1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 15, Number 7
[ Page 10773 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
D. Lovick: On your behalf, hon. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of a group of visitors from the state of Washington. A group of grades 2 and 3 students along with their teacher Ms. Vos are here from the Alternative Elementary II School in Seattle, Washington. I would ask all members to please join me in sending our greetings in welcome.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In Committee A this morning, I call the Municipal Affairs estimates. In the House this morning, for members' information, we will first do Bill 27 in second reading, and secondly, Bill 21 in committee stage.
With that, hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 27.
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased to be able to speak today in more detail about the proposed amendments to the Medical Practitioners Act which are contained in Bill 27.
These amendments demonstrate our government's commitment to taking the problem of sexual misconduct by physicians seriously. The amendments propose significant improvements in the way complaints of sexual misconduct are handled by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. Under the Medical Practitioners Act, the college is responsible for governing the practice of medicine in British Columbia. An integral part of that responsibility, which was entrenched in the statutes through amendments made by this government last year, is the protection of the public from practitioners who may be incompetent or negligent, impaired or unethical. It's clear that the public deserves to know that protection of the public is the primary responsibility and the primary role of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Patients who have complaints against their physician's activity need to know that, the general public needs to know that, and physicians themselves need to know that their college's primary responsibility is protection of patients from the unethical or incompetent actions of a few.
A particularly troublesome area of misconduct by physicians involves sexual impropriety. I think all members of this House know that a number of very highly publicized incidents involving members of the college have recently drawn attention to the issue of sexual misconduct by physicians. This is indeed a very troubling issue. The number of incidents may be small, but I think no breach of a physician's responsibility to practise competently and ethically is more serious. Sexual misconduct by physicians is a fundamental violation of the trust placed in their profession by their patients and by members of the public. It is an abuse of the responsibility and authority of their position. It violates that fundamental patient-physician relationship and therefore must be taken with all seriousness.
The college itself has been monitoring this issue for some time. In 1991, at the request of physicians in the province, it struck a committee to examine the area in more detail. In November 1992, the college released a report entitled "Crossing the Boundaries: The Report of the Committee on Physician Sexual Misconduct." That report contained close to 100 recommendations designed to improve the handling of complaints of sexual misconduct. Most of those recommendations did not require statutory amendment and have already been implemented by the college. The college has been actively working to establish new processes for handling allegations of sexual misconduct by its members.
However, some significant features of "Crossing the Boundaries" do require statutory amendment. Those are contained in this bill. With these amendments there will be a new sexual misconduct review committee of the council of the college. The council of the college is the governing body for physicians in the province. So this sexual misconduct review committee, which will be established by that council, is directly reporting to and really a component of the council which governs all physicians. At least one-third of that committee will be public representatives appointed by the ministry.
I should say that we believe self-regulation by health professionals is an appropriate means of assuring the public that the highest standards of competence and conduct are adhered to by members of health professions. But we also believe that that regulation must involve public input. That's why we have introduced regulations and statutes to require members of the public to be involved in the council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, in the governing bodies of other health professions and, by this amendment, in the sexual misconduct review committee of the council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
The sexual misconduct review committee will have a broad mandate. It must establish and maintain a special process for handling sexual misconduct complaints. It must establish the patient relations' program referred to in the amendments made by Bill 71 last year. It must oversee the development of educational programs that will address sexual misconduct. Finally, it must review the results of investigations into allegations of sexual misconduct and determine whether a hearing is required or whether other steps should be taken to resolve the matter.
The amendments in Bill 27 also create a new position: special deputy registrar. What we are doing by these amendments is ensuring that both the resources and a designated responsibility for handling allegations of sexual misconduct are enshrined in the operations of the college and its staff. It ensures that a focus on this issue is integral to the operations of the college. The special deputy registrar will receive and investigate complaints of sexual misconduct, recommend appropriate actions to the sexual misconduct review committee at the conclusion of an investigation and perform other duties as directed by the sexual misconduct review committee or the registrar of the college.
A number of other provisions in this bill address the issue of sexual misconduct. The bill makes it mandatory -- not optional -- for the college to suspend or cancel a physician's licence to practise following a hearing where there has been a finding of sexual misconduct. It should be noted that this has been the practise of the college for some time, but we feel that this principle is important enough that it should be placed in the legislation governing the operations of the college. The legislation will allow the college to discipline former members as well as current members. A physician simply shouldn't be allowed to avoid discipline for sexual misconduct by voluntarily renouncing his or her licence. Therefore the college will also have the power to make rules related to restrictions imposed on a physician expanded to
[ Page 10774 ]
physicians who have been suspended from practice or have had their licences terminated.
[10:15]
Another provision requires that all members of the college will now be required to report suspected sexual misconduct by another physician. This is indeed a sweeping provision, and requiring this sort of reporting must be balanced with protection of privacy. Reports about suspected sexual misconduct which are based on information from a patient may therefore only be given with the consent of that patient or a parent or guardian of the patient. The reasons for this are to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the patient-doctor relationship; to ensure also that patients are not discouraged from seeking appropriate care, even though they may have been the object of inappropriate action by a previous physician; and to increase the likelihood that complaints are received by the college and can then be properly investigated.
There are also a few amendments to the act that deal with more general items regarding the activities of the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons. Rules which are made by the college must now be approved by cabinet before they are effective. This provision is currently applicable to all other health professions, and with this amendment we are extending that procedure to the operations of the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons as well.
We are also amending the Medical Practitioners Act to enshrine provisions regarding protection from liability when a physician acts in good faith, and provisions dealing with the compelling of evidence in a civil proceeding. Those have now been broadened to cover the new provisions dealing with sexual misconduct.
I spoke earlier about the importance of public involvement in the operations of the council of the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons. We have now set the number of representatives on the council of the college at 15 in order to achieve the 1-to-3 ratio of public members that is found on the boards of other health professions. Ten members of the council will be selected by the profession itself, and five will be appointed from the general public. Finally, public representation on the executive committee of the council and on all inquiry committees which carry out the work of investigating and determining the facts on allegations of abuse is now mandatory.
In conclusion, these amendments mark significant improvements in the process for handling sexual misconduct matters within the college. Our government is committed to working together with the college and physicians of the province to address the issue of physician sexual misconduct. With this bill, the college will be better able to pursue its mandate of public protection. That is good news for the patients of physicians, who have a right to expect ethical conduct by their doctors; it is good news for the general public, who need to be assured that protection of the public is the highest and first responsibility of the college; and it's good news for the physicians of the province, who wish to ensure that members of their profession practise in an ethical and competent manner. I want to acknowledge the cooperation of the college in the drafting of this bill. I am certain that this legislation will help to improve public confidence in the resolve of the college and the medical profession to fully address sexual misconduct issues. I'm pleased to be able to present these proposed amendments to the House.
L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate this morning on Bill 27, the Medical Practitioners Amendment Act. The official opposition stands in support of this bill in principle.
One of the biggest issues facing British Columbians today is the issue of trust around service delivery. Trust relationships exist among teachers and students and among physicians and patients in this province. Anyone receiving service in the province should have some confidence and the ability to understand that the process will work in their best interests, and if the process is not able to do that, that there is some recourse and appeal around that process.
I speak very strongly in support of accountability to the public. I am delighted to note that this bill will not only apply to current physicians but also to former practising physicians within British Columbia. I can only hope that this Minister of Health take the next step and has that particular tenet apply to the College of Dental Surgeons in the province. He and I are both aware of the case that has been outstanding for some 15 years, where it was not possible for a patient in this province to go back and seek recourse through an appeal process with the College of Dental Surgeons. My comments this morning will touch on what I believe to be important around the delivery of service and ethical conduct. I believe government does have a role in setting standards and in ensuring that the most appropriate and highest calibre of behaviour is the expectation in this province.
I'll speak specifically to the code of ethics of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation. I strongly support the notion that if a trust relationship has been violated, whether it's a trust relationship between a teacher and a student or between a physician and a patient, there is a responsibility on the practitioner and on the colleagues of that practitioner, whether teacher or physician, to report. I cannot understand that it would somehow be less appropriate to report. It is the highest form of ethical conduct to report and to ensure that you are putting a framework in place so that the public, who take advantage of your expertise, will feel confident they are receiving the highest calibre of behaviour.
I will read clause 5 of the B.C. Teachers' Federation code of ethics: "The teacher directs any criticism of the teaching performance and related work of a colleague to that colleague...." Then at the end -- it's not just to the colleague -- it says: "and...after informing the colleague of the intent to do so, may direct in confidence the criticism to appropriate officials who are in a position to offer advice and assistance." That is what the code of ethics states for maintaining high standards of professional service and conduct toward students, colleagues and the profession. The note at the bottom of the B.C. Teachers' Federation code of ethics says that it would not be a breach of this code of ethics to report, on reasonable grounds, for suspected child abuse to proper authorities according to legal provisions and official protocol requirements. So teachers are required to report any instance where the care and safety of a child is being hindered by professionals in the field. That same code of ethics, I believe, should apply -- and for the most part does apply -- to physicians in this province.
I will return to the minister's comments in first reading when he introduced this bill, the Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 1994, on April 28. He suggested that it makes a number of important amendments to the statute that governs the practice of medicine in the province.
Problems related to sexual misconduct by a small number of physicians has prompted this review. I want to make that point exceedingly clear this morning: I believe we are referring to a small number of physicians in the province. But we are looking at the greater good of the public, if you will, in terms of giving them some confidence in the process. To be absolutely clear, I believe we are looking at a very small
[ Page 10775 ]
number of cases that have come forward. But the number of cases is not the issue today; it's whether or not the public can have some confidence and go forward with some vigour into this process, believing that they will always be guaranteed the highest level of professional behaviour. That is what I speak to today. I speak to the need for a guarantee of professionalism and expertise in the field and for the profession to always stand up and seek the highest level. Again, the official opposition will support this bill in principle. We will do all we can to ensure that trust relationships have the highest regard.
I speak very clearly this morning about "Crossing the Boundaries," the report by the committee on sexual misconduct by physicians. The minister is correct: a number of the recommendations have been willingly implemented by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I applaud them for that; it's time that this issue was addressed. Often it is most appropriate that the profession regulate different aspects of the profession.
I would never suggest that decisions on medical practices should be the bailiwick of this Legislature; I will suggest that public accountability questions and questions of public confidence are the responsibility of this Legislature. In one of his pieces of correspondence, the minister talks about this being the most useful compromise at the present time. I would suggest that it's perhaps a partnership. We're looking at the College of Physicians and Surgeons being responsible and accepting that responsibility for issues of medical-ethical conduct.
I support the notion that issues of public accountability need to come before this chamber. I believe, quite honestly, that that is the role that the government must play, because those services are provided through the Medical Services Commission. There is a relationship there, where one can expect a certain level of behaviour and can place incredible expectations on the delivery of that service. I would never suggest that those expectations are not valid. I honestly think we must ensure that people feel comfortable in this province regardless of whether they're seeking a service from a public school, a public hospital or a medical clinic.
I firmly support the position of a special deputy registrar, in the person of Dr. Patricia Rebbeck. I think she will do an outstanding job. I've certainly been aware of her work over the last number of years in this province. I think she brings a very unique and rare perspective to the operation of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and I would welcome that.
I would ask the minister, in deliberation, if it was his intention to always ensure that this special deputy registrar is a physician, as the legislation is not clear in that regard. I'm not speaking to either of those options necessarily. I'm simply interested to know if that is the intention and perhaps to look at some other models as to how that may unfold over time.
I have some concerns with the legislation under what happens now in terms of ethical conduct and what may happen later under issues of criminal conduct. Will this legislation allow for information to be shared readily between a police investigation and a college investigation? How will that framework be implemented? I understand completely that the bylaws and regulations will follow at some point. But I would be very interested in having the minister address that perhaps at some future date, so I can have a better sense of how that information will be shared. I can assure the minister that that is the concern of a number of British Columbians who seek out guidance from their MLAs.
I refer specifically to the comments of the hon. Minister of Women's Equality, when she talks about women needing to have confidence. Confidence, absolutely; but they also need to have some sense of confidentiality around the process, and I believe that was the hon. minister's point. I think the sharing of information speaks to whether or not women will be confident that the process is confidential, so that is an aspect we must look at.
I have another concern during debate in principle on this legislation, and that is an appeal process for women. I would like to indicate to the minister that I will be introducing amendments in committee stage on this bill. I would draw his attention to whether it would be possible to have an appeal process if a woman were unsatisfied with the course of action that this legislation would dictate. In the legislation today, there is no appeal process. If your complaint is not processed by the college and proceeded with, you don't have any option but to go back to the same individual who decided whether your claim had some validity.
In dealing with the college, the women of British Columbia have been asking for a parallel appeal process of some sort. In a lot of respects, they believe they have been stonewalled. This legislation is a good first step to opening the doors on that discussion and process. The minister would probably look favourably at the opportunity for women to believe that the process will provide them with another option. I trust we can arrive at some kind of building block for women who bring their issues before the college.
[10:30]
A number of women who come to me have a tremendous dilemma over whether to take their complaints to the college or to the local police for investigation. That issue must constantly be weighed. I would certainly support women in this province going to the college about issues of medical conduct. Unless there is some appeal process for women in this province, I'm not sure that women will have confidence that the college can also handle issues of sexual misconduct. That is not a medical issue per se; that is a public accountability issue and an issue of the violation of a trust relationship. I can't think of any relationship more essential to the delivery of service than the relationship one has with their physician.
We've spent a lot of time educating patients in British Columbia on the necessity of selecting a physician very carefully, to follow that person's advice very carefully and to ensure that that is part of your overall health care plan. We are looking at an expanded perception of what it is to deliver health services in this province. In terms of health care delivery, we are looking at expanding the team to have all those folks participate in the care of any single British Columbian. British Columbians must have some sense that they can trust all the partners. I would certainly support the transfer of information among those players, the decision of whether it is a medical or criminal issue, and an appeal process regarding the college.
I would also like to enter into discussion on the implementation strategy for ensuring that women understand the intent of this legislation. How does the Ministry of Health intend to ensure that this information is relayed in a straightforward and direct manner?
There is a lot of mystique about the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I understand they are going forward with some in-depth public relations campaigns, and I applaud that. They have to ensure that the public understands that they are there to provide a service, and the service must be well understood.
A number of women who come to various MLA offices in the province have some real issues about understanding how
[ Page 10776 ]
the college works. As the minister will concur, presenting them with a piece of legislation and saying, "This is how this institution is going to work on your behalf," will leave a great deal to be desired. I trust that the ministry has plans for some kind of direct correspondence or communique for women in this province who are seeking justice for sexual misconduct or issues that are not necessarily medically based but are ones we are going to entrust to the college. It seems to me that this legislation is putting that mandate to the college, and over time we are going to evaluate how successful that mandate is. I welcome that. The evaluation process needs to happen, and it will reassure British Columbians if they see some kind of evaluation in process.
In his remarks, I would like to have the minister suggest how best the Legislature will be informed of the process of complaints and how best we can share that with our constituents. At the end of the day there seems to be a lot of mystique about the college. We're going to put new legislation in place and look at a new set of bylaws and regulations. How are we going to measure the success of that? I trust that the minister would agree that the articles in the press on any issue of betrayal by a professional are not the best way to report to the public on the success of any new venture. Certainly those are always the stories that receive the coverage, but perhaps there is a way for parliamentarians here and the general public to be more aware of whether or not these changes will have a dramatic impact on women in this province. Are we making a real change, or are we simply glossing over some very important issues? I trust this will work with amendment, but I have to have some assurance from the minister that he will indeed come back to this chamber and tell us how he is going to measure success. There is a lot of legislation on the books in British Columbia that often does not do the job it was intended to do and doesn't assure taxpayers in this province that their dollars are going towards creating a more honest, upfront interaction between bodies that govern professions and the government.
I will return to my earlier point. It is my contention that the role of government is to set standards and come forward to the public with a set of expectations, so when they enter a physician's office, a public school or any public institution, they can expect a certain level of decorum and behaviour -- and frankly, in my view, so they can expect the highest level of behaviour from those professionals in the field when it's a trust relationship. I firmly support the notion that self-governing colleges have an extremely valuable role to play and that their mandate is to ensure that their colleagues behave in the highest possible manner. Our goal, I believe, is to ensure that that happens, but it is also to have some checks and balances in place.
Again, I would draw the minister's thoughts as to whether or not there is any measurement involved in this and whether or not we will ever be made aware of how successful this legislation has been. It would never be my intention to infringe on anyone's confidentiality. I'm certainly not interested in particular cases as they would relate to my comment, but certainly I am interested as to whether or not the minister has envisioned some mechanism for evaluating where we're headed in this discussion. Certainly I think it is a very good first step, but for me it has to create some meaningful, real change and outline a process. It needs some checks and balances. I would like very much for us to be able to continue the debate in committee stage in tremendous detail as we move through a number of the recommendations.
I intend to move amendments in committee stage on the necessity for an appeal process and on some clarification issues around who may and may not be a physician. I would also speak in support of the creation of the public accountability board -- the laypeople, if you will. I understand that a number of these individuals have participated fully on the college committees. I understand that travel is an issue for some of these individuals and that we may have to have some discussion about cost and remuneration in terms of ensuring that there is always someone present at these committee meetings. I trust that those mechanical details will be fleshed out in the discussion on regulations and bylaws, but I very much wonder if it would always be possible to have laypeople present. I would entrust that having them present is the first requirement. I understand there have been some difficulties, so I would trust that the minister will come back to the table with some guidelines, if you will, that perhaps the meetings will not go forward unless lay representation is present.
There will always be travel arrangements and costs that need to be considered, but indeed, if this is going to provide meaningful change and go beyond simply adding another piece of legislation to the collection in British Columbia, those kinds of details will determine whether or not this legislation is successful. It's all very fine to suggest that these things should happen, but women in British Columbia are looking for guarantees that they will happen. I appreciate that guarantees are a difficult entity in the 1990s, but I trust that this legislation will go a long way towards reassuring women, families and all British Columbians that their family members can always be guaranteed of a very fine process if they run into difficulties when seeking medical care.
Again, I strongly believe that we're referring to very few physicians in the province. But I am speaking to the larger issue of public accountability. I strongly support this piece of legislation in principle. I believe we are headed in the right direction. I trust that we will have some in-depth discussion when this bill reaches committee stage, and I welcome that. Some things could be clarified in order to make this a meaningful piece of legislation for women and practitioners in this province. I can't imagine an issue that's more serious for both parties and for the public at large. No physician would wish the public to question them when they are seeking service, and no member of the public would wish to continue this discussion if it were not absolutely essential.
With those remarks, I will stand in support of this bill in principle. I will come forward with a number of amendments in committee stage, and I will be happy to continue the discussion with the minister.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would like to introduce some friends from Monte Creek, in the riding of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson: Joyce and Allan Stratton, and Joyce's mother, Dorothy Christer, from Duncan I believe. I would ask the House to make them welcome.
L. Fox: It's a pleasure to take my place and speak on Bill 27, the Medical Practitioners Amendment Act. In doing so, I want to congratulate the minister and the college for bringing forth legislation that deals with an issue that has become more and more of a concern to British Columbians over the course of my elected term, certainly, and prior to
[ Page 10777 ]
that. I think it's obvious to all British Columbians that victims and the college have requested and wanted legislation that would allow the incidence of sexual misconduct to be dealt with in a more appropriate and meaningful way. This is one of those rare occasions when I'm sure all members of the House will support the principle of the legislation brought forward and will look forward to third reading debate, when we can go through the bill clause by clause and come up with some clarification.
One observation that I have, though, with respect to this legislation is that the scope of sexual misconduct is a lot broader than it was before, as sexual abuse. We should also recognize that this legislation actually provides an opportunity to be a lot more heavy-handed on individuals who end up being found guilty of sexual misconduct than on those who botch an operation and face a malpractice suit. We want to clarify some of that in the third reading stage, when we go through the clause-by-clause process.
The other concern I had when I looked through the legislation -- and we will certainly discuss this at some length -- is that we want to be very careful about the appeal process not only for the victim but also for the professional. We want to make sure that this legislation is fair to all, so if there are incidents where errors or misjudgments have been made, all individuals affected under this legislation will have an equal opportunity to protect their interests and rights.
[10:45]
With that, hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to inform the Chair and the minister that our party will be supporting this legislation at the second reading stage. We look forward to going through the clause-by-clause debate in the third reading stage.
L. Boone: I'm very pleased to see this legislation. I'm pleased to see the government taking the necessary steps to give some protection to the public and in particular to women, because it is women who are usually the victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault. I'm not saying that men aren't, but the majority are women.
I'd like to say at the outset, as the critic did, that most physicians, of course, behave in an honourable and moral manner. This bill is directed to those few who do abuse and cause considerable harm -- mental and sometimes physical anguish -- to a number of people out there.
In my riding there have been many cases -- I know that the minister is well aware of them -- that have offended the public incredibly. Physicians hold a special place in the minds and sometimes the hearts of many individuals. They hold a special position of trust. We trust them with our babies, our children and our mothers and fathers. For those who break and abuse that trust, there must be some avenue through which people will have recourse. Unfortunately, many individuals do not come forth because they still see their physicians as being almost godly. In particular, some elderly people still find that they are nervous. They're scared; they don't feel they will be believed; they don't feel they will be listened to. They don't understand that they have a right and an opportunity to come forward. They're very vulnerable as well. I'm pleased to see the government taking these steps to put an avenue into legislation through which people can come forward and have some of their problems dealt with.
The public, and women in particular, have a reason to be wary. The justice system has let them down. As I stated, 12 women with emotional problems came forward under great stress in my community not too long ago. They came forward openly and brought forth a case. The justice system said that they didn't believe them, because only 12 women came forward, and many others who were patients of this particular physician did not come forward. That resulted in the formation of a group in our community called Equal Justice for Women. One of the themes that they have is: one is enough. I feel very strongly that that's true. If there is one woman who is abused or sexually affronted by her physician, that should be dealt with -- and that one is enough.
I congratulate the minister in bringing this legislation forth. It recognizes that there is a problem out there, and we are doing something about it. I would greatly love for this legislation to be unnecessary. I would hope that eventually it will not be used at all because the abuse of women will eventually not take place. But until such time, we need to have legislation such as this to protect the public. Congratulations to the minister in bringing it forth. I'm sure that our community will be happy to see this legislation.
W. Hurd: I ask leave for an introduction.
Leave granted.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to introduce a group of elementary school students from my riding. A group of 56 grades 5 and 6 students are here from White Rock Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Hollett. White Rock Elementary is the school my son attends in Surrey-White Rock. I would hope the Legislative Assembly would make them most welcome.
G. Wilson: I rise in support of the principle of Bill 27 but with some concern about the manner of the process. In principle, I don't believe there's an elected member who would not suggest that those physicians who breach what is a sacred trust between a physician and their patient, by crossing the line and practising sexual abuse against individuals, should not be dealt with in the harshest manner. There can be no repentance on those questions; there can only be assistance or guidance for the people who perpetrate those kinds of crimes, because only somebody who is sick would do that kind of thing. The enormous damage to those people who are abused is without measure.
We have to recognize that the laws of Canada and of British Columbia are often complicated by an extremely lengthy and very expensive judicial process. While the college, with the direction of this legislation, clearly now has action that it can take, we often find that physicians are far better prepared to litigate, when it gets to that stage, than are the patients. Part of the reason -- and I speak to that right now -- is the master agreement signed by this government that provides for moneys to be paid into the Canadian Medical Protective Association which can then be used by physicians in defending themselves against charges. In effect, taxpayers are funding those people who ultimately are going to seek to defend themselves or appeal through that process. If we look at that agreement, over the next five years we'll be putting somewhere close to $66 million towards such defence. It's a lot of money -- money that could otherwise be directed into other kinds of health care delivery.
I raise that under Bill 27 because, notwithstanding the strength of this legislation, the internal review process still does not provide those members of the public who feel hard done by with an equal opportunity to see justice done, should they proceed through to a litigative process. It is unacceptable in British Columbia that taxpayers should be
[ Page 10778 ]
paying into this defence fund money that will then be used so as to put at disadvantage those people on low income or income assistance who may find themselves in a situation where they require assistance in litigation but cannot have that litigation done. Let me say that this is, in principle, a huge issue that affects not only people who are trying to litigate against the unsavoury practice of physicians who engage in sexual misconduct. As the member for Prince George-Mount Robson said, it is a very small minority, but even one is too many.
The justice system in this country, and in this province in particular, doesn't work. We've seen it time and time again. Those who have money are able to litigate against those who haven't, and by the very virtue of the fact that they have money, they can almost litigate into poverty those who would seek justice through a system that is so complex, convoluted and expensive that they simply don't stand a chance. They don't have a hope, because they have nowhere near the financial resources that would be required for them to deal with it.
When we look at the sections in this bill in committee stage, we have to recognize that it isn't enough to simply have the internal review process operating. There must be external means by which a direct prosecution can be made. I don't believe that we should have a single process where internal review, investigation and appointment of an inquiry committee set out under the conditions of this act are the only operations in the initial stages of a complaint. My concern here is that that may well be opportune for those who would look towards this kind of inquiry, where the circumstances are not clear because of the very complex and difficult information- and evidence-gathering procedures that we would require. It may be very difficult for such an internal committee or inquiry process to actually come up with the detail that is definitive enough to litigate against the practice.
We also have to recognize that there are cases before the justice system now which we clearly cannot get into in any detail or specifics, because it would be against the rules for us as elected members. There have been a litany of cases in the past, as the member for Prince George-Mount Robson just alluded to, where people who make a complaint are faced with an enormously difficult task. They have to stand there and have their evidence supported in public, only to have much of the material in the investigation inquiry dealt with in the privacy of this investigative process. That automatically sets up a disadvantage.
So here we have two situations where I think we need to address this. I offer these comments in a constructive and positive manner, because I believe this minister is to be congratulated for this bill. I think this bill is a movement in the right direction, but clearly, if there are provisions to subsidize litigation costs -- if the taxpayers are going to fund the defence of those who are accused -- but there is no provision for assistance for many on low income who can't afford a litigation process, in my judgment that is an injustice. It is an inequity in the system. Secondly, if a public declaration of evidence that impacts on an individual is heard only in a private hearing, where the grounds brought forward protect those who have charges made against them, that is essentially an inequity. We have to look at that in principle.
The third issue -- and this is perhaps the difficult one, because it's a two-edged sword -- is to make sure that you protect against unfounded charges that have no substance and are simply there to move against a physician who, for whatever reason, may have created enemies. We want, obviously, to protect the innocent.
It is not an easy thing to do, and this is not an easy process to get through. I applaud the minister's attempt in this bill to come up with a system whereby they do that.
But in principle I think that the minister must also look at this whole question of the signed master agreement and what that master agreement provides. I think there's a certain immorality in that, to be quite frank. I see that the minister is smiling and ready to respond in closing this debate, and I look forward to that. I do believe it is somewhat wrong -- you can use whatever terms the minister may be more comfortable with -- for us to be setting up a defence fund at the cost of the taxpayer and to provide that defence fund for people who are effectively in the private sector, albeit regulated through public sector salary negotiation or rates, when those people having to litigate against malpractice do not have such assistance. It's an injustice. We have to see in this bill that there are ways in which we can proceed and that we could certainly support in principle. There are issues that need to be discussed in detail as we get into committee stage.
I only come up with a last comment with respect to the principle of the bill. It has to do with action that is and that may be taken with respect to permitting a physician to practise. I think the guidelines must be much more clear and spelled out in much more detail. We cannot and must not in this process allow for such wide discretion with respect to the effect that will take place once a positive ruling comes down -- or a ruling with respect to the investigative process that finds that future action should be taken. They should be much more defined than they are in this bill. If there's a weakness in it, that is one.
[11:00]
The public must be aware that justice is in fact being done. It must be seen to be done as well as be done. I believe that's a weakness in this bill. That could be strengthened, with respect to the public process and the manner by which that process can be put into wording in some sections in this bill. We'll deal with that in more detail when we get to committee stage.
I can support in principle what this government is attempting to do, but I think the bill falls short in a number of areas. The minister must give serious attention to the question of this master agreement and to the taxpayers' moneys that are being put forward in the defence fund. It puts at a disadvantage those people who may find themselves in a litigation process, only to find that they have to spend their own money in a suit against a physician who is guilty -- or deemed, thought to be and charged with being guilty -- and that that physician takes advantage of taxpayers' money to assist in a defence. It's fundamentally wrong for us to be doing that in B.C.
Those are my comments on Bill 27. I look forward to the movement into committee stage of this bill, because I think it's an extremely important bill. It's an important bill because, above all, we must restore confidence among the public that there is a process whereby society will come down with all weight possible and litigate against those people who have a position of trust -- be it a physician, teacher, child care worker or whatever -- and who breach that trust and engage in acts of sexual misconduct. It cannot and must not be tolerated in this society. This society must come down with all the weight of its available laws to make sure that those people who are guilty will pay a price and to allow society confidence that it will not become commonplace.
[ Page 10779 ]
J. Dalton: I have two or three fairly short comments to make in support of this bill. I'm very pleased that the Health minister has brought this before the House. I think it's long overdue.
But I'm going to suggest that this should only be the start of a long process to make amendments to other areas of the law and disciplinary bodies that are certainly lacking in our system.
I and others have commented recently -- and longer ago than that -- about the problems with self-disciplinary professional bodies. Obviously Bill 27 addresses the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but I would also make a reference to the Law Society of B.C., to the College of Dental Surgeons of B.C. and to others. Quite frankly, I think this is the essence of this bill, and this is why I'm suggesting that this initiative be taken forward for others: the public confidence in our system in its generic sense is waning by the day. It's unfortunate, because public confidence is paramount in our system -- our judicial system and our systems of delivering health care and education and anything else that is fundamental to our society. The public must have confidence. It is well documented and very unfortunate that that confidence is lacking.
So I am very pleased to speak in support of this bill, which at least addresses part of the problem of the lack of public confidence. I'm hoping that this will provide the initiative to carry other things forward. I can assure this House that the official opposition will be pursuing these initiatives at every opportunity.
I would like to make one other comment as well about this bill in particular, and our critic made the same comment. I am very pleased to see that the special deputy registrar will be Dr. Pat Rebbeck. She's a person whom I have never had the pleasure of personally meeting, but I've spoken with her on the telephone several times in dealing with disciplinary matters that have come to my attention. She's been very forthright and very punctual in giving me information. I know that Dr. Pat Rebbeck will be the ideal person to carry this initiative forward so that the public confidence in physicians -- in particular the confidence of women in physicians -- will be restored. This is long overdue. I applaud the Health minister and the government for this. It's a start. Let's carry this initiative forward.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on second reading, the philosophy and principles of Bill 27, the Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 1994. I don't think there's an individual that I know of, either in this Legislature or in society collectively, who couldn't support the objectives contained in this particular piece of legislation. But I often wonder if that's adequate and if this legislation will do anything other than create a perception. The reason I ask this question is the fact that the government of the day has been steadfast in their refusal to bring any legislation in with respect to the protection of children from sexual predators. They have been steadfast in their refusal.
The Minister of Health just stood up in support of this legislation and qualified his support by saying that it occurs in a very, very small number of cases. I sincerely appreciate that for each one of those individuals involved in a specific case, it's a very tragic and traumatic occurrence, and there is no excusing that occurrence. I concur with the minister. What I fail to rationalize in my own mind is why the government of the day would bring in this piece of legislation while steadfastly refusing to bring in any legislation or any control on those individuals who are sexual predators. Then I become suspicious about the cause for bringing forward the legislation.
I recognize that the word "one" refers to any adult who is in a position of trust with children. It may be someone in a child care facility, it may be a teacher in a school, or it may be someone in volunteer service. But I have a great deal of concern when legislation like this comes forward and without any legislation that protects innocent victims -- vulnerable children -- from sexual predators.
Returning to the philosophy and principles of the legislation, there is no definition of sexual misconduct. I have a substantial concern with something that can be alluded to or charged without any parameters. The objective of the legislation is important.
Who decides what sexual misconduct is? Is it whistling on the street? Is it looking? Is it touching? I have a concept of what sexual misconduct is, but I suggest that each member in this Legislature -- and perhaps each member of the public -- has a different idea of what sexual misconduct is. When a charge is laid or a complaint is brought forward, the perception is probably the worst possible scenario, which is the abuse of a position of trust, in most cases involving women. That's reprehensible; I have no difficulty with that.
What about the perceptions of sexual misconduct? What protection is there for that? My concern is a valid one, I believe. Without a clear definition, it makes every medical practitioner a potential victim, whether real or imagined, because there are no discussions of parameters. We're all human beings. Medical practitioners are no different, and we are all fallible -- male or female. Some things that we don't verbalize we speak in body language, and people interpret body language in different ways.
The legislation is important. The objectives are valid. But without some definition or constraints the legislation is unsupportable through the actual activities. While it is filled with good intentions, will it actually make a difference, or will it simply give the perception of a difference?
Thousands of years ago the code of Hammurabi contained a number of rules, regulations and laws. One was "thou shalt not kill." It was re-emphasized, of course, in the Ten Commandments. There is all sorts of legislation in every jurisdiction in the world saying "thou shalt not kill." Still the fallibility is there, and the tragic event still happens. You have to make some definitions if you have the honest objective of fulfilling the expectations this piece of legislation implies. I have no doubt that the minister has been very sincere in his objective of developing legislation that will give additional comfort and confidence, especially to the women of society. But will this legislation actually do that? There is considerable question in my mind, simply because of the latitude and lack of focus on definition.
In society right now it's very difficult to be a male of the species. Whether it's violence or a sexual predator, the reality is that it involves both genders -- primarily men, but not exclusively men. We are concerned about the primary issue, not about the gender. If we are going to develop legislation, we are going to have to make that definition. What happens -- and it's a valid point -- to an individual who makes a charge that's unfounded or groundless? That occurs right now in the education system. Some girls who dislike a teacher may get together and bring forward a charge. The teacher's professional career is tainted forevermore because of that. Even if it is unfounded, it is a difficult process. The strange thing about that particular type of charge is that society tends to want to believe the worst in people. What happens when an unfounded charge is made? What sort of restriction is there? What responsibility is there for making
[ Page 10780 ]
sure that the charge is valid before it becomes public? What formal method is proposed in this legislation to inhibit groundless charges?
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
The reality is that in some cases there is a perception of sexual misconduct. It can be an honest perception -- I admit that. But there are times when, for one reason or another, individuals will say one thing or another. My concern is that we have the potential here for another individual to be hurt, not because of their sexual misconduct but because of malice. The faith, trust and confidence.... An individual's patients or other members of his peer group in his profession will always be a bit suspect about the quality of the individual. It brings up a number of challenges. Yes, it is altruistic. Certainly the protection of the public is good news, as the minister has stated, and our goal always has to be to strive to bring forward the best in the competency and ethical conduct of our medical practitioners.
[11:15]
In conclusion, I certainly support the philosophy and principles exhibited in this bill. I have sincere reservations about whether it will actually make any significant change and whether it will add more bureaucratic red tape. At the moment, I don't understand whether the College of Physicians and Surgeons has failed the public, whether the current laws of the land have failed to protect the public or whether this bill is all that necessary. Perhaps, in his concluding remarks, the minister will advise me as to how the current process has dramatically failed.
I certainly hope that this is not being brought in to further impede relations between the government and the medical profession. I hope that there is a sound basis for it and that the minister will tell me how the process has failed and how this will reduce the potential for that, even though, as the minister has alluded, the numbers are relatively small. But for each individual it's a very difficult event.
R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of this bill. It has been a long time coming, and we need it. I'm not going to spend very much time on it. But I feel very strongly that this bill should have been brought in many years ago, and maybe our society would not be in the shape it is in at the present time. Maybe some of these organizations, such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Law Society and the dentists, would command a lot more respect than they do at this point in time.
This is not a perfect bill, and there never will be a perfect bill. But this is the first step, and it's the right one. This bill will be amended in time. Some things, such as those mentioned by the previous member, will change. But at this point in time, this is the right move. I find that only one thing is missing in the bill, and possibly it will be discussed in committee stage. There seems to be no appeal process with regard to this bill, and maybe that will be addressed at that point in time.
But this bill goes a long way to reinstate confidence in an organization that was lost in the past due to various actions by people within that organization. I cannot say anything more, other than that the government, on this occasion, deserves a round of applause.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure to rise in second reading debate on this bill and commend the government, particularly the Minister of Health, for bringing this legislation forward. I think it's an important piece of legislation that women and children in the province are certainly going to welcome.
There have been a number of problems over the years that have plagued a number of our citizens in this regard, and we all view them with great distaste. The special deputy registrar, I think, is perhaps going to go a long way to alleviate the complaints that many people feel now are not being adequately dealt with. Indeed, there is a long list of people who have come forward to state that the present system is just not workable. The review committee, I think, is extremely important, because the attitudes that are prevalent in society today have to change. This is in regard to sexual harassment in the teaching profession and the judiciary, also. We need to look at attitudes, and hopefully this particular piece of legislation will do that and help people understand that attitudes and behaviours that were accepted, or certainly not challenged, are no longer acceptable and that there will be a very watchful eye now on those activities.
The only other comment I would make is about the duty of the member to report sexual misconduct by another member. This, I think, could pose some problems, but I'm sure that when we get to committee stage we'll be asking some specific questions of the minister with regard to what safeguards there will be to make sure that this is not abused.
So with those few comments, I want to say again that I commend the government, particularly the Minister of Health, for bringing forward this important piece of legislation.
Hon. P. Priddy: I rise today to indicate my support and my pleasure in this legislation coming forward. We hear the voices of women across this province saying that there is no way in which their contributions can be heard or seen in their communities when they are not safe. Women who have been victims of violence -- whether by a physician, a member in the community or whoever the perpetrator has been -- have been threatened in their communities. Many of us have heard the voices and stories of women who have come to us who have been victims of sexual harassment -- indeed, of sexual violence -- when seeking medical treatment. Not only have their voices not been heard, but their voices have been denied. All of us, I expect -- at least, those of a certain age -- have been raised with some belief that we can trust a system, and particularly that we can trust the medical system and the people who provide treatment in it. For the women I talk with who tell their stories, the fact is that they have been betrayed not only by the system but by the people to whom they have gone for assistance in times of illness or crisis. That very trust has been taken from them.
I have no doubt that people can provide examples of occasional circumstances throughout a variety of systems where a complaint has come forward and has been judged to be an unfounded complaint. But for every one of those, there are hundreds of other stories that have not come forward at all, because women have not trusted the system to deal with them fairly. They have watched what has happened to other women who have brought their stories forward; they have watched those women's stories be denied. There are hundreds of women whose stories have not even been told.
This legislation is an indication of this government's ongoing commitment to safety for women, to ensure that women are safe in their homes, their communities and indeed in the places they go to seek assistance. I believe this legislation will put practices and protocols in place that will ensure that when patients -- be they women or men, but they are primarily women -- bring forward their concerns or
[ Page 10781 ]
complaints, they will be dealt with fairly. Their voices will be heard, they will be believed, their concerns will be vigorously investigated, and appropriate action will be taken.
Positions of trust are positions in our communities that carry with them an additional responsibility to treat people with honesty, respect and caring through the ethical practise of a profession. I would suggest that this legislation is a step towards doing that. I look forward very much to the debate in committee. I congratulate my colleague the Minister of Health, and I am proud of this government's action in bringing this forward.
By the way, I would agree with the member of the opposition who spoke earlier and said that this should have been done many years ago. If it had been done ten or 15 years ago, perhaps the voices that I hear and the stories that I read in papers and in communities throughout this province -- including the one that my colleague from Prince George spoke to -- would not have had to have been told.
D. Mitchell: I'd just like to add a few comments to the thoughtful remarks made on this bill by other members of this assembly during second reading debate. Bill 27, the Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 1994, is in some respects a sign of the very troubled times in which we live. On the other hand, as some members have alluded to, it may be a legislative amendment whose time has come and which has been a long time coming.
We don't really understand whether or not this whole issue of the possibility of sexual misconduct on the part of respected, professional physicians is something that is current or is something that has always existed among a very small minority in the profession. We don't know that. But we do know that it's an issue that has received a lot of attention in our times, and it has created a lot of concern, distrust and lack of confidence among members of our very important medical profession. That's serious, and it does have to be addressed.
The whole issue of the role of the College of Physicians and Surgeons is also being addressed by the amendments brought in today. An important aspect of the role of the College of Physicians and Surgeons is to protect and serve the public. The minister has alluded to that. However, there's a perception among members of the public that the college primarily serves its own and protects its own. Whether that perception is right or wrong, it certainly does exist. It exists directly as a result of some very high-profile cases that have emerged in our province in recent months, dealing with the issue that this amendment gets to the heart of, which is sexual misconduct by physicians.
I certainly am speaking in favour of the principle of this piece of legislation. That's not to say that it addresses all of the issues, but I think the minister should be commended for bringing this forward.
The legislation deals with the issue of the college, which to a large extent is a self-regulating and self-policing professional body. When it comes to the possibility of sexual misconduct on the part of medical practitioners, one wonders whether that is satisfactory in meeting the public's very grave concerns about a few very high-profile and unfortunate cases, whether any professional body can be expected to police itself when these kinds of charges come forward, or whether an internal committee, even with lay people on the committee.... I commend the minister for that initiative; I think that's important. Even so, it's still an internal committee driven by an internal process within the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Can that kind of committee be expected to meet the concerns of families, parents and friends of individuals who have been victimized, who have been the subject of predatory sexual practices by physicians?
This is a serious issue. I'm not sure that any self-regulating professional body can really handle that, and it begs the question whether there is a need for an external review. That's a difficult process. It's a difficult challenge that goes beyond the ambit of this statute. The minister will be called upon to comment on that during committee stage, when we review this bill section by section. When he concludes his comments in second reading he might refer to whether that's a possibility. It raises the whole prospect of the relationship between the medical profession, through the college, and the judiciary and policing authorities in our province. It raises that question because of some cases in the past where fines have been levied against medical practitioners -- or will be levied in the future. Suspensions may be handed out to medical practitioners, but charges against those practitioners may not be laid.
During debate on this bill we've been talking hypothetically, but it might be important to refer to an actual instance to really make this point. Over the last number of months there has been a lot of press attention devoted to one high-profile case involving a New Westminster pediatrician by the name of Dr. John Gossage. I refer to the fact that this pediatrician was a long-practising professional. For 20 years he was an expert witness in many cases of alleged sexual abuse. An expert witness! He was also a practising pediatrician. He was an expert witness for the Ministry of Social Services, or the Ministry of Human Resources as it was called in days gone by. Three or four years ago he no longer was contracted by the government; no one knows why that was the case. But in private practice he continued to serve as an expert witness in many high-profile cases.
[11:30]
A matter came forward to the attention of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., which resulted in Dr. John Gossage being suspended for six months and being fined. It was a very traumatic instance. This particular pediatrician was charged with sexually assaulting a young girl and, incredibly, also her mother in this particular case. Granted, these cases must be the exceptions to the rule of members of an honourable profession. This matter is now before a special prosecutor; in fact, two special prosecutors have been appointed by the Attorney General's ministry. In this case the pediatrician was fined and suspended for six months. Is that fine appropriate? Will this bill that we're being asked to consider today change those tragic circumstances concerning Dr. John Gossage? We don't know that. Those are questions that beg to be answered.
There is another question here, though. If this particular pediatrician had been practising for 20 years, and if allegations had been coming forward for a lengthy period of time before the college actually dealt with them, was there a responsibility on anyone's part to bring this to the attention of either the college, the Ministry of Health, the policing authorities or the judiciary in our province? Was there a responsibility on the part of any other medical practitioner, who may have been aware of impropriety of the most serious kind with this particular pediatrician, to bring that forward? Under the terms of Bill 27, the Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, all physicians are required to report colleagues who are suspected of sexual abuse. No penalty is being dictated by this bill if they don't.
But it's only physicians who are being required and given the duty to report on any suspicions against fellow practitioners. What about the general public, government
[ Page 10782 ]
officials or others who might suspect foul play of the most serious and heinous kind? Do they also have that responsibility? Surely they do. If they do have suspicions, where do they bring their concerns? Can they bring them to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and have any confidence that their concerns are going to be dealt with? There is no direct role for members of the public that is made explicit by this legislation. It really reinforces the college as a self-policing and self-regulating body, but I question whether that's enough.
I'd ask the minister to address whether or not there is a vehicle, mechanism or procedure for members of the public, government officials or other non-medical practitioners to also somehow enter into the process that is being implemented with this legislation, so that they too can prevent the tragedy of what apparently happened in the sad case of pediatrician Dr. John Gossage -- where a pediatrician may have practised for a lengthy period of time after suspicions were flagged, but nothing happened. Parents were taking their children to this pediatrician for many years -- like lambs to the slaughter, perhaps -- without any action being taken. We have to try to prevent those rare but horrible exceptions where members of this profession really overstep the bounds, yet continue to practise because no fellow medical practitioner has taken the case forward to the college.
We need to go beyond that -- not because we don't trust members of the medical profession, but because no profession can be counted on to regulate or police itself. There's an inherent conflict. There is a perception in the province today that the college doesn't necessarily fulfil the role of protecting the public interest, and that it protects its own first. That's not a reflection on our medical profession; that's simply the fact of the matter with any professional body that has those powers, abilities and authority. The Ministry of Health has to assert itself in some way.
We don't know what statistical evidence exists about incidences of sexual abuse in our province. I wonder if the minister can tell us -- certainly he'll be asked to in committee stage -- whether or not his ministry has maintained any statistical data to show us how prevalent sexual misconduct is in British Columbia. How many complaints come forward -- not from physicians or members of the medical community, but from the general public? Is there any statistical evidence today that tells us that these crimes -- and I think I should refer to them as crimes, because that's how I regard them -- are more prevalent today than they have been in years gone by? We have no idea. I think it would be interesting and important to inform not only ourselves as legislators but also the general public as to whether or not there is any statistical data that can prove that.
I have one final comment, hon. Speaker. The member for Okanagan West made a good point, I think, when he referred to the ambiguity in the legislation. Unfortunately, far too much of the legislation brought forward through this House is termed in very broad language, without specific definitions, and it's left to the interpretation and regulation of others. In this case, the language is imprecise. The member for Okanagan West pointed out -- I think correctly -- that there's not even a definition of what sexual misconduct is. What would constitute sexual misconduct? The minister owes it to this House, either when he closes debate or certainly when we get to committee stage, to try to provide us with a very specific definition of what sexual misconduct is, so that we know what we're talking about and so we're not speaking in generalities but specifics. We need to make sure that legislation is very specific in language and that it's also in plain language.
If this bill can help a little, if it can prevent further sexual abuse on the part of a medical practitioner -- and I'm not sure it can -- then it should be supported. If this piece of legislation is a step in the direction of encouraging medical practitioners to take this issue more seriously, then it's a measure that truly has been a long time coming and can be supported.
T. Perry: I've listened with interest to the comments from both sides. I regret that I missed the beginning of the debate this morning, and I look forward to reading the full debate in Hansard.
I guess this legislation was inevitable. I speak with some reluctance on it. I find it regrettable that the legislation is required, but in listening to other members speak I think that they represent a broad consensus of public opinion in the province, which is non-partisan or tri-partisan or transpartisan. I find it regrettable and difficult to speak because it really represents a failing of a profession over the long term, which is not unique, in my opinion, to the medical profession but is shared by all professions, all trades and all types of people. The fault of the medical profession is that it has allowed itself the conceit that it was somehow better than other people or other professions, when in fact it was not. Yet it has always aspired to be better and ought to aspire to be better. Its greatest traditions are that it should be, though perhaps not better than the other helping professions, better than the non-helping professions.
The reason the legislation was inevitable is that a small minority of physicians have betrayed the trust entrusted to them by Hippocrates, by successive generations of physicians and by society. Like so many other institutions -- the courts, which have come under so much criticism from a public that hitherto had been afraid to criticize them; the law profession; the engineering and forestry professions; the political profession, if there is such a thing -- physicians have not been sufficiently energetic in ensuring that their public trust was fulfilled. They have tolerated too much from their colleagues and have engaged in denial that anyone bearing the title of physician and having undergone the education and ethical training of a physician might indulge in some of the practices that we've learned have occurred.
I believe, as some other members did, that the surest guarantee for the public is rigid self-discipline by a profession. I don't believe that the government can ferret out and root out evil. It can punish it, but it cannot often prevent it or discover it. I do believe that the profession and, even more than the profession, the public can prevent wrong things from being done. I guess what I hope will come out of this act is not that it will solve all the problems itself -- I don't think it can -- but that it will both heighten the attendance of the medical profession to these issues and lead us gradually toward an enhanced standard of education for the consuming public. The real remedy will be in the long term.
I'm glad the Minister of Education has entered the chamber to listen. I believe that in the long term, the "Learning for Living" curriculums, the best parts of the Year 2000 reform, the increasing self-assurance and ability to defend themselves from abuse, and the understanding of self-worth and self-concept that hopefully some of our young people in the gallery today are learning through the newer curriculums will enable them to protect themselves; to understand what is not only a competent but a good doctor and what is perhaps a less competent doctor, and to get out
[ Page 10783 ]
from the care of a doctor before they become abused; to report when necessary, but to vote with their feet in a system where doctors will increasingly be looking for patients and where consumer choice can drive reform.
In the domain of standards of practice, the college does much more good work than it is usually credited with, yet it doesn't do enough. I don't believe that the government will be able to enhance the standards of care, and the college should do more. The standards of continuing education need to be improved. I'm not sure whether the college's argument that mandatory continuing education -- as required in so many other jurisdictions -- is not the way to go. I would like to see all doctors in the province undertaking much more continuing education, whether it be voluntary or mandatory. In the end, through voting with its feet, the public will help to ensure that.
Although I am troubled by some of the college's objections to this bill, I am troubled that the college finds itself in disagreement with the government. I hope some of those disagreements will be resolved. In committee stage the minister may be able to give reassurances to the college on some of the technical objections they have raised. I hope that once this bill becomes law with the support of all parties in the House, the profession and the government will move together with society in a constructive direction, so that five, ten or 20 years from now we will look back and wonder why we didn't do that much before and how we ever tolerated circumstances that will seem medieval in retrospect.
Deputy Speaker: The minister closes debate.
Hon. P. Ramsey: In beginning my closing remarks, I just want to thank all members of the House for their very thoughtful and reasoned comments this morning on this important piece of legislation.
[11:45]
We've had an excellent debate on the principles of Bill 27. I think the broad support that the principles have in this House reflects the broad concern about this issue in the general public, and the broad expectation of the public that we act as their legislators to ensure that sexual misconduct by physicians remains what it is -- the unethical action of a few -- and that where it does occur it is dealt with vigorously and promptly.
I wanted to comment on a few points that members have raised. Some members have expressed concern about what we actually mean by sexual misconduct. What does this unethical action consist of? There are concerns about whether or not this should be enshrined in legislation. We can debate whether it should be in legislation or not at committee stage in third reading. I want to say very clearly that the physicians of the province, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and this government perceive sexual misconduct as a far wider range of actions than actions that might be subject to criminal prosecution.
The report by the college called "Crossing the Boundaries" proposed a standard. They said: "We recommend that the college adopt and publicize a rule stating that sexual conduct of any kind by a physician with a patient is always unethical." That means that sexual conduct of any kind by a physician is always unethical -- with or without the patient's consent, in or out of an office -- and therefore constitutes sexual misconduct. That recommendation was accepted and has been acted on by the college. When we're talking about sexual misconduct here, we're talking about a wide range of activities that can be considered unethical, can be the subject of a complaint to the college, and can result in the discipline, suspension or revocation of the licence of a physician.
The final thing I'd say on some of the concerns, particularly those raised by the member for Okanagan West, is that I think those who are victims of sexual misconduct are well able to define what it is. They know it when they see it and experience it. What they need to have is the assurance that those feelings are going to be validated, those complaints are going to be taken seriously, and discipline is going to be firm.
As many members have said, the relationship between a physician and his or her patients is based on trust. Patients need to expect and feel that when they enter a physician's office, the primary objective in the mind of the physician is the well-being of the patient and the treatment of his or her conditions -- that that is what is going on, not the gratification of some other needs or wants of the physician. That is what physicians need too. They need to have a sense that when the patient walks in, there is not a doubt in the patient's mind about where the boundaries are. They need to know that physicians also clearly know that when boundaries are crossed, there will be discipline.
We are going to have some interesting discussions in committee stage about various ways of regulating professions in our province. There are obviously a range of options available. We could simply leave the regulation of professions to the Criminal Code and to other pieces of legislation, and make them subject to the same standards as members of the general public who are not members of a profession. We could enact their regulation by a government agency, where an arm of government would be responsible for regulating the actions of the profession. Hon. members, I believe that what we have in the self-regulation of health professions -- another option -- is the best one. We can have the debate about why it is the appropriate and best option for the regulation of these professions in third reading.
Having said that self-regulation is the appropriate option for physicians and other health professions, we need, though, to make sure that we have given that profession and the bodies charged with its regulation the tools to make sure that self-regulation is a reality -- that complaints against practitioners are heard and acted upon promptly and vigorously. We must make sure that the structures are in place so that justice is not only done but also seen to be done -- that complaints are heard, investigated and acted upon, and where misconduct is proven, that discipline is swift.
There are a number of items that we're going to discuss in some detail at third reading. I won't get into them now. I commend the members for the range of issues that we've raised here. Issues of appeals, in the case of a complaint being laid and either found or not found to have substance, surely merit debate. The interaction of regulations under the Medical Practitioners Act with the criminal justice system is a concern, both to victims of sexual misconduct and to members of this assembly. The need to make sure that there is an understanding by patients both of their rights and of the procedures of the college -- and how we can ensure that that goes forward -- we can explore at third reading as well.
I want to respond briefly to a comment from the member for Okanagan West and to his concern about unfounded charges being brought forward. I'm much more concerned about the charges that are simply not brought forward at all because subjects of sexual misconduct either don't know their rights or don't know the procedures for making sure that their complaints are heard and acted upon. That is the greater problem. There has been a silence. There is an assumption that those in authority or positions of trust and
[ Page 10784 ]
responsibility, even when they act inappropriately.... Too often the victim of that action feels constrained in bringing her or his perceptions of that action forward and saying: "That wasn't right." That is the real problem. Sure, there may be a small number of unfounded charges, and physicians need to be assured that that is an issue we take seriously. But I think this bill addresses the greater issue as well.
I also wanted to say that I recognize the need that I think the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi spoke to: members of the general public also have a responsibility to bring items forward to the college. Surely they do, hon. member, and that's one of the reasons we have incorporated in this act a provision that says that if a person makes a report to the college in good faith respecting the action of a practitioner, that person is immune from any action for damages brought against him or her. We want to not only protect physicians who bring forward complaints of abuse by their colleagues but also any member of the public as well. That provision is in the act to make sure that this matter is taken seriously.
Finally, let us be very clear that what we are doing in this chamber -- creating a regulatory framework and making that framework alive and used by the people of the province -- is an ongoing task. This is one step along the route to making sure that sexual misconduct by physicians simply does not occur. Zero occurrence of sexual misconduct is the goal. Zero tolerance is the policy that we expect of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and it's the policy this act is premised on.
Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 27.
Motion approved.
Bill 27, Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Charbonneau moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:15 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
On vote 46: minister's office, $366,255.
The Chair: The hon. minister has half an hour for opening remarks.
C. Tanner: But you don't have to take it all.
The Chair: But you don't have to take it all.
Hon. D. Marzari: It's a pleasure to present to this committee the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the 1994-95 fiscal year.
Before I begin, I'd like to introduce you to Larry Seminiuk, director of finance; Ken MacLeod, acting deputy minister; Gary Harkness, assistant deputy minister; and Harry Diemer, executive director of safety engineering services. These are just a few of the important people who work together to make sure that we meet our commitment to British Columbians and their communities.
Municipal Affairs is one of the smaller ministries in government. We have about 500 employees, about 2 percent of the provincial workforce and a budget of less than $400 million, which is about 2.5 percent of the total budget. Nonetheless, we have greater significance than our size would indicate. The concepts of consultation and stability are central to everything we do, and we're committed to listening to communities across the province.
In fact, the mandate of the ministry is communities -- sustainable communities that are democratically governed, economically prosperous, safe, well planned and resourced adequately. Such communities, obviously, don't just happen. They are the result of commitment and hard work, and they take vision and solid leadership by elected representatives here at the provincial level, at the regional level and at the municipal level.
The ministry itself contributes to community stability by supporting those local governments, because we believe that local government is, and should remain, the cornerstone of our provincial democracy. It's important to realize that the ministry achieves its goals largely by supporting locally autonomous groups: local governments, improvement districts, independent agencies and volunteer organizations such as volunteer fire departments and library associations. That's why most of the ministry's annual budget is transferred to local organizations where decisions are made locally on how to spend it.
Of our grant programs, the most significant are the grants made directly to local governments. This year we revamped the revenue-sharing program to ensure stability and predictability. Bill 20 is still under debate, so I want to say a few words about it that bear on the estimates here. The Finance minister introduced the new Local Government Grants Act in the budget speech. This legislation will replace a program that has become unrealistic and unworkable. It was ineffective because it didn't deliver the certainty and predictability that local governments have requested for some years and desperately need.
The new act, developed through consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, creates a new funding framework for provincial support to local governments. It establishes a municipal general grant base with a formula-driven adjustment to respond to changes in the economy. A key feature of the new act is an innovative clause that commits the government to annual consultation with the UBCM on grant administration and a thorough review of municipal general grant support every five years. In this way, consultation with municipal governments will become law.
The baseline for the municipal general grant preserves the funding level of the old unconditional grant to ensure that essential local services will still be provided and communities will maintain their stability. Many of our
[ Page 10785 ]
smaller communities in the province depend on this grant for up to 50 percent of their annual budgets. It's extremely important; it's a lifeline to them. The grant total of $120 million in our budget remains the third highest funding level over the last decade. Following the passage of the legislation, an adjustment will be applied to the $120 million to calculate a new total for the municipal general grant beginning next year.
Holding the line will help local governments keep a lid on property taxes. We're also shielding communities from the full effect of federal government off-loading. The previous federal government, of course, attempted to deal with its deficits by off-loading financial responsibilities for health care, post-secondary education and income support. We're witnessing the erosion of the EPF, and since 1987, we've witnessed the decimation of the Canada Assistance Plan.
The result has been a steady decline in the federal share of funding for essential services in the province, and stability becomes the key word for us in Municipal Affairs to do everything we possibly can to prevent further downloading onto the municipal governments. We are doing everything we can to ensure that municipalities can do their job.
Another major component of our grants program goes toward infrastructure. This year we increased the conditional grant of our local government grants to $167.6 million to take advantage of the three-way infrastructure agreement by the B.C., municipal and federal governments. This ministry is directly involved with the federal-provincial master agreement, which is bringing all three levels of government together to spend $675 million for upgrading and extending sewer and water systems throughout the province. We negotiated very hard with the federal government to ensure that 85 percent of these funds will be targeted mainly to priorities set by local government for water, sewer and local transportation projects.
This is the basic infrastructure agreement that was desperately needed 15 years ago as our urban centres were decaying. We in B.C. have younger cities than much of the rest of the country, but we still have cities that are 100 years old with decaying infrastructure. We now have the opportunity to do some catch-up in full partnership with municipalities, which deserve a lot of the credit for the shape this program actually took in its final form. Hard infrastructure will help us build stronger and healthier communities, and it will help them address their pressing sewer, water and environmental concerns.
Our hard bargaining with the federal government means that some infrastructure projects that seemed like they were on indefinite hold, because they weren't top priority, will now be able to go ahead. Thanks to our negotiating, we'll be able to penetrate down through the priority list of infrastructure projects to an unprecedented extent. It is my hope that we will be able to deal with issues such as growth management by encouraging municipalities to put constraints on growth and on their perimeters by being able to offer carrots on sticks as financial incentives for them to engage in growth management projects.
Grants are not our only means of addressing the problems that local governments face. We believe there should be more local control right inside local communities. The needs of British Columbians should guide public policy. We want to keep accountability close to home, so every year we introduce amendments to the Municipal Act and related local government legislation to give local governments the authority and increased flexibility to deal with today's challenges. We attempt to streamline legislation that governs day-to-day business.
This year is no exception, and the modernization package I introduced this session responds directly to the concerns of local government as expressed by and after consulting with the UBCM and individual municipalities. Bill 25 is still before the House; I won't say very much about it. Basically, the amendments give local governments explicit authority to undertake social planning if they wish to do so and to include social policies in their community plans, straighten out minor administrative wrinkles that we had during the 1993 general local elections and make local governments more autonomous by reducing the need for ministerial approval for certain bylaws. These and other amendments in this year's package will make local governments more effective and communities more stable.
We're also committed to the educational, social and recreational needs of British Columbia's communities. That's why we have brought in legislation to revitalize the Library Act and to create a solid foundation for the continued vitality of our libraries well into the twenty-first century. I want to stress the importance of libraries, and I look forward to the debate on this bill. Libraries are central to the educational and social infrastructure that helps British Columbians compete in global markets in our knowledge-driven economy. A strong library will make a vital contribution to Skills Now, our government's forward-looking skills training program for British Columbia.
The new act also looks to the future by providing a more accountable and accessible library system. It is the logical conclusion of over seven years of consultation with library representatives, local governments and the UBCM. Among its provisions, the new Library Act will modernize outdated and obscure public library legislation, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete library authorities, protect public access to free library service and help make library boards more accountable to local government.
I've provided this brief summary of our legislative agenda for this session to give you a sense of our broad and varied responsibilities. Now I'd like to touch on a few other aspects of our work before concluding with the major projects of the ministry.
To help governments carry out their mandate efficiently and effectively, the ministry itself is divided into several streams. The local government department provides programs and services to local government in administration, development, investigation, finance and engineering. The local government restructure branch deals with new incorporations and reorganizations. Municipal engineering evaluates water and sewer grant applications, municipal administrative services review local government bylaws for substance and form and municipal planning services promote efficient and effective community planning.
Other branches include municipal financial services, which deals with issues such as budgetary requirements, capital financing and the new infrastructure program; municipal investigations, which helps keep local government accountable to the people it serves and assists in conflict resolution; and policy and research, which drafts legislation and policy of interest and concern to local government. Basically these programs define local government responsibilities, regulate activities, help provide community infrastructure and monitor financial viability.
As I noted earlier, part of our mandate is to ensure safe communities. Our safety and standards department plays a critical role in attaining this goal. Into this area falls a broad and diverse range of duties from fire and railway safety to elevator, ski lift and boiler and pressure valve safety, to
[ Page 10786 ]
building, gas and electrical safety -- all engineering and inspection programs necessary to ensure the physical safety of our communities.
A tremendous step forward, in terms of fire safety, was the recent announcement of funding to expand the Maple Ridge safety training centre to accommodate the training of land-based firefighters who make up local fire departments. The B.C. 21 grant will pay for construction of a state-of-the-art computer-controlled live fire burn building that will allow trainers to simulate realistic fire conditions within a safe and controlled training environment. The fire service community has been waiting for this facility for a decade, and as the foremost fire safety training location in British Columbia, the Maple Ridge site will be an important addition to the province's training facilities. Existing firefighters will use the facility to upgrade their skills, and prospective firefighters will receive pre-employment training. The facility will also be used to train trainers so that firefighters throughout the province will share in the superior training available here. It's an investment that will protect other investments. Properly trained firefighters reduce property loss, not to mention the fact that safe training facilities save the lives of firefighters in training.
[10:30]
Another longstanding need involves the building regulatory system in B.C. Simply put, the system has not kept pace as times have changed. Modern buildings are far more sophisticated than they were 21 years ago when the province first assumed responsibility for building regulations and delegated authority for enforcement to local government. The public now asks for better building security, increased energy efficiency and higher environmental sensitivity. This changing environment has left us with a building regulatory system that doesn't satisfy anybody's needs.
Local governments and the Municipal Insurance Association of B.C. are concerned about local government liability and rising insurance costs throughout the building industry. The general public is concerned about having recourse to compensation if something goes wrong. The building industry is concerned about training and a lack of uniformity across the province in terms of how the building code is applied and about the process for approving building and plumbing products, among many other things.
To help us move closer to a renewed building regulatory system, the building standards branch of the ministry recently released a public discussion paper entitled "The Building Regulatory System in British Columbia: Options for Renewal." This document has been mailed to every local government in the UBCM as well as to key industry groups, and the general public also has access to it. I've been enlisting and encouraging municipalities and building inspectors, as a profession and individually, to respond to the document to give us better guidelines, a better awareness and some ideas about how we can do a better job in our building regulatory system.
An issue of particular concern in terms of our system is physical accessibility. The accessibility standards adopted into the Building Code in '79 remain the highest provincial standards in the whole country. Despite this and despite subsequent amendments to strengthen these regulations, public complaints about lack of enforcement and awareness are still with us 14 years later. People with disabilities want what everybody else takes for granted: full access so they can choose where to work, learn or relax.
I want to change the perception that access requirements are a nuisance rather than a necessity. So the ministry is working with the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities and the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities to close this gap between the intent of the Building Code and the reality of restricted access. We will be making an announcement on this program in the coming week.
A program that helps create jobs and maintain community stability is the downtown revitalization program -- everybody's favourite, I believe -- which combines our financial incentives with local initiatives and results in upgraded downtown commercial areas that draw both tourists and locals downtown where they can support local business. The leverage of a few provincial dollars generally results in contributions by municipalities to engineering works and by the private sector to upgrading of facilities. So those few dollars of leverage actually bring back $10 or $20 worth of partnership dollars.
Half of the municipalities in this province are involved in these programs this year including White Rock, Ashcroft, Vernon and Vanderhoof. In addition to the programs under our direct jurisdiction, there are several independent agencies that report to government through the minister -- myself. These include the Islands Trust, the University Endowment Lands, the B.C. Assessment Authority and the Assessment Appeal Board.
Finally, we're addressing the pressing need for a reinvented system of regional planning as a key component of an overall provincial land use plan. Land use issues are the most complex and divisive issues we face in this province. Municipal Affairs has an important role to play. We're using our existing programs every day to encourage communities and regional districts to think and plan regionally to identify common growth-related problems and to work on solutions with their neighbours, whether municipalities or regions. In this way Municipal Affairs is attempting to shape an environment that will support regional thinking and develop an overall growth management strategy for the province.
We're committed to unique solutions for each of the high-growth areas in the province, which are the south Island and the GVRD as far as Hope and the Okanagan. We recognize that one-size-fits-all superplanning doesn't necessarily work. So in working with individual high-growth communities and regions, we're encouraging discussions both inside regions and between regions to come up with solutions which hopefully we can put into growth-management legislation next spring.
We do not need an expensive new level of government to do this. What we need is cooperative and dynamic action between existing levels of government. It's been a particular delight for me to be able to work at the provincial level towards projects and growth management strategies that I worked on some years ago at the municipal and regional levels. I'm asking these communities what problems they are facing and what bottlenecks and constraints they're encountering so that I can do what I can as Minister of Municipal Affairs to help them solve some of these problems.
I'm engaged in what I consider to be a very pragmatic approach to growth management, rather than in the creation of a superagency approach to it. I'm hoping we can bring to growth management the same competence and expertise that this ministry has brought over the last few years to modifying and changing the Municipal Act, by offering municipalities an increased variety and inventory of growth management tools for dealing with their ongoing challenges.
Once the central concerns are framed in practical terms, I'll be talking to cabinet colleagues and other ministries in
[ Page 10787 ]
government to see how we can codify and pull together growth management legislation, which is so necessary now in our province, so that hopefully it will not be too late when we bring this legislation in.
This overview of ministry activities and priorities doesn't really do justice to the increasing complexity of what we do. Itemizing and listing the programs doesn't fully convey how interrelated our work is and how much we do in working with communities.
Let me give you a recent example. The local government structure branch has been working with the Vernon irrigation district, the North Okanagan regional district, the city of Vernon and the district of Coldstream to ensure a lasting supply of good-quality water for residents, businesses and agricultural users in the region. In fact, the Okanagan's growth management scheme has to revolve around where that community is, and that is with problems of water and the provision of good-quality water. I met with these groups earlier this month and made tremendous progress toward a solution that could save local taxpayers about $150 a year. In working out a solution we discussed many of the tools at our disposal: infrastructure funding, planning programs and some growth management support.
Similarly, the University Endowment Lands Ratepayers' Association is looking for some local autonomy and some resolution to their fire service and local government restructure in working with the University of British Columbia. We're working closely with them to see if we can resolve some of their difficulties and try to bring in a more efficient and effective way of governing and helping them govern their interests.
As I've said, this ministry works with local governments, and we work for local people in their communities to try to provide stability and safety and to generate the employment they need.
In closing, I'd like to acknowledge those people who daily dedicate their skills and talents to the pursuit of the goals of the ministry: the women and men who comprise the ministry staff. I firmly believe that they conduct the finest program of local government and community support in this country. I'd like to offer them a vote of thanks and appreciation here in my opening of the estimates.
These, in broad strokes, are the ministry's goals and activities for fiscal 1994-95. We'll continue to serve the people of the province by remaining dedicated to meeting the challenges that come with governing and making the necessary reforms that will strengthen this province and the way it governs itself. I'm looking forward to the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
The Chair: Thank you for those remarks, hon. minister.
Now I would like to call upon the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands, who has an equal amount of time.
C. Tanner: Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought you were going to call a vote there, and we could go and get on with the business of the House.
The Chair: Would you have said aye?
C. Tanner: I probably would have.
The Chair: Oh well, a few remarks, and then we can try it.
C. Tanner: I would first of all like to thank the minister for her comments. The last time she and I met in this House we were very civilized. We both sat down for health reasons -- we both had bad backs, which was somewhat suspicious, and I'm surprised the press didn't get hold of it. However, we're being uncivilized this time and have to stand up to address each other.
I would like to thank the minister for the notice I was given about these estimates. I heard at about 5:25 last night, when my House Leader told me I was going to be in the House on the heritage bill, which I know is of interest to the minister. Consequently, I have to have a split personality today, being here and in the House at the same time.
All that apart, I'll do my best. I can assure the minister that she's in for about three weeks here, and that neither of us is going to get into the House for some time. This is slightly more informal and much more to my taste than the other place, so I'm going to stay here, and the heritage bill will have to make out on its own.
I was interested to hear the minister talk about local government being the cornerstone of the economy. It might have been a slip of the tongue; I would hardly call local government the cornerstone of the economy. I would call it the cornerstone of government. She also said that most of her budget was transferred to local government and that she was trying to find increased flexibility for local government.
I entirely agree with all those sentiments. I ask the minister if she's familiar with a gentleman named Richard Gilbert, a veteran municipal politician who gave an address to a group of municipalities in Ontario last August. I must quote two or three lines from it -- maybe a paragraph or two -- because he has summarized what I've been saying for the last two years and what the minister's predecessor always dismissed as unimportant.
Mr. Gilbert was addressing the conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario held in Hamilton on August 23 and 24, 1993. Let me tell you who he is. Richard Gilbert is a veteran municipal politician, now full-time president of the Canadian Urban Institute. He "challenged" Ontario municipalities to seek to eliminate overspending by other governments, become the main deliverers of government-provided services, secure a guaranteed share of fair taxes and liberate themselves from the yoke of the Municipal Act.
Our Municipal Act is the fattest bill we have in this Legislature, at what is now 554 pages. There are attempts in some provinces, specifically in Alberta, to come up with a different sort of act. I have a copy of the Alberta bill on my desk, and it is certainly a lot smaller than ours. Whether it does what Mr. Gilbert and I would like to see it do as far as the municipalities are concerned is another thought.
In the three-panel session of that Hamilton conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on fiscal fitness and government reform, Gilbert said in the keynote address that "rewriting the Municipal Act in this way could unleash the democratically inspired creativity of hundreds of councils and tens of thousands of municipal officials."
[10:45]
I wonder whether the minister is aware of a private member's statement I gave two or three weeks ago. I said that, in my view, 1,250 municipal politicians spread around the country dealing with local issues have far more ability to deal with problems than 75 MLAs sitting in this Legislature. I would like to see a lot of the authority MLAs have in this Legislature devolved to the municipalities, where I think they'll be better able to deal with the problems.
"A former city of Toronto and metro Toronto councillor, and former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Gilbert said municipalities in Ontario were drifting towards a minimalist role, when indeed we need the
[ Page 10788 ]
efficiencies and effectiveness of local service delivery that local government has shown it can provide. In these fearsome times, he said, local government needs a fortification and a better sense of its own value. The vital services that this level of government provides are being severely eroded by excessive or inappropriate spending on services over which this level of government has absolutely no discretion."
I would like to see this government, or the succeeding government which is going to take over from this government in a couple of years, follow the policy outlined by Mr. Gilbert. He had a seven-page address, and he goes on to give illustrations. What he is saying, primarily, is that big government at federal and provincial levels is not as effective or as good at delivering what the public is asking for, which is less government at a local level with input by local citizens to their local politicians.
At the end of the minister's address, she talked about her regional strategy. I thought it was very vague, yet I think it's of vital importance to the province. I know that the minister has set up a committee to advise her on how to implement it and that it is an important part of what she considers to be her mandate. I happen to agree that it is a most important part of her mandate, but I didn't hear anything that was very reassuring. I heard some vague statements such as: "I'm not going to impose my will on the municipalities or the regions, and we're going to have a chat together in Kelowna or Victoria and Vancouver." This is all very nice, but I don't hear any hard-and-fast plans, and I don't see anything that reassures me one iota.
The minister is absolutely correct when she says that land and planning are the two most difficult but most vital programs we face municipally and, in my view, provincially. They are ones we all have to address, in which I will be happy to help the minister.
I hope this minister, unlike her predecessor -- who in my view was incompetent -- will be prepared to listen when an opposition member talks to her and makes a suggestion. And when municipalities want to discuss this very important subject of regionalism, I hope some of the facilities and 500 employees within the department -- some of which are specifically there to help bring communities together -- would be available, whether it is a government member or an opposition member asking. Having worked with this minister before in her previous life as Minister of Tourism, I know she will be more accommodating than her predecessor was. That pretty well concludes my opening remarks. To avoid tying up too many of her officials and for the efficiency of this organization -- and if it's suitable with her -- I suggest that we go through the estimates in the same way that they're laid out in the estimates books. As I question the figures -- and I have a few questions -- I'll bring up the individual subjects as we go.
The Chair: Hon. member, if you would like to proceed now with the beginning of your questions, you may do so.
C. Tanner: On page 1 of the estimates, we have at the very beginning the accumulated deficit, which increased last year by $211 million, plus $23 million that was picked up from another department. The description on page 1 is that it is for certain sewer and water grants to municipalities. When the estimates were presented to our predecessors the year before, I assumed that the difference between what was estimated and what was actually granted would have been taken into account. I wonder whether the minister, or some of her officials, could give me a brief explanation of why we had to spend $234 million more than what was anticipated in the first place.
Hon. D. Marzari: Could the member elaborate on the question? Is he referring to page 177 in the blue book of the estimates?
C. Tanner: No, page 1.
Hon. D. Marzari: Are we talking about the $188 million here? It represents the former sewer and water program which, in the accounting practices of the ministry -- and, I gather, traditionally in government -- is amortized over ten or a number of years in order to provide the infrastructure that's required. As we partner with municipalities in getting sewers into communities, sewer programs are financed over time. This represents an amount of money which has been expensed against the obligations that were incurred over the last few years. As they are completed, and as the budget and the receipts come in, the provincial government continues to pay.
C. Tanner: The way I read the note on that page is that the increase in the deficit records the "province's liability at March 31, 1993 -- estimated at $211 million -- in respect of certain sewer and water grant commitments to municipalities." Is the minister saying that this is a bookkeeping item and that it isn't an extra deficit that wasn't anticipated the year before?
Hon. D. Marzari: The old sewer and water program before 1983.... There has been a change in the accounting treatment in 1993-94. To expense it in this way is a slightly different technical way of recording the same facts.
C. Tanner: Okay, a yes-and-no answer.... Has the deficit for sewer and water financing increased by $211 million or have we just changed the way we've done the accounting? Is it a change?
Hon. D. Marzari: It's the same payment obligations; it's just a technically different way of recording them according to what Treasury asks us to do.
C. Tanner: Generally I find that as each new week progresses under this government, there is a genuine attempt to make these more readable. That attempt is a good one. I've got to congratulate the minister and her government for doing that, because obviously if the members of the Legislature have trouble reading the accounts, the public has an equal amount of trouble. In this case I'm still not clear whether or not we've spent more money than we anticipated or if we've just changed the accounting system.
Hon. D. Marzari: It would be wonderful to think that we could have invested more dollars in the infrastructure of the province, but we're still paying and will continue to pay the same amount of dollars for the same projects using the same formulas we have used. However, it's recorded in a slightly different way.
C. Tanner: Page 3 of the estimates says that the estimate for this year is up by about $5 million over last year. I notice the minister's office -- and congratulations to the minister -- is down by $4,000. We'll get to that later because that's an interesting amount of decrease in her particular office. Why are we up $5 million this year? The figures don't actually read $5 million, but there's a saving somewhere else that's been taken into account of approximately $5 million in round
[ Page 10789 ]
figures. Could the minister give us an overall picture of why we're spending $5 million more this year in her department than we did last year?
Hon. D. Marzari: The additional money that is coming into the ministry is being expended on grants. A few salary costs are there, but basically it's money going right out the door to municipalities for planning grants. Can I add to that? Looking at vote 48, local government grants, the increase between 1993 and 1994 is from $3.973 million to $3.045 million; that's the lion's share of the $5 million you were referring to.
C. Tanner: It that a consequence of the anticipated legislation that the minister hopes to pass later in Bill 20?
The Chair: The minister isn't obliged to spend a lot of time talking about new legislation in these estimates, but you may wish to respond to this regarding new legislation pending.
Hon. D. Marzari: The new legislation doesn't have a high cost value attached to it, but basically the new infrastructure program certainly accounts for part of it.
C. Tanner: Maybe we can now turn to page 179 and progress through the book. There's only one question for the minister on this page. When we go to the next page, it gets fairly heavy-duty. The question is really quite simple. Why are you spending $4,000 less this year than you were last?
Hon. D. Marzari: The obvious answer is that we've made tremendous efficiencies in the minister's office, but basically I put in for a budget that was less than last year, and we're going to manage on it.
C. Tanner: Does the minister have the same number of people working in her office this year as last, and has it anything to do with the fact that she has an acting deputy minister instead of a full-fledged deputy minister?
Hon. D. Marzari: As to what the minister's office looked like before September, when I took on the job, the staff complement is much the same as it was. The deputy's office is not reflected in the minister's office.
C. Tanner: It's the habit in these proceedings to talk about human beings as FTEs; I don't like that. I'm going to ask the minister how many employees she has, as we go through. How many employees are there specifically in her department?
Hon. D. Marzari: We're looking at seven in the minister's office at this point.
[11:00]
C. Tanner: Did the minister bring anybody from her previous office or did she inherit the seven people in that office?
Hon. D. Marzari: No, I did not bring people from the previous office for any substantial period of time, and there has been some recruiting in the new office.
C. Tanner: In a nutshell, does the minister have the same number of employees working for her in that office in this capacity as the previous minister -- seven?
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.
C. Tanner: Can we turn to page 180 now, please. In the vote description, administration and support services, there is a description of information systems. How many people in that department are working in information systems? How much is allocated to those people?
Hon. D. Marzari: There are nine information systems staff in Victoria, and there are five in the safety engineering branch.
C. Tanner: Do the nine in Victoria answer to the minister's office?
Hon. D. Marzari: The systems people are basically working on the technology that keeps ministries and government going, so they are answerable to this chap here, Mr. Seminiuk.
I think the member should know that public affairs is an entirely different branch.
C. Tanner: How many people are in public affairs in Victoria and who do they answer to?
Hon. D. Marzari: The book shows three FTEs, but I believe there are four people actually working in public affairs at the present time.
C. Tanner: Who is their superior? Do they answer to the minister directly or to the gentleman sitting on her right?
Hon. D. Marzari: The communications branch, as we call it, or our public affairs branch reports to a director who reports through to the deputy.
C. Tanner: I'm going to read just the first part of three news releases. They all came out in May.
The first one says: "Province Awards $195,000 In DRP Funding to Port Moody." It goes on to say: "Port Moody -- a total of $195,000 in downtown revitalization program funding for major upgrading of Port Moody's downtown core was announced today" -- listen carefully -- "by Municipal Affairs minister Darlene Marzari and Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain MLA Barb Copping."
The second one on May 5 says: "A total of $45,000 in downtown revitalization program grants for core-area upgrading was presented to Kamloops today by Municipal Affairs minister Darlene Marzari, Kamloops MLA Art Charbonneau and Kamloops-North Thompson MLA Fred Jackson."
The third one on May 9 says: "Marzari Presents DRP Grants to White Rock.... Eleven downtown revitalization program grants totalling almost $21,000 were awarded to White Rock businesses today by Municipal Affairs minister Darlene Marzari."
Does the minister notice any difference in those three notices?
Hon. D. Marzari: Maybe the member would like to enlighten me as to what his point is in reading out these press releases.
C. Tanner: We have two notices of grants being made and, frankly, I don't know why these have to be public notices. When the government hands out the public's money, I've never understood why it's got to give a notice to everybody
[ Page 10790 ]
and say what great people we are. If you have to do it, wouldn't it be nicer if there was a bit more equity in it?
The point is very obvious. The first two notices were in NDP ridings, and they both mentioned the NDP MLAs who were available. The third one was in a Liberal riding, and there was no mention of the local MLA. Why does your communications department play politics with these announcements?
The Chair: Before the minister replies, I would like to remind members that one of the rules of our House procedures is that we don't acknowledge the actual name of an elected person; we always refer to them by their constituencies -- which doesn't take away from the point that is being made. Whether it's being referred to in a public document or something that's already written, apparently that is one of our customs in the Legislature.
Hon. D. Marzari: I was pleased to be in White Rock a few days ago to hand out the downtown revitalization cheque and to meet with business people, the mayor and councillors and the staff in White Rock to present these cheques over a breakfast that the local community had put together. Then I took a walk down Marine Drive and talked to the proprietors of the various shops along this beautifully refurbished section of town. It's completely to their credit that this community has been able to access revitalization funds and do an excellent job in a phased way over the last couple of years and hopefully into the next couple of years. Now White Rock can really take its place as one of the jewels of our coast environment and come into its own as a city, not as it was some 50 years ago -- a small resort community.
As to the business of sending out notices through press releases, from time immemorial in this government and previous governments, that has been the way press releases have gone out. It has been important for government to be able to extol the virtues of the communities that receive the money and to give some prominence to the MLAs. I must admit that the member from that riding has been at a number of presentations -- or at least one previous presentation -- and I was pleased to announce his presence at that particular meeting. The member we're talking about was not at this most recent meeting.
C. Tanner: On a point of order, Madam Chair. First, the fact that we have what I consider to be rather foolish rules about how we should address each other in this House is fine. But I'm reading public notices of what I consider partisan announcements, and I personally find it very unfair. What I really want to find out from the minister -- and she hasn't satisfied me at all -- is: who made that decision? Was it her, her deputy or the person sending out the notice?
Second, whether or not this case in point is the way we've done it for years.... Really, I would have thought this government, which is around only once every 20 years, would have an opportunity to change that.
There is no merit in this minister or any minister of this government handing out cheques to the public or to an organization as if they're doing something with the public's money that is a credit to the government. They are merely fulfilling their function. I personally refuse to have anything to do with them, but the fact is that I'd like to be asked. I don't think Liberal members are being asked, and I know for sure that NDP members are being asked, and I don't think it's fair. I don't think the minister has answered the question very well as to who made the decision. Would she like to answer it now?
Hon. D. Marzari: I should remind the member that this is simply a practice of government, not a question of who makes a decision on an individual case. But if you want to press the point, I will say that I made the decision, and I will continue to make that particular decision as a practice of a government which is in fact meeting people's needs and responding to local community concerns.
I'm very proud of the fact that my government is doing more than any other government in meeting community needs through the downtown revitalization program, through the village square program and the facade treatment program. Mr. Martin Thomas, who has pulled together this program over the last many years, has worked closely with communities throughout this province. He has ensured that many ministers previous to me have gone out and distributed cheques, and that the government's intentions and profile were properly relayed to the people who were in the various rooms to receive these cheques.
This program itself should not be called a partisan program; this program, in fact, has affected most communities in this province. There is not a municipality or a village that hasn't been touched by this particular program. Is it a partisan program? No, it is not. Are the communications deliberately partisan? No, I do not believe they are. We are looking at a pervasive practice here; we are looking at a practice of communications and public affairs. We are not looking at anything new in this government. We are looking at a government which is receiving recognition for a job that it has done and that it is doing.
C. Tanner: The minister still hasn't answered the question.
Before getting elected to this position, on three occasions I had the benefit and the pleasure of working with Martin Thomas. I know that the gentleman is worthy and effective. He's one of the finest bureaucrats I've ever had anything to do with, and he's a very beneficial influence in your department. He was there long before this minister and her predecessor; hopefully he will be there long after we take over.
I'm not criticizing the downtown revitalization program. I see it as a coincidence that my residential town is one of the few that hasn't had any benefit from it. This is not from lack of trying, and it certainly isn't from lack of trying by Mr. Thomas. He's dying to get his teeth into my little town and to do something with it. One day, hopefully, he'll be successful, and with our help.
I'm asking for an assurance from the minister that in future, when these notices go out, at the very least our members of the Legislature, the opposition members, will have an opportunity to say no if they don't want to go. The partisanship that I'm talking about is in the public notices, not in the program. Would the minister be prepared to give me an assurance that in future her communications department will inform our members that these grants are being handed out and give them the opportunity, if they wish, to join the minister in handing out the largesse?
Hon. D. Marzari: I assure the member that in the future I will continue the practice of guaranteeing that our government gets the appropriate notice for the job it is doing and has done and will continue to do in the communities of this province, in distributing money to the downtown revitalization project.
C. Tanner: And she'll ask the local MLA to join her in that function?
[ Page 10791 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: I did not say that, hon. member.
C. Tanner: Is the minister categorically saying to me that if the local MLA is a member of her party, he'll be asked to be there, and if he's a member of another party he won't be asked to be there?
Hon. D. Marzari: I will only say to the hon. member that it's very important to me to continue the practice, which has always been the case, of guaranteeing that when decisions are made by the minister as to which communities receive the benefits of these programs, it is the government of the province of British Columbia that receives the credit.
C. Tanner: Madam Chair, the minister is digging her own hole. I gave her an opportunity to say that she'd be impartial and non-partisan. Now she's telling me she will continue to be partisan and to ask only members of her party to accompany her when she goes to a local community to hand out the grants. Is that correct?
[11:15]
Hon. D. Marzari: The hon. member is painting the program as partisan. The hon. member is trying to suggest to this chamber that in fact the program makes decisions about who should receive provincial taxpayers' money in a partisan way. If the member looked at the expenditures of the program, or any program that this ministry does, he would find that the criteria attached to all our programs -- certainly on the sewer and water side, on health, on environmental considerations and on the downtown revitalization program -- are entirely based on community readiness and community willingness to participate in upgrading the downtown cores of this province. The member would find that there is no political favouritism or partisanship in the decision-making that goes on in the distribution of downtown revitalization funds. It is very important, in the communications projects and in the communications that go on around these projects, that government be given its fair due and its fair share of recognition for the decisions that are made, just as I'm sure the hon. member would respect that fact if he were ever -- although I daresay this would never happen -- sitting in my chair.
C. Tanner: The day will never arrive when I'll be sitting in that chair, because I have only two years to go.
The fact of the matter is that it's the minister who is making this partisan. I have never suggested in anything I've said here today that the allocation of the grants is partisan. I've gone overboard, in fact, to make that very clear; I am totally assured of that. I am assured that the bureaucrat who looks after this program is one of the finest members of the bureaucracy I've ever met in this government. I'm not saying that, and the member knows full well I'm not.
What I am saying is that when the announcements come, if this practice continues -- and I don't approve of it -- it will be done on a equal basis. The local MLAs in the local communities, irrespective of party, will be asked if they want to accompany the minister or if they want their names to go on the announcement. Government consists of both government members and opposition members. We're all here together, all elected in the same House, and it is unfair and partisan of the minister to make use of what appears to be a grant allocated by government, using only the members of her party in their constituencies and not the other 24 members of this government who are in opposition.
I ask the minister whether she would change her policy and ask any local member to join her in handing out those cheques. Is she saying categorically that if they're opposition members, they won't be asked?
Hon. D. Marzari: The member has made his point very eloquently, and my answer remains that I will continue the present practice.
C. Tanner: It's unfortunate that the minister would take such a partisan view, because whether you're on the government side or the opposition side, all the members of this House try to assist their local municipalities as much as they can. If there is any merit in handing out these grants in a public fashion, as this minister believes they should be, it goes to everybody. It doesn't go just to government members. Let me tell you that, in my view, your decision is wrong, and I don't think it's fair. It's you who is being partisan, not me.
The Chair: Shall we canvass another topic?
C. Tanner: I think we might.
I will ask the minister about the same vote, under (b), where it talks of investigations into local government issues. How many people are involved in that? How much money are we spending on that particular department and how many people are involved?
Hon. D. Marzari: The number of people involved is two, and the number of dollars that we expend on investigations is $132,814.
C. Tanner: Could the minister give us an idea of some of the investigations those two people undertook last year?
Hon. D. Marzari: If the member wants a list of the activities the inspector's office engaged in, I would be pleased to provide him with that. If the member would simply like to know about a typical case for investigation, it would be the case of an individual feeling that a municipal bylaw was impacting their property in an unfair manner, and that individual coming to the inspector to see if the bylaw was fair or duly constituted, or if proper diligence had been given to it when it was enacted. Mr. Thompson, who works in this capacity, would then give an opinion. He has a quasi-ombudsperson function, but under the section of the act that declares his role, he is basically an inspector who acts as a first line in commenting on municipal bylaws or the Municipal Act.
C. Tanner: Would those inquiries mostly come from the public, or would they come from municipal officials?
Hon. D. Marzari: I'm informed that the inquiries come almost exclusively from the public, although some -- and certainly the few I've heard about -- occasionally come from within municipal structures. But the inspector's function is mainly to answer public inquiry.
C. Tanner: This member of the minister's staff would have to be somewhat discreet, I would think, if there's some difference of opinion between two members of the same council in the interpretation of the act, either by the officials or by the councillors. Would Mr. Thompson or his associate generally back off that sort of thing, or would he give an opinion?
[ Page 10792 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: I'm told that Mr. Thompson is very careful before he enters a fray between two councillors or councils. In fact, generally speaking, our policy is that if it's a local issue, we remain out of it. That way, the inspector can retain his integrity under the act and maintain his office for that which it was properly designed: public inquiry.
C. Tanner: If a municipal councillor felt that they needed redress and they weren't satisfied with that bureaucrat's decision, can they then appeal to the minister directly?
Hon. D. Marzari: One reason the inspector's function is basically kept at arm's length from the minister is so that the inspector can do his or her job. In fact, appeals to the minister.... I don't know if they're actually in the legislation to any great extent, but most of the provisions under the Municipal Act that the minister would consult suggest, encourage and, in fact, insist that the courts be used in most instances where there is a conflict.
C. Tanner: Maybe I missed it. Did the minister say that the minister's suggestion, or Thompson's suggestion, to somebody making that application would be to the courts? Or is it in the act that the courts should be the arbitrator?
Hon. D. Marzari: In the elections provision of the Municipal Act, the courts become the logical recourse. In fact, that's been used subsequent to last November's elections. For the most part, the Municipal Act does not recommend the courts explicitly, but it is implicit within various sections of the act that the courts should be used.
C. Tanner: I'll now let the minister know what I am getting at with this line of questioning. First of all, let me congratulate you on your decision to extend the amount of time in which people who have been elected by acclamation are able to file those papers. I know of two specific cases of councils, and in one case a mayor, who were advised by their senior municipal officials that they didn't have to file because it was an acclamation election. My experience is that you take that official's word and you walk away from it. However, two things have happened as a consequence. One is that all those people who didn't file, on the advice of their officials, are now stuck with a $500 fine, which I think is somewhat unfortunate.
Secondly, there is a case to be made that with that huge act that we put out just before the last election -- we put it out in the summer and the election was in November -- maybe the officials of your department should have done a better job of telling municipal officials the consequences. After all, there are only 150 of them in the province. Maybe if they were doing things like that instead of some of the other things they're doing -- like bringing the wrong people out to hand out cheques -- some of this bad advice wouldn't have occurred and some of these people wouldn't now be stuck with a $500 fine.
Hon. D. Marzari: I think the member should be aware that, although there are 150 municipalities, there were about 1,700 people elected in the last go-round of regional and municipal elections.
It's also very important for the member to remember that the election provisions of the Municipal Act were not done lightly; they were developed over a couple of years in constant consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Consequently there are very few elements in the changes that were made about disclosure, among many other things, that were not dealt with by the UBCM far in advance. There was a great deal of conferencing.
I should also add that, subsequent to and previous to the passage of the act, the UBCM and the ministry were involved with many workshops, many discussions and many newsletters. I gather that there was quite a lot of communication around what the new disclosure rules were. I am told there was a users' guide prepared and, hopefully, properly disseminated by the various clerks or returning officers involved in the municipal elections. I am convinced that everything that could conceivably have been done was done for the November elections, with a new piece of legislation around disclosures.
We cannot blame officials; we can listen to many people tell us stories about why they weren't informed or weren't properly informed, but the fact of the matter is that someone running for public office does have a personal responsibility, I believe, to know the obligations and responsibilities of that office. So I've tried to avoid any suggestion that there's blame to be laid or fault to be cast about, because I think it casts aspersions upon the excellent work that our city clerks, administrators and returning officers do during the course of a civic election.
I simply want to say that I'll accept the compliments of the member for the extension of the time period for proper disclosure until June 21. But I believe it is very appropriate -- and I didn't do this lightly -- to maintain the $500 penalty. Although it was a new act and it was a period of transition, there was a great deal of discussion and a good deal of dissemination of information, including a users' guide that was circulated. At a certain point the responsibility does rest with the individual.
[11:30]
The act is very strong -- and it was meant to be strong -- about disclosure, and it will remain strong. The disclosure provisions will remain in the act, and this is a one-time-only extension until the end of June so that during this transitional period within a year of the act coming in, locally elected representatives will have a chance to put in their disclosures later than they would have otherwise.
C. Tanner: Two cases.... If somebody gets $500 by soliciting from friends who supported them in the election, but didn't anticipate $500 worth of donations, would that have to be reported?
Hon. D. Marzari: I'm going to canvass this with legal counsel and UBCM to see whether or not contributions that are made post-election should be part of a disclosure for the past election or for a future election. The member puts forward an interesting question, and I think it bears investigation and resolution.
C. Tanner: I take it we're going to be closing down in couple of minutes, so I'll finish this line of questioning. Then, if it's agreeable to the minister, we can close down for lunch and come back after, when we really get serious around here.
In the meantime, I know a specific case in which a councillor took both the signed forms to a municipal official, who said: "You only need this one; you don't need that one." He didn't put it in. The advice he got was incorrect, obviously. If he'd had more experience, I'm sure he would have said: "Look, take it anyway." He didn't, and consequently he got into trouble later on. Now he's stuck with a $500 fine, and I think the minister knows who I'm talking about. It's a local councillor here. I don't know what you're going to do about it. I think there's a genuine hardship
[ Page 10793 ]
in this case. I really don't think he should be stuck with the fine.
I don't know how the minister is going to deal with it, but maybe she would be generous enough to send out a cheque from her own chequing account instead of the ministry's. I know she likes handing out cheques; this would be a great opportunity. She could ask her local MLA to go with her, because he's of her party. Does the minister have any help or solace for this individual?
Hon. D. Marzari: The member puts forward a hypothetical question for this debate, but I will respond by saying that basically it is not the minister who collects the default or the cheques. It is in fact in the hands of the municipal council itself. That's the case.
C. Tanner: Wow! The minister has opened up a whole new line of questioning here. Do you mean to say that the municipality can give out false information and then, as a consequence of that misinformation, collect $500, and it goes into the municipality's bank account?
Hon. D. Marzari: That's the way the law is written.
C. Tanner: Last question before lunch. In that case, does the member who has been offended in this case have, in the minister's opinion, a case against the municipality?
Hon. D. Marzari: I don't think it would be appropriate for the minister to comment on what recourse there might be, but it's possible that the individual concerned could undertake a civil case, if that was in his interest.
The Chair: In view of the time, I would entertain a motion to rise and report some progress and ask leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Marzari: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:35 a.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]