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)
WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 17, Number 9
[ Page 12795 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 26.
MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
The House in committee on Bill 26; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the amendment to section 1 that is in the possession of the Clerk.
[SECTION 1(b), by deleting the proposed paragraph (c) in the definition of "benefits" and substituting the following: (c) unless determined by the commission under section 4 not to be benefits, medically required services performed (i) in an approved diagnostic facility, and (ii) by or under the supervision of an enrolled medical practitioner who is acting (A) on order of a person in a prescribed category of persons, or (B) in accordance with protocols approved by the commission; , .]
Amendment approved.
Section 1 as amended approved.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.
On section 5.
L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise to debate in committee Bill 26. Certainly the preamble, if you will, to the amendment that is standing in my name on the order paper was discussed yesterday evening. Just for the benefit of the Chair, I'll touch briefly, perhaps, on the need for the amendment. The issue of a tripartite commission, having one-third government, one-third the professon and one-third the public, was put forward very strongly by this administration last year. Certainly if it makes sense to have that focus, that structure and that formula in place for medical practitioners in the province, when we talk about basically section 3, which has just created special committees for the other supplementary practitioners, and we bring that discussion to bear on section 5.... Indeed, if it makes sense for practititioners, I am stating very strongly today that it indeed makes sense for supplementary practitioners -- chiropractors, physiotherapists, etc.
I draw the Chair's attention to the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 5, to read: 5. (1) In this section "panel" means a panel consisting of 3 persons appointed as follows: (a) 1 member appointed from among those persons on the commission nominated by the British Columbia Medical Association; (b) 1 member appointed from among those persons on the commission appointed on the joint recommendation of the minister and the British Columbia Medical Association to represent beneficiaries; (c) 1 member appointed from among those persons on the commission appointed to represent the government. (2) The commission may delegate any of the commission's or the chair's powers or duties, except those under section 10 (2), 14 (2), 19, 20, 21, 28 (4) or 32 (1), to a person or panel. (3) The commission may delegate powers or duties under section 10 (2), 14 (2), 28 (4) or 32 (1) but only to a panel selected by the commission.]
That will be inserted, hopefully, under "Power to delegate."
The issue for me is that I think that is the government's intention. I think they intend to have that breakdown, that structure, in place for all the other special committees, and this amendment simply defines that and asks the government to commit to what I believe is their stated intention but also to commit to the intention in writing.
In yesterday's debate, the minister and I talked about the the committee having very important powers, certainly powers of fee structure and powers around an appeal process. To have some kind of balance in terms of how those decisions are reached, I think, is useful and makes sense, if indeed this government is serious about supporting public and professional representation on these new special committees. So I would urge members of this House to support the amendment, and I will take my place and perhaps ask the minister to comment.
On the amendment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have a couple of comments to make. First, the amendment proposed by the opposition critic doesn't do anything for special committees that are going to be representing supplemental practitioners. The amendment as proposed sets out very clearly that a panel must be a person nominated by the BCMA, a member of the public and a government member. It says nothing about professional associations that represent supplemental practitioners. So while the amendment does indeed deal with one sort of subcommittee -- namely, a subcommittee that's dealing with matters affecting medical practitioners -- does not touch the other practitioners at all. The member and I may debate further how the commission is going to go about ensuring that we have participation from supplemental practitioners and members of the public on those special committees, but the amendment, as proposed, does not do that.
Further, I would point out that one of the effects of the amendment proposed by the opposition critic is to limit the composition of panels to people who are already members of the Medical Services Commission. That is a relatively small number of people. It's nine people: three from the BCMA, three from government and three members of the public. One of the purposes of having the ability to appoint panels and delegate authority to them is to spread the work out.
I respect the intent of the amendment as for making sure that panels appointed by the commission reflect the tripartite nature of the commission itself. There is an amendment in the hands of the Clerk, and I believe in the hands of the opposition critic, which I have tabled. I believe it accomplishes the same thing without requiring that the panel consist only of members of the Medical Services Commission. While I respect the intent of the amendment as far as making sure that panels reflect the tripartite nature of the commission, I believe there are some problems with the application of the section as
[ Page 12796 ]
drafted by the opposition critic, and therefore I cannot accept the amendment.
The Chair: We do have a second amendment circulating. I wonder if the member has seen it.
L. Reid: Just this moment, hon. Chair; thank you so much.
The minister and I do agree that the basic intent of the tripartite commission was to maintain the tripartite feature: the public, the profession and government. I don't take any issue with the intent; I was simply hoping that we could reflect that in the amendment. If the amendment proposed by the hon. minister achieves that purpose, I will certainly vote in favour of the amendment.
The Chair: Perhaps we could first deal with the amendment as proposed on the order paper, defeat that, and then deal with the next amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would move the amendment to section 5 that is in the possession of the Clerk.
[SECTION 5, in the proposed section 5 by deleting subsection (1) and substituting the following: (1) In this section "panel" means a panel of 3 or more persons who are appointed by the commission and who represent each of the following: (a) the British Columbia Medical Association; (b) beneficiaries; (c) government.]
Amendment approved.
Section 5 as amended approved.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 8.
L. Reid: Section 8 concerns appropriation. My understanding is that that's the amount of money being delegated. I would appreciate it if the minister could expand on the interpretation of that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This amendment ties into one we previously did, which was the repeal of the definition of "appropriation" in section 1. What we had was simply confusion about what "appropriation" was. The current legislation as it exists could be read to imply that the appropriation is the entire approved budget of the Ministry of Health. This amendment makes it clear that the appropriation is the amount specified in the vote for the operation of the Medical Services Commission.
[10:15]
Sections 8 and 9 approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 9.1, by adding the following section: 9.1. Section 21 is amended (a) in subsection (1) by striking out everything after "of those payment schedules", and (b) by repealing subsection (9).]
As I said in second reading yesterday, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the commission has the flexibility to consider means of controlling the supply and distribution of physicians in the province that might involve variable fee schedules. This ensures that the commission has that power, if that should be the negotiated solution, for a good, permanent physician-supply measure for British Columbia.
Section 9.1 approved.
Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.
On section 15.
L. Reid: I believe the minister and I covered this off last night; my understanding is that it's just a housekeeping change. It's simply a name change from subcommittee to special committee. Perhaps the minister would kindly confirm that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, I think that is an accurate characterization of this amendment. It's to make it consistent with other changes we've made in the terminology in this act.
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
L. Reid: Again, the minister and I touched on this issue last night in debate. Section 43(c) is amended by striking out "in British Columbia." I'm hoping the minister has had some moments to reflect on the confidentiality aspects of this particular amendment. There certainly seems to be some question around whether or not information of a confidential nature could be released to other medical associations in other provinces without the physician's consent or knowledge. That's a concern, and I wonder how the minister intends to address that.
It certainly seems to me that this opens the door and allows officials, if you will, not to maintain confidentiality around specific physician interests or specific practitioner issues in this province. It seems to me that this allows for that information to move freely among the provinces, and I would certainly hope.... I understand that the minister is interested in some portability from province to province and from medical association to medical association, but I need some assurances today that British Columbia practitioners -- whether they be medical doctors, chiropractors or physiotherapists -- have some sense of the true intent and the true expansion of this amendment. Perhaps the minister could comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The committee may remember some earlier amendments that were made to another act, the act governing the College of Physicians and Surgeons, where we tried to ensure that we were sharing information between this province and others. Physicians are a national resource, and we have a national medicare system.
The amendments to this section are similar, in some ways. Clearly there are cross-jurisdictional issues. This allows the commission to share information with a regulatory body in another jurisdiction. Patient confidentiality would be respected in the sharing of that information. The information that would be shared would be in matters where there are allegations of fraud, malpractice or other misconduct. It's clear that a physician can relocate from one province to another -- at times,
[ Page 12797 ]
perhaps, even practise in two provinces -- and those who regulate medical plans in the provinces need to have the ability to share that information.
L. Reid: My thanks to the minister. I appreciate where he is headed, but I need a very clear answer. Now that this opens the door to sharing information, who will be responsible for receiving it, and how will practitioners in this province understand that their confidentiality is being safeguarded? Are you saying that you are sending it only to colleges in other provinces? Are there appropriate agencies that may receive confidential information?
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the difficulties is that we have the proposed amendment before us, which in isolation simply strikes out the words "in British Columbia." The rest of the clause makes it very clear that the people with whom this information is being shared are regulatory bodies -- i.e., licensing agencies and colleges of physicians and surgeons -- in other provinces. Just as the College of Physicians and Surgeons in British Columbia may, in the course of an investigation, wish to obtain information on the practice of a licensed practitioner in British Columbia when that practitioner has been operating in another province, so a regulatory body in another province -- say, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta -- may need information about that physician's practice in British Columbia. Without this amendment, information held by the Medical Services Commission could not be shared with that regulatory agency in another jurisdiction, and I believe that it would therefore frustrate the legitimate protection of the public interest in the regulation of medical practitioners.
L. Reid: To put this to rest, will it only be colleges -- officially recognized regulatory bodies -- in other provinces that will receive this information?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me just read the remainder of section 43(c), because I think it makes it quite clear. The commission "must not communicate any of those matters" -- all the information it has -- "except (c) in a regulatory body that has authorized a practitioner or diagnostic facility to render services...." The existing Medical and Health Care Services Act makes it quite clear that the scope of release of information, which has been expanded by this amendment, only extends to "a regulatory body that has authorized a practitioner or diagnostic facility...."
L. Reid: My final question on this. I would be interested to know what other kinds of information would find its way to other provinces, other than fraudulent practice. I understand the minister's comment that it will be regulatory agencies in other provinces. I accept the first part of the answer. What type of information could be included now that this amendment is on the table?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try one more time. Maybe we can make sure we finish this one off. Just as the College of Physicians and Surgeons in this province could investigate a case of fraud or malpractice or misconduct, so could a regulatory agency in another province. We would obviously wish to assist that agency in an investigation determining the truth of such allegations. Obviously the scope of the information would be limited to that held by the Medical Services Commission, which is, essentially, the billing practices of the practitioner, plus any results of audits or investigations conducted by the Medical Services Commission.
Sections 16 and 17 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Bill 26, Medical and Health Care Services Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendments.
Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. P. Ramsey: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 26, Medical and Health Care Services Amendment Act, 1994, read a third time and passed.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call committee on Bill 38.
HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
The House in committee on Bill 38; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
L. Reid: Certainly there seems to be a lot of discussion about how weighty the regulations will be, once they come to pass, to flesh out the Health Statutes Amendment Act. Is there an opportunity at this stage, once this bill has moved through the House, for input into those regulations? There are a number of individuals involved in continuing care specifically who would like the ability to receive those regulations and then perhaps comment. Will the minister look at that possibility? Will there be a possibility for public input?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me first say that I assume that the member is referring to sections 1 through 3 of the act, which propose amendments to the Continuing Care Act and regulations that would be enacted pursuant to those amendments. I am quite prepared to say that as we develop regulations to prescribe what shall be continuing care, the ministry will consult with stakeholders in the field, such as operators of facilities and services that could be or are considered continuing care.
Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.
On section 17.
[10:30]
L. Reid: There are some questions on the transition section. I'm not convinced that the section is clear. The comment that was posed to me looks at whether or not there is any discipline process in place for the new
[ Page 12798 ]
interpretations. Is this section complete as it stands, or will we be looking at regulations that pertain to how this new process will be in place? Perhaps the minister would kindly comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The clauses here are designed, as I think the bill notes may show, to ensure that disciplinary procedures and investigations that may be proceeding under the present Physiotherapists Act continue and are not dropped when we make the transition to autonomous colleges for physiotherapy and massage therapy under the Health Professions Act. The intent here is precisely to ensure that we don't lose the ability to enforce regulations and high-quality performance of practice by health practitioners in the province.
Sections 17 and 18 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 38 complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Bill 38, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 48.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1994
The House in committee on Bill 48; D. Lovick in the chair.
Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.
On section 8.
G. Wilson: Would the minister please explain the significance of the corporate property section, particularly in light of the new announcements that have been made with respect to the provision of ferry terminals? What it says is that "corporate properties" will mean "all land that is owned by or leased to the corporation," and then it goes on to talk about "improvements on that land and every highway or portion of a highway, within the meaning of the Highway Act...." My reading of that is that this will significantly expand the authority the Ferry Corporation has over fairly significant sections of highway, which are clearly going to require additional expenditures for maintenance. Could the minister tell us exactly what's intended with respect to the ownership question there?
Hon. G. Clark: As you know, at the ferry terminals there are highways that are really on the property of the Ferry Corporation. We want to clearly demonstrate that the Ferry Corporation is responsible for the upgrading and maintenance of the highways within their boundaries. It doesn't extend it beyond their boundaries; it just means that it is the owner of the highway on that property. I say, in all seriousness, that this is not a significant amendment.
G. Wilson: On the new terminal that's being constructed, I understand -- and the minister might correct me if I'm wrong here -- that there will have to be some kind of connector. Will that be B.C. Ferries or Highways property?
Hon. G. Clark: To be honest, I'll have to get you the answer to that. Just so we're clear, at Duke Point there will be a new terminal and there will have to be a three-lane road into it. The intention would be to have the Ferry Corporation, or users of the ferry service, pay for that road connection to the terminal. But I think the actual ownership of the road will be with the Transportation Financing Authority or the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It will not be the Ferry Corporation until it reaches the property that's owned by the Ferry Corporation. I don't think it's significant. It may be significant in terms of a policy question of who pays for the road, and that's quite a legitimate debate, but that is not the reason for this clause.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
G. Wilson: I just have a quick question. Having looked at the governing act with respect to the delegation of powers, where it suggests that a "person employed by" or "officer or employee of...." Is this simply a wording change, or is there a significance in terms of delegation of authority?
Hon. G. Clark: It's a wording change, but it's obviously here for a reason. It's basically a legal matter to ensure that the delegation of authority to officers of the corporation, which has been de facto the case for years and years, is legally the case. Again, like all miscellaneous statutes bills, it's not something that's the subject of a court challenge or necessarily pressing. It's just cleaning up some sections to codify what is, in fact, the practice.
Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.
On section 13.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the amendment to section 13 that is in the possession of the Clerk, and I hope we have some copies to give to members opposite.
[SECTION 13,
(a) in the proposed section 11.1 by adding the following subsection:(4.1) If the commissioner recommends the formation of one or more councils of trade unions the recommendations must maintain the wage and monetary benefit provisions of existing collective agreements
(a) until the expiry dates set out in those agreements, or
(b) with any changes considered necessary or advisable by the commissioner, until a recommended common expiry date. ,
(b) in the proposed section 11.1 (5) by deleting "after inviting comments from trade unions that may be affected and from the Health Employers Association of British Columbia," and substituting "after providing an opportunity to be heard for trade unions that may be affected and for the Health Employers' Association of British Columbia,",
(c) in the proposed section 11.2 by deleting subsections (4), (5) and (6), and
(d) by deleting the proposed section 11.3 and substituting the following:
[ Page 12799 ]
Jurisdiction of Labour Relations Board
11.3(1) Except as specifically provided in section 11.2 and this section, the Labour Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine a matter arising under section 11.2 and this section, and the labour Relations Code applies with respect to a determination.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Labour Relations Board has the powers set out in section 41 (5) and (6) of the Labour Relations Code with respect to any councils of trade unions established under section 11.2.
(3) If the Labour Relations Board determines that it is appropriate to vary a bargaining unit established under section 11.2, it may do so whether or not the employer of the employees was, before the determination, included in the certification.]
On the amendment.
L. Reid: I would simply ask the minister to provide some rationale or necessity for this. I also speak to the section in terms of the appointment of a commissioner. Could the minister comment on the need for that addition?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll speak in general to the need for section 13 of Bill 48. As the House knows, health services are being integrated within communities and regions in British Columbia, and the responsibility for governance and administration is being transferred to community health councils and regional health boards.
One of the concerns of many health workers is the stability of labour relations as that transfer takes place. We believe clarifying jurisdictional bargaining relations in the broad health field is essential to make sure that the transition to regional and community authorities proceeds as smoothly as possible. Quite frankly, we believe that this is the best option for dealing with this. It avoids a series of lengthy labour relations concerns that could stretch out over years. I guess I would characterize the mechanisms for ensuring a stable labour relations environment as, in essence, depending on consultation with the affected parties.
The principle of this amendment is to look at certain criteria, to ask a commissioner to very clearly examine jurisdictional relationships and boundaries in the light of those criteria, and to make recommendations to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for enactment. It is an amendment based on consultation and listening to workers and those who represent them, and to employer organizations that provide health services.
L. Reid: Speaking specifically to the amendment, section 11.1(4.1) reads: "If the commissioner recommends the formation of one or more councils of trade unions the recommendations must maintain the wage and monetary benefit provisions of existing collective agreements...." Hypothetically speaking, if we were talking about municipal nurses coming in line with this section, we wouldn't be having the debate that's currently underway today. Their monetary provisions or benefits package would simply be transferred to their new employer, which would be the council. Am I correct in that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, the member is correct.
[10:45]
G. Wilson: Are we dealing with all of the amendments, or are we simply dealing with section 11.1, and then we'll go to section 11.3?
The Chair: At the moment I am considering the entire amendment as a single unit. If it's more convenient, we could go through....
G. Wilson: No, that's fair enough.
First of all, with respect to consultation, I can tell you that when this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1994 came in, there certainly hadn't been any consultation. On the day it came in, from my communications with both the HEU and BCNU, neither of them had heard about it, and neither had the board. We were all quite surprised at what was intended.
I understand that this amendment is attempting to modify.... If the minister could just simply say that it's to modify section 11.2(4), (5) and (6) and include the same thing in the added section, which I gather would be under (b), and then suggest that 11.3 is going to be amended with respect to the provision of some kind of inclusion of the Labour Relations Board.... The most contentious issue here remains with respect to the role of the Labour Relations Board in the establishment of these new bargaining units and the extent to which the ministry can simply override or bypass that process.
It would strike me that this is parallel legislation to what this government did to teachers, in the sense that the government, not the employees, is effectively determining that there should be one bargaining agent for the employees, which is a major departure from the practice of labour law in this province. Generally, the employees determine how they should be constituted, how their union should bargain and negotiate, and who should bargain on their behalf. In this instance, the government is determining that this commissioner is going to make a recommendation that's going to do so. Notwithstanding these amendments, there still seems to be an exemption with respect to the exclusive jurisdiction that the board may have over all matters except the most critical matter, and that is how these unions are going to be constituted. Is that not so?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let's be clear that these amendments are dealing with a transitional period in the governance and administration of health care in the province. Once that transition is completed and the recommendations of the commissioner are made to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and acted upon, the authority of the commissioner and, indeed, the effect of these sections really goes away. The Labour Relations Board has its normal powers and duties under the Labour Relations Code.
The reason for the amendments is quite simply that there are clearly some issues that might arise with respect to restructuring under the Health Authorities Act which go beyond the jurisdiction of the board to deal with, particularly in the area of multi-employer bargaining units. So there is some value in appointing a specialized commissioner to undertake this review and make recommendations. This may be well be much more encompassing and complete than any particular concern about jurisdiction or certification that might be brought by a particular union to the Labour Relations Board. As I said in my introductory remarks, if the member reads section 11.1 carefully, we are looking at asking unions to work
[ Page 12800 ]
together very closely to make sure the commissioner knows the views of the unions and their members.
Finally, I want to address a specific issue that the member raised. The amendment proposed to section 11.1 -- the new subsection (4.1) -- is indeed parallel to the deletion of subsections (4) through (6) of the proposed section 11.2. I could characterize the provisions here as very parallel to the scope of matters that the Labour Relations Board could consider under a matter of establishing a council of trade unions in a successorship situation.
G. Wilson: Specific to section 11.3(1), one of the issues that I raised for this minister in second reading debate was the fact that the legislation as it was presented said: "Except as specifically provided in section 11.2, the Labour Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine a matter arising under that section." Section 11.2(2)(a) says: "...determining that a group or groups of employees constitute one or more units appropriate for collective bargaining under the Labour Relations Code." It would appear that the ministry is trying to soften that process to a degree by saying that where it has exclusive jurisdiction to determine a matter arising under section 11.2 and this section, the Labour Relations Code applies.
There is no argument with respect to the application of the Labour Relations Code, but the problem is that ultimately the recommendation is coming forward under section 11.2 to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is going to regulate how these unions can be constituted with respect to collective bargaining. It seems that this effectively puts a gun to the head of the health unions, figuratively speaking, and says: "Look, this is the way we want it to be done. Do it this way. Do it collectively in the interests of your own well-being. We've got a commissioner set up that you can talk to, and if you don't like that, the Labour Relations Board now is empowered to make a recommendation" -- and it wasn't, previous to this amendment, as I read this legislation -- "and in the final analysis, if you don't do it our way and if you're not going to constitute yourself in what we think is the right manner, we're going to do it for you." That's what this bill empowers the government to do.
This is a government that purports to look after the interests of those people who choose to collectively bargain in a unit that they choose to determine for themselves. The government is now saying: "Okay, we're going to give you a chance to talk about how you're going to do it, but in the final analysis you're going to do it our way, or we'll force you to do it that way." This legislation empowers the government to do that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let's make it clear that this government and this ministry fully respect the right of workers to seek collective representation under the laws of the province. But the member seems to be saying that there is only this way, where workers individually choose a union and can do anything they wish as far as who represents them. I would suggest to the member that that is contrary to the provisions of the Labour Relations Code, which clearly charges the Labour Relations Board with ensuring that labour relations are conducted in a coherent manner. It deals with issues of certification in the province. The member opposite and I have both been involved in unions, and we know full well that the Labour Relations Board has power to vary certifications. It has powers to look at how jurisdictions within a sector, either public service or private industry, are organized.
The Labour Relations Board has a wide range of powers here. The proposed amendments to section 11.3 simply ensure that once the commissioner has completed his or her work and the recommendations have been dealt with by cabinet, the responsibility for further dealing with issues of jurisdiction and the establishment of union councils are clearly back in the hands of the Labour Relations Board.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, back in the hands of the Labour Relations Board.
G. Wilson: Under section 11.3(1) as amended, if the HEU and the BCNU decide they wish to remain independently constituted and to bargain independently with local bargaining autonomy, will they be provided the opportunity to constitute themselves that way and to bargain that way?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would remind the member opposite that currently the legislation in this province requires provincial bargaining by health unions, and they bargain with the Health Employers' Association of British Columbia.
L. Reid: I'll draw the minister's attention to when he spoke at a health forum in Richmond. I think it was on February 28. A question posed at that time asked who the employer will be once this new structure is in place. The answer was not forthcoming, but I trust it will be today, because there are a number of groups in this province that wonder who will be sitting across the bargaining table from them. Who will represent that council, if indeed we have moved to the new structure of a community health council or a regional health board? Could the minister kindly comment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The employer in most circumstances will be the community health council or regional health board. There may be circumstances in which a council or a board chooses to continue to contract with another employer for health services, but most health workers will be employees of community health councils or regional health boards. That does not, however, affect the provincewide bargaining for health workers. We have no intention of having 75 or 80 community health councils doing individual bargaining. We have a good system of provincial bargaining in the health sector, and we think that should continue.
L. Reid: Since the suggestion was provincial bargaining for teachers, which was raised earlier by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, each of those agencies prior to provincewide bargaining coming into effect had the opportunity to send a representative to the bargaining table. What you're basically saying for health is that the same format will be in place. What's in discussion at the moment is the number of representatives and to which bargaining table, but indeed there will be one bargaining table for the province. Certainly that seemed to be the suggestion from the Korbin commission, when they talked about streamlining health care bargaining. Could the minister kindly comment?
[ Page 12801 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: First let me say this. The proposed amendments to the Health Authorities Act that are contained in this miscellaneous statutes bill apply to bargaining unit definition. They do not really touch on any changes to bargaining structures between representatives of health workers and health employers. That is currently structured through the HEABC. The employers and the unions worked out bargaining structures. Provincewide bargaining in the health sector has worked well, I believe, to make sure that we have consistency, and more consistency will arise as we move forward with integrated health delivery under community health councils.
So I recognize the concern about format for province-wide bargaining. As I said, that will continue; there is no intent in these amendments to change it. These amendments deal with bargaining unit definition rather than collective bargaining formats.
L. Reid: The minister indicated that the employer sitting across the bargaining table will be the council. Does that also extend to ownership of health care facilities? Will the council, the new governing agency, have responsibility and technically, legally own those facilities in the province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's an interesting question. I'm afraid I can't find any help in these amendments to the Health Authorities Act which would relate to the member's question. As the member probably knows, a great many health facilities are already owned by the province or by societies which are non-profit and wholly devoted to health care. In most of those cases, properties will indeed be transferred to community health councils or regional health boards; in some cases, there may be other arrangements made.
G. Wilson: Just to go back, I wasn't suggesting for a moment that the legislation doesn't require provincial bargaining; I understand that. But it doesn't require that all unions bargain collectively and at the same time. The HEU negotiates and the BCNU negotiates. What this legislation purports to do, as I understand it, is bring them together to negotiate one master collective agreement. If that's not intended, maybe the minister could tell us why we need a commissioner in the first place, given that the minister just told us that labour relations in the health industry are wonderful.
[11:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, there is no intent to require one set of collective bargaining in the health field as a result of this legislation. The bargaining relationships will continue to be worked out between unions and employers, and they will proceed. What we are sorting out here through these amendments is ensuring that both unions and employers are thoroughly consulted in bargaining unit definitions in the health field.
Let me just say to the House that I was amazed when I started exploring this area to learn about the multiplicity of unions that actually represent health workers. The member referred to the BCNU and the HEU, which are surely two major organizations representing health workers in the province. I was amazed to find that the steelworkers' union, the IWA and others also hold some certifications in the health field. There clearly is a necessity to sort out bargaining units to make sure that we have some stability in representation of health workers. That is the intent of these amendments proposed to the Health Authorities Act -- not to change the collective bargaining process.
G. Wilson: Under (4.1), recognizing that section 11.1(4) has taken care of the deleted subsections (4) through (6), perhaps the minister can tell us if an expiry date of an agreement is intended to be the trigger mechanism with respect to the implementation of a new collective agreement. Given that there may be three or four collective agreements that will have to be negotiated by a new unit, does that mean that all benefits, wages and matters that are already collectively bargained will be back on the table at that point? Or is there a provision for grandparenting in existing agreements?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The intent of the proposed subsection (4.1) under section 11.1 is to harmonize bargaining dates to make sure that the provisions of existing collective agreements continue. Obviously, what is discussed at a negotiating table is a matter between the unions and the employers. I don't see anything in here that would impinge on their ability to discuss that. The only thing that the commissioner is charged with doing is looking at a recommended common expiry date to make sure that we can move into a collective bargaining environment as smoothly as possible.
G. Wilson: So there is no intention within existing collective agreements that expiry dates may trigger matters that have been previously negotiated. That's the case in some agreements, I understand. There is no intention that those expiry dates will extinguish those rights already negotiated and force the union to renegotiate their position with respect to those rights.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer is no. There is no intent here to extinguish collective agreement rights. Obviously both parties at a bargaining table have the ability to raise issues that they consider important in negotiating a new collective agreement.
L. Reid: This section talks about considering a new employment relationship. I would simply ask the minister if he could comment on the future status of for-profit and non-profit service deliverers in health care. There is a lot of concern now that they're going to be treated differently and rammed into some configuration that's not to their liking. Could the minister give some assurance that they will still have the ability to function as a profit or not-for-profit agency under this new arrangement?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Again, some interesting questions, but I think they are going a bit beyond the scope of the proposed amendments.
Let me just comment very briefly. I've met with operators of private facilities that operate for profit through Pricare, and I have told them I expect that they will continue to have a role in the health care system in the twenty-first century in this province. Clearly, the Health Authorities Act contains provisions that the balance between non-profit and private operators should not change over time; essentially they should be preserved.
The other thing I would comment on is that there is no intent in this bill to somehow deal with what part of the health sector is unionized versus non-unionized. That will
[ Page 12802 ]
obviously be dealt with by unions and employers through the normal course of organization and certification, if employees desire it.
G. Wilson: My last comment is that the amendment, in large measure, takes care of one of the biggest concerns that I expressed in second reading. To that extent, I think it is good.
The last issue I have is with respect to a provision for appealing to the board. I guess it is intended that the commissioner's report is final. Or is there an opportunity once that report comes forward for some form of appeal on the recommendations of the commissioner?
Hon. P. Ramsey: What we have provided for the commissioner is a period of 90 days after he issues a report, before the extinguishment, really, of his powers. During that period, I can foresee the possibility that various stakeholders in the health labour relations field might wish to comment on the commissioner's report to tell him that he got it right or that he got part of it wrong. Surely they have every right to do that. I suspect that the commissioner could, if he wished, choose to further advise the Minister of Skills, Labour and Training on particular issues in his report if clarification is required or if some other matter comes up.
Be very clear: the commissioner is charged with carrying out a specific set of consultations and making a specific set of recommendations. Those recommendations are brought by the minister to cabinet and dealt with. After the commissioner's duties have been fulfilled, there will be no further appointment of a commissioner to revisit the issue three or four years from now. The Labour Relations Board is then seized of all matters dealing with the recommendations and regulations enacted by cabinet.
G. Wilson: On that last question -- and I think probably my last question -- I'm suggesting that during that 90-day period, unless the commissioner has worked magic and has everybody in agreement.... And that might be; it might be an excellent and quite straightforward report. But in the event that it is not, clearly it is in the interests of those who deem themselves to be negatively affected to try to effect the necessary change to that report prior to implementation by cabinet and then having to appeal to the Labour Relations Board and go through what may be a very lengthy and difficult process for change. Is there a formal opportunity for a minority report that may be received and duly weighed by cabinet, or is the recommendation of the commissioner going to be the only vehicle by which cabinet will be making its decision?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are two answers, I guess. First, there is clearly no appeal of the commissioner's report back to the commissioner himself or herself. Once the commissioner makes his or her report, and it's clearly going to be a report of interest to unions and health employers that will be widely distributed and commented upon, I would expect that the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour may hear from a variety of parties affected by the commissioner's report on various aspects of that report. So if the member wishes to see that as an appeal or a chance to make minority positions heard, I think that opportunity is clearly going to be there.
L. Reid: Amendment 13(b), in the proposed section 11.1(5), deletes "after inviting comment from trade unions" and substitutes "after providing an opportunity to be heard...." My understanding of that would simply be that one is a formal process and one is an informal process. Could the minister comment as to why that change was brought forward today?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This amendment is really clarifying that trade unions and the Health Employers' Association of B.C. will be guaranteed an opportunity to comment on any agreement that could be reached between two unions on the issue of jurisdiction. The language of it is, I think, parallel to language used in other areas of labour jurisprudence.
L. Reid: Does the opportunity to be heard bring with it the possibility of being represented by counsel?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I take it the import of the member's question is: could either a union affected or the HEABC choose to have their views represented by legal counsel? The answer is clearly yes. That is their individual choice.
Amendment approved.
Section 13 as amended approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I have one further amendment here. It's an amendment on repeal and commencement. I seek the Chair's advice on whether I should move that at this point or wait until we reach section 34.
The Chair: The assumption, I take it, is that we might jump ahead in order to excuse staff. Is that agreeable to members?
Interjection.
The Chair: The question now is whether the committee is willing to allow us to skip over some others, for the time being, and go directly to section 34 in deference to staff. There's a quid pro quo being negotiated as we speak -- namely, Richmond East asks if could she make another brief comment on 11.2. That seems reasonable; please proceed.
L. Reid: Indeed, I am a reasonable woman around these issues.
Section 11.2(3) states: "A regulation under this section may include in a bargaining unit only those units where the employees are represented by a trade union." Does that mean that uncertified workers will not be placed in a bargaining unit?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is yes.
I move the amendment to section 34, which is in the hands of the Clerk.
[SECTION 34 Repeal 34.1 Section 11.1 of the Health Authorities Act, as enacted by this Act, is repealed 90 days after the commissioner reports to the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour under that section.]
The Chair: Dealing with the Health Authorities Act, we want to add a new section, 34.1.
Section 34.1 approved.
[ Page 12803 ]
Sections 14 and 15 approved.
On section 16.
G. Wilson: I understand the intention of this, and I'm not necessarily opposed to what is intended here. The problem is that under the Motor Carrier Act the organization of the commission into panels for section 52 still implies that we're going to have panels of people appealing decisions already made. Is that not correct?
[11:15]
Let me go at that again. Under section 16, it says: "(1.1) Despite subsection (1), the chair may not organize the commission into panels for the purposes of section 52." If that's the case, it would seem to me that it limits the opportunity for us to restructure panels for 52, which is the section of the Motor Carrier Act for appeals under the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act. It seems that we're constraining the possibility for opportunities under appeals, are we not?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We were just waiting for the minister responsible to arrive; I'm not sure that she will.
I'm not sure I understood the question, but let me tell you what we're trying to do. This is to enable there to be, within the Motor Carrier Commission, an appeal body which has not heard the matters at first presentation and is not involved in the decision. So there's a separate appeal body appointed by order-in-council. I'm not quite sure what the member is driving at. If he wants to take it further, I'll get a copy of the act and see if I can get myself ready.
G. Wilson: This is not a big point; it's just a point of clarification. Section 52 of the act, which is the section governing appeals, talks about the possibility of appeals being.... Originally you could appeal directly to cabinet; now that's being removed in a section that's coming up. But it says here that the chair may not organize the commission into panels for the purposes of section 52, yet 31.3 talks about "3 or more members of the commission as a reconsideration panel for the purposes of section 52." I don't understand -- unless you are unnecessarily restricting the opportunities within the commission for appeal panels.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I understand it, the appeal panel will be separate from the rest of the commission. The appeal panel will be constituted simply to hear appeals. The purpose, as I can quickly glean it in here, is to ensure that the other commission members are not constituted as appeal panels. There will be a separate and distinct appeal panel within the commission itself.
D. Symons: Well, I guess I have the same question, because section 16.... Further on, section 17 adds 31.3, which talks about appointing "3 or more members of the commission," whereas subsection 31.2(1.1) being added says we're not to "organize the commission into panels for the purposes of section 52." Yet what we're going to pass in section 17 in a moment seems to do precisely that. I'm just wondering if that could be explained and clarified.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If staff arrive, we may get more accurate advice here. But it's my understanding that the legislation attempts to have the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council establish a reconsideration panel; that's in the next section. The section we're now discussing effectively prevents the commissioner from establishing an appeal panel. It's the responsibility of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish the appeal panel. Okay?
D. Symons: If that's the case, something the minister said earlier adds to the confusion -- that's the fact it was to be a separate panel, not people on the commission. Indeed, in what's coming up in section 17, we find in section 31.3 that "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint 3 or more members of the commission...." These are members of the commission, it says in the next section coming up, whereas we seem to be omitting members of the commission from acting in these reorganized panels. Granted, I can go along with the minister when he says it's not the chair of the commission doing it now; it's the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. But still, it talks about not using the commission for this panel. Indeed, when there was this reorganization or change of appeal procedure we were led to believe it was going to be an independent group -- not from the cabinet and not from the commission. However, the next section would seem to indicate that's the case. Before we finish section 16 and get on to section 17, we should clarify what section 16 means in relationship to section 17.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me try again. I may have contributed to the confusion in the first instance here. There will be a Motor Carrier Commission. It will have a number of people on it. It will be appointed by cabinet. The chair of the commission will be able to determine who hears applications and the matters that come before it. If there is an appeal, it is for cabinet to determine the composition of the panel -- from among members of the commission -- who will hear the appeal.
The section we're talking about does take away the authority of the commissioner to make that decision about who will hear the appeal -- the chair of the commission; I call him the commissioner -- on the theory that he will have been involved in the first decision, either directly by perhaps hearing it or indirectly by appointing those panel members who would hear it. So if there's then to be an appeal from that decision, the composition of that appeal panel -- taken from the membership of the commission -- will be determined not by the chair of the commission but rather by cabinet.
I wish the minister were here to do this. My guess would be that a separate panel wouldn't be established on every appeal. There would be a structural decision that certain members of the commission would act to hear appeals in the normal fashion. It's taking it away from the chair of the commission and giving it to cabinet. That's the only issue here.
D. Symons: Well, not to belabour the fact -- indeed, now I'm following what the minister is saying -- but it seems to me that what I was to understand from before was that there were problems with the cabinet hearing these appeals. We all agreed. A year ago you brought in abolition of that, but it was never proclaimed; and this was to put that in place. I understood at that time that the appeal was to move it outside the commission as well, so the same people wouldn't be hearing an appeal they'd already denied. Apparently the commission is now making a decision, when an application comes to it for a motor carrier plate, to accept or reject it. If it's rejected, it seems that you're now going to put it back in an appeal process to the same people -- it might not be the same
[ Page 12804 ]
individuals but it will still be the same organization -- that turned down the first application. So the appeal seems to go back to the structure that turned the first application down. Is that what you're saying now?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A year ago this House adopted an amendment which, as the member said, was never proclaimed. It established a procedure very much like the Labour Relations Board procedure, whereby an appeal panel could be and is named by the chair of the Labour Relations Board. Upon reflection over the course of the last year, the government chose not to go with the Labour Relations Board model, but rather has chosen to go with this model, which will ensure that there will not be the naming of appeal panel members by the chair of the commission, but rather the establishment of an appeal panel from within the commission by cabinet.
My guess -- I'm sorry to be uncertain, but I didn't expect that I would be doing this this morning -- is that there will be a permanent appeal panel. Those panellists will be members of the commission, but will be members of the commission for the purpose of hearing appeals.
G. Wilson: That's a rather important point. I think that before we pass this we might want to know that, because there would be nothing to preclude the cabinet from appointing people to hear the appeal who had heard the original application. I see the minister shaking his head, but there is absolutely nothing to preclude that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: One thing I can assure members of is that the individuals who hear the matter in the first go-round will not be on the appeal panel. That is for sure. You can't obviously have someone who makes a decision sit in on an appeal on their own judgment. You've got to go to another group. There is no uncertainty about that point. If you hear a matter, you will not sit on the appeal panel.
G. Wilson: I would think that that is obvious, although clearly there is nothing that precludes it either in the act or in the legislation as I read it.
The second point is that there's nothing in here that states there is going to be an established appeals committee. Presumably, there could be people hearing applications who might also be hearing appeals.
One of the very real concerns we have in Powell River, where there is an absolute and tightly regulated monopoly operating the trucking into that area, is that there are a number of people who are trying to get carrier licences who have been unsuccessful in breaking the monopoly. I don't think a monopoly is in the interests of the public. If it is intended that there be an appeals committee that would be struck primarily to hear appeals, why would the language of the legislation not say so?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: All I can say is that what is intended here is that there will be a Motor Carrier Commission, it will have a number of members and some of those members may be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to hear appeals. That is simply what this accomplishes.
L. Hanson: I wasn't going to get into the discussion of this issue. I appreciate the minister's lack of familiarity with the process, but it seems to me that an appeal process has to be not only neutral but perceived to be neutral. If the members of the Motor Carrier Commission who sit in judgment on licence applications could later sit in on an appeal -- not necessarily of a subject that they sat on, but if they sit in on an appeal where they know their colleagues heard the original application and made that decision -- I think it gives a perception of bias.
Interjection.
L. Hanson: No, it isn't. The Minister of Employment says that is what we're fixing. His understanding of the wording is different than mine, because the wording says to me that it is not fixing it.
[11:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me try it again. The reason I am not saying this with absolute certainty is that I was not personally involved in the drafting of this, nor in its conception. I was hoping staff would have arrived by now to enable me to say this with certainty. What I believe to be the case is that there will be a Motor Carrier Commission. It will have a majority of members who hear matters that come before it. There will also be a panel of three individuals from that commission designated by cabinet. That is established next in section 17, where it says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint 3 or more members of the commission as a reconsideration panel for the purposes of section 52" -- which is the appeals section. I believe that will eliminate the concern raised by the member for Okanagan-Vernon, which I think was the concern that was raised last year after the amendments that I brought in, which would have enabled appeal panels to vary constantly; and more importantly, to be named by the chair of the commission. If the chair of the commission were involved in a decision and it was being appealed, this would prevent the chair from picking those members of the commission who he knows or may think might support the decision he made. Cabinet has the right to name the appeal commission.
Interjections.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Cabinet is elected by the people to make decisions. In the same way that Provincial Court judges are named by cabinet, people are named to various tribunals -- the Labour Relations Board and dozens of other tribunals in this province -- and if cabinet doesn't get it right in terms of the composition of the commission, then cabinet pays the political price. But that it is appropriate. Who else but cabinet would make these appointments? Here we are fixing the problem that the member for Okanagan-Vernon has identified. Members should be happy with this -- happier than they were with the amendments they supported last year.
L. Hanson: I have one final comment on that. I respect what the Attorney-General is saying. By the same token, the way this is written, it seems to me that the people chosen for the appeal panel could possibly be sitting on other issues in deciding licensing. That is the question, not the question of whether they have sat on this decision before. There's no argument there. I would think that cabinet would be looking for people who didn't sit on the original hearing. There is a bias, unless those people who are chosen are strictly responsible for appeals and deal only with appeals, not with licensing issues.
[J. Pullinger in the chair.]
[ Page 12805 ]
G. Wilson: I would think that what we're actually dealing with here -- with the indulgence of the Chair and the committee -- is 16, 17 and 18, because we're talking about 17 at the moment. Section 31.3(2) says: "Despite any other provision of this Act, a person or panel appointed under subsection (1) has jurisdiction only respecting reconsiderations under section 52." If we could read that to mean they cannot hear original applications, then we may have accomplished what we're attempting to do, although it's not clear that that's what is in place. If the minister could tell us whether it's the intention of (2) that it is effectively an appeals committee, that might provide some comfort. The other issue we might want to add to this is that there would be some kind of term the person would serve so it wasn't something that was simply short-term that would allow a sort of cycling in and out of this appeals committee. But if 31.3(2) can be read in that way, then we may have solved our problem.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's the way it should be read, that's the way I believe it's intended to be read, and that's the way it will be read. The House Leader and I have just had a little caucus on this matter and, given that the minister and her deputy are in Calgary, it's our view that the point the members of the opposition make is correct, that this should not be a rotating appeal panel but a fixed appeal panel so that those members are not involved in hearing other applications that may come forward. With that undertaking, I think it should satisfy the concerns of the three members.
D. Symons: Just to finish off that topic, we had some comments from the House Leader to the effect that we approved this last year. In reading from Hansard of last year, I see I did say, on top of that, that I thought an appeal should go to an outside body.
I would like to see what I consider a somewhat friendly amendment, where we take out the words about a panel of the commission consisting of three or more members, which we're now setting up, and substitute the Commercial Appeals Commission. I suggested last year that rather than have somebody from the Motor Carrier Commission, let's go to another commission that's already set up for hearing appeals, such as the Commercial Appeals Commission. If you had done that, it would indeed have saved all the time we spent this morning arguing this particular phrase, because we'd have taken it to a body we could be sure wasn't the same group -- as the member for Okanagan-Vernon was explaining here. When we have court appeals it moves to another level of court; it moves up to the or Supreme Court and so forth. It goes up the line so the same group of people don't hear it; we can be sure there isn't a group solidarity where they feel they're undercutting their fellow members on the commission. For this reason I still have some concerns. You've allayed them a bit with your saying we can read into 31.3 that it will always be the same group, and they won't hear regular applications. If that's true, at least it partially removes the concern I have. I think it still would be better to go to the Commercial Appeals Commission and remove it entirely from the Motor Carrier Commission.
Sections 16 and 17 approved.
On section 18.
J. Dalton: This section provides that we're going to eliminate appeals and replace them with this rather interesting word "reconsiderations." Can the Attorney General tell us what a reconsideration is, please?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A decision is made, and the appeal panel will listen to argument and reconsider the decision of the first panel. It's as simple as that.
J. Dalton: Do I take it that what we're really talking about is that this is still an appeal, and the panel as struck in the previous section will be the appeal panel? I don't really care what you call it; it's an appeal.
Sections 18 to 21 inclusive approved.
On section 22.
D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the minister if he could perhaps explain what this attachment on the collection of royalties is. Is this some sort of circumvention of the moneys...? What does this mean? Could he embellish on it a bit?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm always delighted to embellish on legislation. This, of course, provides for the collection of royalties by means of attachment from third parties on behalf of the Crown. Let me give you a broad answer, and we have staff here if you want to deal with any specific concerns.
Just to back up for a second, the collection of petroleum and natural gas royalties has gone through quite a few revisions. In the late eighties it was changed to make the royalties consistent with Alberta's. Then a few other changes took place. In the course of some of that discussion on collection of royalties, there were some problems identified by the auditor general, including lost tax revenue as a result of some changes made -- that one has been cleaned up.
In the ongoing review, there are amendments periodically to try to tighten up and ensure that there is consistency. Generally speaking, what has been happening is a certain amount of harmonization, certainly across the west in terms of dealing with some of these questions to give some consistency in application.
D. Jarvis: Would this take the place of, say, a garnishee in the event of a product that was owed to someone else and that person was indebted? Would it then circumvent the producer and have to be paid direct to the government?
Hon. G. Clark: Essentially that is correct. The new section permits the Crown to collect royalties owed to the Crown by attachment from a third party. I'll give you an example. A petroleum producer owes royalty payments to the Crown, and at the same time the same producer is owed money from a third party. The Crown would be able to collect the outstanding royalty directly from the third party. In a sense, it is a way of garnisheeing a third party for payment that is owed to the Crown.
D. Jarvis: Have there been problems with this in the past?
Hon. G. Clark: Not significant, but in the ongoing review of legislation this is in anticipation of some
[ Page 12806 ]
potential problems, and to give the power to take action should it become a problem in the future.
Sections 22 and 23 approved.
On section 24.
D. Jarvis: I would like to ask the minister about the requirement of a rig licence to operate a drilling rig being repealed. This goes right back to section 20. I was on the telephone, and I came rushing in here when I heard you had jumped to this section. Pardon my delay here.
Hon. G. Clark: Let me just explain it. This is a really simple deregulation section. Originally you needed a licence to ensure minimum equipment standards for drilling rigs. Today the equipment is uniformly standardized, due largely to contractors' efforts to minimize liability. As a result of that, the ministry still does drilling rig inspections on a per-hole basis under the well authorization process. But this will not require a separate rig licence.
[11:45]
Sections 24 to 34 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 48, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1994, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 48, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1994, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 54.
LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
The House in committee on Bill 54; J. Pullinger in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
L. Stephens: Could the minister give some clarification as to the sections that are added?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The provisions are designed to ensure that these amendments do not apply to the manufacture, importation, sale, purchase or possession of certain products that fit within the definition of liquor but are not intended to be regulated by the act. For example -- I think members would be helped by knowing what these are -- pharmaceutical, medicinal and culinary preparations, wood alcohol, vinegar and sacramental wine. So it's to be clear that those are not included by these provisions.
L. Hanson: I think the only concern we have with the bill is: can the minister give us the assurance that there is little or no effect on the homeowners who make their own wine for their own purposes, and that U-brew operations are not affected by this? I can't see where they are, but if the minister puts on record that there is that assurance, it would be helpful.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: These amendments do not affect the people who make their own wine at home, nor do they affect the U-brew industry. We are not dealing with that issue at this point.
G. Wilson: I'd like to have a clarification. We're going to be going through sections 2.1 and 2.2 and so on; if you pass section 2 of the bill you pass virtually the whole thing. I realize that the Minister of Employment and Investment is anxious to get out for his vacation, but the point is that I think we need to go through this. Could we get a ruling? If we're going to go through it by sections of the act, I think it would make more sense for this debate.
Section 2, sections 2.1 to 2.5 inclusive approved.
On section 2, section 2.6.
G. Wilson: I have a very quick question that the government might want to answer. It has to do with the government being able "to sell and to require the proposed purchaser to purchase liquor that the proposed purchaser has manufactured or imported or in respect of which the person represents the manufacturer or importer." That's what the explanatory note to this section of the bill says. It goes on to say under section 2.6.(1)(d): "...sell a quantity of that liquor to the person who is the authorized importer of that liquor." For want of a better word, there are "middlepeople" -- I don't know what you call them in the new generic terms, but they used to be called "middlemen" -- who are essentially importers and suppliers. Does this restrict somebody whose business it is to import and then redistribute internally through a process of repackaging, as in bulk importation, repackaging and then resale?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I think what this is designed to do, given that the scheme makes the LDB the owner of the product for that moment in time, and that the LDB then sells the product to the consumer, in effect.... Most companies use some of their product for promotional activities of one kind or another. This enables that. The product is then sold back to that importer, enabling them to use it for their purposes. The reason for selling it back is to capture the tax that was not being paid because the LDB didn't own the liquor at any point.
Section 2, section 2.6 approved.
On section 2, section 2.7.
D. Mitchell: During second reading of this bill, the minister made reference to the fact that we could and would discuss this section briefly during committee stage.
[ Page 12807 ]
This is the section that the industry has some concerns about, and it deals with "Liquor not accounted for" -- a mysterious concept. When you actually take a look at the details, you can see what the industry's concern is. In particular, subsection (2)(d) refers to "the quantity of the allowable shrinkage in respect of that liquor for that person." It's referring to this concept of shrinkage in terms of liquor not accounted for.
I know the minister has had some representation from the industry on this. Could the minister give some thought or consideration to the notion that what the industry is really looking for is a standard target for shrinkage as it is estimated? I believe the federal government allows something like 5 percent shrinkage between brewing and market, whereas this bill has no clear terms; it's not clear what kind of shrinkage standards or goals or objectives that we in British Columbia should have. Is the ministry giving any consideration to that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member has put his finger on the key issue in terms of the response of the industry. There have been discussions between the LDB and the industry about this very issue, and from what I understand, the discussions are going along quite well. They want to agree among themselves as to what is an appropriate level of shrinkage: spillage, breakage, pilferage or whatever else may occur. Whether the 5 percent figure is an appropriate one or not is yet to be determined.
The assurance I can give the member is that this will not be determined arbitrarily by the LDB but will be determined in a process of consultation and discussion with the industry, whereby they can reach an agreed-upon way of dealing with it.
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that commitment. Can I take it that if a target or standard formula is put in place, it will be done by regulation? Or how will that take place between the LDB and the industry? What form will that agreement take?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know that it would be done by regulation. I honestly can't answer that question at this stage, as to whether it would be done by regulation or by agreement. A lot of the issues of this kind between the industry and the LDB are, in fact, agreed-to understandings. That may be the case, or it may be that there's a regulatory need. I honestly cannot answer that question at this point. But again, as I've done on other occasions, I will undertake to get an answer to the member on this question.
G. Wilson: As the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has done, I must raise some of the concerns raised by the Western Brewers' Association with respect to the implementation of this bill. There is considerable concern that in this section there may be a built-in bias against those people who employ locally to brew locally, as opposed to those that are importing. In their submission to me of June 24, 1994, I think they make an excellent point that the language of the act is not clear with respect to whether or not the provisions of this act will apply fairly. There's a concern that somehow this would be discriminatory against those companies that employ locally and brew locally. Could the minister comment on that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes. I've been involved in discussions about that very issue, as have members of the senior staff at the liquor distribution branch. It's my understanding that the discussions are leading to a comfort level on that point that will mean there shouldn't be a problem in the distinction between local and external suppliers. Again, my undertaking is that we are not in any way wanting to have any results that are discriminatory, particularly against our home industries. So the members can be sure that I will make certain that that result is obtained.
G. Wilson: What I would undertake, if the minister has not been copied this letter of concerns from the Western Brewers' Association.... He says he has it. That's good.
We would expect, then, that any accompanying regulation that would come forward with respect to that would take into account the concerns of the western brewers and others like them. I hope that there would be an opportunity to have some input and consultation from members of the opposition with respect to the draft regulations when they come forward.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes on the first part. In terms of consultation, I would welcome any member of the House to contact the acting manager of the liquor distribution branch and have those discussions. I would be very supportive of that happening.
Section 2, sections 2.7 to 2.9 inclusive approved.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment to section 4 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 4, in the proposed section 26.1 (a) in subsection (1) by deleting "after May 29, 1984 and before the coming into force of sections 2.2 to 2.9 of this Act" and substituting ", before the coming into force of sections 2.2 to 2.9 of this Act,", and (b) by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following: (2) For the purpose of subsection (1), a person paid money to the government under this Act where the person paid money in respect of liquor, whether or not (a) there was a legal liability to pay the money under this Act, or (b) the money was paid under protest.]
On the amendment.
[12:00]
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might very briefly, just for the record if nothing else, indicate the significance of that amendment to the act, as presented.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: To be candid with the House, the problem I have is that my staff are probably in the air as we speak, anticipating a debate on this bill this afternoon. I don't have the answer to that question, nor do I have any notes in front of me. I was briefed on it some time ago, and my memory is not sufficiently clear to give an answer on that. If it would satisfy members, I would undertake to give a full explanation in writing. If it's really important to the members, I would also be prepared to stand it down until this afternoon, just so there's no lack of understanding about what we're doing here. Whatever the
[ Page 12808 ]
member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast wants to do on this would be fine by me.
G. Wilson: I have to react to the agony on the face of the Minister of Employment and Investment at the thought of standing this section down until this afternoon. The delight alone of doing that makes me want to do it, but looking at the amendment, the only thing I can see is that it seems to clarify a question with respect to the liability question and to whom you pay the money.
Hon. G. Clark: That's it precisely.
G. Wilson: The minister's saying that's it precisely. I wouldn't want the record to suggest that.... Suffice it to say that if the minister could provide a written summary of the impact of that amendment, it would satisfy me, anyway.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will undertake to have that done.
Amendment approved.
Section 4 as amended approved.
Section 5 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 54, Liquor Distribution Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 54, Liquor Distribution Amendment Act, 1994, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: Just before we adjourn for lunch, I call committee on Bill 50, which is complete, with the exception of section 7, which was stood down.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 50; J. Pullinger in the chair.
On section 7.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I move the amendment to section 7 that is in the possession of the Clerk, in place of the amendment set out in Orders of the Day. I believe, hon. Chair, that both parties have that amendment. If the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano does not, perhaps I can read it into the record for his information:
[SECTION 7, (a) in the proposed section 18.2 by deleting "on December 31 of the most recent calendar year" and substituting "on the last day of the month that immediately preceded the month in which notice under section 18(2) was given", and (b) in the proposed section 18.3(1)(b) by deleting "on December 31 of the most recent calendar year," and substituting "on the last day of the month that immediately preceded the month in which notice under section 18(2) was given,".]
On the amendment.
J. Dalton: I have one or two points about 18.1, and then we can deal with the amendments that the minister has put forward.
There's a prescribed form, of course, that the landlord must comply with if, predictably, the tenant disputes a rent increase -- quite frankly, I think that is the likely outcome of this amendment. As we all know, this is rent control, even though the government doesn't want to call it that. Putting that aside, there are, of course, specified reasons in the Residential Tenancy Act to justify a rent increase. Does the landlord have to comply specifically with the statutory wording when he fills out the prescribed form, or can he put it in more common, everyday English?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I ask for direction from the Chair. At this point in time we're exclusively dealing with the amendment, are we not?
The Chair: My apologies. We need to pass the amendment first. On the amendment, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: If I read the amendment correctly, and based on prior discussions with the minister, in the discussion that took place on this section the first time the bill was brought forward in committee, there was a problem in the determination of a calendar year. It did not necessarily coincide and there would have been some problems with the extent of time that you may be dealing with. The change here under (a) would make it the preceding 12 months leading up to the point where the notice is given. That way it would always be the most recent 12 months that we're dealing with. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That is correct. The only other item I would bring to your attention is that we backed it up to a month prior to the anniversary date, giving the landlord the ability to get their records in order so that they can capture all of their costs.
L. Hanson: I would certainly support the amendment, because it does answer the concern we raised earlier about the calendar year. While I and my party oppose the bill and the intent of it, this amendment is a good one.
Amendment approved.
On section 7 as amended.
J. Dalton: If the minister can recall the question I put to her earlier, perhaps she can respond as to whether the specific reasons that would be set out in the prescribed
[ Page 12809 ]
form that the landlord must provide to the tenant will be couched in statutory terms. As long as the message gets through, would that be satisfactory? I might add that the reason I ask this is that in subsection (3) of section 18.1, if the prescribed form is not properly filled out, it of course would result in the increase being set aside for 12 months. I'm sure landlords wouldn't be very excited to hear about the prospect that if they don't have a lawyer in their hip pocket, they could be facing a one-year delay on what might otherwise be a justified rent increase.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The prescribed forms have yet to be developed. They will flow from the legislation. It is the intention of our ministry to develop the forms to support plain language and communication. That is the full intent of the legislation.
Section 7 as amended approved on division.
Title approved on division.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 50, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. J. Smallwood: With leave now.
Leave granted.
Bill 50, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1994, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:11 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]