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)
THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 12, Number 14
[ Page 9039 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, we are hopeful today. With that, I call committee on Bill 76.
CULTURAL FOUNDATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
The House in Committee on Bill 76; E. Barnes in the chair.
On section 1.
C. Tanner: We are here today to address Bill 76, the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act.
Section 1 is interesting, not for what is in it, but what is not in it. I have no problem with section 1 as it now stands, except that in my opinion there is a very obvious definition or interpretation missing -- that of culture. Could the minister explain why that definition wasn't used somewhere in this bill, and why it is not in section 1?
Hon. D. Marzari: The definition of culture is described in section 11 of this act, and as the money will flow around this definition, it is an important one, because the foundation itself is an agent of the Crown and has a particular tax status.
C. Tanner: If that is the case, it would be normal in most legislation to say that culture will be defined as seen in section 11. We haven't done that, so it's left to the imagination of the people reading this act to figure out what we're talking about right from the beginning. The absence of the word "culture" and a definition of "culture" weakens the act and doesn't express the purpose that the minister, and the department that she administers, had in mind. I think it's a very noticeable absence, and I frankly don't think the explanation that the minister has given is sufficient.
Hon. D. Marzari: In section 11(3)(b) it's explicit that the foundation will "...use the funds or property for the purposes of supporting a public art gallery, a public museum or the performing, visual, literary or media arts or for the construction, maintenance or operation of a facility to house a public art gallery, a public museum or the performing, visual, literary or media arts." In fact, the definition of possible facilities or activities that this foundation can fund is included very well in section 11.
Defining it in the beginning of the bill would not be appropriate for the creation of an agent of the Crown. This is a funding agency, not a political structure. It is an agent intended to receive funds and to distribute them. It leaves as much flexibility as is needed in section 11 to meet the requirements laid down by Revenue Canada and the requirements of the statutes and the precedents that have been established in other foundations this province has established.
C. Tanner: The minister has put her finger on the problem I have with the lack of a definition of "culture." The other foundations in this province are specific. The hospital foundation specifically refers to the hospitals for which you are going to raise money; the education foundation specifically refers to those institutions that are going to benefit from that foundation. Because this is broad-brush and says a cultural foundation can be one of many, and because the board that will administer this piece of legislation has to be broad-brush too, this legislation would be stronger if the definition part in section 1 had said: "as defined in section 11(3)(b)."
Hon. D. Marzari: I take the member's points, but it's not appropriate to put it in definitions. It is appropriate to list the agencies, however, that this foundation can fund. The nature of an agent of the Crown is simply to structure a vessel through which money can flow. The money will be flowing to very specified activities which are outlined in section 11. To constrain the definition of what this foundation can do in the definitions any further would not be appropriate. Leaving it to the actual functions that can be funded is more appropriate for this bill.
V. Anderson: To follow up on that discussion, is the minister including multicultural and multi-ethnic activities within this?
Hon. D. Marzari: That's a very good case in point. There is no way in which multicultural or multi-ethnic activities, or any activity which reflects the diversity of cultures that we have in our community, would be excluded from this bill or from funding by the foundation. Agencies or activities which have not been accepted into the cultural mainstream in the province are excluded from the foundation funding. That is done by assessing each project, activity or facility in the light of what the province's cultural services branch funded the previous year.
V. Anderson: Following up on that, I understood part of the minister's response. She said: "...not been accepted into the cultural mainstream...." Many of the multicultural and multiethnic or performing groups have not come into the mainstream, and they're the very groups that often need support: groups not in the mainstream but trying to come in. CBC and others have given opportunity for groups that weren't in the mainstream. So that response concerned me.
Hon. D. Marzari: In the development of the criteria established with Revenue Canada and the federal government, it was clearly and explicitly stated -- as it is for other foundations -- that these foundations can only be established if they are part of the ongoing policy of provincial government. In this case, that is defined as those things, facilities, activities, agencies and performing groups that have been funded
[ Page 9040 ]
at least one year previous to the application to the foundation. This guarantees that the application is consistent with government policy or the cultural services branch peer adjudication process, which is one step removed from government. This is a point of accountability which I think is worth making: it guarantees that activities and facilities that have been funded, and therefore have gone through a process in the regular routine of things, can therefore be eligible for foundation funding.
[10:15]
I take the member's point. Cultural activities which reflect the diversity of cultures in our community are funded presently by government and to a certain extent by cultural services branch, and would therefore be eligible. Stating explicitly down to the finer detail is not what Revenue Canada had in mind when they offered us this list of what might be funded.
D. Mitchell: While we're on section 1, the interpretation section of this bill, I am just following up on the question raised by the member for Saanich North and the Islands about the definition of the word "culture". It certainly would be no mean accomplishment if the minister and her officials had come up with a simple, concise definition of the term "culture." I know that that would not be an easy feat.
Could the minister confirm that the intention of this bill would be to provide assistance through this cultural foundation for cultural agencies that are in the public domain, not the private domain? They are non-profit cultural industries that are publicly funded. Is that the intention?
Hon. D. Marzari: That is correct. Section 11(3)(b) outlines the nature of the public agencies, facilities, centres and activities that the Cultural Foundation may fund.
D. Mitchell: I think that's important to recognize before we proceed further with the bill in committee this morning. Certainly there are cultural industries in British Columbia that are also hoping to receive assistance from this minister at some point in terms of having the ability to receive donations from private individuals, organizations and to have tax deductibility applied as well. That's not clearly addressed in this bill, so that's another area we'll be going into.
Under the interpretation section, however, the term "municipality" is defined as including "the City of Vancouver and a regional district as defined in the Municipal Act". Could the minister inform the committee why the bias here is toward the city of Vancouver and regional districts and not specifically to individual municipalities or local governments throughout the province?
Hon. D. Marzari: I must say that the city of Vancouver, as you know, runs under the Vancouver Charter, not under the Municipal Act. So in stating that this foundation with government could establish relationships with municipalities, it has to be stated, too, that a relationship might be established with Vancouver -- since it is run by an act that is not the Municipal Act.
D. Mitchell: Could the minister then tell us if individual municipalities and local governments throughout the province would be ineligible for receipt of any funds from the foundation as a result of this restricted definition of municipality in this section?
Hon. D. Marzari: The section that pertains to potential relationships between the province, the Cultural Foundation and municipalities opens the door to those relationships; it does not restrict them. In fact, as this foundation does its business within the parameters laid down by the act, I'm hoping that it develops a flourishing relationship with municipalities and regional districts and works toward the development of a cultural base throughout the province with dollars that flow through the foundation and flow through the province.
D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, can the funds flow from the foundation only through a regional district or can they go directly from the foundation to a local government that might be represented by a regional district?
Hon. D. Marzari: The act is structured in such a way that the funds will flow from the foundation through to the province, and hopefully, they will be partnered with provincial dollars to build facilities. This act opens the door to similar partnerships being created with municipalities and regional districts around the province, based on contracts, partnerships and agreements that will be established by the foundation with the said municipalities.
C. Serwa: On section 1, the interpretation section, I have several questions. The first question is with respect to the definition of culture. Does the minister envision aboriginal groups being funded through this foundation? That's the first question.
Hon. D. Marzari: The act does not preclude such a relationship or such a funding pattern. The act simply tries to open doors for relationships with communities, municipalities and regional districts, and I'm sure that native nations might also come under that rubric. The important thing is that we keep doors open, and that the Cultural Foundation becomes a true foundation for arts funding in partnership with different levels of government.
C. Serwa: I have no difficulty with that, although I will say that there already is legislation, as well as a group that is specifically charged with funding native language heritage and culture.
For the awareness of the minister, the problem lies with the lack of definition of culture. When I chaired this particular group, I made the mistake of using "culture" in the context I had grown up with, as being artistic culture, and that is not the definition as the aboriginal people use that word. Culture to the
[ Page 9041 ]
aboriginal people is very similar to the word "environment" for us, which is everything. It's very expansive; literally everything is part of the culture. I don't think that is the intent of this piece of legislation. Unless we have some definition of culture in the interpretation section, I suggest that it is far too expansive because of the different connotations and interpretations of the word "culture" -- for aboriginal groups and non-aboriginal groups, for example. There is a valid concern that without a definition, it will be so expansive that it can be utilized and accessed for any purpose whatsoever -- utilized, for example, by the aboriginal people. It appears to me that the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands is really quite correct with his suggestion that a definition of culture, in spite of the challenge, should be restricted to the intent of the foundation with respect to artistic aspects and funding, and not take in the broad spectrum of culture. I think it should be, and I certainly encourage the minister to consider adopting a definition of culture, because I foresee problems with the lack of that in the interpretation section.
Hon. D. Marzari: I believe we canvassed this a few minutes ago. I urge the member to read section 11(3)(b), which basically restricts the activities which the foundation can fund, and further, a section which refers to the fact that the foundation cannot fund anything or any cultural activity which has not been previously funded through the cultural services branch of government.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
C. Tanner: There are two or three questions that I -- and other members, I think -- have about section 2. The first and most obvious one is that we recently discussed another bill concerning libraries, which is similar to this in many respects, and in this section in the library bill, there was a specified number of directors to be appointed -- it was 11. My question to the minister is: why has she used "of a prescribed number" in this bill -- prescribed, I suppose, by regulation -- when the Minister of Municipal Affairs was able to tell us in the House, in the library bill, the number of members that would be appointed to that board?
Hon. D. Marzari: A number is not mentioned in this foundation act, because a foundation seeks flexibility. If we want community representation, and municipalities or a regional district to come into the foundation for one purpose or another, as they develop contracts or partnerships for building of facilities, for example, it is important to allow for their representation on the board as they undertake their own fundraising projects within their own communities. When the bylaws are written, specific numbers will be attached to the foundation, but at this point we are reluctant to do that.
C. Tanner: Could the minister give us some indication...? We could have a board here of 100 people -- I am being a little facetious -- or we could have a board of three people. I think that the committee deserves at least some indication from the minister of what numbers she has in mind.
Hon. D. Marzari: It will not be a large board. It will be entirely voluntary. There is no fee schedule for payment of any members of this board. Obviously, this board is going to be comprised of people in the community who raise money for the arts, and who know the arts community well. In my mind, it is not necessary to specify a number for the board. We are certainly not looking at boards of 100 people; we are not looking at boards of 20. We are looking at a small, working board that is going to do its best to deliver money into the pocket of the arts community.
C. Tanner: We have tied it down a bit. We know it is not going to be 100, and we know it is not going to be two or three. Could the minister be a little more specific? Is it going to be more than 20?
D. Mitchell: While we are on this section -- in particular, the section that the member for Saanich North and the Islands was referring to, section 2(1) -- the members of the board are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Can the minister tell the committee whether or not any consideration was given to having the board of this foundation appointed by a body other than cabinet? In other words, to take away from any political overtones that the foundation board might have, was consideration given to having an agency independent of the political world of cabinet appoint the members of the foundation?
Hon. D. Marzari: Being a foundation, it is an agent of the Crown. As an agent of the Crown, its board must be designated and defined by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That is the reason the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appoints the board. Basically, that is the foundation of the foundation. Were this not to be, we would not have an agency of the Crown; we would not have the purpose for which this agency is being created, which is an enhanced tax-deductibility. Consequently, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will be making these appointments.
L. Hanson: In section 2, I have little difficulty with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council doing the actual appointment. If it were not done through that process, I think there is a danger of the board being captured by a particular interest. But I think there is a need for the board to be completely independent, sothat it doesn't have the connotations or the ability of political interference -- which we all have a bit of concern and maybe a small amount of cynicism about, as to what the end result might be.
[10:30]
In fairness, we would like to propose an amendment to section 2. Just as a bit of information, prior to this sitting I circulated to the minister a copy of the
[ Page 9042 ]
amendment I was going to propose. I would like to change the proposed amendment a little bit. I would therefore propose that we amend section 2(1) by adding the words, "from a list of nominees provided by a select standing committee of the Legislature," as opposed to the original one, which mentioned a specific committee of the Legislature. We think that that would give not only a bit of comfort in the independence of the council, but also the opportunity for the minister's input into the choosing of who should sit on that foundation board. It seems to me a compromise between a direct and total authority vested in the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and an opportunity for a committee of the House to provide a list of nominees from which the minister could choose her appointments to the board.
With that, I would like to hear the minister's response.
On the amendment.
Hon. D. Marzari: The amendment that the member puts forward is an interesting one. However, the very structure of the amendment and the selection process would take away from the nature of the Crown agency -- which this foundation is -- and the relationship between Revenue Canada and this foundation would be made somewhat tenuous. Technically speaking, it would no longer be a Crown agency designated by the Crown. Consequently, the amendment would not serve the purpose of furthering the foundation.
L. Hanson: I would like to point out to the minister that the decision as to who would sit on the board would clearly rest with the Crown, the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The amendment would merely propose a nomination slate to make a choice from. I would disagree that it takes away the authority of the Crown in the appointment process.
D. Mitchell: I would like to speak in favour of this amendment. I disagree with the minister's interpretation that this derogates in any way from the Crown's ability to appoint the board for the new Cultural Foundation of British Columbia. If we want the foundation to have credibility and independence, the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council should have the ability to make the formal appointment process. If the Cultural Foundation is going to be an agent of the Crown, the minister is quite correct that that is required. In this House, we believe that a foundation such as this one should be independent. We also believe in the use of legislative committees and would like to see those committees used more creatively. If a standing committee of this House could come up with a list of potential nominees that the minister could then recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, those appointments could be made from an impartial list that has been come up with in a non-partisan and all-party fashion, and that would be a creative use of select standing committees. It would also increase the integrity and the worth of the board of the Cultural Foundation.
My sense of the amendment, which is offered in a constructive spirit, is that it is more than interesting, as the minister said; I think it is definitely worthy of serious consideration. I can't understand the minister's comment that this in some way prohibits the foundation from being an agent of the Crown. It would not do anything of the sort. The minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would still have the ability to choose from the nominees whose names were brought forward from a select standing committee process. It seems to me to be a procedure that could work very well. I certainly would speak in favour of it and ask the minister to clarify the concern that she raised earlier, because it doesn't seem to hold water.
Hon. D. Marzari: The amendment increases an ambivalency around how membership comes about on the foundation. I am very much in favour, in general, of expanding and developing the roles of legislative committees. But in this particular relationship with Revenue Canada and in this particular business of the moulding and creation of a Crown agency that works with tax-deducted dollars, this is an instance in which the order-in-council and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must reign.
D. Mitchell: If the minister doesn't like the procedure that has been offered through the amendment by the member for Okanagan-Vernon, can she provide some insight, while we are on this amendment in this committee today, as to what procedure she sees as working better? As the minister responsible for this foundation, how does she propose to come up with a list of names? What procedure can she anticipate using that would be more impartial, fairer, and more able to come up with a better list of individuals than the one that's being proposed here?
Hon. D. Marzari: Because it's very important that this agent of the Crown, this agency that's a foundation, is structured appropriately, without ambivalency and without any question as to our relationship to Revenue Canada, I would suggest that the normal routines and the normal business of bringing names forward through an OIC are the appropriate ones here.
D. Mitchell: I would never accuse this government of being ambivalent in its appointments. This government, through its appointments to a number of agencies, boards, commissions and foundations, has shown that it is anything but ambivalent in terms of the nature of its appointees. But that's not the question here. We would like to see not ambivalence but impartiality in terms of the appointments. Here is a procedure that's creative, can be used and would not impede any regulation known to this member as far as Revenue Canada's ability to allow tax-deductibility for contributions to the foundation is concerned. Can the minister tell us what specific Revenue Canada regulation would be violated by the Legislative
[ Page 9043 ]
Assembly providing to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council a list of nominees from which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council could then appoint the board upon the establishment of the foundation? Surely the minister cannot cite a specific Revenue Canada regulation that would prohibit the procedure that is being suggested in the amendment before the committee.
Hon. D. Marzari: The relationship with Revenue Canada, which establishes this foundation and makes the establishment of this foundation worthwhile, stipulates a number of criteria that must be used in the selection of services, programs and facilities. They must be consistent with ongoing services and cultural programs that are funded by government. That is the nature of the relationship.
The business of creating a Crown corporation or agent, as we are doing here, is one which makes British Columbia very fortunate, for we are in the vanguard in this country. We are the first province to be able to develop a cultural foundation of this nature. Other provinces are looking at it; we are the ones that are doing it.
At this juncture in creating this Crown agency, I think it's very important that we live within the mandate and the spirit of the decisions made by the federal government, and that our actions and our membership on the foundation reflect the processes laid down for us.
D. Mitchell: Can the minister inform the committee what Revenue Canada regulation prohibits her or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from making the decision to appoint commissioners to the first board of the foundation based upon recommendations from a legislative committee? Can she tell us what specific Revenue Canada regulation explicitly prohibits this amendment and the spirit of this amendment from proceeding?
Hon. D. Marzari: Section 118 of the federal Income Tax Act basically stipulates what constitutes a Crown agency. I believe that the member will find the spirit and intent of the decisions made here within that section.
D. Mitchell: Can the minister tell us whether that section of the statute she refers to specifically prohibits recommendations from a legislative committee for appointments to the board of this foundation?
Hon. D. Marzari: There is every possibility that Revenue Canada would not regard this as a Crown agency if we strayed from stipulated aspects and criteria for a Crown agency. It's as simple as that.
D. Mitchell: The real issue here is not whether or not the minister can hide behind Revenue Canada regulations and provide an interpretation that is so restrictive that the government can't assume an impartial stance. I think the real issue here is one of confidence in the new board of the Cultural Foundation that she's seeking to establish by this act. If she wants to instil confidence, surely she is going to consider names from some source to serve on the first board of the foundation.
Does the Revenue Canada section that she referred to suggest that the New Democratic Party, for instance, cannot recommend names for appointment to the board? Would that also be in the spirit? The minister is really hiding behind a federal statute to prevent consideration of a creative proposal for appointment of commissioners. The minister need not hide behind a federal statute. If she doesn't like the idea of a legislative committee coming forward with some names, she should just say so -- 'fess up. Be honest, and maybe we can move on to the rest of the bill, but don't hide behind federal statutes. If the minister was straightforward with this committee and just told us that she didn't like the idea of not being able to make the appointments herself, we could understand that -- in the context of the appointments that this government has made time and time again, which are certainly anything but ambivalent appointments.
The minister is hiding behind a very restrictive interpretation of Revenue Canada regulations here, which surely would never prohibit a list of names coming forward to the minister for consideration simply because they came from an all-party committee of the Legislature. The minister really hasn't answered the question. She hasn't tried to deal with the amendment in the spirit in which it was offered, which is really very unfortunate. It is unfortunate that the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia board would be established behind these kinds of very lame excuses.
Hon. D. Marzari: I must say that I or the minister would be more than happy to accept lists of names, and to talk and work with any number of people throughout this province who care about and have devoted their lives to culture and cultural activities. Lists of names have to pass through the process of selection, of course, but it is extremely important for the purposes of this Crown agency that a prescribed manner of developing lists not be incorporated into the statute.
C. Tanner: I should tell the minister that the Liberal opposition will be supporting this amendment for the simple reason that the appointment of those members is what the federal government wants to see under the Income Tax Act. How those members are recommended is not pertinent to that appointment. In fact, in our view, this is a good way to give the corporation a non-partisan board. I don't have any problem with the amendment, and we will support it.
L. Hanson: I suspect that our argument is not reaching the minister. I could agree with the minister's observations if this motion was similar to the one presented in the recent Library Foundation of British Columbia Act, which allowed a body totally outside of government to provide the list of names. I suspect that the minister's concern about the federal government is based on very little fact, because the federal government would not look at a committee of the Legislative
[ Page 9044 ]
Assembly as anything but a committee of government. The relationship is totally different there. I don't think the minister's concern with the federal Income Tax Act really carries much validity. It is obvious that the minister is adamant that the amendment will not be accepted. I think it is an error in judgment, and certainly an error in argument from the minister.
[10:45]
Amendment negatived on division.
C. Tanner: There is another part of section 2 that concerns me, which we have discussed prior to this, and that is section 2(3): "The Lieutenant Governor in Council must designate a member to be chair of the board." During the initial discussion of this bill, I made it very clear that I am concerned that this board doesn't have the ability of most boards in the province to appoint their own chair. Will the minister give this committee some assurance as to how the chair will be appointed, and what recommendations she will accept as to who that person will be?
Hon. D. Marzari: I gather it's consistent with the University Foundations Act, the Library Act and other foundations that have been established. It's basically routine procedure that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in establishing a foundation of this nature shall designate the chairperson of each board. That does not speak to how the board may wish to have a certain person act as chair; it does not preclude the board itself having some say in it. But -- as the debate proceeded on the Library Foundation just two days ago -- the member should be aware that, generally speaking, very often a designated person or chair builds boards of this nature. It may be that this particular clause gives us some flexibility to be able to designate a chair and then have the board developed. On the other hand, there's no real reason why a board, once established, could not make recommendations to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for appointment of a chair. This does not preclude that. I am in favour of moving along with the existing clause, since it's consistent with other foundations.
C. Tanner: I don't know whether the minister had a bad night last night or is deliberately misunderstanding two or three things being said from this side of the House. The question I asked the minister was: would she accept a recommendation from the board to appoint their own board chairman? She skirted the question.
I think it's important that the board create loyalty among themselves by having the ability to say: "Of the members who sit here, we would like that person to be our chairman." I think the minister has indicated in the past that she would be willing to accept that recommendation from a board she's had the ability to appoint. I am not detracting from the fact that it has to be the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who makes the appointment. What I'm suggesting and would like to hear the minister say is: "Yes, I would accept such a recommendation from the newly appointed board."
Hon. D. Marzari: I think this minister would be very interested in working with a board that was working well together, and in ensuring that the board was chaired by someone who was compatible with the board, had leadership qualities and perhaps had even helped develop the board. I do not believe that this is appropriate to be written into a statute, however, or as an amendment. I can add, though, that this minister is more than interested in developing a healthy, compatible and well-led board. And that comes about when a board is led by someone whom the board helps choose.
C. Tanner: The minister is moving there; she's almost there. Could she make the further commitment to this committee that if the recommendation comes from the board as to who their chairman will be, she will accept it?
Hon. D. Marzari: No, I will not make that commitment to this committee. But I will assure this committee that this foundation's board will be a compatible board that works well together -- that may have differences, but that will work together to create the pool of funding desperately needed in our province for cultural activity.
C. Tanner: Perhaps I pushed a little hard there; the minister backed off, I thought. Let me assure the minister that this member will be keeping a very close watch on what happens on that board. If the board members have a problem with this minister, they should come and see me.
D. Symons: I have problems with two issues that have been brought up. I'll take the second one first, because I would go a step further than my colleague here by saying that I believe the board should have the power to appoint the chair. It seems that you're reserving to yourself or the government.... The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is going to appoint all the members, but then doesn't have enough faith in those they have already chosen to choose their own chair. It seems to be a bit of a slap in the face for the people you appointed in the first place that you don't have faith in them to make a good choice for the chair. I'll just leave that comment.
If we go back to section 2 on the appointment of the foundation, in an answer you gave earlier in this debate, you seemed to be saying that the reason that we're not going to have a specified number is that you are going to be rotating people in and out of this as issues of special interest groups or regional groups come before the foundation. That bothers me a little, because what I hear you saying is that this foundation is going to be temporarily made up of special interest groups. I don't think that is the way we should run a foundation. I think there must be certainty and continuity in the group of people who are going to be running the foundation if it's going to be run in a very sound financial way and serve the public. I have real concerns here with a board that is not going to have any continuity in it, because that board will need the
[ Page 9045 ]
expertise to handle the moneys that will come to it in a responsible and economic manner and to use the moneys for the benefit intended. I wonder if the minister might respond to that.
C. Tanner: I hope that the minister might respond to my friend's question. If she's not going to, perhaps she could answer one for me on section 2(6): "Members serve without remuneration other than the payment of prescribed expenses...." Can the minister just assure us that "prescribed" is as per the regulations?
Hon. D. Marzari: This foundation will not be writing up its own regulations. They will be serving without pay, but I believe they will be receiving the normal travel expenses that are granted other OIC appointments.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.
On section 7.
D. Mitchell: Just a brief question on section 7, which confers borrowing powers on the new foundation. Could the minister provide the rationale for why the board of the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia is going to require borrowing powers?
Hon. D. Marzari: Grants to this particular foundation, as in the case of most foundations that are established, would be made in annual or other instalments. In other words, the revenue of foundations of this nature very often comes from the States in lump sums over periods of time. So promissory notes are held, and if the foundation wants to get into building a facility or developing an arts complex, it would be able to take out a loan using the notes as collateral. I can assure the member that this will all be done with the best investment and due diligence, and we will be using our own Finance ministry, with the possibility in another section of actually hiring investment counsel. The business of being able to borrow is very important when taking on a multimillion-dollar theatre in Vernon or a special project at Whistler.
D. Mitchell: Just one more question on this. I see that under section 7 the foundation may also raise funds by the issue of debentures. Are there any limitations being placed upon the amounts of moneys that can be raised by the foundation, and the amount of indebtedness that can be incurred by the new Cultural Foundation of British Columbia? What kind of accountability is there going to be in terms of reporting to the public, either through this Legislature or through reports on the level of debt incurred by the foundation?
Hon. D. Marzari: I believe the debt is restricted here. The Financial Administration Act does put restrictions upon such activities, and annual general statements are, obviously, ordered from all foundations, as they are from all public bodies.
D. Mitchell: One further comment, Mr. Chairman. The minister says that there is a limit under the Financial Administration Act. What that limit would be is certainly not evident in Bill 76. There's no reference to the Financial Administration Act in this bill. Could the minister tell us what level of indebtedness is going to be allowed for the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia to support its activities?
Hon. D. Marzari: The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and the Financial Administration Act place definite parameters and create an envelope for borrowing activity. I can assure the member that due diligence is properly done. No foundation would be allowed to exceed the amount which is in the pocket or in the notes that are provided for it. I believe we have due diligence built into the foundation act and into the Financial Administration Act, under which it would be routinely investigated.
D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I hear what the minister is saying, and I trust that it's correct, but I was simply asking if there is a dollar-value limit in terms of the indebtedness. Can the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia go into debt by $100 million? I know that's ridiculous; I sure hope it is, Mr. Chairman. Is there a limit on the amount of bank indebtedness or the number of debentures?
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The Minister of Finance indicates that it's set by order-in-council. But what is going to be set by order-in-council? Is there any limitation? I think we have a right in committee today to understand what the intention is. Is the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia going to be a small foundation, with perhaps a few million dollars, that can assist local cultural institutions by funding through municipalities, or is this going to be one of the larger foundations in the province of British Columbia, in terms of the dollar value that's going to be prescribed by order-in-council?
Hon. D. Marzari: I would like to think that this will be one of the larger foundations established by the province of British Columbia. However, the goals have not yet been set. In fact, this is simply, as I said at the beginning of this debate, a vessel into which money might flow. How we promote and develop it is going to depend very much on the membership of the board.
There will obviously be constraints under the rules of due diligence and under the regulations of the Financial Administration Act, and borrowing authorities will be clearly circumscribed by the foundation's involvement with government. The foundation will not overextend itself, because due diligence will....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Marzari: I can't give you a range, but I would assume that the foundation would not be
[ Page 9046 ]
borrowing more than it has in its coffers or in its promissory notes.
L. Hanson: This clause is so typical of the legislation that we've seen brought in over the last few months. The alleged purpose of the legislation is to provide an opportunity for British Columbians -- or people from other parts of Canada or the world -- who want to support culture in British Columbia to make those donations and get the benefit of the tax relief as a result of those donations.
[11:00]
Then we have section 7 slipped into the bill, which says that the board may borrow on behalf of and in the name of the corporation. I suppose that would be reasonable if you had first established that the Cultural Foundation was not there only to accept donations from the public and to get the benefit of the tax situation. We now have clause 7 creating a Crown corporation that has the capacity and the ability to build whatever structures it wants around the province, to accumulate debt, to acquire land, and all of those other things. While we would hope that the borrowing power through the Finance minister's administration of the Financial Administration Act would be limited to funds that it could only repay through the donation process, there is no guarantee of that. We can see here, with that simple little section in the bill, that the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia could in fact become another B.C. 21.
I'm not trying to paint a picture of a bogeyman out there waiting to pounce on us, because I think the minister is sincere when she tells us the original intent of the bill; but this government continually slips little sections like that in, which would make it very scary if they were to take advantage of all of these things. Even though the government denies it, it appears to us that with the creation of these clauses in these bills that are publicized as benevolent, wonderful little things that are going to help -- which I don't disagree with -- all of a sudden, we have another Crown corporation that doesn't report to this Legislature. Yes, it provides a report. I suspect that maybe at some point we'll see a line item in the Ministry of Tourism's estimates that says $100,000 to the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia. And what for? To repay borrowing that the Cultural Foundation created in the past. That's the sort of thing that this government appears to be doing.
I don't see this bill as terribly obnoxious, except for that clause. It opens up so many things for the government that were never the intention of the minister who sponsored this bill -- and I give this minister credit. I suspect that those comments are not going to get anything other than being written in Hansard. But that is the reason this session has taken so long, and the reason it will continue until there has been thorough debate of every clause of every bill.
C. Tanner: During second reading debate the Liberal opposition made a suggestion to the minister, which I thought I saw her making a note of, that lottery funds should be used as a kickoff, and apportioned to match those amounts that have been donated, to lift this foundation off the ground, so to speak. It's a suggestion which merits consideration, and frankly, I don't know where else to talk about it.
Interjections.
C. Tanner: Aha, I've got them going here. I don't know where else to talk about it but here. Would the minister indicate to the House how successful she has been in convincing her fellow cabinet members of that suggestion?
The Chair: The hon. member is asking about a matter which is clearly inappropriate for a committee. We are on section 7.
Hon. D. Marzari: On the comment the hon. member from the third party made about this session being carried on too long because of inappropriate legislation, I just want to reassure the member from the third party that the language around the ability of this foundation to borrow has been lifted completely, carte blanche, from the University Foundations Act, which his government brought in four or five years ago. The University Foundations Act, the hospitals foundation act, the Vancouver Museum Foundation Act and the Library Foundation Act, which we passed the other day, all contain within them the ability for these foundations to borrow -- tightly prescribed, however, by the Financial Administration Act and regulations laid down by the Ministry of Finance.
L. Hanson: I hope the minister and the Minister of Finance, in his remarks, are not suggesting that the Cultural Foundation of B.C. should be put in the same classification as the universities, with the acquisition of assets and borrowing power that universities have. I suspect that this might be a slightly different organization. I think there is a much different justification to be an entity in itself -- for borrowing, construction and acquisition of assets -- for a university than for the Cultural Foundation. The whole purpose of the bill was publicized to us as a vehicle to allow the cultural community to acquire donations, getting the benefit of the tax credits. That is completely acceptable, understandable and reasonable. But not the other part.
C. Tanner: Far be it for me to correct the Chairman, but the reason for my question vis-�-vis the lottery funds was to give this foundation the ability to have some financial strength and backing by the allotment of funds from the Lottery Corporation to this foundation, so that we could have something on which they could then go and borrow. It seems to me that lottery funds were originally intended for that very specific purpose, and somewhere in the last year and a half they've been lost in that great mire called the general revenue fund.
Specifically, I think it would be an inducement to those people who want to make donations to this foundation if they knew that every dollar they put in was matched by a dollar from the Lottery Fund.
[ Page 9047 ]
Hon. L. Boone: I'm rising today to clarify something, because the member over there keeps talking about the Lottery Fund. The member has to understand that there is no such thing as the Lottery Fund. Last year, through legislation, the Lottery Fund was dissolved. Half of the moneys from lotteries go into health care, and the other half go into general revenue. There is no lottery fund upon which to draw to give moneys to anybody. I want that clarified for the record here, because the members opposite seem unable to grasp the concept that there is no fund out there that they can draw on. So please make that clarification in your mind, and recognize that the dollars that come into this ministry have to come through general revenue. There is no such thing as the Lottery Fund anymore.
The Chair: I appreciate the hon. minister's comments with respect to the guidelines while we are in committee. All members should keep in mind that they must be strictly relevant in committee. This is not second reading of the bill.
C. Tanner: I won't pursue the subject. I'm a bit disappointed that the minister would allow another minister to usurp her position on this, because I suspect the Minister of Tourism and Minister Responsible for Culture agrees with me and is at odds with the rest of the members of her cabinet. It seems to me it is pertinent to this conversation. However, this bill is ineffective without this ability to borrow, so I have no problem with this particular section.
H. De Jong: I have a question that pertains to the money being borrowed. The minister stated that the foundation could borrow equal to the amount that people invested in or donated to that fund as a base funding. As I understand, it, they would draw interest from that to do other things. If in fact they can borrow to that total amount invested, that would then deplete the fund if there was no further replenishment.
The situation last week -- when they purchased that half-painted barn door, you might say, in Ottawa -- raised considerable concern among the people of British Columbia, and perhaps among a lot of Canadians, who would normally donate to such a cause. If the foundation makes purchases of that nature, and upsets the people in British Columbia who would normally donate, how will the minister deal with that situation? The moneys initially donated would not be to repay a loan, even though the foundation borrowed the money against that asset.
Hon. D. Marzari: The foundation is not buying assets. The foundation is not buying barn doors. The foundation is structured to be a fundraising agency. Its credibility depends upon its credibility with the financial community, the cultural community, and the government with respect to its being able to live within its terms, agreements and statutes -- under the Financial Administration Act. When it takes out a loan, it will be regulated by a number of factors, including what people will give money for, and what the Financial Administration statute says about how much money can be borrowed. It is obvious to me that you don't borrow more than you have. The reason for this section 7 is basically to allow the Cultural Foundation, when it chooses a project, and it knows it has money coming in from estates in lump sums over time, to borrow against those. It can borrow against moneys not yet received, but which are promised and bona fide.
The business of the money being in the bank or in promissory notes will be carefully regulated. All foundations are regulated by the Financial Administration Act, and it is very important that the foundation remain credible. If it doesn't remain credible, it crumbles. We all suffer if that happens. Those who suffer the most are the agencies and the artists themselves, who have to make their plans for capital construction or for next year's season on the basis of what they think is going to come in. It is very important that we maintain the balance between the cultural spending of this province on a year-to-year basis and the cultural dollars that may flow through the foundation into cultural activities in all of our communities.
[11:15]
We are not talking about a foundation that is flying out the door to acquire art works. Nor are we talking about a foundation that holds real estate, or paves highways, or paints barn doors. We are simply talking about a Crown agency that creates a vessel to collect and hold money. It makes some decisions on the basis of what government already invests in, in terms of the performing arts, literary arts, media arts, public art galleries and public museums. So it is very important that the whole House understand that the credibility of this agency is extremely important for the future of culture in the province.
H. De Jong: I just have a short comment. I appreciate the minister talking about the credibility of the foundation, because that is the whole idea of credibility: money which is donated for a specific purpose stays there for that particular purpose. I would have no problem with the foundation being able to borrow annually to the amount of revenue that can be derived from that base fund. But I have real problems with the foundation being able to borrow against its total assets or its total fund.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
C. Tanner: Just a quick question to the Minister of Finance as to whether he recognizes the last part of the section that says: "...and the board may make investments that a prudent person would make." I was wondering whether he'd like to comment on that, and whether it's a phrase that he recognizes and is cognizant of.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
[ Page 9048 ]
C. Tanner: I express some concern about section 9 in that it protects the members of the board from being sued for acting imprudently. What concerns me a little is that it doesn't protect the public from members on that board who are going to do just what suits their particular artistic bent. I don't know how you write that into the act, but it seems to me that that protection is warranted and should be in the act as well. Could the minister comment on that, please?
Hon. D. Marzari: The section is consistent with sections in the University Act and the Library Foundation Act in providing some indemnification to the board, as I understand it. The board is made up of fundraisers. The board is made up of financial people who are pulling dollars into the arts. These are people who are going to be interested in being treated the same way as any other foundation member might be treated under our laws and under the laws across this land for foundation members, and indemnification for boards is an important part of this.
C. Tanner: The member missed my point. This section is to save harmless those members of the board who might inadvertently do something wrong. I am asking what there is to protect the public from those people who get on the board to achieve their own ends. Most people who get involved in some sort of cultural or artistic activity do so because of a particular interest -- whether it be through a symphony, museum or art centre -- and those are the people who the minister is going to have to appeal to to sit on the board. They might have the financial background and ability to raise money, but one of the reasons that motivates the person to sit on the board is an artistic interest. As a consequence, this board is not -- unlike the hospital boards, which are specific to each hospital, or the university foundations, which is specific to each university.... This is a universal board, and consequently it is going to attract people with a specific interest. There is no protection for the public from those people pursuing their specific interests, and I am suggesting to the minister that this is the section where that should appear.
Hon. D. Marzari: I think that the member should look at section 11 once again and see how the activities which the board can engage in are thoroughly prescribed. I can also assure the member and the House that there will be conflict-of-interest guidelines, which are routine, applied against members of the board so that people who might be able to benefit financially and personally from the activities of the board will not be on the board, or will not be in the room when votes are taken. That's absolutely mandatory as far as I am concerned, and as far as this government is concerned. Section 11 shows that this is not a universal cosmic foundation. Section 11 very much does control and curtail the activities of the board and what it can fund, and you will see from rereading section 11 that we are engaging in public art, institutions and agencies that have been previously funded by government.
C. Tanner: It is exactly because of what it says in section 11, and the details and specifics there, that my point is made. I'm not talking about personal self-interest. I'm talking about interest in a particular organization which a particular member of the board might promote, to the disadvantage of other organizations. If a member of a symphony organization got on the board, for example, and grants were made out of proportion to the symphony organization because of the influence that member had and because of his interest in that particular artistic endeavour, then the board could get pulled out of kilter by the fact that members of the board -- there might be more than one of them -- could put more money into those interests than the other interests that are supposed to be represented in section 11. There is no protection for the public against that happening. It seems to me that section 9 would have been an appropriate place to put some protection for us against that.
Hon. D. Marzari: The hon. member is slandering a board that hasn't even been set up yet. Let me assure him that in the cultural services branch and with our B.C. Arts Board we have a very fine adjudication process that has worked for the artists, the galleries and the cultural community in this province for many years. It is very apparent that when you do peer adjudication and make decisions about who gets what, you do it with fairness in mind. I can guarantee the member that with the checks and balances that are there in terms of what the board can fund, and with the board's conflict-of-interest guidelines and just common sense, there will be no skewing of funds. It is no different from the University Foundations Act or the hospitals foundation act, truly no different in terms of function. It's a fundraising agency -- that is its function -- and a decision-making agency that also distributes, with the previous spending patterns of government as its focal point. We are not dealing here with a board that can run amok with cultural funding.
C. Tanner: I'll have one last go at it. Obviously the minister doesn't agree with me. However, she did give us a few commitments we can use. The minister should go back and look at the hospitals foundation act and the University Foundations Act, because she will see in the interpretation the names of those organizations that are the beneficiaries. When we were talking about section 1, that's why I said culture should be defined. In this act it is not. It's a universal board for all sorts of arts and cultural activities. In the foundations of the hospitals and the universities, they specifically say the universities and the hospitals that are the beneficiaries. It's different from this. You're going to find out in a couple of years' time.
Sections 9 to 17 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
[ Page 9049 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Bill 76, Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 45.
HEALTH AUTHORITIES ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 45; D. Streifel in the chair.
On section 1.
L. Reid: I rise on committee stage of Bill 45. Certainly this House is aware of the concerns that the official opposition has regarding this piece of legislation. Over many days, we attempted to have this piece of legislation deferred for six months. We tried to have it put to a committee, and we tried to have better legislation written for British Columbia. That was not an option this government saw fit to exercise, and we will be attempting to extensively amend this act in committee stage.
We do not believe this is good legislation. We don't believe it sets clear lines of authority. We don't believe it has any direct measurement of results built into it. We don't believe it's going to get us nearer the objective, which should be better health care in British Columbia. We are not convinced that this is going to provide better direct medicine. It's certainly going to provide increased bureaucracy and administration costs. All of those issues have not been resolved in second reading discussion and continue to plague this piece of legislation.
The opposition would still like to see this legislation taken to the people for at least six months, and we are hoping that we can come back....
Interjection.
L. Reid: The minister has asked if we are still in second reading. We are still discussing the principle of this bill, and will continue to do so throughout committee stage. We do not believe it is decent legislation.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. We are on section 1.
L. Reid: I am going to refer my remarks to the explanatory notes, because I believe that does fit under the discussion of section 1. I am going to specifically pose questions to the minister in terms of the explanatory note, which says: "This bill creates the framework within which this transition process will proceed until 1995." We have some questions about that, because I believe those questions pertain directly to section 1, which is the definitions section of this act.
The first question is one that has been raised by many British Columbians. Is 1995, as stipulated, going to allow this process to be in place for elections in the 1996 civic election cycle? We are trusting that the election process will be in place. We are wondering why it will take until 1996 for that to happen.
Hon. E. Cull: As I said during second reading debate, this is transitional legislation. It is designed to allow a number of communities in the province to establish health councils in the next year, so that they can pilot the models that are now being worked on in up to 90 different communities in this province. They can provide us with the information we will need to develop the permanent legislation, which will be introduced in the next session. The reason that the elections will not take place until 1996 is that it is far more economical to piggyback these elections on a municipal election process, in that there will be no need then to have separate returning officers, ballot systems, ballot boxes, voting places, etc. The next municipal election will be in the fall of 1996.
L. Reid: Will the hospital boards be replaced by the regional boards? You state in this explanatory note that the transition process will proceed. Will we see regional boards replace hospital boards prior to 1996?
Hon. E. Cull: We're on section 1, which is "Definitions." That matter is dealt with later in the act. I suggest that we deal with it under the appropriate section.
L. Reid: We are dealing with it under section 1, because it is inherent in the definitions section that we understand exactly where this minister intends to go. We believe that the definitions section allows for three parallel systems: the Ministry of Health, the regional board and the community council. We believe that those three separate systems will be delivering the same services. Is that your intention, hon. minister?
[11:30]
Hon. E. Cull: No, it is not.
L. Reid: In terms of where we wish to go under the definitions section, we need some clarification, and we're looking particularly at the Medical Services Plan and its operations in terms of claim-processing. Will that continue to happen under your regionalization model?
Hon. E. Cull: That's not covered under this section.
L. Reid: The reason it is brought forward at this time is that I believe, as many British Columbians do, that the definitions section is critical to the understanding of this bill. If the minister doesn't wish to provide the clarification, we will continue to amend in debate for many hours.
[ Page 9050 ]
In terms of where we're headed with this piece of legislation, it is our understanding that this legislation is going to allow for 20 regional health boards and approximately 80 community health councils. Is that the minister's intention?
Hon. E. Cull: The legislation will allow for a number of regional health boards. We are starting with the boundaries of the existing health units, and there are 21 of those. So 20, 22 or 25 may be the number. As the member knows, there is discussion going on around the province right now. A number of communities have indicated that they wish to form a region that would be separate from the health unit region they are in, and we are working with them to determine if that is feasible. We're very supportive of the communities themselves determining the boundaries of the region, and just because the health unit boundaries exist doesn't mean that they would be logical for health regions. Therefore we are working with the communities to make sure that the regions reflect the reality of the communities.
G. Wilson: The nature of this act makes it important to establish several things in the first section in definitions, because it's going to define how we approach and attack some of the other sections. It seems that there are two new authorities coming in: one is a board, and one is a council. The definition needs to be very clear. It's unfortunate that the definition here is simply defined under section 4 in one case and section 6 in the other. I know we don't like to jump ahead, but often in the definitions section we have to, because otherwise when we get to sections 4 and 6, we're likely to get the response that we should have brought that up when we were discussing definitions and we can't bring it up now.
Rather than do that, can the minister just very briefly explain the principal difference between the board and the council? Could the minister also define the definition of "community" under section 6? It looks like it is going to be defined as a part of this new regional concept and may in fact be outside of the parameters of a village, town or municipality, which we generally think of as a community.
Hon. E. Cull: Let me start by defining the board. Then I'll move to the community health council and back up in the system again. The regional health board encompasses a number of community health councils. The definition of the regional health board is the area that is covered by all of the community health councils that are a part of the board. A board is made up of the building blocks, if you like -- the community health councils.
The boundaries of the region are those community health councils in an area that actually feel that they are a region. If I can use an example from the northern half of the province, we have two health units -- one to the west, one to the east. The centre, which includes the communities of Burns Lake, Houston, Smithers, Granisle and Hazelton, believes that it really is a region in and of itself. They have suggested that rather than being split down the middle, half going to the west and half going to the east, they are a region. We are looking at that and are very sympathetic to the idea that they probably are a region. A region, then, is those communities that believe that they are in fact a region, and then the areas that make sense.
The boards will be composed of members from the community health councils within their region. The only way that those boards get structured is from the members coming from the health councils in the region and from some appointments that can be made directly to those councils.
What is a community health council? The community health council is a smaller unit that represents a community, and in some cases, it may be a municipality or a village. I'm going to continue to use examples, because I think they're most useful. Here in Victoria, where we have a regional board established, they are looking at four community health councils. One of those community health councils would be the core municipalities, so it would include four municipalities, which have a history of doing a lot of things together and working together in other areas besides health. There would be three other councils representing other parts of this region, each of which naturally feels like a community. So that's an example where the council might not be the village or the town or the city. Going back to the example in northern British Columbia I just gave, though, we would expect community health councils in that area to be in Burns Lake and Granisle, and perhaps any surrounding area around it that has a rural population.
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
I'm giving you all of this to show you the incredible variety that communities are coming forward with. Our sincere desire at this point is not to shove them into boxes and say: "Sorry, you can't have that model, because we've already got it all worked out and this is what it's going to be." This legislation is here so that we can try some of these things over the next year and let the natural common sense of communities around this province with their wide geographic variation try some things out and see if they will work.
One of the other examples which I find really quite interesting is on the northern end of Vancouver Island, where four or five small municipalities are going to form one council. So we have a case where a council could be the community as we normally know it, the village or the town; we have a case where it could be less than the large village or town -- Vancouver, for example, might have more than one community health council; and we have cases where it can be more than one. Those are reflective of the communities themselves. I hope that I can leave the differences in their roles and responsibilities until sections 4 and 6, because that is when we get into the details of what they are intended to do.
Perhaps the most important concept right now is to note that the community health councils are going to be setting the priority and for the most part delivering the services in their community. They will be the direct contact body for the services providers and the patients.
[ Page 9051 ]
G. Wilson: I think this definition section is kind of important to deal with. We will get into the more detailed kind of explanation of its function in the appropriate sections. I know that the minister, as a geographer, knows that the textbook definition of a region -- at least the one that I have always used -- is a set of contiguous areas with areal homogeneity. The problem in this particular definition is that regions are often not contiguous, at least not on the land surface. So we run into a difficulty under this definition in terms of services. If there isn't a great deal of flexibility in the determination of a region, some areas that are divided under this definition.... For example, Coast-Garibaldi, which I am most familiar with, and which includes Squamish, the Sechelt Peninsula and Powell River, may be defined as a region as it is constituted under Coast-Garibaldi, but there is nothing contiguous about it. You can't get from one to the other without a great deal of travel and difficulty.
So I am pleased to hear the minister say -- and I would like to emphasize again -- that we are dealing with an inconsistent definition by design and not simply because we haven't thought it through.
Hon. E. Cull: The examples that the member raises, with respect to regions that have been designed for purposes other than meeting that geographic definition of contiguous land area are things that we are looking at very clearly. For reasons that I am not quite sure I understand, the administrative boundaries have been drawn across a body of water in the areas of the Sunshine Coast, Powell River, the northern end of Vancouver Island, the central coast and Mount Waddington. The Skeena-Queen Charlottes is another example of an area that is very geographically remote from the region it is in. Those are things that we are sensitive to. If those communities, in looking at their patterns of interaction, determine that this region -- which may work fine for the regional district or for the administrative purposes of the Ministry of Forests or Health or anybody else -- is not going to work in this case, then that's what we want to be able to respond to. That's why, thinking back to your second reading debate, we haven't defined those regions rigidly in here as was done when the regional district act came into place 30 years ago. Some of that has to be sorted out by the people there.
It's not only water that creates the geographic region. When you look at the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, Lillooet is on the other side of a range of mountains. We have places like the Nass Valley or Fort Nelson, which are 300 miles up the road from its closest major centre. Sometimes the sheer geography of this province puts some communities in a different region from where they've been administratively.
G. Wilson: I accept that. When we get into the function of the regions, we might talk about how we overcome some of those problems and what's intended in this legislation to overcome those problems, given that there's a public process underway -- at least I understand there's a public process underway.
With respect to section 1, I understand why you might want to put a health district, local board, etc., under "public body." I understand why you might put boards, regional hospital districts, and so on, there. I wonder why you would include (b), "a hospital as defined by section 1 of the Hospital Act," and (d) "a Provincial mental health facility," under the definition of public body, particularly in light of the direction that's being taken with this legislation. It seems to be inconsistent to have it included in a definition of "public body." Could you explain?
Hon. E. Cull: This particular definition is a very significant one with respect to the legislation, but it has only one significance. Its significance comes up under section 15, where the authority for these new councils to do things is actually obtained. Because this is transitional legislation, rather than writing out many pages of legislation that gives the responsibilities to the health council, for example, and says that they can do all these things, we are actually allowing them to selectively take on responsibilities under existing acts, such as the Health Act, the Hospital Act or the Hospital District Act. So the definition of "public body" ties into section 15, and it will become very apparent there. I've had a number of questions about why this group isn't defined here, and why that group isn't defined there. It has nothing to do with the boundaries; it has everything to do with the responsibilities of the councils. Contrary to the fears that members on the opposite side have raised, no councils will be established that do not merge responsibilities of existing bodies. So if, for example, our very first health council happens to be in a small community where the functions of the hospital board and the union board of health are being merged, the health council will get those responsibilities under the existing acts through this definition linked to section 15.
G. Wilson: Okay, maybe we'll discuss that point more fully then.
The second question I had is that there seems to be an interesting mixture of publicly elected entities appointed under this question of "public body." Under the definition, has the minister given thought to the question of "public" and to the extent to which they really are public and the extent to which they are, essentially, constituted through appointment by government or through some other recruitment procedure? A public body certainly may be.... Accountability is one thing, and maybe we can make that distinction here. But in terms of how one accesses it, gets onto it or is able to affect it, that is another matter entirely. Maybe the minister could comment on that.
[11:45]
Hon. E. Cull: The word "public" reflects their responsibilities and the fact that they are carrying out public functions, not how they are appointed. As the member noted, the governing bodies of these organizations.... Some don't have governing bodies at all, so there is no elected or appointed body; others have bodies that are all elected, all appointed or a mixture of the two. It's a very complicated system. For example, if
[ Page 9052 ]
you look at all of the variations of how hospital boards come to be, there are probably at least half a dozen variations on the theme.
D. Mitchell: While we are on the definitions, in the minister's distinction between health councils and boards she raises a question about the organizational structure of the delivery of health care through her ministry, which I think the Health Authorities Act is really getting at. She has indicated that it's the first important stage in the process.
In the document "New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia," there is an elaboration on bringing health closer to home. It talks about health councils and health boards, and I think the minister's comments roughly correspond to what the document says. In terms of organizational structure, it would seem that the minister is saying that community health councils and community health boards will both be taking over a lot of the responsibility that is currently with the Ministry of Health, that a decentralization will be taking place, and the Ministry of Health is going to be redefined. In fact, "New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia" suggests that the Ministry of Health will be significantly restructured to provide this new structure.
Under the definitions section of the Health Authorities Act, would it not be appropriate to have a definition of the ministry? The ministry is referred to in the act. The ministry is being significantly restructured. Is that simply inherent in the act, or does the minister not see a need for defining "ministry" under these new terms that are going to be in effect with the passage of this legislation?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't think it's necessary to define "ministry." There is an act that defines the ministry. The responsibilities of the ministry change from year to year, with or without health authorities. In fact, some of the responsibilities which this act will allow us to transfer to local authorities are already delivered by local authorities. In this member's region a local authority delivers many of the services that would be delivered directly by the Ministry of Health in another part of the province.
L. Fox: I don't have a lot of problem with the definitions section of the act; I think it's very clear.
There are many responsibilities at the different levels, and the only concern I have is how they might interact between community health boards and regional health committees. Rather than discussing those interactions now, as long as we're not specifically limited to talking about each authority within the respective clause.... If we allow a bit of flexibility, then I don't have to deal with those issues now; I can deal with them in their respective clauses.
Hon. E. Cull: There's no difficulty with that suggestion. I would in fact welcome having that discussion in the appropriate section. Of course, we will want to draw some linkages between the boards, the councils and the ministry. I think we can do that with some latitude.
V. Anderson: I just want to stress that I was going to rise on the same basic area, because the two parts are the authority that the ministry has, on the one hand, and the authority that the councils and regional boards will have, on the other hand. What is the relationship between the authority of the community council, the regional board and the provincial council? The provincial council, which we know is proposed in another act, is not referred to here, but we assume that it's also part of the same system. We have the community board, the regional board, the provincial board and the ministry, so it's the relationship between those authorities that is crucial.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm delighted that the member asked that question, because now I can clarify the relationship for the rest of this discussion. There is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between the community health councils and regional health boards, which are a system of governance to plan for, budget and deliver services in the community, and the Provincial Health Council, which has an entirely different function. In fact, the Provincial Health Council's intent is not to deal with the health care system, but to deal with the health of people in the province. There isn't any reporting relationship, and there is no authority relationship. The community health councils and regional health boards would pay attention to the Provincial Health Council in the same way that any other organization or body delivering health care in this province would pay attention to the Provincial Health Council. Obviously if we're going to have a council that sets provincewide goals and talks about the importance of the health of people and what contributes to their health, I'd expect all agencies in the province, not only health care agencies but also social agencies and economic development agencies, to be paying attention to those goals and principles.
V. Anderson: That is a helpful clarification, and it will save a lot of misunderstanding, so I appreciate that.
I want to look particularly at the definitions of provincial standards and specific services, both of which are referred to in section 3(1) and 3(2). Are we to understand that the directions of both the regional board and the community council are not set by the community nor the regional board per se, and that the directions, standards, and services will be given to them by the minister under section 3?
Hon. E. Cull: We are probably going to have a larger discussion on this under section 3. The act intends to balance local autonomy, which is greatly lacking in the system, with the responsibility of the province, which is the funding agent of 100 percent of the operating costs of the health care system, to ensure that services are consistent across the province. I believe the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health has a responsibility to ensure that no matter where you live in this province, you receive services that are commensurate with the size of the community you live in. That's the reason for having standards and specified services, because as we transfer funding and responsibility, there has to be an ability to say: "We expect you to do these
[ Page 9053 ]
things." That's exactly what we do with hospitals right now: we globally fund hospitals. We give them one grant, and we don't tell them how many beds to operate, how many nurses to hire or how many different procedures to do, but we do have some expectations that they will provide a certain range and level of services. I think people in this province want that guarantee that goes along with local autonomy. It's attempting to strike a balance between the need to have consistency in standards provincewide and the ability of communities, once they have met those standards, to set their own priorities and make funding and servicing decisions that reflect local needs.
V. Anderson: One other clarification. The regional services, specialized services, provincial standards and regional health plans, instead of coming under section 3, will be discussed under section 5. What is the difference in authority or meaning between regional services under section 5 and specified and provincial standards under section 3? I wonder why they are separated out. They seem to be very similar services. I'm trying to understand the difference between them as far as definition. Why is one done in one place, and one the other? Is there a difference in meaning, or is it simply organizational structure?
Hon. E. Cull: This will become clearer as we discuss the roles and responsibilities of the community health councils and the regional health boards. The community health councils are intended, for the most part, to be the delivery agent of the services -- the community hospital services, the long-term care facilities services and public health services. There will be cases where some services will be better provided on a regional basis. Environmental health services may lend themselves more to regional delivery as opposed to community delivery. There are also going to be parts of regions that may not have a community health council, similar to the situation we have right now where not every geographic area of British Columbia has a municipal council. Because we do have some sparsely populated large geographic areas, it might make just as much sense to let the regional health board do it rather than create a community health council for those areas. There are different levels of services. It sounds a little confusing right now, but I do believe it will become clearer to you when we talk about the functions of the two different areas and the ministry's responsibility with respect to them.
V. Anderson: To highlight one of the concerns as we move into that, I will mention the respective authority of a council against a regional board when they come to differences of opinion. Who decides when there are differences of opinion between a council and a regional board, or with the ministry? In the final analysis, is the arbitrator really the ministry?
Hon. E. Cull: That is very specifically dealt with in a later section. I know we are trying to allow a little latitude here with respect to definitions in this section, but there is a specific clause that relates to that in the sections that we're going to be dealing with. We could deal with that one then, if that's acceptable.
L. Reid: On the definitions section, referring to "the board" means "a regional health board designated under section 4," and "council" means "a community health council designated under section 6." When you refer to those sections, there isn't any indication of the numbers of individuals will be prescribed by the minister. Could the minister give us some indication at this time of what size of board we are looking for? I think that will figure prominently in future discussions of the definition section.
Hon. E. Cull: I anticipate that we are going to have quite a bit of discussion around that when we get to the community health council section in here, because the size of the council is essentially contingent on the way the councils are put together. If I can be very brief now and save this discussion until later, one of the ways that you get on a community health council is by representation from elected bodies that are already there -- your municipal council, school board and regional district. If there is only one of each in a community council area, and that's a third of your council, then you have a council of nine. But there are circumstances -- and we'll talk about them later -- where some of the community health councils will have larger numbers making up that one third, and that dictates the rest of the size of the body -- within some reason. I think we probably would be looking at a council of nine, at the small end, to perhaps 15; we'd be pushing to go much beyond that. I think it will help if we can get into the specific examples.
L. Reid: I appreciate the clarification. We understand that regional health board membership is partially comprised of community health council membership in a region. Will that be the case? What would the proportion be for that?
The Chair: Hon. minister, you've given a lot of latitude on these answers. If you could keep your comments on further sections more brief, then perhaps we'll get through this section.
Hon. E. Cull: It will depend on the number of community health councils in the region. If there were five community health councils, you would probably have a regional health board of ten -- two members from each council.
This legislation is deliberately non-prescriptive, because these bodies right now are in the midst of sorting this out through a very public process in their community. We want to allow them to work out what works in their community and come back to us, and have some time -- with some legal authority -- to do it over the next year, so they can figure out if it works or not. Next year when we're debating the replacement legislation, it will be much more prescriptive in terms of the numbers. We'll be able to put bookends on it.
[ Page 9054 ]
L. Reid: I appreciate the comment. From what I'm hearing, it's possible that 50 percent of a regional health board will be made up from a community health council. Is that your intention?
Hon. E. Cull: No, the vast majority of the board will be from the council members.
L. Reid: You said, "from the council members," hon. minister. I was asking if the possibility exists that the community health council membership could be the same membership for the regional health board.
[12:00]
Hon. E. Cull: No, each community health council will select a member or two -- depending on the number to serve -- on the regional health board. So if they select two members to go to the board and there are five councils, there will be ten members there. But they will be members from the community health councils.
Section 1 approved.
L. Fox: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]