by the House Leader that has caused us to be here this evening speaking on a hoist motion.
Be that as it may, I think there's good justification for us to put forward, or for the Liberal opposition to put forward, a hoist motion on this particular bill. The leader of our party stood up earlier and articulated very well the differences between the recommendations of the royal commission, Judge Seaton's report, and the legislation. The only recognition in it is the fact that the name of the bill reflects the name suggested within this particular recommendation. When we look at the size of this document and the number of recommendations in there, some validity has to be given the importance of a health council as envisioned by Judge Seaton -- it is recommendation No. 4. If the Speaker will recall, I stood up in the House during various debates on other legislation with respect to the structure and the state of health care in this province and suggested that this particular council, as envisioned by the royal commission, should have been among the very first initiatives by this government. This council, as envisioned by the royal commission, should have been a main player in the implementing of the recommendations that flow through this document.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
We see today in the form of this act -- and we've seen it in the past in other acts and in other policy decisions by this minister -- that the minister selectively uses this royal commission to justify her actions when it suits her agenda and her government's agenda. But there is no consistency in following the theme and the intent, which is found here in recommendation No. 4, to form this council.
When we look at the first, very highlighted issue in the recommendation by the royal commission, it suggests that it must be completely independent of government, the Ministry of Health and the health care industry. It should enunciate specific goals for the health care system. What do we see with respect to those two very clear directions by the royal commission? Instead of an independent council, we see a council whose 12 to 15 members will be recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by the Health minister -- and only by the Health minister. She has the choice to pick out who she wishes to sit on this, and then cabinet will select the individuals from those nominations. It doesn't take much of a rocket scientist to figure out: (1) where the nominations will come from; and (2) that it's not likely that there will be more nominees than vacancies, because the minister will be sure that those nominated individuals meet the specifics and interests of her government. In essence, the minister will handpick the council members.
[ Page 8615 ]
What do we see about a reporting mechanism? To assist the process, according to the information we have, the council will meet the deputy minister of the cabinet planning secretariat and other deputy ministers on a semi-annual basis, and the council will report to cabinet quarterly. My information tells me that the cabinet planning secretariat operates out of the Premier's office. So obviously there will be directives directly from the Premier's office on a semi-annual basis, and the opportunity to report quarterly to cabinet and therefore get the direction of cabinet. The royal commission's whole idea and philosophy in putting this recommendation forward was to have a totally independent board that could not be influenced by government or by cabinet, and certainly not by the Premier; nor would it be influenced by health officials or the Ministry of Health. The minister has chosen to ignore those very important principles in structuring this health council. That's really unfortunate, because it could have been a very valuable body. It could have been a grass-roots movement and a legitimate process of developing the health care needs from the grass roots of the province of British Columbia.
When we re-examine some of the recommendations of the Seaton report, we see that they envisioned another role for this committee, one of evaluating information to determine the degree of progress towards reaching these goals. If we think about that now, if this council had been put in place according to these recommendations before this ministry got itself in the mess that it's in in terms of trying to promote the Closer to Home initiatives, we would have had a tool not only to help coordinate the efforts around the province but also to evaluate the progress of that shift from acute care to closer-to-home care; and that tool would have done the evaluation on the basis of need to the people of British Columbia, not on the basis of whether or not it meets the government's agenda. I'm disappointed that once again the minister lost that particular initiative in the structure of this bill and in the structure of her version of the health council for British Columbia.
The Seaton report recommended that this committee should have the specific task of advising government, when requested or on its own initiative, on contentious issues. This could have been a very valuable tool to this government, because Lord knows, there are enough contentious issues out there in health care. This government needs all the help it can get to help identify what the appropriate action should be to provide the level of health care that we British Columbians wish, want, desire and certainly deserve.
The other important action that this committee would have taken, had it been structured the way the royal commission wanted it to be, was to review and comment on health policies and plans of the Ministry of Health or of other ministries pertaining to health. Once again, it would have been a grass-roots initiative that would have provided a non-political overview of those particular issues and initiatives. In reading this report, I believe that was the main purpose of a provincial health council, not what the minister has put forward. What we see instead is a council consisting of 12 to 15 people being formed by this minister and her government, versus the six-person structure that is contained in the Seaton report. What we see as well are non-fixed terms, so if members do not comply with the minister's or the government's wishes, they can be told that their term has expired. In the Seaton report it is suggested that terms be fixed for three years, and that no member may serve for more than six years. They were totally independent; they had the autonomy to make decisions and recommendations in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. They were not tools to be manipulated or used by the government of the day, and that is a major difference between the two councils -- one envisioned by the Seaton report and the other structured by Bill 68, the Health Council Act.
There are many reasons why a hoist motion makes sense. I think that the people of British Columbia should have the opportunity to look at the Seaton report, to look at what is contained within this act, and to make the comparisons that they haven't had the time to make at this point. I am sure that the minister's tactic was to name this health council exactly as suggested in the Seaton report, because it gives a false impression that the minister and the government are living up to those recommendations. There will be many people who will not have examined the thrust of the recommendations in the Seaton report, but a six-month hoist would give them that opportunity.
This Health Council Act was introduced in the House on July 5, eight short days ago. There has been very little opportunity in all of the legislation that has come forward in this House.... It comes to us every time we contact the interested parties and the stakeholders that legislation will affect; we find out exactly the same information. The fact of the matter is that they are concerned. While they may support the legislation, they are concerned because they have not had an opportunity to examine the content or to discuss their concerns with the related ministry. This government is dropping its own social agenda on the people of British Columbia, without them having the opportunity or time to examine what we are doing here in this Legislature.
[9:15]
There is another important point in principle -- in recommendation 4 in the Seaton report -- that structured this. That important principle is 4(c): "...that the Legislative Assembly recommend for appointment persons who have been unanimously recommended by a special legislative committee. No person actively involved in the delivery of health services shall be appointed." Those are two very important issues. The key words are: "unanimously recommended by a special legislative committee." Through that process, then, that individual would obviously have to fit and meet the necessary criteria to do the job on behalf of the people of B.C. that such a health council was envisioned to do under the Seaton report.
Another issue is the fact that the special legislative committee could recommend who the chairperson would be. That chairperson would serve on a half-time basis, and other members on a part-time basis. As I said in second reading, it seems to me that what we envision
[ Page 8616 ]
in this act is something that will eventually end up being a structure very similar to a Crown corporation. It has the autonomy to enter into mortgages and buy property. There's no doubt in my mind that that the 12 or 15 members of the board are going to end up being paid positions. It may be similar to other Crown corporations, where they're paid on a per-meeting basis or perhaps on the basis of a very small annual honorarium. But there's no question in my mind that it's going to evolve into that kind of structure, something that was not envisioned by the royal commission under Judge Seaton.
Many issues in the bill are not consistent and certainly carry the agenda of this government forward. There are a number of amendments in my name on the order paper, and I look forward to committee stage so that I can make my points on the specific issues that I've attempted to deal with here tonight. But it must be clear that the people of B.C. should have the opportunity to understand exactly what this government is recommending and putting forward through this legislation. Eight days is not sufficient time for the people of B.C. to evaluate what this government's actions will be and what it is structuring under Bill 68, the Health Council Act. It's for those reasons that I support the hoist motion.
Even though the original intent in bringing a hoist motion forward was to penalize this government for its arrogance, I believe the motion is well justified. Absolutely nothing in this bill is close to the recommendations of the Seaton report. The only thing it shares is the same name: the Provincial Health Council. Other than that, it's totally the agenda of this government, and it's a disrespectful action to the people who worked on the royal commission. As our leader suggested, I'm sure the people who worked so hard in preparing the royal commission report on health care must be extremely disappointed in the actions of this government, and certainly with this legislation. I'll be supporting the hoist motion.
F. Gingell: It is with great disappointment that one continually rises in this House and speaks to motions to hoist bills. Hoist motions are brought forward because there simply has not been enough time or enough thought given to a particular piece of legislation. "Make haste slowly" is a famous saying, and it really is wise advice.
British Columbia spent a great deal of money on the Seaton report. It came forward with a series of recommendations. The minister has the right to ignore some, to change them and to bring forth legislation she believes is in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. But in this case, and in all other cases where those recommendations are changed, there should be an opportunity to look at the proposed new regulations. What do we see in the Health Council Act? We see primarily more bureaucracy, more expenditure of money, more appointments of people, more office space being rented and more dollars being taxed from the people of British Columbia to pay for these things. It really is critically important to the people of British Columbia that health care is delivered in the most effective and efficient manner.
The minister has a very competent, capable group within her ministry who are responsible for looking at the effectiveness and economy of the way health care services in this province are delivered. The office of the comptroller general of the province is encouraging ministers to go through a process of effectiveness auditing -- checking the things that they do, their relevance, and the way they perform their responsibilities against 12 tests. That is the kind of thing that this minister should be doing: using the employees of the ministry to self-evaluate their processes. Bureaucracies or councils set up on appointment by the minister don't represent the public law. They become part of the bureaucracy; they become part of the establishment. It doesn't take long for a member of the public who's appointed to a commission of this type to cross over the river. If the ministry is intent on discovering a series of facts and getting a series of evaluations about the operation and functions of the health care system in British Columbia, they're perfectly capable, on a project-by-project basis, of going out and dealing with those issues. They don't need to set up another bureaucracy.
I couldn't believe my ears when I was told that it is anticipated that this council will cost between half a million and a million dollars each and every year. This government seems to believe that there is no end to the magic black box; you can keep putting your hand in and pulling money out. The people of British Columbia aren't looking for more councils; they're looking for lower taxes.
If we were to hoist this bill for six months and deal with it at a later date, three or four important things could take place. The first is that the people of British Columbia would be able to read the bill, understand it, think about it and see how it would apply to their own particular section, whether it be the Boundary health unit, a hospital board or a regional financing authority.
The minister would have the opportunity to think it through again, to say: "I appreciate that members of the opposition recognize it is part of their responsibility to bring to the government's notice matters they're concerned about in legislation." And that is our job. It isn't our job to be obstructive for the purpose of simply being obstructive. We have shown this government in the last week with a number of bills that have our support that they can move through this House -- through first reading, second reading, committee stage and third reading -- in a very prompt and effective manner. But certain things come along where it's important for the opposition to dig in their heels and say: "Stop. Think about this. Have an opportunity to get some reaction from the community; listen to what they're saying. Having listened, then think if there are better ways of accomplishing these very worthwhile purposes that are intended -- 'to increase public awareness and knowledge of the underlying factors that promote or impair the health of the people of British Columbia, and to set health goals for the province and monitor the achievement of these goals'."
[ Page 8617 ]
My immediate reaction is that this is the role of the ministry. They actually have a health promotion branch within the ministry. Other organizations within this province are also already set up, whose administration is already being paid, and whose continuation is important to the people of British Columbia, like the B.C. Research Council. The B.C. Research Council could do this project on behalf of the minister at a great deal less cost and perhaps with more effectiveness. It certainly would have the added advantage of ensuring that the B.C. Research Council, an important part of advanced technology and research in B.C., is able to survive and continue.
[9:30]
Therefore I would urge the minister -- wherever she may be -- to think about this again; to consider allowing this bill to sit on the shelf for six months; to consider all of the input and reaction the minister would get from the people of B.C.; and to read all the words in Hansard that have been expressed about this particular piece of legislation by my colleagues and by my friends in the third party, which have been said with all sincerity. It really does become a little tiresome when one continually stands up and says put it off, put it off, put it off. I know that the government has to get things done, but there are things you really shouldn't rush into. When we are dealing with a subject as important as the health of British Columbians and as important as influencing and setting the direction for health care in British Columbia, and when we've already spent a lot of money on the Seaton report, it simply doesn't make sense to us to quickly rush off in a different direction. We believe you're rushing off into the dark.
The Seaton commission had a very straightforward series of recommendations. As I heard someone say earlier, the only one that has any similarity to this piece of legislation is that it be called the Provincial Health Council -- with half the number of members for different periods of time and a much quieter, less costly and less bureaucratic organization. This government has been accused time after time after time of making patronage appointments and rewarding its friends and insiders. Whether those accusations are right or wrong is surely not for us in the opposition to judge; it is for the people of British Columbia to judge. But the government could set an example, right now, by deciding to let this particular subject sit -- let it sit for six months to ensure that whatever they decide to do in the future is clearly understood by the people of British Columbia. With that, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to this amendment.
K. Jones: Like my colleague and leader, who has just finished speaking, I too am supporting this amendment to hoist Bill 68, the Health Council Act, for six months. It is rather disappointing that we are faced with having to stand up and ask the government to take its bills back and reconsider them because they are ill-conceived and not properly put together in a form that would be acceptable to the people of British Columbia.
This proposal, although it looks quite benign, or not something people should be concerned about, certainly has the makings of something that could be very unsatisfactory. The concept of a council gives the impression that this is just going to be some people working as an advisory group to the minister, advising on public awareness in the health area and promoting the issues of better health. That sounds like something that would be appropriate for a volunteer society, and I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers who would come forward to provide that type of service. But when we get right into this bill, and into the minister's and the government's intent regarding it, we actually see the true basis on which this bill is coming forward. That's the reason we stand here today recommending that the government hoist this bill for six months. Take it back and reconsider it. Take it out to the people. This bill has never gone to the people, and if the people saw the light of day on this bill, they'd certainly be sending a different message to the government.
The government obviously does not have the awareness or the support of the public for bringing forward this bill in the way it is drafted. The public wants input into the development of their health care. The public wants to promote awareness of health issues. But the public does not -- and I repeat, does not -- want a government that's going to dictate the type of health care that is going to be controlled from Victoria and imposed to replace their hospital boards and their community say in what's going on in their hospitals. Their community say in what's going on in their health boards is going to control the structure that's to be built underneath this council being established. The reporting structure goes down to the regional and local health councils, which will be replacing both the hospital boards and the health boards.
Let's look at the real intent and plan of the Minister of Health. Let's not be fooled by the simple rhetoric that's provided by the minister in the wording of this bill. This bill is not what it appears. It's like the Trojan horse that comes in the dark, looking like a very pleasant thing but having a very sinister purpose: to get control of the health processes in the province of British Columbia, to prevent public involvement in health decision-making, and to give control of the whole health spectrum to the Minister of Health and this government, so that they might direct and control the doctors, the nurses, the physiotherapists and all the people who are providing health care and who might have directed the public on what they felt was the best kind of treatment, counselling or hospitalization.
This is going to bypass those people and, for that reason, I stand here in support of the hoist motion. I hope we can now proceed to a vote and put this subject away, with the government's support. I hope that they would see the end of this at this time, and take it back to reconsider it in order to give the public an opportunity to have their say as to what is really important in the way of health care.
[9:45]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
[ Page 8618 ]
| YEAS -- 18 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Cowie |
Reid |
|
Gingell |
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Wilson |
Stephens |
Hanson |
|
Weisgerber |
Serwa |
Neufeld |
|
Fox |
Symons |
Warnke |
|
Anderson |
K. Jones |
Tyabji |
| NAYS -- 30 | ||
|
Boone |
Priddy |
Charbonneau |
|
Beattie |
Schreck |
Lortie |
|
Hammell |
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
|
Smallwood |
Hagen |
Cull |
|
Zirnhelt |
Blencoe |
Barnes |
|
MacPhail |
Copping |
Lovick |
|
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
Evans |
|
Doyle |
Streifel |
Lord |
|
Krog |
Randall |
Garden |
|
Kasper |
Simpson |
Janssen |
On the main motion.
D. Schreck: As fascinating as I find this debate stemming from a fundamental recommendation of the royal commission report, I note the clock and therefore move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I understand that notice was already given earlier today that we will be sitting tomorrow, Wednesday. I now move that the House adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:56 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
(continued)
On vote 35: minister's office, $335,102 (continued).
F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, I want to deal first with the operation of your own ministry function. Last year we discussed the number of women that are in senior positions and employment equity. Can you advise me what has happened in the past year?
Hon. G. Clark: Well, I don't have that information. I might ask the member whether he wants the senior executive positions or the entire ministry functions. If I could, I'll just give you the senior executives. As you know, the assistant deputy minister responsible for treasury is Brenda Eaton; we have the director of the expenditure control side in the social policy branch, Anne Kirkaldy; we have a director responsible for fiscal and economic analysis, who is Lois McNabb; and we have an executive director in internal audit, a new division, who is Sunny Mathieson. In addition, there are some other areas like the Securities Commission, which has a number of women, including some whom I've recently promoted, like Adrienne Wanstall, who is a director of policy and is now on the Securities Commission itself, and Joyce Maykut, who is the second-in-command to Doug Hyndman.
So we've made some progress, but I'm not satisfied with the progress we've made at the senior level. We're actively recruiting as much as we can when vacancies arise to see if we can't continue to do a better job. I might say that in the Ministry of Finance, which is normally a domain largely of males, we have probably made more progress than some other jurisdictions. But we're not satisfied. As vacancies occur, we will be doing the best we can to recruit more women. So that gives you a picture of the executive branch of the Ministry of Finance. If the hon. member wants the actual statistics as to the percentage of women, etc., I would certainly be delighted to get that material for him, but I don't have it here today.
F. Gingell: I don't need the statistics. I appreciate the hon. minister's response. I would like to know if he feels that there are in July, 1993, more women in senior positions in the Ministry of Finance than there were in July, 1992, and whether he has given any specific instructions to whoever handles those appointments to give special consideration to female applicants.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to apologize. I forgot that the acting director of loans administration is now Sheila Ausman. Ken Davidson has moved over to do program evaluation and Treasury Board secretariat. By way of an aside to the hon. member, the loans administration branch, which is a fairly new branch started by my predecessor and which does an excellent job, is predominantly women. In terms of that loans collection function, the practice has been that a large number of women do just a superb job on behalf of the government in a very sensitive area.
[3:00]
I guess the short answer is there has been an increase in the number of women at the senior management level. Sheila Ausman is one; Sunny Mathieson is another who has been promoted. We also have Faye
[ Page 8619 ]
Schmidt, director of corporate development, as another management person. There has been some progress, but not enough.
In terms of the broader question of what you might call employment equity or any initiatives like that, those are pan-government initiatives and not ones that the Ministry or the Minister of Finance intervenes in. In fact, the entire hiring practice, not just at the management level but generally, is not one that the minister intervenes in. He is obviously very concerned, particularly at the deputy minister level. I guess it would be a bit unfair to say that there is no intervention there, in the case of both the deputies here today. When it comes to whether Sheila Ausman is the director of loans administration, that is not a decision I make or have any say over. Obviously I'm kept informed of developments.
The question of recruitment of women at the senior management level is generally a pan-government initiative to promote access for women to management positions. I'm probably not the minister who's best able to deal with that question. Generally speaking, when there is a vacancy we do the best we can as a government -- and certainly I feel strongly about this as a minister -- to recruit women to compete for the job. There's certainly no guarantee that a woman would be successful. In fact, we've just.... Maybe I shouldn't say. But there have been some competitions where women have been recruited to compete for the jobs and it's not been successful. That's unfortunate, but obviously we have a particularly high standard. Generally and more often than not, if we can encourage women to compete, they're successful -- but not always.
F. Gingell: I'm moving on to a somewhat different subject. The minister perhaps will remember that he and I had a discussion recently concerning the variations between budgeted revenue receipts from federal personal income taxes and the amounts that were in fact received -- the strange anomaly that economic growth and income tax rates went up and receipts went down. I was wondering whether that discussion we had caused you to give any more thought to the matter. Perhaps you could explain to the committee, hon. minister, the way that forecasting works, who is responsible for it, and what the causes of the unusual results were.
Hon. G. Clark: Because the protocol is new here and we've never had this, I do have two deputy ministers here. Tom Gunton is responsible for Treasury Board secretariat, largely the budget-making process. Mike Costello is responsible for virtually everything else in the Ministry of Finance. There is obviously some overlap, particularly in federal-provincial relations, which is under Mike Costello's domain. But there's also a lot of interaction, particularly on this particular question. I thought I would ask Tom Gunton, if he could, to answer some of the questions you might have, and then I'll follow up if the member wants.
T. Gunton: The forecasting varies depending on method. It varies depending on the source. The two major sources -- corporate and personal income tax -- are forecast based on the federal forecast, done nationally, which is then disaggregated by share. The share is based on an estimate of the personal income growth in each province. The share is lagged, depending on information from the previous year, and then adjustments are made during the year. Last year the federal forecast for income tax and corporate income tax was significantly off the mark for reasons not yet explained but largely to do with the lag in economic activity. Personal income does not recover as quickly as the economy does.
The rest of the sources of income are forecast largely by us. A major one is the social service tax, which is forecast as a function of the forecast of retail sales, and machinery and equipment investment. That was close to the mark last year. Stumpage is another major source; resource revenues are forecast based on a forecast of commodity prices by sector. In most cases, those were on the mark.
Last year the only forecast which was far off the original budget was income tax, which was down some $700 million. That was pretty consistent with what was the case across the country. The federal government is reviewing how they undertake income tax forecasts in light of the problems we had last year. We are also examining how we can forecast our share of national income more accurately. This year we have addressed some of the problems we had in previous years; hopefully, the forecast will be much closer to the mark.
F. Gingell: When the minister, through his deputy, speaks of the lag, is that only the lag of reporting the income for tax purposes? When economic growth occurs, that has happened; there isn't any lag. The majority of that money has moved into people's hands in the form of salaries, incomes, rents, etc. Is the lag you refer to the fact that people report the income the following year? I don't understand why there was a lag.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask Mr. Gunton to continue. For the record, there was also a lag in the share attributed to British Columbia. The share of the federal receipts that we get is based on last year's share of the national pie, so to speak. So if British Columbia is growing faster than the rest of the country, there are some assumptions with respect to what happens with our share, and those assumptions aren't always accurate. I think that's a large part of the explanation with respect to the lag effect here. I don't know if Mr. Gunton wants to add to that.
T. Gunton: There are two components to the lag. One is the lag regarding economic recovery. As the economy recovers, it takes a while for income tax revenue, particularly corporate income tax revenue, to recover. So that's one lag -- revenue is lagged behind economic recovery. And as the minister indicated, the other lag is just that the income tax payments are based on the previous year's actual share. As the year progresses and new information is available, those are adjusted to more accurately reflect the current year's share.
[ Page 8620 ]
F. Gingell: As a matter of fact, the problem that the minister and I had discussed, and the problem I was really concerned with, wasn't corporate income taxes; it was personal income taxes. The differences in the corporate income taxes were relatively small and more understandable, from my viewpoint. I had a much greater problem in understanding the issue to do with personal income taxes. Even with the question of lag and how the pie is being split, we still had higher rates in British Columbia. That surely is taken into account in the way the pie is divided. We had economic growth, yet our receipts were down by.... They were not only $700 million below budget, but from memory, they were $250 million below the previous year -- and there had been economic growth. I'm wondering whether that conundrum has been solved yet and whether your ministry has been able to focus and say yes, this is what causes it, and we will get a bonus in 1993-94.
Hon. G. Clark: The answer, in short, is no, it has not been solved yet. The federal Deputy Minister of National Revenue is coming to British Columbia in the next couple of weeks and will be meeting with Mike Costello and, I believe, Mr. Gunton to talk about the forecasting model. It is important to note that this is not a new problem that just suddenly developed. If you go back historically -- and we could do this for the member if he wants -- if the forecasts are off by just a very tiny amount, it is parlayed into many millions of dollars. They are only forecasts; they're never exactly correct. There have been swings from time to time. In fact, one of the things that contributed to the previous government balancing the budget was a big swing the other way. The federal forecast was inaccurate to the benefit of the province. That's part of our concern about their forecasting models. It is a concern I've raised at federal-provincial meetings, a concern expressed by other governments, and that's why they're doing these ongoing studies to try to review and refine it.
But there is another question beyond just forecast: is there something happening which is changing the nature of the economy and resulting in a shift either by way of the underground economy, or by way of more small business starts, which have the ability to potentially not declare dividend income? That's a broader kind of structural question which we haven't solved yet. Some consulting economists have approached me, and through me the government, with suggestions about detailed analysis that might take place to see whether that's happening. We haven't yet commissioned anybody to do it -- we haven't made a decision on that question -- but obviously it's a point which we're all having to look at very carefully.
One of the arguments that many, including the federal government, make for shifting to consumption taxes is this ability to capture, if you will, all of the economic transactions for the purposes of maintaining the integrity of the tax system. Others question that: consumption taxes, in effect, drive the economy further underground. That's an ongoing debate. There's certainly no definitive answer, but it's one which I think anybody, regardless of their ideological perspective, will be concerned about -- ensuring the integrity of the tax system and making sure that this is broadly applied and consistently applied, and I share the concern that I think the member has in that regard.
F. Gingell: Because so many people rely on the information that is contained in a budget and in public accounts annual reports, I was wondering whether the minister would be willing to agree that there be a fuller analysis in the budget. At the moment we don't have any problem determining how much additional revenue you will be gaining from a rate change, because you normally show it. You show as supplementary information in the budget the amount of additional taxes that will arise from putting up the surtax. So that many of us, and citizens in general, can have a better understanding -- particularly in relation to thoughts about the province's steady revenue stream and dealing with questions of deficit and how much of the deficit is structural and those kinds of issues -- would you include in your budget analysis a clear statement of income taxes and whether they are going to come from the base rate adjustments from previous years and changes in the rate that are being proposed in the budget? Perhaps in some form of report that is appropriate -- the Minister of Finance's report or in Public Accounts -- there could be a reconciliation between what was originally budgeted and what was actually received. I don't want it down to the nth degree, obviously, but something that will give readers of financial statements a feeling for the facts behind the dry figures.
Hon. G. Clark: I think the member knows that I'm quite sympathetic to this concept. We've provided more detail in the budget this year than in past years. For example, we had a whole chapter on the nature of the structural versus the cyclical component of the deficit in order to get some discussion about that very question in the public domain. I must say that there is some tension, and maybe a bit of bureaucratic tension -- I don't mean to criticize my staff -- about the number of appendices in the budget. In other words....
[3:15]
My staff are laughing, because they know that I actually wanted to provide other sections with the budget release we discussed; obviously, if I'd wanted it, we could have done it. I was discussing with staff a whole variety of other information that we might be able to put in the budget document, some of which did not survive by the end of the day. We put in more than usual. There's a bit of constant tension between trying to provide something that's readable and something that doesn't have academic comments attached to it.
The other reason that there's not quite as much as the hon. member might like, and in some respects I might, is that -- unlike anywhere else in Canada, actually -- in September we publish the Economic and Statistical Review, which is just an outstanding document. I know the member is familiar with it. It really is an excellent document, which we use and even file with the SEC when we have lots of paperwork to do in some places like that. The Economic and Statistical Review is just a super document, and a picture of the province's
[ Page 8621 ]
financial and economic health. It is retrospective, though. I admit that in fact -- even though it's annual -- it's sort of dealing with historical information. But it gives you a very good grounding as to what's happening in the economy.
The other area where I'd be interested in the member's comments -- which I'm very sympathetic to -- is the whole question of tax expenditures. Only once, I think, in the history of British Columbia has there been an actual tax expenditure review. That was when Mr. Curtis was the Finance minister, I believe, around '83 or '82 -- maybe '81. They actually published the tax expenditures associated with what government doesn't do, the implicit tax preference. We never do that. I think it really enhances the public debate to give it. Obviously, we do some of that internally.
We are the only province in Canada -- I think the only jurisdiction in North America, with the exception of Alberta as well -- that does not have a sales tax on bicycles. From memory, I think if we did that it would raise about $5 million. It was a conscious and deliberate policy on the part of this Minister of Finance and the government not to extend the sales tax to bicycles. So unlike anywhere else in Canada, there's no sales tax on bicycles -- nor, I think, on bicycle parts. I'm comfortable with the policy decision I made on behalf of the government, or the government made, not to extend the sales tax to bicycles. I don't mind defending it; I'm happy to debate it anywhere. Obviously not imposing a tax is easier to defend than imposing it, but for the purpose of public discourse, it's important that people see the choices that government makes.
We don't have a sales tax on advertising in this province. That is a huge tax expenditure. The last time that, again, the Bennett government reviewed this question, it was tens of millions of dollars of forgone revenue to the government because we don't tax advertising. Obviously there are reasons for that: because the advertising work can be done in other provinces, etc.
We were the only province in Canada that did not tax labour services. We now have decided to do so; that's a bill before the House. But there are a lot of tax expenditures -- in other words, things given preferential treatment in the tax system; there are far more federally than provincially, but there is a whole series -- which probably should be published, in terms of giving people a sense of the conscious decisions the government makes.
As you know, we're the only government in Canada that does not tax restaurant meals. Other members agree with me that that was hard, but we successfully resisted it this year. Other groups will come to the Ministry of Finance and government and say, "You should tax restaurant meals," not because they want to see someone else taxed but because they would argue the fairness question. In other words, our conscious policy favours restaurant meals by not taxing them the way other provinces do.
The point is simply to say I'm sympathetic to having a chapter dealing with the tax expenditures of government, although there's a fair amount of staff work involved. This is so people have that kind of information, and they know the conscious decisions that government makes when it makes policy. At the federal level they do this more than at the provincial level.
There's no capital gains tax on a principal residence. I support that, and I know all members do, but the cost of no capital gains tax on principal residences -- the forgone cost to the taxpayer -- is in the billions of dollars. If we did that as a federal government, that would mean many billions of dollars less to be taxed somewhere else. That's the conscious, implicit choice made; it's not explicit, and I think we're always better off trying to make it explicit.
The biggest tax expenditure federally -- one which I think should have some public debate -- is the RRSP deduction. It's not that we shouldn't give a tax break for registered retirement savings plans, but people think that's free and just something the government does. That costs the Canadian taxpayer $4 billion or $5 billion a year in forgone revenue. That would be taxes that could be cut somewhere else if in fact we did not have RRSP deductibility.
Again, I'm not advocating these positions. I'm just saying that too often, when tax expenditures are seductive, they look like they don't cost anything; but in fact, we implicitly make those choices, and it is more desirable to have more information like that in the budget. I'd be interested in the member's comments on that, because I think it just increases the accountability of the government for its actions and for the dialogue we might have.
F. Gingell: That was a most interesting discussion. The first note that I made during the minister's discourse was on borrowing prospectuses. You were saying that you use the economic review as, in effect, a borrowing prospectus. There must be more than the economic review prepared for every single sale of bonds. I was wondering if you would make those public.
Hon. G. Clark: Absolutely, it's public, and in every case it's filed with the SEC. The point I was making was that the prospectus can be a little slimmer than the volumes produced in other provinces because we file the annual Economic and Statistical Review with it, and the rating agencies receive all that as well.
F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister will get someone to send me a copy of a recent one. I did not appreciate that they were available.
I was most interested in the minister's discussion of expenditures that are not taxed. One of the greatest complaints of business in British Columbia is that this government is a rarity in that it taxes manufacturing inputs -- primarily the provincial social services tax on manufacturing equipment and the social services tax on electricity and other forms of energy. I was wondering whether this government has given any thought to the consequences of exempting manufacturing inputs, and making our tax system more similar to the way the GST is operated.
[ Page 8622 ]
Hon. G. Clark: A little more than half of our revenue from sales tax comes from business -- it's quite astonishing, actually. For example, if the province was to harmonize with the GST, we would receive no more revenue. It's a frightening political prospect to harmonize with the GST, to expand the provincial sales tax base to all of those services, particularly the tourist sector. It would mean a huge increase in the tax burden, coming on top of the GST in that whole huge service sector. The government would receive virtually no extra revenue, because at the same time you would be eliminating the provincial sales tax on inputs to businesses.
One can argue theoretically -- as the Conservatives do nationally -- that the GST is better for the economy, because it makes a level playing field between services and manufactures and what not. I certainly understand that argument, but frankly, it's extremely challenging for any government of British Columbia to contemplate eliminating the provincial sales tax on business inputs, because of the magnificent costs associated with it. If you can imagine, we receive a little more than $2 billion annually from the provincial sales tax, about $1 billion of which comes by way of business purchases. I have to be a bit careful, because not all of that would be exempt from the GST. All business purchases are 50 percent. I'm not exactly sure how much the manufacturing component of that is -- it would be less than that amount, but it would still be a very large amount of money.
Clearly there would be some positive consequences economically from that kind of tax relief in the manufacturing sector; but there would be an enormous cost associated with it in terms of the fiscal capacity of the province to adapt to that kind of shift. At this time we haven't contemplated eliminating the sales tax on business inputs, as desirable as I think everybody would agree that would be in terms of trying to promote an industry. The consequences of it would be very difficult fiscally and economically for the province, because of what that would do to our fiscal capacity and who else would have to pay as a result of that elimination.
F. Gingell: I must admit, I'm taken aback by the response. I didn't appreciate the amount of sales tax that is paid by business that would become part of a refund program. Perhaps I'll have some opportunity to talk to the minister about it later.
Another subject that the minister dealt with in that earlier response was the question of registered retirement savings plans. I presume he includes pension funds in that, and speaks of them both as lost government revenues. I appreciate that there is an amount of growth, but it is only a small amount because all the money coming out of pension funds is in fact being taxed. As a matter of fact, the way this government is going, the pensions coming out are being taxed at a lot higher rate than the deductions we are given when the money was going in, or so it would seem. The minister referred specifically to RRSPs. I was wondering if he sees registered retirement savings plans as different from pension funds, and whether he has any response to my point that it isn't tax being given up at all, it's purely and simply a deferment.
[3:30]
Hon. G. Clark: That's an excellent point the member makes. I'm not advocating any change. I'm saying that for the purposes of having the information out to the public, one has to weigh those choices. The hon. member is right. There is a deferral as opposed to a forgone revenue, although by deferring it the taxes paid at the end of the deferral are lower -- because that's the purpose of it in terms of tax planning -- than they would be had they been paid today.
I'm not trying to advocate any change or make a debate. I'm saying that for the purposes of accountability and making sure everybody knows exactly what people are doing, it would make sense to say what it costs for a tax expenditure. The tax expenditure associated with the air cargo removal this year will be zero, because there is no business attached with the jet fuel tax remission program that we just instituted. But a year from now, I hope it will be millions of dollars in tax expenditure, because we will begin to generate new business. It would be advisable for the public to know that millions of dollars in revenue is forgone as a result of that change next year. It's not that I want to change it; it is just for the purposes of having more accountability in debate.
I agree with the member generally that in the RRSP case it is a deferral tax as opposed to completely forgone revenue.
F. Gingell: I don't know quite how to put this question, and I don't want it to be misinterpreted. Maybe we could approach it from this viewpoint. Could the minister advise me roughly how much money is spent by his ministry in the exercise of economic evaluation and planning statistics? That is a whole side of one of the functions that Treasury Board looks after, dealing with the development of policy and with trying to forecast the results of present government policies and what directions we are going in.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to make sure that I have this correct. I notice that the member has the annual report there, and it has a section called "Planning and Statistics." That used to be under a separate deputy minister, Ian McKinnon. When Mr. McKinnon, former head of Decima Research, became Deputy Minister of Economic Development under this administration, we had a vacancy. Rather than fill that vacancy, we abolished the position and folded the planning and statistics branch into Treasury Board secretariat. For cost-efficiency reasons, we had a reorganization.
I will give the hon. member the budgets by division: planning and statistics is $2.7 million, expenditure policy is $3.4 million and revenue policy and economics is $2.1 million.
C. Tanner: If I might direct the minister back to what he was saying when I first came into the committee, he was talking about harmonization. If I understand what the minister said, he would prefer to
[ Page 8623 ]
tax business for a billion dollars in contrast to putting that as a general tax burden on the population as a whole. The harmonization wouldn't bring any more money to him; it would just move the burden to a different place. That being the case, it seems to me that it would be more equitable for the minister to say that he's going to harmonize and tax everything at the same rate, irrespective of the results it might have on tourism. It would be more equitable for the minister to do that than what he's doing now in being selective. I don't really know how the minister chooses whether he's going to tax bicycles or books -- one item or the other. The minister's approach doesn't seem like a fair and rational way to approach taxation.
Hon. G. Clark: The member can take that position. I am delighted to debate with him. The member is correct: in tax policy there are conscious decisions to exempt certain things and conscious decisions to tax certain things. That's what politics is all about. We have chosen not to harmonize and extend the sales tax by way of a GST on that huge service sector at this time. We do have a sales tax in place, which is paid a bit disproportionately, relative to the GST, by the manufacturing sector. That is a conscious policy; it's open to public debate. If members of the Liberal Party want to support harmonization and make those arguments of fairness, they're certainly welcome to do that. That's not the position of the government at this time.
C. Tanner: I suggest to the minister that if he is contemplating putting a capital gains tax on the purchase of private residences, there will be a consequence which he probably hasn't considered. Many small business people use the increase in the value of personal residences to finance their businesses -- and not just once or twice; the inflationary value of their personal residence is the thing that quite often keeps the business going.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to say for the record that we are not contemplating a capital gains tax on principal residences -- none whatsoever. The only person who was sympathetic to that was your colleague in the Liberal Party. I was not making that argument. Capital gains is entirely a federal jurisdiction. Not only am I not contemplating it, it's not even a provincial jurisdiction if anybody wanted to in the future. There's absolutely no chance of that.
I want to make one last point about the question of changing or harmonizing the tax system. One shouldn't forget the significant dislocation costs associated with shifting the tax. We've seen that with the GST. While one can argue intellectually, on paper, that it's fair, the impact of that tax on the service sector has been dramatic. Even if one argues the fairness of taking it off the manufacturing sector and spreading it on the service sector, the impact is not just neutral, as it might appear on paper. It has a significant dislocation impact, which we've seen with the GST, and I think would be devastating. That's certainly one of the reasons why we were not contemplating any harmonizing with the GST at all.
C. Tanner: As far as harmonization is concerned and the comments that he just made, there's a very strong philosophical difference between those people over there and us over here.
Let me tell the minister that there is one area that the province is taxing in the housing market, and that's the sale of a house. Your predecessor put a 2 and 1 percent tax on two different areas; it's a burden on potential first-time homeowners. Would the minister contemplate removing that tax for first-time homeowners?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, that's been under active consideration since we've taken office. I am very sympathetic to that. The principal barrier to doing it is the cost associated with it. The last time I saw the statistics, about one-third of homes were purchased by first-time homebuyers. The cost of implementing an exemption for first-time homebuyers could run up to $50 million to $60 million. That is a very significant cost in a time of difficult fiscal circumstances, but one which we would very much like to do.
There are other options which might mitigate some of the costs associated with that. For example, I think the member.... I don't want to put words in his mouth; I'll speak personally. It's not the first-time homebuyer in British Columbia. In other words, someone sells a mansion in Toronto and moves to British Columbia. That doesn't bother me necessarily. Again, I won't speak for the member -- it may not bother him either. What I'm really concerned about, and I know my colleagues are concerned about, are young families, young people trying to make a living, get ahead, buy their first home and succeed in a difficult environment. That's where we want to put our attention. How can we make home-ownership affordable for the young person or family in British Columbia? That's what we're very interested in pursuing, if we can. Again, we've had a difficult financial circumstance, so we haven't been able to pursue it. But that's what I personally feel very strongly about: that young people in my constituency or my kids aren't going to be able to get into the housing market. I think government has to pay attention to that very serious problem.
A. Cowie: I had a question yesterday in Municipal Affairs, and it was referred to the Minister of Finance during these estimates. So I'd like to ask the question. I've been trying to figure out how the ministry established the $400,000 level as when one gets the homeowner's grant or doesn't. Over the weekend I visited a house worth $660,000; it was about the same quality as one worth $320,000 in Delta. It seemed to me rather unfair. Whether you pay a homeowner's grant or not now obviously depends on the difference in land value. Some older person could be living in this $650,000 piece of property, with the house no better than the one in Delta. I just wonder if that's really a fair way of doing it. It doesn't have anything to do with one's ability to pay or the quality of the house.
Hon. G. Clark: We're obviously going to discuss this further in the bill before the House.
[ Page 8624 ]
Only two provinces are left in the entire country that have a property tax subsidy from the province: Manitoba and British Columbia. The Conservative government in Manitoba has just cut their property tax subsidy in half in the last budget -- a very tough budget in Manitoba, probably the toughest in the country.
We looked at how we could protect the homeowner grant in the face of these fiscal circumstances -- how can we protect people? We decided that to try to protect it we would rather just shave off the top 5 percent of homes. So the assessed value of $400,000 comes as a result of eliminating the homeowner grant for the top 5 percent of homes. Then we had some modest enhancement to the other 95 percent, to try to keep pace with escalating municipal and modest school tax increases. That's the rationale behind it. I appreciate that it's difficult for asset-rich but cash-poor individuals, as the hon. member referred to. But clearly, it's going to be very hard for any government over the next 20 years to hang onto this property tax subsidy in the face of fiscal realities. Everybody else has eliminated it. We've done a good job of maintaining it for 95 percent of the people.
Beyond that, I want to make it clear that property taxes in Vancouver -- in particular where the hon. member and I represent, and I know this is certainly cold comfort for my constituents as well as the member's -- are among the lowest in the country. They are among the lowest, I believe, in North America. Seattle's and Toronto's property taxes are significantly higher than Vancouver's; Montreal's are higher; Calgary's are higher when you include all the fees they charge. Obviously that's cold comfort. I'm not standing here to say we're doing great, because I think my constituents would say any tax is too much.
F. Gingell: They should have voted for Mayor Campbell.
Hon. G. Clark: I would say it's unfortunate that in the last four years, under Mayor Campbell, we've seen an average of 8 percent property tax increases every year -- a 32 percent property tax increase over four years under the mayor. But, including the school taxes, they are still relatively lower than other jurisdictions.
I appreciate the member's advocating on behalf of his constituents, and I certainly understand that. We're doing the best we can to hang on to this homeowner grant because we like it; we think it's a good program -- if we can maintain it. We've maintained it for 95 percent of the people. But we haven't been able to do it for everybody, and we've eliminated the 5 percent of homes with the highest value.
A. Cowie: Well, I would like the minister to clarify what percentage of that 9 percent increase in the property tax is due to the city and what percentage is due to the province.
[3:45]
Hon. G. Clark: I have that information and I'll get it for the member. In this case, the average annual increase of 8 percent a year for those four years is entirely the city's taxes. That doesn't count, of course, the massive increase at the GVRD level, which is on top of that, and it doesn't count school tax increases and the homeowner grant. The municipal tax increase alone in Vancouver is about 8 percent a year on average for four years, and in West Vancouver it is about 8.4 percent a year -- which just proves, of course, that if Mayor Sager is a Socred, Socreds are just Liberals in a hurry, I guess.
A. Cowie: I think this whole issue of the homeowner's grant should be based on fairness -- it's the best way to go. I think the best way is to get rid of it entirely, and to shift the school tax over to the province, where it really belongs and where 90 percent of it is now. In doing that, we might as well get rid of the school boards too. So we've got a lot of revision to do in the next little while, where we can cut taxes down a bit if we cut down our administration costs. Doesn't the minister think that it would be fair to just get rid of it altogether and not be so arbitrary about who gets it and who doesn't?
Hon. G. Clark: Well, I guess the answer's no, I don't. I appreciate the member's advocating on behalf of his constituents -- I certainly understand that, and I would do the same thing. But to eliminate the homeowner grant and school taxes is a net cost to the provincial taxpayers of $300 million, so it's not like an even swap. There's an extra $300 million the government would have to find somewhere else. That could certainly be done, and I appreciate that that's a legitimate point the Liberals may want to pursue -- and we can discuss it. But it's not that easy.
Secondly, I'd say that it's fair. We've protected the homeowner grant for 95 percent of homes in British Columbia. That's better than any province in Canada. We would like to have done it for everybody, but we decided we'd just take the top. Hopefully, if the economy recovers -- and it is doing very well -- and if financial resources permit, we can look to subsidizing our property tax payers, to providing tax relief from those very tough municipal taxes that have been imposed upon them.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
J. Weisgerber: I've read with some interest the recent material by the Korbin commission. Part of the background material includes some charts developed by the minister's own ministry that project the provincial deficit for 1994 at $2.6 billion, for 1995 at $3.1 billion, and for 1996 at $3.9 billion. I'm wondering whether or not the minister still supports those projections by his ministry.
Hon. G. Clark: As a matter of fact, that projection shows how well the government is doing. In spite of the status quo pressures, we're doing a superb job of bringing the deficit down dramatically, and the independent financial review has similar numbers. The status quo forecast -- the member probably knows this, but I'm not sure everybody else does -- is basically population and inflation, and other costs, such as
[ Page 8625 ]
demographic changes for health care -- projections that are made. So if nothing happens -- if there are no policy changes, no cuts in spending, no cuts in programs and no tax increases -- those deficit numbers are the ones which would take place. They're not acceptable to the government, and I don't think they're acceptable to British Columbians, so they have not happened to date, and they won't happen. We have had to take some difficult decisions on the spending side to reduce spending beyond the forecast, and we've had to take some tax decisions that are unpopular as well. As a result of that, instead of a $3 billion deficit, which was forecast by the independent financial review, we have a $1.5 billion deficit, which is coming down. Korbin was looking at status quo forecasts. They're the forecasts that we use internally to show the pressures on the ministries, largely from population and inflation, and other things. They are ones which we ensure do not happen. I can assure the member that those numbers will not be the numbers over the next three years.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, the forecast shows the 1993 deficit at about $1.7 billion -- just about what the minister has brought in, at least on paper. Whether or not he delivers it is another question, and we'll have to wait a little while to find out.
If the $1.7 billion represents the status quo -- the situation that exists today for 1993 -- what new forecast is there? What forecasts has the minister developed for the years '94, '95 and '96? If new forecasts reflect the action taken by the government, what are the new numbers?
Hon. G. Clark: If the government takes no action on the spending side and no action on the tax side -- absolutely nothing -- and funds all pressures on government.... In other words, if there are 3 percent more people projected, and you want the lineups for your driver's licence to be exactly the same, then in here is an assumption of 3 percent more staff to do the work. There are no productivity improvements assumed, no efficiency gains -- nothing. Those will not be the numbers, and they haven't been, consistently. Those are the numbers that demonstrate the pressures that face the government from off-loading from the federal government, population growth and no productivity improvement.
What we will be doing is driving down that number through productivity improvements and through pressure on the ministries to bring in budgets lower than their status quo pressure. These are essentially planning tools which show what the deficit would be under certain status quo presumptions, and ones which we assure the member -- and through him here today, the public -- will not be the case. They are also based on forecasts of economic growth and of our share of income tax as a result, and all of those questions.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: The member says we know they are all wrong, and to some extent, he's right.
F. Gingell: They are always wrong.
Hon. G. Clark: These are planning numbers which, under a whole series of assumptions, would take place. I might remind the member, if he doesn't know, that this is exactly the same exercise that has taken place in British Columbia, regardless of party, as a planning document for the Ministry of Finance to exert the appropriate expenditure control pressure on ministries to bring the deficit down.
J. Weisgerber: That's fair ball, although it seems to me that the minister has already, by his own words, adjusted the 1993 figure. He tells us that the forecast was for $3 billion, but he takes credit for reducing the deficit in the current fiscal year to $1.7 billion, which in any other year would have been an outrage. He seems to take some comfort in having brought the number in.
It would seem to me that if it is a planning document, and the government has plans to modify both the expenditure and the income stream numbers, then there must be some new numbers. These forecasts surely aren't frozen in time. I would assume that these were done almost a year ago, in October of '92. I'm assuming that the ministry and the minister have some new forecasts. I'm asking whether or not this forecast still stands. The minister says no. Could he tell us, then, what the new numbers are? What are the numbers he now forecasts to replace these nearly $4 billion budget projections?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I want to clarify for the record that these were done in October of '92. The $1.789 billion was the deficit for 1992-93. What this forecasts is that if nothing had happened, the deficit would have been $2.5 billion; instead, it's $1.5 billion. As you can see, the deficit came down last year from $2.4 billion, which we inherited from the government of which that member was a part. Then it came down to $1.9 billion. Although we were trying to bring it in at $1.79 billion or $1.8 billion, we came in around $1.95 billion, and that's the real number. This year it's $1.5 billion. So instead of going up, the graph is going in the opposite direction.
As a planning document for next year, it's not a forecast of what will happen or what the government is planning to have happen. But as status quo pressure is associated with it for next year, the numbers will be in this magnitude. They will be less than $2.6 billion but certainly over $2 billion -- associated with the status quo forecast. That will not be what we will be doing. We will be driving hard.... We have not begun the budget process yet, although we will be doing that very shortly. This is not for the legislators, but will be done internally. We will be driving to bring the deficit down again next year from the $1.5 billion, and down again every year over the course of this budget recovery. The forecast, however, is not that. The forecast document, which is the planning document -- not a prediction but a working document -- shows the deficit going up again over $2 billion if no action is taken.
[ Page 8626 ]
J. Weisgerber: I'm tempted to get into the manipulation that brought you, through Peat Marwick, the $2.4 billion number that you're so proud of. The reality is that both you and I know there were extraordinary figures brought into that number that couldn't possibly be duplicated for a second year in a row. I'm not going to rise to the temptation.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: I agree with Public Accounts entirely.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. Through the Chair, hon. members.
J. Weisgerber: Another interesting graph that this contains is a projection of direct government debt, which suggests that by the year 1996 the direct debt of government will have grown from about $4.8 billion at the end of 1992 fiscal year to more than $18 billion, which is quite consistent with some of the speeches I've been giving around the province. I have been projecting that if this government stays in office until 1995, the debt will certainly be in the $15 billion to $20 billion range. I assume that the minister will tell us that this is a planning document -- the effect of no action. Can the minister tell us where his revised forecast puts the public debt at the end of 1995?
Hon. G. Clark: I remember listening to the news a few months ago and hearing the member say that the deficit for last year was going to be $3 billion. He said that when it came in, it would be $3 billion, and then it came in at $1.95 billion, the smallest overrun of any province in Canada. We were the only government in Canada to bring the spending in under budget. So that member's predictions have not been accurate at all.
I would also like to remind members that the member is concerned about the veracity of Peat Marwick. We don't have to take Peat Marwick's numbers anymore because we have all the historical evidence. The public accounts have been published; the auditor general has approved them; the Public Accounts Committee, which that member's party has a seat on, has confirmed that the deficit we inherited from that administration was just slightly under $2.4 billion, for the record. The government's direct debt -- and that table the member refers to -- is exactly the same as the last document. It will not happen; we simply won't allow that to happen. The direct debt will not rise to the extent that is forecast there, because we won't be allowing the deficit to escalate as it's projected. The budget document has a clear net provincial debt at the end of 1994; it will be $10.5 billion. And we don't see it escalating. In fact, we see it levelling off as deficits are brought down significantly.
[4:00]
One thing I would say for the record -- and I don't mind having a debate with the member on this, but I would hope he would agree -- is that there are different kinds of debt and different purposes associated with direct government debt. Forget about Crown corporations or commercial debt associated with B.C. Hydro. One of his heroes is W.A.C. Bennett; most of that diminishing Social Credit Party still hold to those halcyon days of W.A.C. Bennett. The member will agree that in 1967, W.A.C. Bennett brought in the hospitals financing authority and the education financing authority, so that this province -- unlike some other provinces, although most provinces were doing the same thing -- could borrow money or incur debt for the purposes of school and hospital construction. It's an interesting question as to whether the Social Credit Party has changed its historical position, because while he was a member of the last government, they were borrowing money for school and hospital construction. In fact, the largest debt-financed school construction budget -- some $660 million -- in the history of the province was under Stan Hagen. It was just a coincidence it was in an election year.
What is inappropriate, and what we have to stop during an economic recovery in particular, is deficit financing -- in other words, consumption today that our children will have to pay for. The deficit is the most appropriate place for the public policy debate. Debt associated with capital assets for schools and hospitals is quite appropriately funded through borrowing, as W.A.C. Bennett did and other provinces do. W.A.C. Bennett, Bill Bennett, Bill Vander Zalm and Dave Barrett -- all governments of British Columbia have borrowed money for school and hospital construction, and it is appropriate because those capital assets last for some 40 years. So to have future generations 20 years from now pay a small percentage of their tax dollars to go to assets which they take advantage of is quite appropriate. Government direct debt does grow as you build capital facilities, and obviously we have to be very careful about that. But that is consistent with what we've always done in British Columbia. The appropriate concern at this level of discussion is not to allow the current account deficit to add to our government direct debt in such a way as to diminish the flexibility of government to pursue other initiatives, including building schools and hospitals. While the debt is important to look at, and I agree with that, it is also important to differentiate how that debt is made up. The area that we and most Canadians have concern for is deficits that incur debt today and that have to be paid off in the future for consumption today.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, as a Socred I am proud of W.A.C. Bennett. I am proud of our history of government, and I notice that more and more often the current Premier finds himself trying to move into the shadow of W.A.C. Bennett. One of the people the Premier likes to associate himself with is the current Prime Minister, although he has a great deal of difficulty understanding exactly what it is she says, which doesn't seem to be an affliction suffered by most other Premiers in Canada.
Let's find a little time to talk about this issue of debt, and let's go to the auditor general's report that the Minister of Finance takes such pride in. On March 31,
[ Page 8627 ]
1992, according to the auditor general, the direct debt of government that had been accumulated over 125 years in British Columbia by successive governments was $4.8 billion. At the end of this fiscal year, according to the minister's own projections, the direct debt of government will be in excess of $10 billion. In 1994, the minister and his government will have more than doubled the debt -- in two years -- accumulated by every other government in the history of British Columbia -- all governments combined. It took 125 years to reach the $4.8 billion plateau identified by the auditor general as existing six months after the current government took office. At the end of the second fiscal year of the government, the projections are that the direct debt will exceed $10 billion.
The minister is correct: there is nothing wrong with debt when it is created in the development of capital assets that have long lives -- 40-year use spans. I am curious to know what capital projects were a direct result of the $6 billion that this government will add to the direct debt of government over the next couple of years. What edifices around this province, what hydro projects, what highways and what kinds of capital projects can taxpayers look at to identify? They will be able, without great difficulty, to see capital projects owned by the province -- the taxpayers -- that are clearly the value represented in the first $4.8 billion in deficit accumulated over the last 125 years. I suspect they will have, as the minister is having, a great deal more trouble identifying where the last $6 billion in debt was spent, because it was spent on operating excesses -- excess expenditures over revenue. It was spent on groceries, to use an analogy. That's where the difficulty is, and that's why there is such great concern with the budget of this ministry.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, in 1991-92 the direct debt was $6.6 billion when we took office at the end of '92. So when we brought in our first budget, the debt was $6.6 billion. The deficit that we inherited was $2.4 billion, then it was $2 billion and then $1.5 billion. That is correct; that is an increase to the government direct debt. That is consumption, and that's why we have to bring the deficit down.
I want to make the point that after today, and next year in all of the forecasts, we have the lowest level of government debt in Canada, and we will continue to do so. We have a very low level of debt in this province, and we will continue to have the lowest because of the actions we're taking to bring the deficit down. Yes, there has been a school construction program, a hospital construction program and, more likely, a community care construction program. There has been a college and university construction program; that is all debt-financed. They are all capital assets, and I'm pleased to hear the hon. member opposite say that he doesn't have any problem with that.
I agree with him that the concern is about debt associated with accumulated deficits. That's why, digging ourselves out from under the mess we inherited, we have brought it down dramatically and continue to bring it down. Unfortunately, in the process of continuing to bring it down, each year we have been running a deficit. It does add to the direct government debt, and that, of course, has been taking place for some time in this province. In five years of the Bill Bennett government, for example, we had $1 billion in deficits each and every year which added to the government debt. This year, as I said, for the almost 40 percent reduction in the deficit over two years, we've made significant progress. We need to make more to bring the deficit down, and we will bring the deficit down. But in the meantime, we want to make sure that we're still spending money, debt-financed, on capital assets that have a long life span. We're continuing to do that. I hope the members opposite will support the government because there are needed facilities -- particularly schools and other facilities -- that members opposite should support.
I just might say, hon. Chair, that even though members opposite voted against some of that in the House, it hasn't stopped members opposite -- including that member -- from asking the government to approve capital financing for facilities in their constituencies. I'm delighted to support some of the capital investment in facilities that are not in government constituencies; there's nothing wrong with that. They are important community assets. Money should be borrowed for that purpose, provided that there's a sinking fund attached to it and the money is paid back over a period of years, and that's exactly what we do.
J. Weisgerber: Let me clarify: the minister is saying that the $4.8 billion debt reported by the auditor general at the end of the 1991-92 fiscal year did not include the deficit for the 1991-92 fiscal year?
F. Gingell: The number is 6.610.
J. Weisgerber: There are a number of different numbers. The one I prefer to use, because I have a great deal of confidence in the auditor general's report.... The number that I see for the end of the 1991-92 fiscal year, based on the accounting practices recommended by the auditor general and the accounting procedures discussed at the Public Accounts Committee today, suggests that the deficit was $4.8 billion. In any event, is the minister suggesting, according to his figures, that at the end of the 1991-92 fiscal year the debt was $6.6 billion plus? That included the deficit he was able to manage at $2.4 billion for the 1991-92 fiscal year. Since 1991-92 the government has increased its direct debt in excess of $4 billion, by his own calculations.
Hon. G. Clark: It's accumulated by $2 billion in the first year; at the end of this fiscal year there is another $1.5 billion. That is about $3.5 billion. That is significant progress.
I have one last statistic for members. The direct government debt as a percentage of gross provincial product, which is the statistic that everybody uses across the country, is lower today than it was in 1985 under the Bennett administration. We are making
[ Page 8628 ]
significant progress, largely relative to the size of the economy in terms of our deficit and in terms of our debt.
J. Weisgerber: The per capita debt that we enjoy in British Columbia, which is clearly the lowest per capita debt in the country, is one of the things the minister likes to gloss over when he talks about those things he inherited from the previous administration. The reality is that that was the one thing that has enabled the government to be able to continue to make those claims. There is absolutely nothing that the current administration has done, except to increase the per capita debt in British Columbia. If the minister wants to claim some credit for that, it's an interesting exercise in calculation, because there can be no doubt that the actions of this government have contributed to an increase in the direct per capita debt of the province.
The minister also inherited a tax regime that was by far the most advantageous in the country and gave him the room to increase taxes for business by 20 percent -- a rate I think he was quoted just recently as bragging about. The reality is that the government has increased taxes, has increased debt and has increased spending in the couple of years it has been in office.
[4:15]
Let me say further that I will continue to lobby on behalf of my constituents for improvements and government expenditures in the community. I certainly am not at all embarrassed about having lobbied the minister to approve hospital funding, and I will continue to do so. I know that as the minister looks at the revenue that flows out of northeastern British Columbia he would feel, if anything, a bit embarrassed at the paltry returns compared to the enormous amounts of revenue that he's enjoying from the part of the province that I represent.
Hon. G. Clark: Of course, in the last year of Social Credit -- in just one year -- they increased the government's direct debt by more than 50 percent. Those are the numbers, that's the trend line we inherited when we took office. I might say that after two successive budgets -- I think we're the only government in Canada that can say this -- all four credit rating agencies have confirmed us as the highest credit now in the country as a result. The member is correct in saying that they look very carefully at government direct debt, their historic debt and a variety of factors on how the government's handling it. They have, of course, confirmed the government's approach to bringing down the deficit in restraining the rate of growth of the public debt. So the member makes some points, but I think obviously the weight of evidence is very clear: that we had an escalating problem on the deficit side, which is leading to a dramatic increase in government debt. We've taken significant action in the two years and have made significant progress -- not as much as I would like, and I think all members would like, but significant progress. We're going to continue to make progress over the next couple of years.
F. Gingell: I simply can't sit any longer and hear a rehash of the last 20 years of various political administrations. I will, if I may, quickly go back to an issue that the minister spoke of in response to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. He said that to get rid of the homeowner grant and at the same time stop the taxation of residential property for school tax purposes would cost the government $300 million. I came up with a figure of $88 million, and I wonder where I had gone wrong.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll have to get the number for the member, but I'm just going from memory. As I recall, I'm quite sure that the last time I looked, about a one point sales tax increase would be required to eliminate the school property taxes, so that's around $300 million, including netting out the homeowner grant costs associated with it. I think the homeowner grant costs about $400 million. School property taxes paid in, I'm quite sure, are in excess of that, but I'll get that information for you. In fact, we'll get it for you in the next few minutes.
F. Gingell: I was looking at the estimated revenue, where it says property, residential, school purposes is $495 million. Then it says revenues, net of homeowner grants, of $400 million. So perhaps the number is in fact $500 million.
Anyway, if we can move along....
Hon. G. Clark: It's net of homeowner grant.
F. Gingell: The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations has a lot of expertise and professionals. But when we go through your breakdown of your 1993-94 budget under STOB 20, which is professional services, I see that the ministry anticipates spending a little in excess of $3 million for legal, accounting and management consultants. That struck me as a rather large sum. I wonder if you could quickly cover the major items on page 68 -- in registries and ministry support services, Treasury Board secretariat, government personnel services and office of the comptroller general -- just a rough idea of what these cover.
Hon. G. Clark: I think that's a good way of doing it, actually. I'll just go generally, if it's okay. STOB 20 is professional services. The bulk of professional services generally tends to be related to systems. It's an all-consuming governmental problem, regardless of government and jurisdiction.
Just to go through it: registries and ministry support services, $750,000 -- again that's largely systems-related. The registries branch is doing some very interesting things in terms of automating and trying to update the staff. They raise revenue. These are professional services associated with that.
I'll just skip Treasury Board secretariat, which as you can see is one of the smallest amounts. Those professional services tend to be a bit of systems, but more likely economic consulting services. Where we are doing a review, as we did of Social Services, for example, we would hire a consultant for that. Some
[ Page 8629 ]
of the studies the member opposite suggested, in terms of the underground economy we were discussing earlier, would come out of that. In addition, other services, such as temporary office services, all come out of this component. We have been reducing this STOB generally across government, but it is still a significant amount.
Government personnel services, $1.1 million. That's a large one. That's pay equity, which was begun actually by the previous government. There's a huge cost associated with implementing and reviewing that. It is also associated with systems development -- payroll, etc. The office of the comptroller general is largely GASSP, which I know the member is familiar with -- government accounting systems strategic project. That's the largest part of that. And similarly, revenue and financial institutions. Very small amounts are really required for the normal personnel services. We do have some costs associated with contract services, which we have been reviewing very carefully. Personnel services have been historically used for things like job descriptions and the like, which we've been cutting back on but which is a function of government. There are generally people who can do it more efficiently in the private sector, so we tend to use them.
Anyway, that gives you a sense of the magnitude. The only one that's sort of policy related is Treasury Board services, which are largely economics and policy-side stuff. I guess I could give you a couple of examples for the committee. We commissioned WEFA, Wharton Econometrics, to do a study of the impact of the federal monetary policy on the country as a whole, and of the provincial deficits and the impact of the monetary policy pursued by the Bank of Canada on both the economy and the financial stability of the provinces. I have released that publicly. We did commission Ernst and Young to do a study of off-loading, which we have also published. All that is done out of this account, and though it's been coming down somewhat over the last couple of years, it's still a significant cost component.
F. Gingell: I can appreciate your desire to have Ernst and Young do a study on off-loading, and your desire to have a study on the Bank of Canada monetary policy on the province, but aren't both these issues strictly political? Having a study done isn't going to change what has happened or help British Columbia deal with the problems. Isn't it really more political? What actions can we take with regard to cap on cap? What actions can we take with regard to monetary policy?
Hon. G. Clark: I certainly understand that. The member is correct that there are conscious political policies, but unless we have a base of information upon which to have that dialogue, then the federal government gets away with pursuing policies which have a significant consequence. I know that Ernst and Young would not participate in a review of a policy like this if they viewed what they were doing as political, and they didn't. What is the impact of federal monetary policy on provincial finances? That's a statistical question based on econometric modelling, etc., which they can pursue. They have the models. Whether it's Wharton Econometrics or Informetrica, they have the capacity to pursue that and so they produce information. I may use that information politically, and I absolutely do. At federal-provincial finance ministers' meetings, I table the documents and use that information to attack the federal government. We have had some modest success in the sense that the Bank of Canada's easing of the monetary policy is related in part to insistent and unrelenting attack on the monetary policy from provinces like British Columbia. Up until the recent election, my colleagues in Alberta and I worked very hard on this question.
In addition, it is important that there is not just politics. It's important for the government and the people of British Columbia to know what the costs are in a fiscal sense. These have very real direct fiscal consequences. I believe that the work on econometric study showed that if the federal monetary policy had been consistent with past practice and had not taken the historic jump in interest rates as a conscious policy directive of the Bank of Canada, then our deficit in British Columbia would be about $1 billion lower than it is today. Of course, that affects everybody in the country. So when the federal government pursues the sole policy criterion of going after inflation -- which is what they did -- one might accept that. In fact many business people would say that is the correct policy, and they have said that to me. I don't mind people saying that as long as they know there are costs associated with that policy as well, such as higher unemployment and higher deficits than would otherwise be the case. As long as we have both sides, then we can have a genuinely informed political debate. That's what we've been trying to do with some of these independent reviews of these policy environments.
[4:30]
One last point: it may be unfortunate, but the legitimacy of the documentation and the acceptability of them to influence the public debate is better served if it comes from the private sector and not from government. The Ministry of Finance has excellent officials and staff who can do a lot of this work, but then it is discounted as political propaganda, and that is unfortunate. But it is important that we validate the positions taken -- the documents taken by the Ministry of Finance from time to time, where possible -- with private consultants who have expertise and credibility in the field. All governments do that, and the cost of some of these studies has not been enormous in the scheme of things. It's important to get a validation or critique. In some cases there have been some differences, and it's also legitimate to have the public dialogue.
F. Gingell: Moving on to STOB 25, which is described as information services and is almost $13 million, is a large portion of this due to payments to B.C. Systems Corporation? Where does it come from?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, and to contractors on staff.
[ Page 8630 ]
F. Gingell: When you say contractors, do you mean part-time help?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, I just want to clarify that. As I understand it, the running of our system is STOB 25. That's primarily the running of the systems of government -- payroll, etc. The contractors I was referring to are under STOB 68, and that is where we use the systems contractors that we were referring to. As you can imagine, provincial treasury operations are very sophisticated, both on the debt and the investment sides. There are people in the private sector, largely with the banking community and investment banking services. So there are contractors who specialize in the kind of software to do computerized trading, etc., that the ministry does as a matter of course. It does not make sense to use the Systems Corporation, or even to develop that kind of expertise internally. It's more appropriate and it's cheaper for government to contract to private sector specialists in the field. That's what we do. You can see that treasury actually consumes a fair amount of that. It's a fairly expensive proposition, generally. As you can appreciate, the costs of not doing it are astronomical in terms of managing both the $30 billion of investment and the borrowing program required by government. We have to make sure we are state of the art.
The Peat Marwick independent financial review had some comments on that, which I know the member is familiar with. Frankly, because of fiscal circumstances, we haven't been able to provide the resources that I know Treasury would like in order to ensure that we are on the leading edge of the technology in this field when we're managing this amount of public funds.
F. Gingell: Could the minister advise us what portion of the almost $13 million is paid to B.C. Systems Corporation?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm just trying to get this clarified. As I understand it, STOB 20 is largely systems contractors, STOB 25 is running the system and STOB 68 is acquiring new systems. The bulk of STOB 25, which is the largest amount, is B.C. Systems. Again, I'll provide the information for you before the day is out.
F. Gingell: Can you advise us if your ministry is basically comfortable and pleased with the service levels of B.C. Systems Corporation? Have there been any discussions or thoughts about changing the arrangements with them in the past year or in the coming year?
Hon. G. Clark: Well, we're satisfied with B.C. Systems, but we are moving to microcomputers off the main frame of B.C. Systems in a variety of fields. I think this will be an interesting question for the minister responsible for B.C. Systems Corporation, but I think it's fair to say that we have a complex challenge. The Systems Corporation is a big in-house Crown corporation, which has a certain monopoly power to charge one and a half times the cost of labour for services. Every ministry has Systems Corporation employees working there full-time. Side by side are provincial government employees who are doing similar work and are sometimes paid less. It is fair to say that this is an area of concern for government: getting value for money and the most efficient use of it. It's an area where we've made significant progress, and the Systems Corporation is doing a good job of working with the government, the Crown corporations secretariat and others to ensure that we get the mission statement and move forward and that everybody's on board for it.
There are new technologies constantly coming into play in this area. One of the new technologies that has the most appeal for cost-effectiveness is the micro-computer. In other words, people are moving away from main frames and into networks of micro-computers. We are doing that as well in the Ministry of Finance from time to time. In some cases, the raison d'�tre, if you will, of the Systems Corporation, is the mainframe computer, and the technology change is driving them to be very aggressive and entrepreneurial in how they deal with that change and effectively serve government.
I'm giving you a general statement of the status quo and how we're dealing with this question. It's a fascinating area which is consuming a fair amount of time in parts of government to try to come to grips with it. It's an area where you can spend a lot of money very quickly.
My personal view, and the view that I hold in the ministry, is that we should not be leading the world of developing new systems for government. We should be a very close second and let the R and D work be done either in the private sector in other businesses or in other provinces. We should quickly be following after all of the upfront cost is paid for elsewhere, if we can. In an ideal sense, it's desirable for government to be taking advantage of modern technology and being very upfront about it but not providing the multimillion dollars required to develop brand-new applications of software, if at all possible. Obviously I don't want to discourage people from pursuing more efficiencies and new technologies, but we also want to make sure we're not doing the research and development work for either other provinces or the private sector. So I think we're getting on top of that quite nicely, and for some branches of the ministry, like treasury, it's so critical to their functioning that they have up-to-date, in this case state-of-the-art, technology when it comes to some of these questions. That division of the ministry works with B.C. Systems Corporation and private contractors, and even as we move to more microcomputers, we're very satisfied that we've stayed ahead of the game and that we're doing quite well. I wanted to give you a broad answer, because this is a complex question that does require ongoing attention and some ministries are more satisfied than others. But to date we've been fairly satisfied, and we're very satisfied about how we see it going forward over the next couple of years.
F. Gingell: Recognizing the approach you are taking with respect to microprocessors versus main-frame computers, has this changed in any way the ministry's position on GASSP? Perhaps this is a good
[ Page 8631 ]
time for you to bring us up to date on that project. I note that in 1993-94 you're planning on spending a little less money on it than you did in the previous year.
Hon. G. Clark: No, it doesn't affect GASSP at all. I guess there are two sides to it. When I said microcomputers in terms of internal management, that's important. But GASSP is trying to harmonize all the systems of government so they talk to each other, and in particular areas like payroll, where in fact we have an antiquated system we're trying to modernize.
The member's correct that we have cut the GASSP budget, and I make no apology for that. I know that the member would find an ally in the comptroller general in arguing the case to pursue this more aggressively. I certainly agree with that in the abstract, but when you're dealing with competing demands for public money you have to cut everywhere, and this was no exception. So I want to assure the member that there is a logic to it, and that we didn't just cut the budget arbitrarily. We wanted to ensure that in fact there was work being done and that we did not essentially slow down the progress of the work; we just didn't add other work before we proceeded.
The answer is really that we have several pilot projects going on right now. The Ministry of Labour is one of them, and there are several others. What we decided to do is to continue aggressively funding those pilot projects, and they're starting to be up and running now. Once they're completed at the end of this year, we will then have a good evaluation of GASSP to proceed further with.
Now I fully anticipate that while we slowed the funding, all we've really done is slowed the simultaneous introduction of more pilot projects. I actually think this is good public policy as well as saving us money, because it's better to take a couple of ministries, pursue it aggressively, try to get the bugs out of it, see how it's working, evaluate it and then proceed further. That's really what we've done. So we've cut the budget, maintained the momentum in the system and not added to it across government; and we're doing a thorough evaluation review, including involving the ministry and other personnel in that review.
So I'm still very supportive of GASSP, and I still anticipate it continuing across government. But we've slowed it down a little bit in other ministries while we get the pilot projects up and running. I think Labour is up and actually running now, or very close to being sort of switched over to that, and that's the first one, as I understand it. As I recall, Government Services and then the comptroller general's office are the other two, where we're proceeding full-speed ahead in implementing it. We haven't added any ministries this year.
F. Gingell: Perhaps just for my own purposes the minister could advise me what other officials will be coming this afternoon and what time they might arrive.
Hon. G. Clark: We're at your disposal. I didn't want to have 15 people here, as has been the case in some estimates. I have senior staff people on alert. I have a staff person here who is prepared to go and retrieve anyone who is required. The one person for whom I'd ask the indulgence of the committee is Doug Hyndman, who is over from Vancouver. He is working in the Ministry of Finance today and he's here at my request in Victoria. He would like to get home tonight. If it's possible, I'd like to have him come up in the next 15 or 20 minutes. If you have questions on the Securities Commission, it would be nice to get them done before we wrap up today.
If that's okay, I'll ask staff to have Doug Hyndman come up, and maybe we could complete the little section on the Securities Commission.
W. Hurd: I just have a brief question that goes back to the Peat Marwick Thorne executive summary that was released in 1991 but has some relevance in this set of estimates. I'm particularly interested in the cost overruns associated with the natural gas pipeline project. While I understand that the agreement has been renegotiated and a ministerial statement was made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, because of the numbers involved in the Peat Marwick Thorne summary.... I'm addressing in particular the rate stabilization liability, which they had identified as possibly being as high was $672 million, and in addition the cost overrun added an additional $105 million. As I review the ministerial statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and also analyze what I believe to be the new agreement, it doesn't appear to the opposition to have addressed that major lurking expenditure that was identified by the Peat Marwick Thorne summary.
Having had the opportunity to review the agreements with Westcoast Energy and with Centra Gas, can the minister provide the committee with some sort of idea of what the new liability will be for the Crown in connection with this pipeline agreement?
Hon. G. Clark: Those are very good questions. The Ministry of Finance, as you probably know, is involved in this exercise, but the Minister of Energy is the lead minister. From that perspective, I have no problem discussing it, but it really isn't my area of expertise or the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance. I'll ask Mr. Gunton, who was involved. We were obviously involved as Treasury Board in approving the new arrangement. It did have a result of saving some money this fiscal year. I'll ask Mr. Gunton to briefly give a bit of an overview of some of the questions he asked. We'll try to answer any technical questions, but I hope the member will understand that in fact the more appropriate place to ask those questions is with the Ministry of Energy.
[4:15]
T. Gunton: The ultimate liability on the agreement is a function of the relationship between natural gas prices and oil prices. That is probably the most significant factor. The agreement goes over a number of years, and of course your forecast of the liability will depend on the forecast of gas and oil prices one uses.
[ Page 8632 ]
The revised agreement, as in the original agreement, has no cap on the total amount that can be paid by the province. However, the revised agreement does provide for a significant reduction in the subsidy cost to buy gas to run the pipeline as a result of removing some elements out of the rate base. Also a lower rate of return on their investment in the savings this year are estimated to be some $20 million.
W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister or the deputy could provide some background information on the executive summary and where they had come up with the figure of $672 million for liability from the rate stabilization utility and an additional $105 million from cost overruns. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in her statement has indicated that the maximum reduction in the financial exposure will be in the range of $100 million, which still leaves -- according to the executive summary -- some $702 million that the province could be liable for under the terms of the length of this agreement. I wonder if either the minister or the deputy could provide some background: first, to the executive summary by Peat Marwick Thorne and where they might have established that $850 million figure; and second, whether in fact they're satisfied that the reduction in the liability will be in the range of $100 million, as has been indicated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
Hon. G. Clark: Of course, the key to these forecasts depends on the assumptions, and the assumptions can vary quite dramatically. We've tried to minimize the exposure of the government to some of the worst-case forecasts which Peat Marwick has pursued.
I just want to say for the record that we have not eliminated any possibility of liability. This agreement is a legal agreement between the parties there, and we had very intense and successful negotiations for both parties, in my view. A very big improvement on the agreement was reached by the Ministry of Energy, and I'm very pleased with that.
That does not mean the province is off the hook, if you will, for future fluctuations in oil and gas prices -- not at all. We are still very vulnerable to certain scenarios. But we also have to be realistic about it. There are working assumptions on the most likely assumptions. This agreement is extremely good for the province, but there's no cap, if you will, on the exposure of the province to the sort of worst-case scenario that might arise.
I'll ask Mr. Gunton, if he could -- because he began this and technically understands this very well -- if he'd like to add anything to that.
T. Gunton: I'll just emphasize that the number you're referring to in the report is the worst-case scenario. I think a base-case scenario was provided as well, which was substantially lower than that. So that is unlikely to happen -- a very low probability. If it does, I guess the government always has the option to renegotiate the agreement again.
W. Hurd: Can the minister provide information on what role the ministry might have had in these negotiations with Westcoast Energy, Pacific Northern Gas and Centra? Would these negotiations for rate relief -- for reducing the exposure of the province -- have been carried out specifically by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources? Or would the Ministry of Finance have taken an active or even lead role in these negotiations?
Hon. G. Clark: No, it was totally by the Minister of Energy.
W. Hurd: So the Ministry of Finance would have provided the technical background information on the Peat Marwick Thorne summary, or would have provided any information.
Hon. G. Clark: No, the Ministry of Energy is the line function. The only involvement of Finance was obviously that changes in the government's exposure, if you will, have to be approved by Treasury Board. If you're renegotiating a deal which has the potential to save or cost money for the taxpayers, then the minister and ministry have to appear before Treasury Board, which, as you know, I chair. The Treasury Board secretariat staff's intense review of everything that comes before Treasury Board is the extent of our involvement in these negotiations. In other words, the Treasury Board secretariat essentially does a critique of everything that comes before the Treasury Board. This case is no different from that. It is a very rigorous and aggressive critique. As a result of announcements made by the Minister of Energy, she was successful in her case before Treasury Board -- pursuing the renegotiations.
W. Hurd: Can the minister provide us with any information as to whether the purchase of shares in West Coast Energy by the B.C. Endowment Fund occurred during the time when the terms of this agreement, which was being negotiated by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, were subjected to Treasury Board review? Are we dealing with the same time frame here? Did the Endowment Fund make a decision to purchase $100,000 of shares in West Coast Energy when the company, through two subsidiaries, was actively negotiating with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for a package, or at least negotiating its way out of what might have been a major financial loss in view of the fact that the province was attempting to actively reduce its liability? I wonder if the minister could, to the best of his knowledge, advise the committee of the time frames involved here.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't know when the Ministry of Energy commenced negotiations with West Coast Energy. I believe the purchase by the Endowment Fund of shares was a year ago in August. As you know, the Endowment Fund has made a significant return on that investment. It was an important investment in terms of trying to maintain the head office of West Coast Energy in British Columbia. It has been supported broadly.
[ Page 8633 ]
This question and others are now before the Seaton commission; we wanted to make sure that the broad question is dealt with by Justice Seaton. I believe pension funds -- a similar situation -- had shares in West Coast Energy. In this case there was a sale of the control block by Petro Canada, and a different branch of the Ministry of Finance, the Endowment Fund managed by Treasury, purchased 7 or 8 percent of the shares in a straight commercial transaction. This has been extremely profitable for the taxpayer in terms of the share value today.
The Ministry of Energy's negotiations had no bearing on that transaction. The Treasury Board's deliberations on the review of the deal brought forward by the Ministry of Energy had no bearing, consultation nor discussion by the parties on that question. The investment side of the government acts completely independently of the policy decisions made by government. It not only acts that way, but the statute requires it and decrees it so. Legally and in every other way, the investment side of the Ministry of Finance acts independently of the policy-making side of government. In this case it is even more so because the Minister of Energy is the responsible party in the negotiations.
This broad question hasn't been part of the discussion, but we are hopeful.... Justice Seaton is holding hearings and private meetings as he moves forward for a final report. I haven't met with him lately, but this question is one which I know that member has raised in the past. We are hopeful that structurally or some other way the judge will make some recommendations giving that member and all British Columbians comfort that what we do in practice is make sure that the investment side is one which acts in the interests of the taxpayer and the pension fund beneficiaries and is not compromised by the other activities of government.
I assure him that's the case in this transaction as well as other transactions. Over the course of the next few months, I hope that not only I can assure him that that's the case; I am confident that the judge will assure him that's the case generally. Hopefully he'll make some positive recommendations which can give even further comfort to the members of the public, the House and this committee that that is not just a practice, but one which is required by structural changes which he might recommend.
W. Hurd: I just had a couple of additional questions about the nature of the purchase by the Endowment Fund. Can the minister confirm the reported transaction process whereby the Endowment Fund submitted 50 percent of the purchase price up front in September of '92 and is responsible for forwarding the rest of the funds in September of this year. Can he confirm that that is the financing arrangement that the Endowment Fund has made in connection with its purchase of Westcoast Energy?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, I can't confirm that precisely because I'm not that intimately involved. All I can say is that our purchase was no different from any other purchase by any other investor of the day. It was purchased in installment receipts, which enhances the attractiveness of the purchase to any investor, including the Ministry of Finance in this case. So I can get those details for the member.
W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can then give us the benefit of his knowledge of the Financial Administration Act, to which he alluded earlier in the discussion. To the minister's knowledge, would it be theoretically possible for a fund of government to be in receipt of what could be called "insider information" in the securities trade and to act on that information in terms of its activity in the stock market? Would the Financial Administration Act exempt the fund from having to answer charges or claims that in fact it has benefited by information not available to the rest of the investment community in the province?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll just say that the government is governed by the Securities Act, and we follow it precisely.
W. Hurd: So if I understand the answer correctly, then, any investors in British Columbia -- individuals, funds or corporations -- theoretically would be subject to review by the Securities Commission in the event that they had in their possession insider information which could affect the value of the shares that they were seeking or had an option to purchase over the course of an entire year. It would be possible for the Securities Commission to undertake an action in the case of insider trading, and the Financial Administration Act would not specifically exempt that process from going forward.
[5:00]
Hon. G. Clark: That's correct.
W. Hurd: I had a few additional questions on issues related to the forest industry in the province, and perhaps I could defer to another member who might be interested in pursuing the endowment fund or any other type of issue.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could get a response to my note, before you swallow it. Perhaps we will deal with the B.C. Securities Commission now. That would probably be through by 5:30 p.m., by which time we have to quit, and then we'd come back tomorrow.
An Hon. Member: Do you want to come back tonight?
F. Gingell: Not particularly.
Hon. G. Clark: It might not be committee work, but unfortunately I'll have to check with the House Leader on those arrangements, because my understanding was that we would continue tonight until we were all but concluded. I assumed we could do that tonight. But I'll check and see; I believe that I'm available, so we'll see if we can do that. I would
[ Page 8634 ]
appreciate completing any questions you might have on the Securities Commission in the next half hour, so Mr. Hyndman can make it home tonight.
F. Gingell: Perhaps we could start with an explanation of the organizational structure of the Securities Commission -- a rough count on the number of staff, and whether you intend to continue to operate in the coming year in the fashion in which you have operated in the past year.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm going to continue this practice of having staff answer some questions. Doug Hyndman is the chair of the British Columbia Securities Commission, doing an excellent job, and he is over here for the day, so I'm going to ask him to answer some of these technical questions. If members opposite stray into the political field, I'll be quick to leap up to comment.
D. Hyndman: The Securities Commission has a staff complement of about 120. I think we're down a little from that now as a result of a number of vacancies, for which we're recruiting replacements as we speak. We anticipate that our budget for the coming year will allow us to continue at about that level, adding a few staff, particularly in the enforcement area.
F. Gingell: Perhaps the chair could give us a rough understanding of the way the organization is structured, who are responsible for the various functions and just roughly the number of staff included in each function.
D. Hyndman: The numbers I'll give you will be slightly off the top of my head, but the commission itself is comprised of up to nine members appointed by order-in-council, of which I'm the chair and the chief executive officer. We currently have eight members. Commission members are responsible for the administration of the act. Reporting to them is the chief administrative officer of the commission, who carries the title of the superintendent of brokers, and most of the staff of the commission report through the superintendent of brokers. There are four deputy superintendents and three other staff reporting to him -- two executive directors and a senior legal counsel -- each of whom heads a division of the commission's staff.
The seven divisions include the compliance and enforcement division, which has roughly 20 employees. It is responsible for investigating complaints or suspected violations of securities legislation and policy.
The corporate finance division has between 15 and 20 employees now. It's responsible for reviewing financing documents such as prospectuses, statements of material facts and so on that are filed with the commission. They are reviewed to ensure that they contain full, true and plain disclosure, and are prepared in accordance with the policies of the commission.
The exemptions and orders division is a relatively small group of about seven or eight staff which processes applications for exemptions, makes recommendations to the commission members on whether or not to grant exemptions in particular circumstances, and in certain cases issues exemption orders under delegated authority. These are in cases where persons involved in the market are engaging in transactions which don't fit within one of the statutory exemptions from the registration and prospectus requirements, or the continuous disclosure and takeover bid requirements, or whatever, but feel they have a case for exemption from the strict requirements of the legislation, based on the nature of the transaction or compliance with requirements of another jurisdiction, and so on.
The registration and statutory filings division has between 15 and 20 staff. It handles the registration operations for those registered dealers and advisers who are not members of either the Vancouver Stock Exchange or the Investment Dealers' Association. I'll come to why that is in a moment. Although they aren't the high-profile ones or the ones who participate actively in the high-profile markets, most of the firms and individuals registered under the Securities Act are in fact not members of self-regulatory organizations, and are registered directly by our office. We review their financial statements to ensure they meet the capital requirements process, salesmen registrations and so on. The members of the SROs, VSE and IDA obtain their registrations through those organizations under delegated authority from the commission.
The other functions of the registration and statutory filings division are to receive periodic financial reports and material change reports filed by reporting issuers, to review the financial statements to ensure that they have clean audit reports for those that require it and to otherwise attempt to detect anything unusual or irregular. A third group within that division receives and reviews the insider reports filed, reporting all trading by persons who are insiders of reporting issuers.
Those four divisions I have described are what I call the operating divisions of the commission. Then there is the legal division, which provides legal counsel, represents the commission's staff in hearings before the commission, represents the commission in court applications, appeals and other appearances in court and gives legal advice on the administration of the Securities Act. That group has a complement of about seven. It went through a restructuring when we took over that function from the Attorney General, and we are currently down to about three staff there and are actively recruiting some additional ones.
The policy and legislation division has about six staff, and they develop regulatory policy instruments that advise the market on how the Securities Commission exercises its authority under the discretion it has under the legislation. It works with other Securities Commissions in Canada in developing national policy statements and so on.
Finally, the corporate planning and management services division has a staff of about 25. It includes our internal administrative staff and the public information and records staff, who maintain all the public files and provide public access to commission files, and the
[ Page 8635 ]
computer and management systems division, which manages our internal computer systems and retains and stores all our computerized data. So that's the staff of the commission.
F. Gingell: At this time last year there was a review of the Securities Commission going on -- the way positions were described, classifications and so on. I presume that is completed now. Perhaps the minister or the chair could advise us whether or not that review caused changes within the organization and whether staff morale has improved as a result.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll let Mr. Hyndman answer detailed questions.
Obviously this is completed, and there has been some change as a result of it. In addition, we've enhanced some of the policy-making branch within the Ministry of Finance under Michael Costello's jurisdiction, because it seems to me there is a need for some sort of government policy-making ability other than at the commission, which is dealing with a whole series of administrative policies and quasi-judicial policies in terms of the broad policy. So there has been a little bit of shifting there as well, which is not really your question, in terms of structure and of moving some of the pure, broad public policy questions into the Ministry of Finance.
On the reclassification impact that this has had on the structure of the commission, I'll ask Mr. Hyndman to elaborate.
D. Hyndman: Yes, we have completed the reclassification review of all the professional-level positions within the Securities Commission. The major change that resulted from that was the introduction of what we call a growth series, which provided a band of classification across all of those operating divisions -- the first four that I described -- which allows movement of professional staff across different functions at the same level and allows them to move up as they gain experience and meet various educational requirements and that kind of thing. We're giving exams for people to move up to the higher levels within the growth series. It has given us some more flexibility to manage our staff and to maintain and promote our good professional staff. It has been quite positive for us from an organizational perspective.
F. Gingell: In 1992-93 the original budget for the British Columbia Securities Commission was to have revenue of $8.8 million and anticipated expenditures of $9.65 million, which would have resulted in a loss in four months, to put it in those terms, or an excess pf expenditure over revenues of some $857,000. The fact of the matter is that at the end of the year it incurred a profit, or an excess of revenue over expenditures, of $910,000. Can you tell us the main causes of why you did so much better than you had expected to, from a financial point of view?
Hon. G. Clark: Part of it is just to ensure.... Again, I'll ask Mr. Hyndman to give you the details on the specifics you asked about, but I want to make sure that the policy context is clear.
This is an agency which, by policy directive essentially, is to be self-financing. This is an agency that regulates securities, and we believe the people in that industry, who benefit by the enhanced perception that it's being regulated, should pay the cost of running the commission. In that case, it should not theoretically be possible to incur significant losses, but I may be unrealistic. If there's some dramatic decline in listings and in activity, there would maybe be some time lag affected, but by mandate it's to be fully cost-recovered. In fact, we expect some modest return from that investment of the Crown.
[5:15]
In a general sense, I want to make the point that if it looks like it's headed for a deficit, then the chair of the commission is directed by the Minister of Finance to not allow that to happen. That requires him to cut staff or raise fees or some combination, but we simply won't accept, at least generally, the circumstance where the taxpayers would be paying to finance the regulation of this activity. The only caveat to that obviously is that the government has to be realistic about it in terms of the timing and the way in which it takes place. I just wanted to make sure that was clear, and I'll ask Mr. Hyndman to deal with the specifics of how the projected loss turned into an actual increase for the government.
D. Hyndman: The projected loss that's shown on the left-hand side of the blue book is as a result of some adjustments, which I have to admit I don't fully understand. If you look back to last year's estimates, it showed that we were projected to get a small profit, if I can use that term. I can't recall the exact number, but it was a few hundred thousand -- $300,000 or $400,000, as I recall. In fact, at the end of the year we ended up with revenue in excess of expenditure of about $2 million, and the main reason was that our expenditures were approximately on budget -- I think just slightly below -- and revenue was significantly in excess of budget primarily as a result of an upturn in the market. Mutual fund sales were much higher than they had been in previous years and than had been projected. As a result, we ended up with significantly more revenue than had been projected. So that additional revenue is added to the balance of the account.
F. Gingell: There's a bit of an anomaly here, because these statements indicate that you'd have had a profit of some $910,000. The l992-93 financial statements for public accounts are not out yet, so an indication by the chair of the commission that his revenues exceeded his expenditures by some $2 million....
Hon. G. Clark: What page are you on?
F. Gingell: Oh, page 136. That's the page they are on.
If you look at the figures of $8.8 million revenue and $9.657 million -- that's what I understand last year's budget was -- that would have given you a loss of some
[ Page 8636 ]
$857,000. The figure underneath that, $1.767 million, is the difference between the original estimates and what in January or February somebody thought the results would in fact be. It isn't a final count, but it is sort of that late in the year we're going to be this much different from the previous budget. So at that point you're anticipating a profit of about $910,000, rather than a loss of $857,000. We are interested to know.... There isn't anything wrong when we are suddenly told: "No, we didn't make $910,000; we actually made about $2 million." If that is the case and if it's all additional revenue, fine. But I understand there was a change in practice in the year about the payment of legal costs previously paid by the Attorney General's office. I wonder if you could tell us about that.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, there was a change of practice, and we can discuss that, but that would have done the reverse. That should have reduced the surplus. I'll ask Mr. Hyndman to comment on that change, though, as a matter of policy for the record. Really what happened here is that the market at the VSE took off. Revenues are based on essentially the volume in the market. When you can see that the VSE index is up by over a thousand points, that has a beneficial impact on the finances of the commission. The commission would adjust their fees accordingly if this level of activity were to take place over time. But more likely what would happen is that the brokerage community would demand greater service. Frankly, that's likely what would happen, because the increased volume also increases demand on the commission and sometimes delays the ability to accommodate investors, so more staff is required to be hired. There's a bit of a lag effect with respect to the market. In general, what really happened at the end of the fiscal year was a significant upturn in the market, and that's continuing apace, which I'm sure is having a positive impact on revenues to the commission.
With respect to the changeover from the Attorney General providing legal advice and staff to the commission itself, I'll ask Mr. Hyndman to comment on that more fully.
D. Hyndman: The effect of the transfer of the responsibility for legal advice from the Attorney General to the commission actually didn't affect our budget last year, because the Attorney General paid most of those costs for us last year, despite the fact that we made the transfer in midyear. So that's really starting to hit us in the current year. This is the year we're becoming responsible to pay all of those costs, and we're able to accommodate those within the budget we have. So that does not play any significant part in our budget for last year.
The actual numbers that we ended up with at the end of last year are not audited yet, but the latest estimates are that there was revenue of approximately $10.87 million and expenditure of $8.1 million. If you look at the expenditure number in the blue book on the left side there -- the $9.6 million -- that's a result of, as I said earlier, some adjustments I don't understand. If you look at last year's blue book, our budget was about $8.5 million, so we were slightly under budget primarily as a result of some vacant positions that we didn't manage to fill during the year. But revenue was originally budgeted at $8.8 million and came in at $10.8 million, and that was entirely market-driven activity. In fact, the $900,000 surplus that is shown in the book there is about what we were estimating in January, but we received a lot of unanticipated revenue in February and particularly in March. It so happens that March is when many of the national mutual fund filings renew, and the amount they pay at that time depends on their sales during the previous year, which we don't know until we get those filings. Their sales were very strong last year, and a lot of additional revenue came in as a result.
F. Gingell: I take it that you're anticipating a profit of about $2.7 million for last year. Does the difference between the expenditure plan that was shown in the blue book last year and the amount that is shown this year have anything to do with the reallocation of money from the contingency provision for increase in salaries throughout the civil service?
Hon. G. Clark: I want to make it clear that it doesn't come out of contingencies in terms of allocations. In terms of accounting for the increased expenditures, some of that is....
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: It did come from contingency in terms of reallocation, sorry.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Okay. So that's part of it. The bulk of next year's increase is the legal cost, but some of it is salary adjustments associated with the salary increases.
F. Gingell: In looking at the 1993-94 budget, does the minister believe that the numbers are substantially out and require some adjustment?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask Mr. Hyndman to answer that question. You can see the problems in terms of the budget in this kind of case where it's self-financing. It's driven by market, so we have to make some assumptions about what's happening in the market. Based on those assumptions, Mr. Hyndman has to make some assumptions about the staff he can carry and pay. So the advantage to the way this is structured -- it was structured by the previous government, and I fully support it -- is that it allows the flexibility to respond more readily than is the case, say, in the government, because it has the discipline of having to be essentially self-financed. But I'll ask Mr. Hyndman to give you a sense of how he sees it going, if you will, for '93-94.
D. Hyndman: We try to prepare our budget and financial planning on a relatively conservative basis. As a result, the numbers may turn out somewhat higher than we anticipate, as they did last year in revenue.
[ Page 8637 ]
Based on what we received last year, we expect now to get somewhat more than the $9.6 million in revenue that is shown here. As a result, we expect to spend somewhat more than the $9.3 million shown in the blue book now. It's a little early in the year yet to be able to estimate how much that will be, but we think in the order of a few hundred thousand or more. It's basically being driven by the increased market activity and the need for additional investigations and additional corporate finance staff.
F. Gingell: Just going back to your results for l992-93, I'm correct in writing down that your expenditures for the year were $8.1 million. They are down from an anticipated expenditure last year of $9.6 million. And now you're suggesting that for l993-94 you're going to have expenditures perhaps somewhat in excess of a couple of hundred thousand dollars more than the almost $9.4 million shown here as your budget. There might be, let us say, $9.6 million. So are you telling us, hon. minister, that the expenditure is going to go up from $8.1 million to $9.6 million -- an increase of about 20 percent in expenditures of the B.C. Securities Commission?
Hon. G. Clark: It's a bit of apples and oranges. I agree with the comments of the member, except that about three-quarters of a million dollars is for legal. If you discount the legal adjustment of that transfer, then I think the member is correct in that.
I want to make just one further point: the purpose of setting up the Securities Commission in the fashion in which it is -- one which I strongly support -- is to allow for precisely the flexibility to accommodate changes in market conditions that does not exist as readily in government.
I'll give you a good example. If there is a requirement to speed up the processing of certain transactions that the Securities Commission is responsible for, they have the capacity, like a Crown corporation, to increase the fee in order to improve service. They could have a filing fee or a fee for processing prospectuses -- which is the normal fee -- and then they could provide the extra service for an extra fee. That is very critical to functioning and servicing this market, and that flexibility is key. I'm using this example to say that it is inappropriate to concentrate on the changes in expenditure as if there was some lack of discipline or control on it. In fact what we want to do is encourage changes of expenditure, both down and up, to accommodate the industry. Believe me, that industry is the most aggressive that I've ever come across in terms of saying to the Minister of Finance that the Securities Commission is not responding to their needs appropriately.
[5:30]
So I can assure you that unless the member opposite wants to bring to my attention concerns in the industry, the Securities Commission is doing a superb job of responding to the demands of the industry in terms of increased staff, higher fees for improved service and a variety of innovations which are really responsive and market-driven by the industry. Generally, we could do with a little more of that model in government, and the Securities Commission model is a good one which gives us some discipline and control by the government in terms of the overview but also allows for the kind of flexibility which is required, particularly in sensitive areas like the Securities Commission. All I'm saying is that one has to be a little careful in looking at expenditure and revenue changes year over year, because the whole process is designed to allow for greater flexibility and fluctuation than exists in what might be classified as a more normal area of government.
F. Gingell: Goodness me. I think I touched a tender nerve, and I didn't mean to. But we all want to have a good understanding of what the budgetary process is. When the British Columbia Securities Commission tells us we expect to spend $9.6 million, that's the number that is down here. It's a number that was new to the chairman of the Securities Commission. You made transfers, I believe, from the contingency account related to salary changes that you didn't want to put originally in the special accounts, recognizing that the intent is that this operation be a self-funding operation. We all recognize the problems that the Vancouver Stock Exchange has had in its public perception. So I'm glad that the B.C. Securities Commission is well funded and able to do the kind of work that needs to be done. I think the minister probably agrees with that. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have committed the B.C. Securities Commission to pay out their share of the Matkin commission report. Does the B.C. Securities Commission actually run its own bank account? Do you put the fees that you receive into your own bank account and pay your own expenditures out of that account?
Hon. G. Clark: The short answer is no, it doesn't.
F. Gingell: During the estimates debate last year we were able to get information on the past few years, and we came to the conclusion that there had been a steady increase over the years in the number of cease-trade orders as your competence had become greater and the commission had taken a more active role. Can you tell us whether the number of cease-trade orders in the past year has continued to increase?
Hon. G. Clark: We don't have the statistics here, but I could get them for the member. The answer in a general sense is that they are about the same or a little bit higher again than last year.
F. Gingell: Last year during the course of the estimates debate we had some discussion about the problems of the Securities Commission being able to see what was going on and to deal with many of the issues that come up. We had a discussion at that time about the role of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C., the auditors of the various companies that file with you and the responsibility of members of the legal profession acting in their capacity as counsel and lawyers for corporations that file with the Securities
[ Page 8638 ]
Commission. I wonder whether it's possible to enforce more of a watchdog role in these cases under them, as professionals who are licensed by the government to practise in this province. I'm most interested in whether this has moved along any more in the past year and whether you see them acting more as a watchdog.
Hon. G. Clark: I think the short answer to that is no, we haven't made great progress in this. Those professional bodies are individuals who are not licensed by the government; they're licensed by a self-regulating body, one of which the member across the way is a member of, as I understand it. Through the commission we've been putting some pressure on those self-regulating bodies to try to enforce high professional standards. I don't want to criticize them because I think that's a bit unfair, but I don't know of any specific actions those bodies have taken to discipline their members beyond what they have done in the past. It's not a complete write-off in that regard. But they haven't taken any specific action over the last year that I can point to today in policing themselves, if you will, with respect to Vancouver Stock Exchange activities.
It's not the subject here, but in terms of Mr. Matkin's inquiry, we look forward to any input professional bodies may have in terms of that question. That gives it, in a sense, a formal chance for those self-regulating bodies and the people who occupy positions there to pursue that if they will, and perhaps for Mr. Matkin or others to pursue that more generally. I'll say for the record, now that the member has reminded me, that I will try to see if that might be an appropriate forum to pursue this a bit more. The commission, in its ongoing work through Mr. Hyndman's office, has been liaising from time to time with those bodies, and it's a subject of concern. It was raised last year. I don't want to leave the committee with the impression that we just dropped it last year; rather, the commission has continued to work with those bodies. I just want to be clear that I can't think of any specific action that has taken place over the last year which might give the member more comfort. Perhaps as a member of that distinguished profession, the member might want to raise it within his own professional organization.
F. Gingell: Also, last year we had some discussions about measures that were being taken and looked at to increase broker accountability in trading and underwriting. There was a review going on about that last year, and just coming up to last year. Could the minister report on any actions that have taken place as a result of that review?
Hon. G. Clark: That's an area of great interest to me, and the member is correct that the brokerage community itself.... The distinction is not absolutely clear, but generally the Vancouver Stock Exchange is the self-regulatory body dealing with the brokerage community, and the commission has a slightly different role. The commission has recently, I'm just reminded, brought forth the first decision against a broker in several years, dealing specifically with some of the points the member raises. If the member wants, Mr. Hyndman can elaborate on that decision.
Furthermore, there have been several other things that I think are very encouraging. One is, of course, that Mr. Matkin is reviewing this question directly in terms of.... That's maybe the most significant part of his mandate. Secondly, I don't want to be quite as tough on the Vancouver Stock Exchange itself. They formed a special committee of the exchange, and just after the Matkin inquiry was announced, a rather voluminous report was published which tries to look at their own internal workings in terms of policing their own agency. It made several concrete suggestions. I don't want to overstate the case either, but, in part, they have taken this seriously, working with the government and talking to me. They've formed a committee. They worked very hard at it. Public governors were on that committee. They produced a very major report which they're acting upon. That report was fed into, if you will, the sort of Matkin process. A series of actions over this last year are very positive in terms of dealing with this specific question -- and may be more critical over the next year, as we see what comes out of the inquiry and any action that might be recommended. But we now have the VSC looking at the question. The commission is obviously very interested in it and may be expanding their envelope a little bit -- this latest decision on a broker indicates that. And then, of course, we have the inquiry which is dealing with all of these matters specifically. So I think there has been some fairly significant progress, and hopefully much more to come over the next year.
F. Gingell: Last year we were also discussing procedures that were underway to streamline regulatory requirements. This probably ties into the issues of acceptability of regulatory requirements of other jurisdictions and the ability to cross-file. Could the minister or the commission's chair advise us on what's happening in regard to these? Were there any improvements?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask Mr. Hyndman to answer that, because there has been a lot of work done by the commission on a national cross-filing system.
D. Hyndman: We've been working through Canadian Securities administrators with the other commissions, in particular the Ontario Securities Commission, to try and develop a process, which I think we are currently calling the cooperative review system. Major issuers -- so-called POP issuers -- would file with all the jurisdictions in Canada. One would be designated as the prime jurisdiction, and in the absence of any indications of irregularities, that jurisdiction would be the only one to review the prospectus filing. The other jurisdictions would simply rely on the prime jurisdiction review, and that will speed up the processing of the prospectus through the system. So the issuer doesn't need to get comments from all ten provinces before completing their prospectus.
[ Page 8639 ]
We haven't developed that yet. Some provinces are less enthusiastic about it than others. I won't name names, but it may be that we'll go ahead without all ten provinces. At the moment it's looking positive, and we may be able to get all the provinces involved and have something up and running hopefully by this time next year.
The Chair: Before you start, hon. member, we are somewhat past the normal time of adjournment or reporting for this committee. I understand the main House will be recessing for half an hour very soon now, and we must report in before they do that. I will leave it in your hands if we can wrap this up in the next question or two. Otherwise we will have to entertain a motion to rise and report progress.
F. Gingell: I think we can wrap this up in time to report. The discussion on the Vancouver Stock Exchange focused on questions about listing securities from other countries, specifically Asian and Pacific Rim countries, on the exchange. Could the minister explain to us exactly what role the British Columbia Securities Commission will have in relation to those listings? Will they be subject to our normal security regulation and filing requirements?
Hon. G. Clark: The answer is: yes. They are required to comply with all the rules of British Columbia, but there will clearly have to be some adjustments and exemptions from time to time as we move forward, as there are for special cases,. The Securities Commission has that power now. It will have to work on that, and has done some work in anticipation of this possibility to try to make sure that we do comply. I must say -- and make this very clear -- that it is critically important for the government, particularly with respect to the reputation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, that we don't engage in cross-listing with China or other countries, given the potential for problems associated with our reputation as a province. The commission is working very hard on this to make sure that if this goes ahead, we ensure that they comply with the rules of British Columbia.
[5:45]
F. Gingell: I take it from the minister's response that British Columbian investors will be protected, or their interests looked after, with respect to these corporations, exactly the same way that we hope that they are looked after with respect to Canadian corporations. There won't be any change.
Hon. G. Clark: That's a pretty sweeping statement by the member: that investors in the Vancouver Stock Exchange will be protected. I have yet to see that, but if the member means that to the extent that they are protected now, they will be protected by any new listings, then I'd say yes.
But I'm not sure that memory can take a lot of comfort in that. I don't mean to criticize the commissioner or anybody else. But I want to -- we have to -- be clear that any time you have a listing from a company whose business activities are in another country, more risk is always associated with that investor. I don't think it's possible for any commission to regulate as well those companies whose head office, place of business or both are in a foreign country. So I just want to be a little clear that I would say the investor is not as well protected by that kind of cross-listing. We will do the best we can to ensure that the rules apply across the board, but I'd say it's not quite as much.
F. Gingell: One of the issues that deals with Canadian and British Columbian corporate law is the requirement for companies to have their accounts and personnel audited for financial statements to their shareholders. Can -- and if they can, will -- those kind of rules be enforced with these corporations?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
F. Gingell: Just changing the subject somewhat, in 1992 we made amendments to certain acts in this province which allowed greater flexibility in dealing with interjurisdictional matters with respect to investigations by the Securities Commission. Can the minister please advise us if advantage has been taken of those changes? What kind of effect have they had on the operation of the Securities Commission?
Hon. G. Clark: We tried to, but we weren't successful in court and it's now under appeal. We tried to take advantage of those new rules and haven't been successful yet.
F. Gingell: The minister offered a moment ago for the chair of the Securities Commission to advise us on the one instance where the Vancouver Stock Exchange has taken action against one of their members. I wonder if you could just -- without dealing with names necessarily -- give us a feel for the issues that were involved?
D. Hyndman: I want to be cautious in saying too much about this case, because we haven't quite finished with it at the commission and it's also under appeal at the Court of Appeal. But like most of us,....
The Chair: Then that creates a problem with the standing orders, chair of the commission. It would not be appropriate for examination in this committee under the standing orders, if it's still before the courts.
D. Hyndman: So I should make no comment about it.
The Chair: That would help. Thank you.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again -- not this evening.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:53 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]