1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)
Volume 20, Number 20
[ Page 15013 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. E. Cull: I would like to introduce some very important guests who are present in the visitors' gallery today. Each year during Environment Week the province honours those individuals, organizations and businesses which have made positive contributions to British Columbia's environment. The minister's environmental awards program is designed to recognize their achievements and encourage others to follow their example. This year we received 229 nominations from the public, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who contributed to the awards process in this way.
From that total, we selected 13 award recipients for 1995, and I would ask all the members of the House to join me in welcoming them here today. There are three winners in the individual citizen category. Please welcome Giff Calvert of Victoria, Merve Wilkinson of Ladysmith and Pat Moss of Smithers. The winner in the youth group category is the W.J. Mouat High School Environmental Club of Abbotsford, and they're represented here today by Jaimi Garbutt and Julie Mayhuew. In the non-profit organization category we have selected the Friends of Jedediah, represented by Doug Hopwood and Sheila Ray, and the Saanich Bicycle Advisory Committee, represented by Judy Brownoff and David Cubberley. There are two winners in the community or municipality category. Chief Robert Robinson, Arnold Smith and Gerald Amos are here on behalf of the Haisla nation, and Mayor Murray Dykeman and Mel Kotyk are representing the district of North Vancouver. There are also two winners in the business or industry category: VanCity Credit Union and West Fraser Timber. Karen Currie and Wendy Holm are here on behalf of VanCity, and Hank Ketcham and Russ Clinton are representing West Fraser Timber. Cam Murray of Westsyde Secondary School in Kamloops was chosen for his work in environmental education. An award in the same category is also being given to Friends of Boundary Bay and Fraser for Life. Martin Keeley, Adele Stapleton and Joanne McLarty are representing them here today. And last but not least, Mike Woodworth is here from CKPG Television of Prince George, the winner in the communications or media category. Would you please join me in welcoming all of these award recipients. [Applause.]
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd like all members of the Legislature to give a very warm welcome to two visitors who are in the press gallery: Mr. Don Babick, president of Pacific Press and the publisher of the Vancouver Sun and Province, and Mr. Ian Haysom, editor-in-chief of the Vancouver Sun. I had a very enjoyable lunch with them, and for the edification of the gallery, I can let you know that I will be rushing out of here to make a declaration with the conflict commissioner right after this introduction.
You should know also that over lunch I gave them an exclusive -- eat your heart out, Baldry -- on when the election would be called, and it will appear in a Vaughn Palmer column similar to that of last Saturday. Would you please give them a warm welcome.
Deputy Speaker: Let Hansard note that the welcome was unanimous.
J. Dalton: I am pleased to see my mayor, Murray Dykeman, here today to receive an award on behalf of my district, North Vancouver. As the Minister of Environment said, he is joined by Mel Kotyk. I called my friend Murray this morning to trade notes about last night's council meeting, which I understand was also deserving of an award of some sort. I am glad to see that he survived the meeting and is here today to collect a well-deserved reward.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the gallery are four friends of mine: Sarbi Bajwa, David Grewal, Daljit Gill, and a professor from India, Dr. Avtar Singh Atwal. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Jarvis: I also would like to congratulate the mayor of North Vancouver, Murray Dykeman, on his award, and also the fact that he is a very hard-working and honourable mayor who sometimes has to stand on his own for his own convictions.
Hon. J. Pement: I'd like to introduce to the House today three visitors from B.C. Rail: the CEO, Paul McElligott; the vice-president of finances, Roger Clarke; and Frank Trotter, with WesTel.
S. Hammell: I would like the House to give a warm welcome to Jasbir Sandhu, a citizen from the sunny city of Surrey, who is visiting the precincts today.
F. Garden: I was quite pleasantly surprised when I looked up and saw Russ Clinton in the gallery. He's already been acknowledged by the minister. I would like to say a few words, being as he's a constituent of mine. Russ is an active community leader, he's served on the hospital board in Quesnel for many years now, and I'd just like to give him an extra-special big welcome here today.
D. Schreck: Being the third member from the North Shore to congratulate Murray Dykeman, I'd like to wish him well in handling the two local forest issues in such a way that he continues to earn the high respect of the environmental community.
C. Evans: I'd like members to welcome Bill Truscott, here from Creston, in the gallery somewhere up above me where I can't see. Bill is on the board of directors of the College of the Rockies and the Creston packing house, and he's one of the few people brave enough to try to bring the cherry industry back to the Creston valley. Bill, it takes three people to introduce people from other towns, but here I'll handle the job all by myself.
T. Perry: Just before I give the traditional introduction to everyone else who hasn't been yet.... There are three students in the gallery from Oak Bay Secondary School: Ben Parker and two of his friends. They came to observe the Legislature in action today. They're probably beginning to think all we do is introduce our friends. But the timing was fortuitous, because Ben's dad, Jim Parker, is the director of facilities for the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, responsible for capital construction in universities and colleges. He's also the key facilitator of the recently released environmental design guidelines for construction in the post-secondary sector. So it's actually appropriate that his son Ben
[ Page 15014 ]
should be here watching on a day when the environmental awards are being made, because his dad and colleagues might be good candidates for the award next year. I'd like to make Ben and his friends from Oak Bay Secondary School welcome.
[2:15]
C. Serwa: On behalf of the government of the day I'd like to introduce to the House a former Member of the Legislative Assembly, Lyle MacWilliam from Vernon.
K. Jones: In the House today -- touring the House -- are some 30 students from Surrey Christian School. They're accompanied by their teachers, John Bron and Grace Groot, and some parents. I'd like to have everyone make them welcome.
DOUGLAS LAKE RANCH BLOCKADE
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Early this morning, the RCMP and members of the Upper Nicola band announced that they had reached an agreement to take down the band's blockade of the Douglas Lake Road peacefully. An information kiosk will remain at the site, staffed by band members and observed by the RCMP. This afternoon, representatives of the federal and provincial governments and the band are meeting to resolve federal, provincial and local issues.
I want to congratulate the RCMP and, in particular, the aboriginal officers for handling this difficult task to date. While many outstanding issues remain, the Supreme Court injunction was enforced with perseverance, sensitivity and good judgment. When the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued an injunction against the blockade at Douglas Lake, it became and remains the RCMP's responsibility to enforce the injunction.
In British Columbia, the law applies equally to all citizens. At Douglas Lake, the RCMP fulfilled their responsibility to enforce the law in a manner appropriate to the circumstances and consistent with the criminal justice branch's civil disobedience policy. The policy encourages police to exercise "discretion in selecting an appropriate response for each factual situation." The RCMP exercised that discretion commendably.
Regardless of where in the province an injunction exists and of who is involved, the law must be obeyed. The law will be applied equally, whether it is an injunction against a native blockade or an injunction against disrupting lawful activities at a job site, an abortion clinic or Clayoquot Sound. At Douglas Lake and everywhere else in British Columbia, the police have used and will continue to use their discretion in how to enforce the law. They will continue to seek peaceful resolutions first, wherever possible -- that is the hallmark of a civilized society. It will continue to be the approach in British Columbia.
Let me say this to those who would choose the path of lawlessness as a means to achieving their ends: that path will not succeed. Roadblocks will not achieve justice for aboriginal people. We have lawful forums in British Columbia for achieving justice for aboriginal people. We have the treaty process, and we have cooperative consultation. Most aboriginal people in British Columbia have chosen to use these forums to achieve justice for their people; we encourage all aboriginal people to follow this path. There will be no negotiation on substantive issues concerning aboriginal people while the blockade is in place. Stepping in front of the line by blocking roads will not work in British Columbia. Cooperation is the path to justice for aboriginal people, and I am confident that the provincial government and the aboriginal people of British Columbia can continue to maintain a good working relationship.
Deputy Speaker: Responding to the statement is the Leader of the Official Opposition.
G. Campbell: Every British Columbian is pleased, I am sure, that the roadblock has been removed without any harm to any person in the province. For that, the RCMP deserve our congratulations and our thanks. I think the innovative approach suggested by some of the members of the force certainly seems to have had some impact.
However, having said that, I think it is important for us to learn some lessons from what took place at Douglas Lake. I think one of the things that has been learned, unfortunately, is that the way to get the ear of this government is to throw up a blockade, and I believe that's wrong.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, members.
G. Campbell: Secondly, I think the best hope we have in British Columbia to resolve legitimate differences that exist between aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people is to be very clear, and for the government to be clear, that there is only one law for all British Columbians. Regardless of what this Attorney General has said, he has not, in fact, been a clear voice with regard to that. This Attorney General was confused at the beginning of last week. Representatives of this government's cabinet were confused. We had one message coming from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, another message coming from the Premier of the province, a third coming from another member of the government and a fourth from the Attorney General when he returned from an unfortunate illness.
The best hope for all of us is for everyone in British Columbia to understand that illegal acts will not be tolerated and will not be used as a means of negotiation. At the end of the day, I believe that there is much that should and must be learned by this government with regard to the way they have handled this issue. I hope that a clear voice will go forth, and that it will be clear to all British Columbians that there is one law for everyone, regardless of where they are or what their background is, so we can resolve these issues for the long term.
There is not one person in British Columbia who doesn't believe that we have to resolve the social and economic inequities that exist. There's not one person in British Columbia who does not believe that we must come to the end of the day when we can negotiate the terms of aboriginal rights so that each British Columbian understands how we can move forward with stability and certainty. The way to do this, however, is not with the confusion that was shown by this government -- over the last two weeks, specifically, but also over the last six weeks -- with regard to Douglas Lake.
[ Page 15015 ]
So while we congratulate the RCMP for the peaceful dismantling of this blockade, it is important for us to note that the government will, hopefully, have learned a great deal about how we can handle these issues in the future so that we don't have blockades put up and illegal acts undertaken, and so the people of British Columbia can have confidence in the office of the Attorney General once again.
J. Weisgerber: I'm sure that everyone is relieved that the blockade is down, particularly the people at Douglas Lake -- the people who work there, the kids who haven't been able to go to school and the people who have been inconvenienced because of the blockade. They will be relieved that it has come down.
There will be a lot of frustration, though, that it has taken the government of British Columbia almost two weeks to bring down an illegal blockade for which the court had already issued an injunction and a court order to bring it down. It has still taken almost two weeks to resolve. The Attorney General says that we are all treated equally. That's not true. It's patently not true, simply based on the evidence of this instance itself. There was no legal rationale or no legal basis for the blockade at Douglas Lake.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: The former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs asks: "How long did Mount Currie take?" It took a lot longer, because there was a question about the right-of-way on the road, and the minister knows that.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Could we extend the courtesy to the member of letting his comments be heard?
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the members opposite don't understand the difference in the response that should be taken when there's an injunction obtained and when there is not an injunction in place. Here there was an injunction, an obligation on the government to act, and they didn't for almost two weeks before coming to grips with it.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: The Attorney General says roadblocks don't work. But I don't believe the people affected at Apex or at Douglas Lake or at Merritt believe that today. Indeed, the opposite is the truth: the people who participated in an illegal blockade today have the ear of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the ear of the federal government. They have moved their agenda ahead as a direct result of the illegal activities that took place on the Douglas Lake Ranch. The government has responded inappropriately and incorrectly, and it will encourage anyone else who wants the ear of the government to follow the pattern that the government itself has clearly defined for anyone who's interested at Apex, Douglas Lake and at other events around British Columbia. As much as we're satisfied that finally there's been some action, I don't believe the government has shown both the leadership and the determination that's necessary in order to deal with these issues appropriately and promptly, and with the kind of resolution that British Columbians -- including British Columbians who support you folks -- are looking for in this province.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on what point?
G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, member, I hear a nay.
Leave not granted.
Deputy Speaker: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on what point?
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, members. I must be able to hear what point the member is rising on.
D. Mitchell: I ask for leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Deputy Speaker: Shall leave be granted? I hear a nay, member.
D. Mitchell: I'm sure that with all the noise in the House, there's some confusion. I know that no member of this House would seek to disallow an independent member from speaking.
Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat. We heard a nay, and as you know, by standing orders, that's all that's required. It's not debatable.
Leave not granted.
J. Tyabji: I seek leave to respond.
Deputy Speaker: Shall leave be granted? I'm sorry; I hear a nay, member.
Leave not granted.
Deputy Speaker: Okanagan East meets Okanagan West.
C. Serwa: I ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Deputy Speaker: Shall leave be granted? I'm sorry, member, I hear a nay. Please be seated.
Leave not granted.
R. Chisholm: I ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Deputy Speaker: Shall leave be granted? I'm sorry, member, I also hear a nay here.
Leave not granted.
Some Hon. Members: Shame, shame!
[ Page 15016 ]
LABOUR MOVEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN DRAFTING OF ELECTION ACT
G. Campbell: Senior government officials have said that the delay in the Election Act was the result of a lack of agreement between the government and the labour movement. Last week the Attorney General informed us that he was not aware of any discussions between the government and the labour movement with regard to the bill. This week I would like to ask the Premier: can the Premier tell us whether he or any members of his office or the NDP government consulted with labour leaders or organizations with regard to the Election Act legislation?
[2:30]
Hon. M. Harcourt: This is a bill that is before the House; it is a matter that is being debated before the House. The principles that are important in this Election Act have been discussed with many people in British Columbia. The issue of whether we should have the same laws as the federal government.... Should they apply in British Columbia? Are we going to have disclosure of campaign contributions and limits on those contributions? Should we modernize the act? That discussion has taken place for at least the last seven or eight years by me and by the New Democratic Party -- in government and when we were in opposition. It was among our campaign promises, and we are prepared to bring in a modern Election Act and carry out our campaign commitments.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, we have consulted widely.
Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.
G. Campbell: I am talking about the process that led to the bill which has been submitted to the House.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member; will you take your seat. I have a point of order.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I wish that you would clarify the rules of this chamber, because the rules say that a bill before the House cannot be raised in question period. Tell the government to call the bill. We'll debate it then, but not in question period, hon. Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: I will take a response to the point of order from the Opposition House Leader, but that is all I will take.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I think, knows well that the question is regarding the development process of arriving at the bill and not the content of the bill itself, which indeed is up for debate.
Deputy Speaker: The member's point is indeed well taken, and I advise all members of that. We are not debating the content of the bill; rather, we're talking about the process of bringing the bill forward. The question is in order.
G. Campbell: Let me be specific and request a specific response from the Premier, not a generalized response. Will the Premier disclose to the public all correspondence between his office and the labour movement concerning the development of this bill? Will he tell us which sections were altered or deleted at the directions of the labour movement?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the people of British Columbia would be far more interested in what the Leader of the Opposition owes those 2,800 people who showed up at his fundraiser -- who want to pave over the agricultural lands, mine the Tatshenshini and clearcut the forests, and who want Howe Street back. That's what the people of British Columbia want to know from the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that he has access under freedom of information to correspondence or reports. He doesn't have to come to this question period to waste the taxpayers' time. He's already done a great deal of that with the overuse of the freedom-of-information laws -- which this government implemented, which was another campaign promise that we're very proud we implemented. We will continue to implement what we committed to do in the last election.
DOUGLAS LAKE RANCH BLOCKADE
M. de Jong: My question is to the Attorney General. For two weeks, members of the Upper Nicola band manned an illegal blockade of the Douglas Lake Ranch. They did so, as the Attorney General has pointed out, in contravention of a Supreme Court order. The role of the Attorney General, I submit, is to preserve and protect the integrity of the courts in this province. Accordingly, can the Attorney General advise whether he will be proceeding with charges of contempt of court against the individuals who violated the Supreme Court order?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sorry the member wasn't here for the ministerial statement and therefore doesn't realize that there were no arrests at the Douglas Lake blockade. In fact, the agreement was a voluntary one to bring the blockade to an end. In matters of civil disobedience.... I have already explained to the House how the police in this province administer the law in respect of civil disobedience. In all of those cases, they exercised their discretion. I'm proud to say that they did so in a way that should make every British Columbian proud today of the policemen and policewomen who work for them in this province.
M. de Jong: I was present for the Attorney General's words, and I must say that in spite of those words, he is showing surprisingly little regard for the principle of equality before the law. British Columbians, including those who were at Clayoquot -- who were at Kennedy Lake, Port Alberni -- want to know that there is one law applicable to all British Columbians. My question to the Attorney General is: have the discussions between this government and the Upper Nicola band included a promise from the government of a general
[ Page 15017 ]
amnesty for all those who participated in the illegal blockade? If not, when does the Attorney General anticipate charges being laid against those individuals who participated in the illegal blockade?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm surprised sometimes that the member, who is apparently trained in the law, has no knowledge of how it works. If in fact the police make arrests and recommend to the Crown that charges should be laid, the Crown will consider whether charges should be laid based on the charge approval process that is in place for all British Columbians.
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. The Attorney General's refusal to prosecute the natives who broke and defied the law at Douglas Lake is a travesty of justice. It sends the message to all native people that they can break the law with impunity and then bring the government to its knees at a blockade. Will the Premier admit today that British Columbians have lost confidence in the Attorney General and his ability to administer the law fairly and equitably to all British Columbians? Will he admit today that the Attorney General is the wrong person for the position he now holds?
Hon. M. Harcourt: What I will admit is that the Leader of the Third Party was the wrong Minister of Native Affairs. He let a roadblock go on for over two months at Duffey Lake Road. For over two months he sat there and squirmed and wiggled, and wondered what the heck to do, and then he went up to the blockade and asked: "Would you please take the blockade down?" They said no -- blew him away -- and he turned around and walked back to his car with a dejected look and his shoulders bowed like this, and the cameras followed him all the way back to his little wee car and back to town.
Now, hon. Speaker, if you think this government is going to get advice from that Leader of the Third Party, who shouldn't have been the Minister of Native Affairs, forget it.
Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
J. Weisgerber: For anybody who's interested in history, they might know, and the Premier might know, that at Duffey Lake we were the only government -- and I was the only minister -- who had the jam to bring in resumption, to take back title to that right-of-way and to open the Duffey Lake Road once and for all.
Deputy Speaker: The question, please.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, if the minister and the Premier showed the same kind of gumption...
Deputy Speaker: Member....
J. Weisgerber: ...we wouldn't be facing these problems day after day.
Deputy Speaker: Member, you're making a statement. Do you have a question?
J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, if you hear a statement, you are inclined to respond with one.
Will the Premier have enough gumption today to demand the resignation of the Attorney General and put in place somebody who will enforce the laws of British Columbia fairly and equitably for all British Columbians, regardless of where they live or what their color is?
Interjections.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the Leader of the Third Party has been around Bill Vander Zalm too long or is concerned about that deepening Vander Zalm shadow; he is concerned about what is happening in his ragtag little band. But he knows very well that the police in this province are applying a law that the Attorney General and I have made very clear applies to each and every person in this province equally.
I say to those who want to pursue illegal means, conflict and confrontation that those will not advance justice and a reconciliation between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in this province. The only way that will happen is through the Treaty Commission process and sitting down and negotiating these issues peacefully -- not by using illegal means, not by confrontation and not through litigation -- and the Leader of the Third Party fully knows that.
LIQUOR MARKETING SESSION IN SAN FRANCISCO
J. Dalton: I have a question for the Attorney General. In early May, John Nieuwenburg, general manager of the liquor distribution branch, and as we know, star of stage and screen, travelled to San Francisco with three other members of LDB management. The purpose of the trip was to learn how to market liquor more effectively. How can this Attorney General condone strategies to sell even more alcohol when the Minister of Health is running ads showing the hundreds of millions of dollars that drunk driving costs this province every year?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The trip to San Francisco was to attend a marketing meeting in which officials from each of the liquor distribution branches across the country were invited to participate. I know the member is wrong in his assumption that this was an effort to try to get people to drink more. It was not. It was a marketing session that did not have that as its objective.
The liquor distribution branch is interested in making sure that British Columbians understand the nature of alcohol and its consequences, that they have information that will lead to better and more responsible drinking habits. That is the goal and direction of the liquor distribution branch.
Deputy Speaker: West Vancouver-Capilano on a supplementary.
J. Dalton: Well, I'm sure Mr. Nieuwenburg will disagree with the Attorney General, because in his letter he outlined the overnight that he and his three travellers spent at the Marriott at Fisherman's Wharf. They were down there "to observe retailers who market very differently." That was the purpose of their visit. Can this minister tell the House what new strategies the LDB has undertaken as a result of that trip?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The LDB is interested in ensuring that its customers, British Columbia consumers, are provided
[ Page 15018 ]
with accurate and up-to-date information in a manner and way in which consumers can understand and absorb that information.
NEW CEO OF TRANSPORTATION FINANCING AUTHORITY
D. Symons: Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Investment indicated that Blair Redlin had been working for the civil service for quite some time. Mr. Redlin's appointment to his current position has little or nothing to do with merit but everything to do with his work for the NDP in Alberta and British Columbia and for trade unions in Ottawa and B.C. Could the minister indicate today where in Mr. Redlin's background he has gained expertise in transportation finance that qualifies him for his job as CEO of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority?
[2:45]
Hon. G. Clark: I'd be delighted to provide a full briefing for the member, including, if he wants, discussing transportation policy questions with Mr. Redlin. Mr. Redlin has been in charge of economic policy agenda for the government, a jobs and investment plan which the Premier announced recently. In the government's jobs and investment plan, transportation -- and efficient transportation, including a ten-year plan for ferries capital construction, a ten-year plan for transit and a plan for highway construction -- is integral to promoting economic growth and job creation in British Columbia.
We invite members -- instead of questioning, cheap politics and attempting to discredit individuals who can't speak for themselves in this chamber -- to get on with the question of debating major issues about rapid transit, the Island Highway and ferry capital construction, which are more important to dealing with the public policy agenda in British Columbia.
Deputy Speaker: I must advise members that the bell terminates question period.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I rise to answer a question which was asked of me yesterday, Hon. Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.
DROPPING OF CHARGES AGAINST UPPER NICOLA INDIAN BAND MEMBERS
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Leader of the Opposition asked a question yesterday about charges that were laid against members of the Upper Nicola band at Douglas Lake, which was: "Can the Attorney General tell this House why the charges were dropped?"
On April 21 of this year, four members of the Upper Nicola Indian band passively resisted their removal from the Minnie Lake area by the RCMP. On May 2, 1995, two members of the band were involved in the same type of incident when found with a gill-net set by them on the lake. On both dates the RCMP arrested the band members and released them on undertakings not to attend at the lake. On May 26, 1995, the acting regional Crown counsel for the area made the decision not to approve criminal charges for the following reasons: there was no substantial likelihood of conviction on the proposed charges of assault by trespass, as the law is clear that passive resistance does not constitute an offence under the Criminal Code; second, there was no substantial likelihood of conviction on the proposed charges of theft of fish, because the Crown lacked the requisite level of evidence to prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt.
This decision not to prosecute was made on May 26, 1995, and was not part of the negotiations between the RCMP and the Upper Nicola band which resulted in the removal of the roadblock today. Charges were not dropped in this case, as was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, charges were never laid, and the criminal justice branch independently decided not to approve charges, based on a consistent application of law to the alleged circumstances.
D. Mitchell: I seek to raise a point of order with respect to the procedure in question period today, and I seek some clarification from the Chair on this. The rules of the assembly are fairly clear. Standing order 47A particularly, dealing with oral questions, suggests that an oral question asked during the 15 minutes assigned four days a week for oral question period should not anticipate an order of the day. I think it's fairly clear practice in this assembly that no oral question should anticipate a bill that has been introduced in the House, for instance.
The Leader of the Official Opposition today asked a question which I thought appeared to be out of order, but I seek some clarification from the Chair on this. The reason I raise a point of order is that I think it's an important precedent that the Chair makes today. If in fact members of the assembly are allowed to ask questions during oral question period dealing with the process, procedure or content of a bill or other matter or resolution that's set forward in Orders of the Day, I think that sets a dangerous precedent; but it's an important one that we need to understand very clearly, hon. Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: I was tempted, I must confess, member, to cut you off before you raised your point of order, because I ruled earlier on that subject. However, I have listened to your point, and I will take it under advisement. I will review the Blues, and I will review what occurred, and I will report back to this House with a more detailed response to your question.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In the House I call second reading of Bill 46.
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. J. Smallwood: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
This bill proposes retroactive amendments to the Cooperative Association Act to close a loophole in the current wording of the act. The amendments are consistent with the origi-
[ Page 15019 ]
nal intent of the housing cooperative provisions of the act. They are necessary to preserve the non-profit housing stock in British Columbia and to protect the integrity of public funding arrangements for publicly subsidized housing cooperatives. In 1988 the provision was added to the Cooperative Association Act specifically to assist publicly subsidized housing cooperatives. The provision enables housing cooperatives to adopt an unalterable provision in their constitutional documents that prevents the cooperative from distributing its assets to its members upon dissolution. Housing cooperatives were required to adopt such a provision in their constitutional documents in order to be eligible for funding from public agencies.
The amendments, which have a retroactive effect, apply generally to all housing cooperatives whose constitutional documents contain a non-profit restriction on the distribution of assets to members. Unless the housing cooperative had already dissolved or commenced dissolution under sections 293 or 297 of the Company Act prior to the date of first reading, the amendments specifically apply to a housing cooperative which has not yet dissolved, but which has altered its constitutional documents to remove the provisions which prevent the cooperative's assets from being distributed to its members upon dissolution, by restoring the provision.
The amendments will also prevent future cases from occurring. Because the amendments are necessary to restore the original intent of the provision, the amendments provide that the government is not liable to any persons arising out of the amendments and prevent any person from taking legal action against the government with respect to these amendments.
Through the loophole that these amendments will close, one housing cooperative changed the terms of its incorporation and was taking preliminary steps to transfer ownership of 37 single-family homes to current residents. Essentially, they would have privatized and reaped substantial private gain, despite having received approximately $1.5 million in public funds through a variety of provincial and federal housing programs. Housing ministry staff have been working with the Cooperative Housing Federation of British Columbia, CMHC and the mayor and council of the district of Squamish to ensure that this public investment in land and housing is not lost in favour of private gain.
There are more than 13,000 units of non-profit, affordable cooperative housing in British Columbia. These units represent a precious resource for the thousands of families -- mothers, fathers and children -- who are without adequate and affordable housing. These amendments to the Cooperative Association Act will preserve B.C.'s non-profit housing stock by restoring the original intent of section 72.
I'll move the appropriate motion after members have had a chance to respond.
D. Mitchell: I would like to commend the minister for bringing forward Bill 46, the Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1995. Members of this House will know that in one respect, this bill is a direct response to a specific isolated incident actually in my constituency, in the community of Squamish, where a particular co-op housing society -- the Bracken Heights Housing Co-op Association -- sought.... Well, some members on the board of that society sought to dissolve the co-op and actually sought a windfall profit from subsidized housing that had been subsidized by both provincial and federal government authorities over a number of years.
I think that's a dangerous precedent, and I think it's appropriate in this case for the government to take the exceptional action which this bill represents by moving forward quickly with it. I know that this bill has only been brought forward for introduction yesterday in this assembly and that the minister is moving very quickly with it by asking for second reading today. I know that due to a potential legal challenge, it's important to have this legislation in place quickly. I normally would not support legislation going through this House as quickly as this, but this is an exceptional circumstance, and I am willing to support this bill.
Likewise, this bill has a very unprecedented retroactive clause. If anyone looks at section 4, the commencement clause, it's retroactive to 1988. I am going to be seeking some specific clarification from the minister during committee stage as to why the retroactivity has to take place to that extent -- that far back in time -- but again, this is an unusual circumstance. I believe that this bill should be supported by members not only because this has tremendous impact on a co-op housing society in my constituency but also because it has tremendous impact and potential as a dangerous precedent for the hundreds of housing co-op societies in the province that provide affordable housing to thousands of British Columbians.
The whole nature of co-op housing.... Anyone who reviews the history of co-op housing in British Columbia or, indeed, in our country, will see that the impetus and the initiative were basically to provide housing to those who could not otherwise afford it. We know that in British Columbia today, particularly in high-growth areas of the province, affordable housing is a real problem. There is not a great supply of affordable housing. In my community of Squamish, the fact that these units were proposed to be withdrawn from the very limited supply of affordable housing caused great concern. Indeed, I've received a lot of representation on this particular proposal.
So this initiative has impact. If it were able to go through without the government taking this action, it would have tremendous impact and would be a dangerous precedent for all British Columbians who support the principle that we should have more, not less, affordable housing for British Columbians who need it.
So I ask all members to support this bill, which seemingly might be moving a bit rapidly, a bit in haste. When we get to committee stage, we will have an opportunity -- and I will certainly avail myself of the opportunity -- to ask the minister specifically why we need to move this quickly, what the nature of the legal challenges that the government faces are, and why the retroactivity to the extent that's proposed. With answers to those questions, I, for one, will be willing to support this bill.
V. Anderson: I also would normally be concerned at the speed with which the bill has moved through the House, but I do want to thank the minister for advising us that this would be happening in this case. It didn't come as a surprise, as some of the other bills did last week. I appreciate that, because it gives us the opportunity to reflect upon it and to be fairly sure about the validity of what we're about.
I indicate that we will be supporting this bill. It has a very useful purpose and a necessary one. Those people who
[ Page 15020 ]
entered into cooperative housing entered into it with a clear understanding of the nature of the cooperative process -- and when that would be changed in midstream, then that needs to have the opposite correction. It is appropriate that the co-op movement gets this support, not only for those who have been into it over all these years and counted upon it but for those who will come and can rely on it in the future.
Along the same line, though, I would urge that serious consideration also be given to the requests that have come from the same process and movement for a cooperative land trust, so that in the future some of these things might also be protected in that way.
There will be questions in committee stage, but this is simply to say I appreciate this being brought forward and the urgency at this time.
[3:00]
R. Chisholm: I rise in support of this bill, and I commend the minister on bringing this bill forward. As other members who have spoken before have said, the speed is rather unusual; but then again, this case is rather unusual.
It is good that she has brought this forward so that we can nip this type of opportunism in the bud and we do not undermine the system that is very valuable to society in supplying low-rental housing to those less fortunate than ourselves. Like I said, I'm very appreciative that the minister has reacted this quickly and ensured that this system will survive and that we will not see opportunists destroy the system that is so much needed by some people in this society.
I will have more to say on this during committee stage, but in the meantime I commend the minister on the bill.
L. Hanson: I don't think there's anyone in the House who is going to oppose the principle of a society not being able to benefit from government-subsidized funds. I think that that principle -- which is, I guess, the reasoning behind the bill -- can be supported without question.
The date, retroactive to June 30, 1988, must have some significance. I would imagine that the minister will enlighten us when we get to committee stage as to why that is such an important date.
I don't think anyone can agree to the principle of a society profiting -- or at least individuals profiting -- from government-subsidized housing developments. Certainly we'll support that principle in the bill.
J. Tyabji: I'm not going to repeat what the other speakers have said. What I would like to take this opportunity to speak to -- since this is the Minister of Housing, and we know that the bill is under the Minister of Finance.... The principle of ensuring that low-income housing is available for those people for whom it is intended I think also falls under a different arena, and that's the Society Act. If I could use this opportunity to tell this minister, then I hope she will also speak with her colleague the Minister of Finance to rewrite the Society Act....
The Society Act provides very few protections for people who are in low-income housing or for people who want to ensure that non-profit housing societies are in compliance with the intent of the public money that's been given to them for housing. In addition to this loophole being closed -- which all of us have commended the minister on -- I would hope that we will also see amendments to the Society Act coming forward. In fact, we need a new Society Act; it's long overdue. I'll put my plug in for that in this debate, and take my seat.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'll call on the minister, whose comments will close second reading debate.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd simply like to thank the members who have spoken for their support in these changes we're bringing about. I look forward to committee stage of the bill, and I move second reading at this time.
Motion approved.
Bill 46, Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 36.
CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 36; L. Krog in the chair.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I understand that a number of members may have some questions. I'll seek your guidance, hon. Chair, as to whether you'd like introductory statements on each section as we go along, or whether there are specific sections that you'd like us to spend time on.
D. Mitchell: Just speaking to the suggestion made by the minister, it's not a long bill -- there are only 12 sections -- but for almost each section, I intend to ask the minister why the specific section is being brought forward. If she cares to expedite the matter in committee this afternoon by offering a brief description of why each amendment is required, it may speed things up.
On section 1.
Hon. J. Smallwood: We'll start with section 1. Section 1 amends the definition of direct sale and direct seller. Sellers who conduct a sale at the consumer's home and at the consumer's request are not captured by the definition. The new definition of direct sale prevents a direct seller from enticing the consumer into inviting the direct seller into the home. Section 1 adds a new definition of time-share contract and includes property other than real property covered by the Real Estate Act which is used by different consumers on a periodic basis. The property may be located inside or outside British Columbia.
D. Mitchell: With respect to the definition of a time-share contract, I wonder if the minister can tell us specifically why this amendment is being made. Is there some recent experience that her ministry is aware of with time-share contracts whereby business practices have resulted in consumer com-
[ Page 15021 ]
plaints? We know that many British Columbians who travel abroad when they go on vacation, to Hawaii or resort communities in other destinations, might be participants in time-share accommodations. That's now becoming popular in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister can tell us: are there specific problems in specific communities that her ministry is aware of that she's responding to here?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Over the past year or so, we've had a number of complaints. The case that comes to mind is specific to a yacht time-share, where there was a particular problem with regard to high-pressure tactics. The amendments not only are to deal with cases like that but are to extend the protection to property such as houseboats or yachts or other recreational vehicles.
D. Mitchell: Just for some clarification, then, is the minister saying that this definition would apply to time-share contracts but not for real estate property? For instance, if someone had a condo at Whistler on a time-share basis, would that not be covered under this definition?
Hon. J. Smallwood: This specifically does not deal with real property. Protection for time-shares with real property is covered under the Real Estate Act, and this is targeted specifically to items such as yachts, houseboats or recreational vehicles.
D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister. To get back to my initial question, have there been a number of specific complaints dealing with houseboats on Shuswap Lake or yacht charters on the coast or other areas? If so, how many have come to the attention of the ministry? Why are we doing this? Is it in response to something, or is it anticipating a problem rather than responding to one?
Hon. J. Smallwood: My previous answer indicated that, yes, we have had specific complaints. There have been particular cases we have dealt with that have been brought to our attention, so it is not only to deal with and respond to specific complaints, but also to provide additional protection for the future.
J. Dalton: I have just one point about the redefinition of direct sale. Given that this is consumer protection law, and given that high-pressure sales on the doorstep are, of course, one of the targets of the original act, I'm just interested in the minister's perspective as to why, even though the purchaser may have requested the attendance of the seller, the sale is still in the purchaser's home.
As we know, high-pressure sales do carry on, even in those circumstances. I agree that the consumer, having made the invitation, is at a better advantage, but I still think that perhaps we may be acting at cross-purposes, in a way, with this change in the definition.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The intent of the clarification is to deal with the differences between salespersons, and to recognize that for some trades, their place of business is not on the doorstep. They do not solicit business by selling door-to-door, and they have a place of business.
I can think of some renovators -- those sorts of businesses -- who do a substantial amount of their business in an individual's home. The intent of the original legislation was not to capture those tradespeople, but to target door-to-door sellers specifically. This is an area that was an unintended consequence of the original legislation.
D. Mitchell: I have just one further question on time-share contracts. Does the Ministry of Consumer Services provide a sample or model form of such a time-share contract as is now defined in this legislation?
That might be useful for any consumer or person offering a time-share contract. We're referring to what a definition of a time-share contract is, but I wonder if it might be possible to provide a model or sample of such a contract so the industry can follow that as a guideline.
Hon. J. Smallwood: We do not at this time.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
D. Mitchell: Just briefly, the reason I asked whether or not there is a model is that when we get into section 2, we get into the buyer's right to cancel such a contract. It might be interesting to know about the enforceability of this clause. If in fact there was a model contract or a guideline that might be offered for the industry, we might be able to deal with it. What kind of a contract are we dealing with here?
There could be a number of different models or permutations out there. It might be very difficult to enforce this. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not her ministry has a legal opinion with respect to the enforceability of the buyer's right to cancel a time-share contract as proposed under this bill.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think the suggestion the member makes with regard to a model contract is a good one; we have developed model contracts for other sectors. For instance, the work we have just concluded with regard to leasing is a good example of plain-language contracts. We'll monitor this, recognizing again the point that the member made -- the marketplace is varied, and it may be very difficult to put together a model contract that would work for all sectors.
Having said that, we'll look at that for the future and consider the possibility of designing such a contract.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.
On section 5.
D. Mitchell: Section 5 deals with the registrar of direct sellers. Could the minister just clarify what is being referred to here? Are we talking about an established office within the ministry? Does such a registrar already exist? Or are we establishing one by this bill?
Hon. J. Smallwood: It is an established office, so we're not creating something new. It's simply an administrative change that allows flexibility in that office.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
[ Page 15022 ]
D. Mitchell: In section 6 we're talking about a new heading to a part of the act that deals with negative-option offers. I think that's the first time we're actually using those words. If I'm wrong, I'd like some clarification. We're introducing the option of negative-option offers here, and I'd like to ask some questions about it. Would this be the appropriate section to do that, since this is the new heading?
[3:15]
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member might consider asking those more substantive questions in section 8, which is the definitions section.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
J. Dalton: I'm just curious about the definition of goods in this amendment, because it refers back, of course, to section 1, the interpretation section. And it says that "goods," despite section 1, "means tangible personal property." Are we getting a bit twisted here? There might be an interpretation problem, and we don't want that to occur. We could flag that there might be a problem now, or the minister can satisfy us that this concern has been addressed.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Now that we are extending the protection with regard to services, the change that has been brought about with respect to the definition of goods simply helps to define the difference between goods and services. Defining goods as tangible personal property helps to define more clearly the difference with respect to some services that have traditionally been seen to overlap the two definitions.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask the minister a question about negative-option marketing. This is a concept that many British Columbians were introduced to in January of this year when they found out that their cable television services were being expanded. They were going to get the extra channels automatically and would have to pay more unless they said no. Rogers Cable TV did a real service to all Canadians, and British Columbians in particular, by trying to force this down our throats and therefore making us all aware of this fairly aggressive marketing technique.
I wonder if the minister could tell us whether this was the main impetus behind the legislation that's being brought forward -- or at least this portion of the legislation, which seeks to define a negative-option offer, an unsolicited service and the remedies provided to consumers who have reacted negatively. I notice, for instance, that there's a retroactivity that goes back to January of this year. As legislators, we should always be concerned when a bill is retroactive. But I think we're seeking a specific remedy here for individuals in this specific instance, where Rogers Cable made a huge blunder, I think, in terms of their activities and operations in the province. Could the minister confirm that, and just simply enlighten the committee this afternoon a bit about the impetus behind this amendment?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member quite rightfully highlights the issue of retroactivity, going back to the date that this government committed to this legislation. However, I think it's very clear that consumers in this province spoke in what we could consider the clearest single voice: that they were offended and that they wanted governments and corporations to hear their message and to respond.
Having said that, there is also a very strong recognition that the service sector, like any other sector in the marketplace, is a rapidly changing one. Perhaps in the years to come this sector will see more changes and more need for definition and protection under such consumer legislation. While the issue was brought to the attention of all of us through the issues around cable television, the legislation does not single out that industry, but deals with the broad service sector and provides protection where there has not been protection before.
[F. Garden in the chair.]
D. Mitchell: I just have a couple of other questions on this section. One of my concerns is the enforceability of this section in terms of the remedies that are provided to consumers. Would this negative-option definition apply as well, for instance, to the Book-of-the-Month Club, which is a major North American company that operates in British Columbia? Would it apply to record clubs, whereby many British Columbians, young people in particular, subscribe to record companies and get CDs, tapes or records? They receive them every month, and if they don't send them back they end up paying for them. Would that kind of negative-option marketing also be governed by this intent of this legislation?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I bring to the member's attention the difference between goods and services. We are simply extending a protection to the area of services through these changes. Since the mid-seventies there has been protection with regard to negative options and goods in this province. So the areas that you raise -- whether it's Book-of-the-Month Club or CD marketing -- have been covered by legislation since 1979.
D. Mitchell: That's an important distinction, and indeed the term "service" is identified in this section. It's interesting that television is a service. Although conceptually we could call it a good just as well as a service, we are defining it as a service under this legislation. Since the time that she's had some interaction with the cable monopolies which provide television services to our homes, could the minister tell us whether or not there's been any change of attitude? I know that she has had some consultation directly with the industry. I know that this bill is seeking retroactivity, and I wonder if this is specifically to include the negative-option marketing activities of Rogers Cable? I wonder if the minister can tell us if her ministry continues to receive representation -- mail, telephone calls and letters -- as she did back in the earlier part of this year, complaining about Rogers Cable's marketing and activities? Or does the public now seem satisfied with how things have worked out?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There are two questions there, one with respect to the responsiveness of the industry. I'd like to say that while some cable companies have been very responsive and pride themselves in their customer orientation, others have been slower to respond. Having said that, at this point in time all of the cable companies that we have been in consultation with have changed their practices to reflect the spirit of the legislation that was announced.
[ Page 15023 ]
The second area of concern has to do with packaging and broad marketing practices, the clustering of channels. That continues to be a concern to consumers. At this point in time we continue to get letters, although the number of letters has diminished significantly. We are in communication with both the CRTC and the federal minister responsible.
I think the importance of this issue is underestimated, because what we're dealing with here is not simply the issue of negative-options marketing. It is far bigger than that in that it deals with the need for a broad communications strategy that is consumer-oriented and respects the needs and issues that have been identified by consumers across Canada, and the need for the federal government to take a leadership role in defining a consumer-sensitive, made-in-Canada communications strategy. That is the core of the communication that I've had with the minister responsible, asking them to deal with the number of issues, as well as the larger issue for all Canadians.
D. Mitchell: I know that other Canadian provinces have legislation that's similar in dealing with negative-option marketing. I wonder if the minister could just tell us for reference if this legislation, or the way that this legislation deals with this issue, is modelled after another province. And how many other provinces, if she has the research available, have such legislation?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There are two other provinces -- Nova Scotia and Quebec -- that have legislation dealing with negative options with respect to services. Our legislation has been informed by their experiences; however, the development of this legislation was to parallel and complement the existing legislation for goods.
D. Mitchell: Given that the bill is sponsored by the minister responsible for Consumer Services, it's understandable that the legislation anticipates a bias in favour of the consumer or the individual, as opposed to the provider or the seller of the services.
But I have a question on section 8, on the new section 39.1. Subsection (2) of section 39.1 says: "A contract for an unsolicited service sold by means of a negative option offer is not enforceable by the seller against an individual...." I wonder why that specific clause is in there. Clearly we're here to defend the individual and the consumer. That's the minister's mandate and role, and I applaud her for taking that. But why is it specifically "not enforceable"?
Hon. J. Smallwood: What that particular section means is that the consumer is not financially obligated to the seller.
I want to take exception to the member's comment that this legislation is particularly biased toward consumers. While the work that our ministry does certainly is mandated to bring balance and fairness to the marketplace, I think organizations like the Better Business Bureau, as an example, would speak very strongly to good consumer protection legislation because it enhances and supports good business practices.
D. Mitchell: I have just one further question on this section, and it deals with this subsection (2). Later on in section 8, under subsection (7) on page 5, we see that subsection (2) does not apply to a change to the price of an existing service, and it goes on. Why would it not apply specifically if there has been a change in price? I'm not sure I understand that.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The negative-options marketing is for new services and does not deal with price changes for existing services where there already exists a contract or an agreement to purchase.
D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, I think I understand this -- would an example of this be that when a cable television company automatically increased the price of its service to a cable subscriber, the contract would not be enforceable without the explicit agreement of the consumer? Is that what this is getting at? Or that it would be enforceable, I should say.
[3:30]
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me use the example that you've used of a cable supplier where there is a basic package that an individual has agreed to purchase and the cost of that basic package goes up. It's not an additional service; it is a fee increase for the existing service. Negative options deal with new services -- using the same example -- where new channels are offered as an additional service to the basic, in which case a negative options marketing scheme may be used and would be subject to this legislation.
J. Dalton: I have two points I want to raise. First, with respect to subsection (3) of the new section, which reads: "...a contract is not sold by means of a negative option...." Should that word not be "service" instead of "contract"? A service is not sold by means of a negative option. The last word in the subsection is "service," and I don't quite understand why the word "contract" appears there. You don't sell contracts.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I can only take the advice of legislative counsel that "contract" is the proper language with respect to this section. It reflects a contract for service, and I believe that that's clear throughout the legislation.
J. Dalton: Okay, fair enough on that.
In subsection (5), I don't think I ever recall seeing a word in a statute such as "inferred." I'm just flagging this because I think there's a danger in using such a term. Let me give a possible scenario. Let's say that the consumer wishes to argue a bill for service that has arrived. We can then put the individual in the scenario of a plaintiff who will argue before the court, using this provision in the Consumer Protection Act, that even though it may have been inaction or use of the service, or whatever is listed there, that there can be no inference drawn that that is consent. The defendant in our hypothetical case -- the provider of the service -- will turn around and say: "Well, that may very well be true; however, the word 'inferred' is not definitive; it is not absolute; it is not shall or obligatory." I am suggesting that the court could place any interpretation it might wish in having that word appear. I think that's going to further cause confusion for both the consumer and the courts. We don't want to invite the possibility that the courts could be tied up with unnecessary arguments about interpretation. So is that term appropriate? Could we not think of something that might be more definitive and helpful to the court if it gets to that stage?
[ Page 15024 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: For the record, let me read this section: "Consent under subsection (3) cannot be inferred from the individual's (a) inaction, (b) use of the service, (c) consent to purchase another similar service, or (d) payment for the service." I believe it must be taken in context. When we were dealing with the issue of negative options, there was a fair amount of discussion around the inference that the company can assume that the consumer supported this subscription by using the subscription or paying for it. This particular section of this legislation makes it clear that you cannot infer that unless you have obvious consent, and there's another section that defines what consent is.
J. Dalton: Let me just try one more on this. I would be happier, for example, if the provisions said that consent under subsection (3) shall not be inferred from the individual's inaction, etc., because at least the court would then have something more definitive to go on. Again, I'm just raising the possibility that the court could be in a real quandary here as to whether the inference should favour the individual consumer or the provider of the service. I think both parties could have an equally strong argument, quite frankly, and that's not consumer protection; that is probably the very thing we don't want to invite. We want to help the consumer and, indirectly at least, help the court and give some guidance. I would just be interested in the minister's observation as to whether it would be helpful if we were to change it to say that consent shall not be inferred.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I have read subsection (5) about consent under subsection (3). If the member would refer back to subsection (3), it says: "For the purposes of this section and section 39.2, a contract is not sold by means of a negative option offer if the individual instructs the seller, orally or in writing, that the individual consents to the purchase of the service." So it's very, very clearly defined in the legislation what consent is. The purchaser must indicate, either orally or in writing, that it is their desire to purchase the service. The protection is that it cannot be inferred by inaction, the use of the service, the purchase of a similar service or the payment of a service. So it's very clear in the legislation what is needed for consent. It is very clearly spelled out in the legislation that there cannot be inferences made without either oral or written consent.
L. Hanson: I know that some contracts for service are usually for a specific time, and at the end of that time there may be a continuation clause unless there is notice, which is, in effect, a negative option at the end. I'm sure if my reading of this is correct, the minister will confirm that that's not covered by this situation.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The issue here is that the examples you have given are not unsolicited services. They are services that have been solicited with the understanding of that possibility.
The Chair: The Chair recognizes the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. You're the only one I didn't have written down here. Carry on, member.
D. Mitchell: I hope I'm on your list now, hon. Chair.
The Chair: Oh, you are.
D. Mitchell: Sections 6 to 8, which we're just finishing, are, as we will see in the commencement clause, retroactive and came into force on January 26, 1995. I asked the minister about this earlier, but I'm still not sure I understand the significance of that date.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The protection that has traditionally been offered with the announcement of legislation is that on the announce date, the legislation will be enacted. In this case, since we're dealing with the legislation, it appears to be retroactive. When we're dealing with the marketplace, serving notice then provides for the protection from that date on, instead of giving notice without protection. Highlighting it may indeed have the reverse effect, in that it would expose consumers. So, as in other legislation, announcement of the legislation becomes the effective date.
D. Mitchell: I think I understand what the minister said, but I'm still not sure why that date -- why January 26? What is the magic of that number, the 26th day of January? Does it have something to do with the Rogers Cable controversy?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Again, I want to make the point that that is the date at which we announced the government's intention to act. I also acknowledged the issues that were brought to the fore by consumers at that time.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
The Chair: The member from West Vancouver-Galibardi...Galibari...Garibaldi! You'll have to excuse me. That's the Scottish accent. Go ahead, member.
D. Mitchell: That's okay, it's a Scottish riding, hon. Chair.
Section 9 deals with the disclosure notice, and I'm just wondering if the minister can tell us what kind of reaction she's had from her consultations with industry about the acceptability and the administration of this kind of notice.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think it's fair to say that industry accepts the fact that if they are going to continue to use negative options, they have a responsibility for full disclosure. That is the intent of this section, and as the member can see, because the marketplace in the service sector is so different and so rapidly changing, there may be some examples where an industry and its customers prefer the use of negative options. For that reason we did not outlaw the use of negative options but instead used the principle not only of full disclosure, so that customers understand what their obligations are.... It protects the industry also, by defining the two-year period for potential refunds. So it serves to provide the industry some protection as well as disclosing the type and extent of service that is being offered through a negative-option offer to the customer.
D. Mitchell: I take it that what the minister is saying, then, is that while she and her ministry may have considered outlawing negative-option marketing as one option to deal with the consumer complaints that came forward, she's taken this approach, where a disclosure notice, among other features of this bill, would be implemented. While it may impose extra
[ Page 15025 ]
costs and extra responsibilities on operators who choose to use this marketing technique, that's the trade-off in British Columbia. Some other jurisdictions, I understand, have actually gone the further route and prohibited negative-option marketing. I wonder if the minister can indicate whether her officials and she have studied the jurisdictions that have done so, and whether or not there are any jurisdictions in Canada that have outlawed negative-option marketing completely.
Hon. J. Smallwood: When the member asked about other jurisdictions, the answer that I gave him was that while we studied the other jurisdictions, we chose to model this legislation after the existing protections for goods. That was a reflection of the fact that, for example, Nova Scotia has banned negative options outright. They have found themselves in a position where some companies are using contracts in which consumers enter into the contract and sign away their rights to future recourse with regard to negative options -- in other words, going around the legislation by signing contracts saying that they agree to the use of negative options for this particular service down the road.
It's been very difficult for the provinces to bring fairness to those marketplaces and to hold them responsible. Through this approach, we've recognized the diversity in the marketplace and the possibility of negative options as a valued business practice, where consumers may choose that as a convenience. The principles are with regard to obligation to pay, where a consumer is not obligated to pay for a service unless they consent to it, and to full disclosure, where the companies are obligated to indicate that they are using the negative option. The consumer, then, understands the cost of the service and, with full consent, agrees to that relationship.
[3:45]
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that answer. It would seem, then, that what we're effectively doing in British Columbia is.... While we're not going the prohibition route outright, we're not saying that we're outlawing negative-option marketing. So by virtue of this bill, we're probably making it extremely unlikely that anyone is going to practise that marketing technique in the province. So it's prohibition by a different name perhaps. The minister may object to that, but that's my reading of the bill.
I wonder if the minister could tell us whether this bill would be enforceable upon companies operating outside British Columbia? Rogers Cable TV would be one service, where its headquarters are certainly in eastern Canada. Is there any legal question that the ministry has encountered in terms of the enforceability of this British Columbia legislation for companies whose headquarters or bases of operation are outside the province?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll deal with that question first, and then I want to go back to a couple of other points the member has raised. First, with regard to companies whose headquarters are outside the province, companies doing business in this province are held responsible under the legislation that is on the books for this province. So that's the short answer to the member's question.
Second, on the question with regard to whether these practices will continue, when we look at the practice with respect to goods.... I've used an example on a number of occasions to put a real fine point on the argument. For a good, one could envision an overstocked car lot having an aggressive marketing scheme, where they drive a new car up to your driveway and leave you a bill. In that instance, with the legislation that has been on the books since 1979, you can keep the car and you don't have to pay for it. It's an interesting example, because one could argue that the legislation with respect to goods has actively discouraged companies from driving a car up your driveway and leaving you the bill -- if indeed those practices were ever used.
When the member asked the question with respect to the time line, let me use a tangible example. As we were dealing with the issue of negative options, one of the people whom I was talking to used an example that put a fine point on the need for a date to be announced that could be used retroactively in the legislation once we put it to the House. The individual said: "With all this discussion around my obligation to pay for a service that is delivered, I could envision myself going home to find my house repainted and a bill on the doorstep."
There actually are examples of entrepreneurs going about fertilizing lawns in subdivisions and leaving bills -- the jurisdiction of Quebec was one that looked at their legislation. As one can well imagine, it's very difficult then to rescind that service. Without the legislation, there was a fair amount of consternation around the consumers' obligation to pay for a service they had not asked for. So the member can see that there are a number of variables in dealing with the marketplace. We wanted to ensure flexibility in the legislation while preserving the principles of fairness, disclosure and obligation.
J. Dalton: There are two points I will raise on the two subsections in 39.2. Firstly, why is the period of time 60 days? I'm curious as to why it wasn't 30 days or 45 days. I suspect that perhaps the reason is to give the consumer more time to use this freebie, given that it's unsolicited. Is that indirect consumer protection also to send a clearer message to providers of the service that they better make sure that it has been requested? Otherwise, it's going to be sitting there for up to 60 days without the recipient having to do anything yet still benefitting from the service. Then we'd kick in the need for a notice at that point. I might also ask the minister what happens if the provider of the service doesn't comply with subsection (1) and send the written notice that is set out. I presume that's in contravention of the act. Does that also result in any other consequences?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm surprised at the member's question with regard to consumers benefiting. The timeline required for sending out the notice was a timeline that was requested by businesses to enable them to respond and deal with some of their administrative issues. That is a maximum time. A company can issue a notice at any time prior to the 60 days.
I've forgotten the second question.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The lack of notice is an offence, yes.
J. Dalton: The other question is under subsection (2)(b). The notice must be "visually clear" and "understandable by a
[ Page 15026 ]
reasonable consumer." I don't know what a "reasonable consumer" is. Is a reasonable consumer conversant in written English? We have many new Canadians who aren't necessarily conversant in the language of business. Would there be a need for a reasonable consumer to be conversant in English? Is there a need for the provider to provide information in other languages?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I knew that at some point in this debate I would have an opportunity to bring some levity to the House. The reason we have used the definition "reasonable person" is that we could not find a reasonable man. [Applause.] Thank you, Linda.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let the record show that the member applauding has been threatened to be expelled from the Liberal caucus.
The definition is used commonly by the noble profession of lawyers and reflects common usage in law.
Sections 9 through 11 inclusive approved.
On section 12.
D. Mitchell: On the commencement section, the minister has already addressed half of this concerning why the portions of this bill dealing with negative-option marketing come into effect retroactively to January 26. The other portions of the bill come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Can the minister just tell the committee what is contemplated there in terms of timing? When will the rest of the bill come into force?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm reluctant to give you a specific date. I think it's reasonable within a month following the passage of the bill. We continue to be in consultation with both consumers and the industry -- the broad service sector. We've spoken not only to those industries that have been exempt -- and we've not talked about that in the discussion of the bill.... But for the member's information, there are some industries -- like the insurance industry, as an example, which is governed by the Financial Institutions Act -- where that act has very strong protections with regard to negative options. So we will in the next very short while continue those discussions and expedite both the regulations and the proclamation of this legislation.
Section 12 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Bill 36, Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 27.
PHARMACISTS, PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND DRUG SCHEDULING AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak about Bill 27, the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 1995. This act makes two main changes. First, it authorizes the establishment of a computerized pharmacy network database known as PharmaNet. This network will contain the prescription medication record and information of all persons to whom prescriptions are dispensed by community pharmacies in the province. Second, the act requires the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia to establish a committee and ensure that the information contained in the database is properly used.
These changes will be of benefit to the health of many British Columbians and to our province's health system. In recent years, concern has repeatedly been raised over the unintended and unhealthy side effects which too often occur for people receiving many different medications at the same time. One in 25 people admitted to hospital in British Columbia is suffering not from illness but from an adverse drug reaction. Among seniors admitted to hospital, the figure is one in four. These statistics do not reveal the personal anguish caused by these events. The reality is that a health drug prescription which the individual thought would help cure disease has, in fact, worsened the person's condition and, in some cases, has even led to his or her death.
The availability of a cost-effective computer system now makes it possible for a pharmacist to check each person's complete prescription record at any pharmacy in the province. This will enable pharmacists to exercise their professional judgment more fully in advising people of the potentially harmful effects of their prescription drugs.
[4:00]
Without such a system, pharmacists can only review the records of prescriptions that have been filled at their own pharmacy, and they may not be aware of other prescription medications that a client has received from other pharmacies. As a result, the pharmacist is not always able to advise the patient properly of the possible interactive effects of medication or whether there are any dangers that could result from filling the prescription. With the establishment of a computerized pharmacy network, a pharmacist will be able to review the patient's complete prescription record and advise the patient accordingly.
Other advantages will also flow from this information system. Automatic administration of payments and calculation of benefits by the Ministry of Health's Pharmacare program are now possible. This will ensure weekly payments to pharmacists and eliminate the need for customers to submit receipts to Pharmacare for reimbursement; their claims will be automatically adjudicated at the dispensing counter.
Another advantage is that the College of Pharmacists will be more easily able to investigate pharmacists who are involved in the improper dispensing of drugs. This will help to raise professional standards and thereby increase protection for patients. It is also expected that significant savings to the province's taxpayers can be realized with the power given to
[ Page 15027 ]
the Minister of Health to investigate the use and misuse of prescription drugs, thus reducing fraud and the multiple filling of prescriptions.
Finally, the information collected on the system represents a unique research tool which, with proper confidentiality provisions, can be used for epidemiological and other scientific research. This will help to identify the effectiveness of specific drugs or types of drugs on broad segments of the population and thereby find ways to improve the health of the people of our province.
Consistent with our government's concern about protecting privacy, this bill was drafted after lengthy consultation, including active input by the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia and the office of the information and privacy commissioner. The concern of the government was to ensure that an individual's privacy is protected and that all the requirements of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act are met.
In order to accomplish this, the Pharmacare program has taken steps to introduce, in consultation with the information and privacy commissioner, provisions in the design of the computer system that will ensure the security of individual medication records and prescription information on the system. These features include the optional use of a key word by prescription drug customers. By using a key word, a customer can limit access to their medication records to the pharmacies or pharmacists that they specify.
British Columbia is the fourth province to introduce a computerized pharmacy network. Our system will be the most up to date and secure of those developed so far. As a further provision to secure the privacy of individual medication information, the act establishes a PharmaNet committee to manage access to medication records and to general drug information. The committee will consist of up to ten members and will represent groups with a lawful interest in specific uses of the information. The members will include members nominated by the minister to represent the public interest, a member nominated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. with knowledge of the potential effects of prescribing patterns, a member nominated by the dean of the faculty of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of British Columbia to advise on the scientific uses of the information, and other members appointed by the College of Pharmacists of B.C. to assist in professional practice and disciplinary concerns and to advise the college on the potential uses of the information. Finally, one member will have experience with and knowledge of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and its applications. All of these members on the committee will ensure that no information is released for other than those purposes authorized by law.
Although the government's Pharmacare program will manage the technical operation of the system, access to and release of medication information will be controlled by the PharmaNet committee. This committee is at arm's length from government. It will help to ensure that the information is used only for the purposes permitted. It will ensure that individuals will have access to their personal information contained in PharmaNet, and it will also be able to record all accesses to a patient's prescription information.
There are other changes in this legislation that are purely administrative in nature. The name "PharmaNet committee" has been added where appropriate. The College of Pharmacists of British Columbia will be able to make bylaws requiring pharmacists to include information and records for the purposes of implementing PharmaNet. In order to ensure full participation by all pharmacists on the PharmaNet network, the college will be able to make a bylaw requiring pharmacists to use the PharmaNet system.
These changes will improve the ability of the College of Pharmacists to advise patients and to prevent adverse reactions to and interactions of prescription drugs. These changes will reduce paperwork for the public by eliminating the need to save prescription receipts to submit to Pharmacare, thereby eliminating the wait for Pharmacare rebates. As they reach their deductible levels, individuals will simply no longer pay whatever portion of their prescription drug costs are not covered by Pharmacare.
Through the establishment of an arm's-length, expert committee to control access to information on the PharmaNet system, this bill will ensure that the information is secure and properly controlled. When brought into force, the provisions of this legislation related to the PharmaNet system will comply with all requirements of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The act will be brought into force when the bylaws required by these amendments have been passed by the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia.
I'm very pleased to be able to submit this bill for the consideration of the House. I move second reading of this act.
L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in the debate this afternoon on second reading of Bill 27, the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 1995.
I will begin by suggesting that there is tremendous value in a monitoring system around Pharmacare expenditures in the province. Many individuals -- this minister included -- have talked about the percentage of hospital admissions that relate to inappropriate drug usage. It has often been touted as being as high as 20 percent.
The issue around that has to be quality of life for seniors in this province, who often have tremendous difficulty understanding the ramifications of prescription medication. As the minister has pointed out, oftentimes their pharmacist is not able to advise them because they're simply not aware of the number of different products that they may be ingesting at the same time.
To move away from the discussion of seniors, there are many individuals in our population who use prescription medication inappropriately. We need to look at the demographics of the entire population, from children all the way down the line, in terms of whether we're making good decisions for their health care and whether it's an appropriate expenditure for the taxpayer. I believe fundamentally in the monitoring of this system. I think it will provide good value for the patient and also good value for the taxpayer.
One of the major tasks before any geriatrician in the province is often to complete an inventory of the different medications that a particular person will be on. It strikes me that if we are at the stage where a great portion of their work is taking inventories of prescription drugs, we need to look at the initial prescribing of that medication as well and see this arm of health care as a package -- from the physician who prescribes the product to the pharmacist who delivers it to the patient who ingests the product. We must indeed encourage
[ Page 15028 ]
British Columbians to choose their pharmacists with as much care as they currently put into selecting their physicians. This has to be a team approach, and again I would say that it is a shared responsibility between the physician, the pharmacist and the patient. I believe that very strongly.
In terms of understanding the ramifications, I think that the goal of this piece of legislation is for us to better manage our Pharmacare system, to better understand the ramifications of particular drugs that are on line. I would again speak very strongly for research and development, some pharmo-economics approach to understanding the types of drugs that we do choose to pay for, because I think that that is all wrapped up in this particular piece of legislation. I think that the type of product we deliver and how we deliver it will determine whether or not we can successfully manage the Pharmacare program in the province of British Columbia.
Again, I have the highest regard for professional pharmacists. I believe they do an outstanding job in terms of utilizing the information that is currently at their disposal, and I can tell you that they indeed believed in this direction. The difference that they have today with this minister is that the B.C. Pharmacy Association and the B.C. College of Pharmacists were more than prepared to manage a database and deliver on the criteria -- i.e., monitoring the Pharmacare system and monitoring the practice of pharmacy. And, frankly, who better than a professional pharmacist and his or her colleagues to understand how the system needs to come together? They were prepared to deliver on the criteria outlined in this legislation, which are: contra-indications in medication, what we can do, and how better to manage the system.
I think that their intention was well taken and probably better understood by the public, because the public didn't see their personal information heading into a government database. I think that is some of the concern we find today. Certainly I have talked to many seniors around this province, and many who have visited my office -- and I know they've met with the Minister of Health -- have concerns. They are prepared to share that information, because the reality is that out of the approximately 700 pharmacies currently in operation in the province today, probably 400 of them have been previously linked. They just happen to be linked between existing chains -- the Shoppers Drug Mart chain or other drugstore chains. So the intention to take the 700 pharmacies and link them together makes good sense.
The only issue, I believe, that the taxpayer, the average voter, has today is whether or not their confidentiality can be maintained. And I am sensitive to that concern. I think it's a huge concern. Even though the minister talks about the ability to institute a key word, a password, into the system, I know a lot of individuals who have received no assurance at all that they will be able to give that key word to a pharmacist in a confidential manner. All of us have visited a drugstore where at the counter the pharmacists are looking down upon you in a long lineup. There is no opportunity today, no mechanism in place, for you or me to give our password confidentially to that pharmacist. Indeed, if that were a direction that this government were prepared to take, I think we could expand the discussion around preserving and protecting the privacy of particular patients in this province.
The sensitivity around this issue, I believe, is warranted. Having someone access your medical file.... This minister cannot assure the public at large that there will not be transgressions, if you will, or indiscretions around that. We'd like to think that everybody who sees this material will handle it with the highest respect. I trust that the majority will. We've often had discussions in this chamber about those who fall through the cracks, and those who are the most sensitive will unfortunately end up being one of those two or three or four individuals where that is the result, where that is the outcome. Knowing, given the law of averages, that that will happen, I have some serious empathy for those British Columbians who are very sensitive to that kind of information going astray. I think that has to be an issue for this chamber today and certainly for every member. The idea is sound, but again it's an issue of mechanics and implementation that I believe leaves a great deal to be desired.
I understand that the pilot project is underway in Matsqui, Abbotsford and Sumas. Certainly that will generate some useful information about how best to proceed. I do believe this is about striving for best practice; I do believe we will get there. But I have tremendous empathy for the British Columbians who have come to me and suggested that the certainty and security of this information is simply not there today. I think that I would ask the minister to continually keep that uppermost in his mind as we proceed through this debate, because I think their concerns are valid.
I trust that we would come to some agreement in this chamber on the value of a monitoring system, as I stated earlier, but that we're ever vigilant about the protection of privacy for British Columbians. I'm pleased that the pilot project is in place, but I anticipate that the report of that pilot will allow this committee and this minister to be that much more effective in terms of ensuring that that information is safe and secure.
Where we are today is an interesting place to be for the average British Columbian. The majority of them, I believe, do understand the value of the system. They can see the potential benefit of getting a handle on burgeoning, escalating costs around Pharmacare. I believe they can see that.
[4:15]
But I think the minister must also be incredibly cognizant of the concerns of British Columbians when they see personal information flowing into a government database -- hopefully being retained in that database. Individuals have limited trust, if you will, about the possible uses for that information.
I will go on record as suggesting that I was committed to the idea of a monitoring system. I welcomed the initiative of the B.C. Pharmacy Association and the College of Pharmacists of B.C. around taking responsibility for this program, because I think that when you put information into the hands of professionals and experts, you have done some good things for the public and for the public trust.
When you create a government database that will be managed by folks who are other than professional pharmacists, I think you've raised some concerns unnecessarily; I think you've created some pitfalls that perhaps you didn't need to leap into. I would ask again that those issues receive incredible diligence in this chamber, because I believe those are the issues that are before us today.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise and speak to Bill 27. For the most part, I certainly support the legislation. I think, however,
[ Page 15029 ]
there are a couple of comments I would like to make at this point in time, while many of the major concerns will be addressed through committee stage of the bill when we can get on to the clause-by-clause debate and specific issues with respect to those clauses.
At the outset, let me say this: the rising costs of Pharmacare are a growing concern not only to government but to the pharmacists, pharmaceutical companies and the BCMA. Up until recently, we have had a situation in the province where these groups have all pointed to one another, rather than agreeing that they're all part of the overall problem and that there's a need to sit down collectively and address the issues.
I'm very pleased to recognize that that is now beginning to happen, and I think it will bear some very positive results in the near future. But until we address many of those issues that are outstanding, no matter what system we put in place to deliver the program throughout the province, we're not going to effectively control the rising costs of Pharmacare.
In fact, one might suggest that at least in the very early years of this initiative, we'll see some substantial increase, because of the capital outlay and the equipment that will be needed. There will be many areas of the province where smaller drugstores may indeed need assistance from government to put the equipment in, because of the return for investment, given the margins allowed now under the new cap by the minister. Really, there is not a significant return to allow for any large capital investment. Every business person wants to recognize that if they're going to lay out dollars for capital, within a reasonable time frame they're going to be able to pay for that equipment. Now, I recognize that there's going to be a lot swifter turnaround in terms of billings and payments, not only for the client or individual but also for the pharmacy. So there will be some cost saving and efficiencies there.
But we really have to somehow, within the scope of Pharmacare, come up with some kind of incentives. They don't have to be large. They don't have to be extremely -- I guess, for another word -- onerous on the government. But somehow if we're going to control and provide incentive for druggists and pharmacists to pay a lot of attention to detail and make sure that individuals are not misusing the system at another venue somewhere in the province, perhaps we should look at some form of incentive. If indeed the pharmacist spends some time -- maybe not unlike the credit card system where you get $25 if you spot a credit card that is, in fact, no longer viable or valid, and you report it.... VISA or that corporation sends you back a cheque, because it means cost saving and controls in the system.
Too often what we find today in government is that we take punitive action when something goes wrong, but we don't reward anybody when they do something right. Now, I recognize that there's a code of ethics. These people are professional people. They should indeed comply with the laws of the land and do their best to assure themselves that they are looking after the best interests of their client and of the program. But by the same token, we might be a lot more successful in this if we had some kind of incentive worked into the system.
The other issues in this particular legislation are the confidentiality issues that I think are extremely important. I make reference to an article in March of this year out of Winnipeg, Manitoba, where one particular client obtained 97 prescriptions and 44 drugs from 20 physicians in one year, at eight different drugstores, without being caught. That happened with this very similar type of system we're instituting now. In Manitoba they call it DPIN, which is an electronic billing and control system similar to this. I have no way of knowing how close in similarity it is, but it's certainly some form of electronic control where there are, I believe, 246 pharmacies linked into this system in Manitoba.
The other issue specifically is not only around controls and catching those who are identifying themselves perhaps incorrectly. The member from the official opposition suggested, and I think correctly so, that trying to keep one's code or identity in a lineup independent and secret is indeed going to be quite awkward as we walk into some of these larger drugstores where you stand in long lines. We may have to revisit how we hand our prescriptions over to the pharmacist to be filled and whether that process has to be a little more private than we see today.
But the issue here of access and of how we access, as we travel around the province, our records and prescription information to either refill or upgrade it, the issues of quantity and quality.... We've addressed quality to a degree through the generic or low-cost-alternative program. But we still have the issue of quantity as yet unresolved, and of how we might best address the almost overprescribing of drugs. That is something that I believe the tripartite group -- the BCMA, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association and the B.C. Pharmacy Association -- hopefully will address: how best we can handle those kinds of concerns.
With those few reservations, I look forward to committee stage of this bill so that we can address those in some detail.
J. Tyabji: I want to start by congratulating the minister on one section of the bill in particular, which was long overdue. That is with respect to one word that has been inserted and a distinction in the records. The word is "relevant," and it's a very important word. That word has been inserted with respect to patient record information. I note that the distinction that's been made is that an individual, who has ownership of his or her own records, or someone who in writing has been designated as the representative of that individual, may access any of his or her own records. That's important.
But the distinction that's been made is that now we see that another pharmacist, a practitioner, a government agency, an insurer or the college can only access relevant information. That is an excellent amendment. It is long overdue. Certainly, we have seen cases in the past where there has been an abuse of the fact that this word "relevant" was not included. I know there will be many of my constituents who'll be happy to see a distinction being made between their rights and the right of access to the records by third parties.
Having said that, I want to say that the Progressive Democratic Alliance has difficulty with the structure of PharmaNet and the structure of the committee being proposed in this bill. So we do support this in principle. But we want to take issue with some of the structures; this is where we have a problem.
The PharmaNet and the computer access network being put in place are referred to as secure because of key codes, and only those people who have those key codes will have access. There will be, as it's written here, the "...provincial com-
[ Page 15030 ]
puterized pharmacy network and database known as PharmaNet in which the patient record information of all persons to whom prescriptions are dispensed in British Columbia must be recorded...." We know there will be security provisions. And one member of the committee will have knowledge of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
What we think should be done in order to address the purpose of the bill -- which, as we understand it, is to provide the information necessary to understand who is abusing, overusing or overprescribed and where the costs to the system are -- is that we could have demographic codes set up through PharmaNet so that each individual patient's records are not automatically on-line. Although there's a secured system, those records would actually be in a different computer database. Only that information necessary to fulfil the purpose of this bill would be available through a secured system, and that information could come in through a demographic code.
For example, we could have a demographic code that would list the types of prescriptions; we could have specific prescriptions. We could have a demographic code that would tell the age of the patient, the urban or rural centre, or the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. Even the patient's annual expenses for prescriptions or their annual prescription list could be in the demographic code. That patient would be identified by a number.
That number would be referenced to a file in a different computer database, so that you don't automatically have access to that if you get through the security gate. Even with secured access there are ways of breaking through that. That's something that we think is a fairly important distinction. I might not be proficient enough with computers to hack my way through the security of the PharmaNet, the minister may not be, and even the people who are associated with it may not be. But there are people in this society who have very expansive brains, and they specialize in breaking through security.
In fact, as anyone in the American national defence system can tell you, which could not be a more secure network.... You could not have higher security in a computer system than you have in the American defence network, yet there are 15- and 16-year-old hackers who have nothing better to do and who would like to break their way through. Although we might not have the implications of launching a missile if somebody gets through, the individual implications of breaking through the PharmaNet access code could be quite serious to the person whose records would be accessed.
There was an example a couple of weeks ago of a 16-year-old who, through the Internet, had accessed the satellite frequencies, and had actually redirected a satellite and caused mayhem and confusion in the delivery of satellite services because of redirecting the satellite. And that was quite a feat.
[4:30]
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The government came in and seized all his computer equipment, which I'm sure his parents were quite unhappy about, because they had invested in it.
It's important for us to realize that there is no such thing as a secure computer system. Every single system we can design will be broken. Recognizing that, we have to have two systems. That's one thing that the Progressive Democratic Alliance would like to get on record. We believe, just as the minister has had a distinction between the full patient records and the patient's right of access -- or that of the designate of the patient -- and that relevant information, that we should have the same distinction in legislation in the PharmaNet. We can have the demographic codes and a number. If you have the right to access the full patient information, that number will allow you access through a different database, and that database would not be networked. That database would be kept wherever the patient's record is kept. That information can be and is transferred from hospital to hospital or doctor to hospital, or whatever, but it's not....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister is arguing that it should be central. There's a difference between having centralized records, where there is one record and there is a distinction of the records and having access through something like PharmaNet. They serve two totally different purposes; a centralized record base and PharmaNet are totally different. People who have access to the PharmaNet and whose purposes are to access those records to compile statistics should not have access to all the patient's records. We all recognize that.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister is saying they don't, but they will if they hire a hacker and get through it.
That's one thing we'd like to point out. The other thing is with respect to the PharmaNet committee. I noted that in the minister's opening comments he said there would be no more than ten people appointed. Of those, there will be the three persons nominated by the minister to represent the general public, one person nominated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and one person nominated by the dean of the faculty of pharmaceutical sciences. This we read in the bill. I believe I heard him say that the other members will be from the College of Pharmacists. He's nodding. I would assume that that would be up to a maximum of five. Perhaps there will be a note of clarification.
The point is that we were not aware that the composition of this committee would also have people from the College of Pharmacists. Where we have a concern is that the College of Physicians and Surgeons will be nominating one person to this network. We are aware that there has been a lot of controversy in the past over the structure of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, that it is a closed shop and that it has been called self-serving. Where we are concerned is that I have a number of constituents who would be prepared to start petition drives to know that some of their interests in their patient records were being met by a representative of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I would remind the minister about chelation therapy, of the seizure of records, and of the ongoing fight of some of my constituents about their private records, which were returned in a taxicab, and the problem with security in that example and how upset they are.
Having said that, because there has been an ongoing controversy about the structure of the college and its actions in serving its interests before the interests of the patients -- and I'm not putting that forward as my perspective, necessarily,
[ Page 15031 ]
but certainly it is the perspective of a very informed and vocal group, which has a lot of case examples of that -- we would flag that as a potential concern for patients.
In addition, there are the three persons nominated by the minister. Of course, at this point we're not sure who those people will be. If the committee is ten people, that would mean that fewer than one-third of the people on that committee are appointed from non-professional groups, and that the other 70 percent, in effect, would be from groups who have a vested interest in some aspect of medical practice. If I'm correct in understanding the minister's opening comments, it would appear that the largest group on that committee will actually be representatives of the College of Pharmacists of B.C., and I'd be interested in his closing comments on that. If that is the case, then I think we have to deal with this in some depth.
How do we ensure that the overall and overriding interests of two groups are met prior to the interests of those representing their collective associations? The two groups whose interests must be met first are the taxpayers of British Columbia, who would like to see proper tabling of statistics so we can actually streamline prescription costs, and the patients -- one and the same people.
In terms of which groups are represented, I would have loved to see a representative from one of those angry taxpayers' groups on this committee. I think it would be a good idea; I will definitely nominate somebody, for the minister's interest. Someone like that can certainly push an agenda of compiling the statistical information to ensure that it is used to reduce costs. You always need somebody like that on a committee.
The other group that should be on there is a patients' rights group, and there are many of them in the province. I wouldn't like to see them there as appointments of the minister, necessarily, because the minister will have his own interests to meet in making those appointments: safeguarding his legislation and making sure freedom of information and privacy is being upheld. All of those are the agenda of the minister. Where do we see the agenda of the taxpayers or of the patients' rights advocates on the committee? Those are two things we'd like to see, and there are certainly some amendments we would propose for committee stage.
There seems to be room in here to make an amendment that would secure a position for the College of Pharmacists of B.C. and a position for those other two groups, if the overriding objective of this bill is indeed to streamline costs and ensure that patients are adequately taken care of so there is no overprescription and their privacy rights are not violated.
Those are the comments we'd like to make. We look forward to committee stage of debate.
I want to make a quick comment about the two previous speakers. I certainly respect the constructive debate we're having on this bill, and I would like to put on the record that I think the member for Richmond East has advocated very articulately the need to protect the interests of the patients of British Columbia, especially of senior citizens, who sometimes end up being stuck in the middle of their own personal anxieties about what to expect if they don't take a prescription or if they are overprescribed. They may not know what their rights are, or what their future health will be, and they're on a fixed income, so they're in a very difficult position. As the member has said, hopefully the PharmaNet will meet some of those needs, because somebody will be safeguarding those statistics and there will be some kind of program to red-flag a senior citizen who is being overprescribed. Maybe she will have some comments in committee stage that will allow for what happens in that event.
If some of the people she has been speaking on behalf of end up on a list that says they have a difficult situation, then there should be a mechanism through which they are brought to either the college's or the minister's attention, or to some other body, to review their records, even though those records might not be assigned to them by anything other than a number at that point, just going back to the demographic codes. If we find that a certain file is showing up as a warning signal, then maybe those people need to be addressed. Maybe she'll have some comments on that, because it seems like she's done some homework on that. I'd be very interested in that.
I should put on the record that I have a lot of respect for this member in terms of being a true liberal. Too seldom do we hear some comments about the true small-l liberals, and if she'd ever like to come home to the party in the House that's representing that perspective, I'd like to, on the record, offer her that open invitation. I think she could add a lot to the debate, and we certainly would not restrict any of her comments when she's speaking to true liberalism. I would be quite concerned about the very people she was standing up to protect in this House if we got into a more broad-ranging discussion of policy. I think those people will be seriously impacted, and probably not in a positive way, by some of the other policy coming from those members who are not quite so liberal in the philosophical sense.
Having said that, I look forward to the committee stage debate of this. The Alliance has a number of suggestions to make, and I hope that the minister will recognize that they're being made in a constructive light. I hope that even from this we can come forward with some suggestions for the committee as they strike their bylaws and as we enter a whole new age of cyberspace medicare.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'll call upon the minister, whose remarks will close second reading debate.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the members opposite for their contribution to second reading discussion of this bill. I think, appropriately, the debate in the House has focused on three issues that this bill entails. One is the clear need to make sure that Pharmacare remains a cost-effective and financially affordable way of subsidizing therapeutic drug costs for the people of British Columbia. The cost containment measure is surely a part of the incentive for this. Second are issues around confidentiality and making sure that while we're doing, I think, the appropriate thing to improve prescribing patterns and improve efficiency in order that people get the therapeutic drugs they need -- and also get their Pharmacare benefits accurately computed and available to them quickly -- we are not compromising confidentiality. Third, of course, I think, is the common concern in the House that this initiative should both improve the individual health of British Columbians who are using therapeutic drugs and also contribute to broad health initiatives -- research around the use of therapeutic and prescription drugs.
I just want to comment briefly on those three issues. First around costs: I believe that this is an initiative that will reduce
[ Page 15032 ]
costs, in the area of reducing both fraud and multiple filling of prescriptions. Clearly it will also benefit by not having inappropriate prescriptions filled. I think the member for Prince George-Omineca spoke well about the need to ensure that pharmacists have incentives. They clearly have a professional duty, and they all take that seriously. But financial incentives are also useful. That is why part of the initiative around limiting the markup from wholesale to retail levels also included an enhancement of the rural incentive programs for small pharmacies that are some distance from one another and that don't have some of the economies of scale of urban pharmacies.
That is why, as the member said, we are embarking on a consultation with the BCMA and with pharmacists around how large an initial prescription should be and on an extension of the trial prescription program into other areas. That's clearly efficient and effective and provides a financial incentive. A patient may get a second prescription filled after a trial prescription without incurring any additional costs; the pharmacist will get an additional fee.
I would call to the member's attention one thing that I'm not sure he's aware of: part of our discussions and agreement with the pharmacists' association around introduction of PharmaNet provides for the payment of a dispensing fee, even if a prescription is not filled. In other words, based on the information coming up on PharmaNet, a pharmacist may say: "I cannot professionally fill that prescription. It will not work. I need to ask you to return to your physician and seek other medication." The pharmacist will get a fee, even if the prescription is not filled. That, I think, is precisely the sort of incentive that the member opposite is talking about that makes both good economic sense and good health sense. So, in the area of costs, I think there is much agreement among all members in the chamber.
On confidentiality, I expect that we will have some vigorous discussions as we reach committee stage. I would simply point out that I agree with the member for Okanagan East that ultimately no computer system can be 100 percent confidential, particularly in the age of rapid communications and the Internet. What we can do is make them as secure as possible. I'll be glad to share, at committee stage, some of the details of the work that has been done in PharmaNet to ensure confidentiality.
I would say this around the confidentiality provisions. First, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is the standard. We intend to meet it. Second, the pharmacists' association, the College of Pharmacists, has as much incentive in ensuring that as Pharmacare and the government do -- perhaps more. Third, I think we need to compare in some way the confidentiality provisions that currently exist -- or fail to exist -- in dispensing software with what PharmaNet will provide.
[4:45]
Let's be clear: we have worse security now for patient records than we will under PharmaNet. I think it was the member for Richmond East who referred to the fact that of the 700 pharmacies, many -- 400 to 500 -- are now linked by one computer data system or another. The confidentiality provisions of those systems differ greatly. The susceptibility of those systems to hacking, to unintended or to intended release of prescribing information, varies greatly from system to system and from pharmacy to pharmacy. There is no personal password for any of those systems as they stand right now. There is no assured access for the individual to his or her medication records -- not in a comprehensive fashion -- because it doesn't exist on the individual system. There is no tracking of who accesses records on those systems. All those confidentiality provisions will be incorporated into PharmaNet.
I welcome the upcoming debate at committee stage about how confidentiality provisions are going to be enforced. I'll surely be interested in sharing with the member for Prince George-Omineca some of the ways in which this system differs from the Manitoba system. I do not pretend, hon. member, that we will ever eliminate all abuses of prescription drugs or fraud, but I think we can do much.
Finally, I want to address what I think all members spoke to, and that is the health benefits of such a system for individuals who inadvertently may find themselves at risk from drugs that they thought would help them, because either they're ingesting too many or they're ingesting medications that interact with one another in unintended ways of which they and their prescribing physician were unaware. This is obviously a personal tragedy at times for individuals. I remember reviewing a coroner's report that suggested that as many as 80 to 90 individuals a year in British Columbia die from drug overdose or unintended drug interaction. Those are personal tragedies that if we can reduce, we should. I think this system allows us some opportunities to do that.
Finally, I think it allows us the opportunity, with appropriate safeguards, to make sure that those who are doing research on how drugs are used and how they can reduce illness have a research base which is comprehensive in that it captures the entire population of the province. That research base will allow us to do some of the things the member for Okanagan East was talking about: look within demographic segments of the population -- by age or by region -- and look at patterns of usage of therapeutic drugs and find out more about what leads to appropriate and effective use of therapeutic drugs.
With those comments, I'm pleased to close second reading debate on this bill. I look forward to a vigorous exchange of views during committee stage. I now move second reading of this bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 27, Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 30.
HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. P. Ramsey: I am pleased to be able to speak today in more detail about the miscellaneous amendments made to a number of statutes within the jurisdiction of this ministry. While a number of the amendments in Bill 30 are truly housekeeping, some of the amendments are more significant in
[ Page 15033 ]
scope. I must say that as somebody who has done my share of housework, I've always wondered about that term "housekeeping." Maybe we should refer to it as "legislative maintenance."
I want to flag a couple of amendments for the chamber that I think are significant. First, the amendment to the Medical and Health Care Services Act addresses this vital issue of physician supply, which has been a matter of considerable discussion within this province and in the estimates of my ministry earlier in this session of the House. At this time, British Columbia has a ratio of physicians to population that far exceeds the national average, but -- and this is the less satisfactory part -- the current distribution of physicians within the province does not adequately serve the needs of the population.
Under this bill, the mandate of the Medical Services Commission is amended to clarify that it has the authority to address issues of physician supply and distribution. By this legislation, the commission is authorized to modify physician payment schedules in an effort to limit the overall growth in the number of physicians practising in the province. At the same time, the commission will seek to adjust the payment schedules to encourage physicians to practise in areas of the province that are currently underserviced.
Turning to the Medical Practitioners Act, there are some additional changes being made in relation to matters of physician sexual misconduct. As I indicated at the time the bill was given first reading, these amendments follow a comprehensive package of amendments that were debated and approved by the Legislature in 1994. A few important omissions in last year's amendments have been identified and are addressed in the current bill. Under last year's amendments, the sexual misconduct review committee was established as a new committee of the council of the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons. With these amendments, the sexual misconduct review committee is being given the power to refer matters to the council, to the executive committee or to some other committee of the college. This provides an additional and essential option for the sexual misconduct review committee to be able to deal properly with matters that come before it.
The sexual misconduct review committee will be authorized to use the "extraordinary action" power found in section 50.6. This means that the committee will be able to suspend a licence or impose conditions on a licence prior to a hearing where there is an immediate threat to the health or safety of the public. This authority is essential to ensure that the independence of this committee within the college is maintained.
A new provision is added respecting the disposition of matters brought before the sexual misconduct review committee. The committee must -- not may, but must -- reconsider the way in which a matter has been dealt with if a complainant makes a written request for a review within 30 days. This provision will reinforce the accountability of the college.
There is one further significant change, and it relates to dealings with the office of the ombudsman. Because there is presently a prima facie conflict between the provision authorizing the ombudsman to investigate and the obligation of the college to maintain confidentiality of files, there is a need to clarify the application of the legislation. As a result, section 61 of the Medical Practitioners Act has been amended to confirm that the office of the ombudsman does have access to college files, although it will, of course, continue to be bound by the confidentiality requirements within the Ombudsman Act.
I would like to take this opportunity to advise the House that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. has been, in my view, working hard over the past year to confront issues related to physicians' sexual abuse and misconduct. I think the college has demonstrated a commitment, which some have found lacking in the past, to tackle persistent concerns about physicians' sexual misconduct through a combination of initiatives: educational initiatives addressing the profession and the public, work to streamline and expedite the investigation of the complaints and more vigorous enforcement of ethical standards. In that regard, I am pleased to note the efforts of the college.
Moving on, this bill provides for repeal of both the Dental Technicians and Denturists Act and the Nurses (Licensed Practical) Act. However, these three professions -- denturists, dental technicians and licensed practical nurses -- are not being deregulated. Rather, these professions will be designated simultaneously under the Health Professions Act, and this will mean that separate colleges will be established for each profession with comprehensive, up-to-date provision for their optimal governance.
Moving to more technical matters, in relation to the Community Care Facility Act, provision is being made for the director of licensing in my ministry to sit on each panel of the variance committee and, in some cases, to sit as the sole member of a panel. These panels determine whether or not variations in the requirements of the regulations are appropriate and should be permitted to respond to individual needs in certain circumstances. Ongoing participation by the director of licensing in all the panels will ensure consistency and fairness in the process.
In addition, decisions made by a panel of the variance committee will in the future require the unanimous agreement of those persons who are present at the decision. Currently, the act requires the unanimous agreement of all panel members and therefore no decision is possible if any panel member is absent for any reason. This change will help the smooth functioning of the variance committee and reduce delays in resolving issues.
Amendments to the Health Professions Act are quite straightforward. The act permits the college to authorize a discipline committee to impose a fine following a hearing, in addition to other penalties that are provided within the act. The powers are limited by the maximum amount of a fine established by the bylaws, which are, of course, approved by cabinet.
In another housekeeping amendment to the Health Professions Act, shares of a professional corporation in the health field may now be vested in either an executor or an administrator of an estate or a trustee in bankruptcy in cases of death or bankruptcy. These were omissions in the earlier version of the act. This is a technical provision to permit the orderly winding up of the affairs of a professional corporation.
Hon. Speaker, these amendments are important to the ongoing management of health matters by this government, and I am pleased to have had this opportunity to explain their significance.
L. Reid: I am pleased to enter into the debate on Bill 30, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1995. Given the very nature of this bill, I trust that the debate will be broad-ranging today. I would certainly like to begin with a discussion of the
[ Page 15034 ]
principles of the Health Professions Act and the Health Professions Council. What I'm trusting will fall upon fertile ground for the minister is perhaps that we can move away from what we have today: the unfettered proliferation of separate colleges for every single aspect of health care delivery. It seems to me that the majority of those colleges have a whole range of overlapping activities. All of them are responsible for membership lists, databases and newsletters, and the cost of that kind of burgeoning bureaucracy is not about the patient, for the most part. We are moving away dollars, yet again, from direct patient care in British Columbia.
I would like to propose to the minister a council of colleges so that the activities that are common to each and every college in the province can be performed in a very fine administrative management way -- some type of new methodology that allows the common activities to be performed in the least expensive, most well-managed manner, if you will. I don't see that today. I see a whole range of colleges, each putting out a newsletter on a monthly basis, each generating a membership list, each having their own administrative staff, renting their own office space, and doing all of those kinds of things that are a cost to the system. There is no question that they are using dollars that are being taken away from health care.
If we want to look at how best to deliver those services.... Not to take away from the professional expertise that's required...to move on their particular mandate around how best to govern their profession will, I think, have some unique applications for each profession. But there are a lot of general activities that do not need to be replicated 40 or 50 times in the province for each profession to have its own separate college. I would simply put that on the table for discussion. I would trust that the minister would fold that into the discussion at some future point. As all members in this chamber will know, repeatedly and well into the future we will see requests come forward for each new profession to have its separate college. Each time that happens, rather than rubber-stamp a new college, I trust that we will look at the actual costs of putting that college in place.
[5:00]
I would ask the minister, perhaps in committee stage, to come back to this chamber with a breakdown. What is the startup cost of a college? I've had predictions all the way to $200,000 for the college of midwives. As a taxpayer in this province, I would like to know the cost of creating individual colleges and if there are some savings we can realize around consolidating the common activities that each of those colleges would be involved in. I think that's a prudent way to proceed, and I would ask the minister to comment, perhaps in his closing remarks. If this government stands for streamlining administration, this has to be an opportunity that this government would not wish to miss.
With respect to the point I was making in terms of costs, I would be very interested in how many dollars today are spent on the proliferation of colleges that we have. I asked earlier for the minister to come back with a sample startup cost, and I would appreciate that. But I would be very interested in what we are currently spending across this province for each separate care-provider group to have a separate and distinct college. I can't image that's the most fiscally prudent way for us to be proceeding.
It pleases me when I go back to the bill and look at the sections that ask for a review process around sexual misconduct. The minister and I have had ongoing discussions around whether or not there was an appeal process for women in this province, particularly those who did not believe that this review process was serving them particulary well. I trust that we will get into some detailed debate during committee around whether or not this allows for an appeal. It seems to suggest that they can now make a further request, and that is certainly indicated on page 4 of the bill. What I need to know -- and perhaps the minister could come back to this in his closing remarks -- is whether or not that does allow for an appeal when there is an instance of sexual misconduct. In fact, when this was debated in the last session I called for an appeal process. I put an amendment on the table that asked the minister to look at that. I am hoping that this reflects some diligence around my request. As the minister knows, there are countless numbers of women in this province today who have not found satisfaction from the College of Physicians and Surgeons in terms of how they respond to instances of sexual misconduct. If this is an attempt to refine that process and make the process more effective, I would certainly stand in support. Again, I look for further clarification and further information as we move into committee stage.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
In terms of section 10, which refers to physician supply, how best can we ensure that there is coverage across this province, particularly of specialists -- whether they be psychiatrists, obstetricians or general surgeons, which tends to be the need in this province -- so the system can address everyone's needs, not just the needs of individuals who live in the lower mainland? This minister and I have had this conversation in the past, and I have made the case very strongly that there are geographic tiers of health care. Where you live often determines the level of health care and expertise you can access. Certainly the minister will rise to his feet and suggest that no, you have access to the same level of health care no matter where you live. I only wish that were true. It is simply not true today, and there is no one better in this chamber to rise than the Minister of Health, frankly, whose patients often leave Prince George to find services in other parts of the province. Geography is a significant issue around the delivery of health care. If section 10 is able to look at physician supply to ensure that the province is well served, whether it's Vancouver, Richmond, Prince George, Fort St. John or Fort Nelson, and that we have a range of services, I would welcome some clarification during the committee stage of this bill.
All in all, I think the bill attempts to refine some of the issues that have perhaps been left through previous debate and discussion, and I will welcome committee stage of this bill.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to speak to the philosophies and principles of Bill 30. Keeping in mind that at second reading stage we are to talk to the principles of the bill, I guess one must recognize, as I think the minister accurately did, that much of the content of this particular piece of legislation is indeed housekeeping. It is very, very difficult to look at the principles of that, unless you want to talk about the overall general state of health care in the province. Indeed, one almost welcomes that opportunity, but I will resist.
I guess there are some sections, in my view, that do have some principle to them -- sections 10 through 16. The first
[ Page 15035 ]
principle contained in section 10 is a process to try distributing access to doctors more equally in the province. While the Liberal opposition critic talked specifically around access to specialists, I would suggest that in the rural parts of the province the lack of general practitioners is the real problem. While we who live in the rural parts of the province generally accept the fact that if we're going to need the services of a specialist, we often have to travel out of our respective communities to get that service, when we can't access an actual general practitioner within our community, it is a real circumstance. I'm really pleased and will be looking forward to the debate on this section to see whether this goes far enough or has an opportunity to work. I will explore that during the appropriate time at third reading stage.
Before I get into the full swing of things, I have been asked if I will allow another member to introduce a school class, so if the Speaker would permit it, I will sit down and allow that to happen.
G. Wilson: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: It's nice to hear an aye from all members of the Liberal caucus who are present here today; I was a bit fearful that I might get a nay from that group. Anyway, I'm delighted to be able to introduce a group of grade 5 and 6 students from Gibsons Elementary School, with their teacher, Linda Russell. There are 26 of them here, and I had an opportunity to meet with them. They were present at the announcement earlier of the Tetrahedron watershed with the Premier, the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Finance. Would the House please make them welcome as they participate in this second reading debate.
L. Fox: I'm pleased that you allowed some flexibility in the orders to allow that introduction, hon. Speaker. As we all know, normally when a member sits down, he is not given the opportunity to stand up again. I have so much to contribute, and I know the minister wants to hear it, so I'm pleased to see that flexibility. I'm a longtime fan of Relic's, so if he's still in Gibsons, maybe they could pass on my regards.
It's always good to have a little fun in this facility, but to get back to the seriousness of this legislation, the issues and the principles of sections 11 through 16 basically structure a sexual misconduct review committee. Indeed, it gives the minister the authority to force the council of the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons to do that.
There are good reasons for that. I think we will enjoy this part of third reading debate. We have all seen incidents out there where individuals who have been subject to this action by medical professionals haven't felt that they have seen justice served through the existing system. It's not a question of whether or not it was served; it's a question of whether or not the individual felt that their concerns had been addressed appropriately and that the appropriate action had been taken. If this will go to resolving the concerns of the victims of that kind of misconduct, then it will be something that we as a party will certainly support. We'll look forward to the minister's explanation of that particular clause.
With those few words, I look forward to committee stage of this bill. This is one of those bills where most of the discussion will be at that stage, and I look forward to it.
J. Tyabji: I'm interested to find out if some of the concerns that have been raised so far are going to be met, especially when the member for Richmond East talked about the difference between having the provision for an appeal of a complaint that has been filed under the sexual misconduct committee and having the ability, as it's listed here, for somebody to actually have the same complaint heard twice. I'll be curious to see, when we're in committee stage, how that actually plays out. As I understand it, section 25.1 actually re-enacts the sexual misconduct review committee. It was in existence before. Not having seen how it was structured before, why there's no avenue for appeal here is interesting.
Further to that, I think we would be remiss if we didn't state in this debate how important it is for us to actually restructure the committee hearing process. Right now that is an in-house process for sexual misconduct allegations. Especially once we get to the stage of an appeal.... In the event that there has been a complaint lodged with the sexual misconduct review committee, and it has come back saying that there's no foundation according to that committee, then if the only avenue of redress for that person is to go back to a similarly structured committee for a second hearing, that would be something that could be problematic. I think that's what the member for Richmond East was talking about.
What I think we'd like to see in the committee structure is people who do not have a vested interest in the outcome on an appeal panel. How we would find them.... I imagine they would be other people who are associated either with the medical profession or, again, with patients' rights groups, or who are members at large. If those people came into an appeal process, I think we could have a better hearing process.
The rest of the act being various amendments to different statutes, I think they will have to be dealt with in committee stage. But we would also like to say that we think there is time to review many of the medical professions acts. The Denturists Act is one for which I know the denturists have been very active in lobbying to try to have some revisions. Perhaps the minister will address some of that when we're in committee stage asking about the amendments that are in front of us right now.
I'd like to congratulate the minister for bringing forward the sexual misconduct review committee, at least in the structure it's in right now, even though we may have some concerns with it for later discussion. It's a very important first step. There is no question that there are people in the province who need to have some avenue for redress, and this, I'm sure, will be a good starting point and something that will help to reinstil confidence in the system, when there has been confidence lacking in the past.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the members opposite for their comments. As with most miscellaneous statutes acts, I expect that committee stage will embroil us in not only the technical details of proposed amendments but also the principles underlying those amendments at times. That is an appropriate latitude, I feel, given that we have a variety of acts addressed in this one bill.
[5:15]
I did want to say just a couple of things about the three sets of amendments that members opposite referred to. First, on the Medical and Health Care Services Act, I share the hopes of the member for Prince George-Omineca that this will
[ Page 15036 ]
indeed provide some additional assistance in getting a more equitable distribution of medical practitioners across the province. But I would say that this is clearly not the whole answer. This is part of it.
Last Friday in Prince George I received the report of the Northern and Rural Health Task Force, and they said very clearly what I think the member for Prince George-Omineca and I and other members of the House have long said -- indeed, what the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs said -- that access to health services close to one's home does differ from one area of the province to another. In part, this is an issue of redistribution of physician resources; in part, it is lack of local control over how health dollars are allocated for services in their own area.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Indeed there is much to do. The task force recommended, among other things, the establishment of a central office for recruiting physicians for small communities, so that where that expertise doesn't exist in the local community, it is there on an international scale within the ministry; and the establishment of a locum service to help out physicians in small communities, which, again, is a particular concern with the 30 or some communities in the province where three or fewer practitioners are located. When they have to take a vacation or go back for further training, there is a gap that simply must be filled if those they leave behind are not to burn out providing health services to members of the community. So there is much to be done, and I will be pleased to enter into committee stage debate on the part these amendments to the Medical and Health Care Services Act will have in filling some of those gaps.
Second, I thank the members opposite for their endorsement of the principles contained in the amendments to the Medical Practitioners Act. This is a debate on principles, and I think we share a common concern that the role of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia not only be asserted in legislation as the protection of the public but also be in reality the protection of the public from that small number -- that very small number -- of licensed practitioners who practise either incompetently or unethically.
It is my sense that in the last two years the College of Physicians and Surgeons has recognized the seriousness of the difficulty they've had with the public perception of their role and are seeking to address that. I might point out that the "Crossing the Boundaries" report, which has formed the basis of some of the legislation that we are debating today and debated last year, was indeed commissioned by the college itself. It recognized it had a problem and needed to address it. Many of the very high-profile cases that are before us in the media, such as the tragedy of Dr. Charalambous and those patients who he not only abused but murdered, come from an era when the protections that we have introduced in the last session and this session were not in place.
We need to recognize, as we debate these further amendments to the Medical Practitioners Act, that we have a new set of representatives on the council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, including one-third representation from members of the general public. We have a new internal structure for the college to deal with allegations and instances of sexual misconduct. We have, I believe, a real awareness among the members of the council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons that this is a matter that deserves their urgent attention.
Finally, I want to comment about the member for Richmond East's concerns about the Health Professions Council and the regulation of professions under it. First, let me say that the operational costs of colleges of health professionals are borne by licensed registrants in the college. That is as true for dentists as it is for massage therapists, chiropractors and a variety of other professions. The Ministry of Health -- the Health budget -- bears no costs for the ongoing operations of those colleges. The cost it does bear is in ensuring that the bylaws of those colleges meet the high standards set in the Health Professions Act and that we do have provisions in place to regulate not only the high-quality practice of health professions but the protection of the public from those who practise unethically or incompetently.
I also call to the member's attention that in many cases where additional colleges have been created, that has been the wish of members of professions who have long felt themselves and their scope of practice curtailed by other members of the college of which they were part. Last year we divided off a new College of Dental Hygienists from the College of Dental Surgeons. This was at the request of dental hygienists who felt they deserved the independence of their profession -- they deserved a right to practise and regulate in their own right. I would not like us to reverse that trend; I think it is the right trend. Similarly, this act deals with the desires of dental technicians and denturists to have their own right to self-regulate their own designated scope of practice without approval from a "senior" profession in their field of practice. That is a legitimate concern.
I do share the member opposite's concern, though, that as this occurs -- as different colleges are set up, self-regulating, self-financed by the practitioners themselves -- we look at the scope of practice of these various professions. As the member knows, one of the prime tasks now facing the Health Professions Council is to examine the scope of practice of all health professions within the province. Some of these very thorny and longstanding turf wars -- if I can use that term -- among professions must be resolved. It is simply not in the public interest to have some of these longstanding feuds continue. It does nobody's health any good. They're simply relics of another era that we must put to rest.
Having made these few brief remarks, I look forward to a further discussion of the particular sections of this act at committee stage. I move second reading of Bill 30.
Motion approved.
Bill 30, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call committee stage of Bill 21.
TOBACCO SALES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 21; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
On section 1.
[ Page 15037 ]
L. Reid: Section 1 relates to definitions in this act. I would ask the minister to perhaps comment on the definition of tobacco. Certainly the other legislation we have before us from other provinces allows for a broader definition and the inclusion of cigarette papers, cigarette tubes, filters, etc., because they don't wish young people to have access to products with which they could roll their own tobacco, if you will. It certainly seems to me that the definition we have here of tobacco as tobacco leaves or products produced from tobacco in any form or for any use is somewhat narrow. If it's possible for this minister to consider a broader definition, I would welcome that. I would simply ask the minister to comment.
J. van Dongen: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. van Dongen: I'm pleased today to introduce a group of students from Yarrow Elementary School, along with their teacher Miss Esau. Yarrow is a part of the Abbotsford constituency. There is a group here of about 60 students and ten parents, and I'd like the House to make them feel welcome today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The definition of tobacco indeed repeals a definition that exists in the current Tobacco Sales Act, and broadens it to make sure that it includes any raw leaf tobacco, chewing tobacco or tobacco that is in a form designed for use other than smoking. I recognize what the member says about restrictions and other -- I don't know what I would call it -- smoking paraphernalia, perhaps, "tubes" or whatever. The definition is intended to expand the number of products that are captured here. It was not intended to capture the sale of rolling papers and the like.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, some members of the Legislature seem to want to expand this debate to substances beyond tobacco.
J. Tyabji: I actually want to move an amendment.
I was just having a little fun, speculating on why the NDP wouldn't want to include the products that might be used for things other than tobacco, and that maybe their membership would be upset with that.
But I would like to move an amendment to section 1 and the definition of tobacco: that section 1 be amended by repealing the definition of tobacco and replacing it with "tobacco product," which means "tobacco leaves or products produced from tobacco in any form or for any use and includes products used in the consumption of tobacco leaves, such as cigarette papers, cigarette tubes, filters and other like products."
[5:30]
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: That definition is very similar to what is in other jurisdictions, as the member for Richmond East pointed out.
I think I should put on the record that most of the members of the opposition have received some very informative faxes from the Airspace Non-Smoker's Rights Society, and that they have kept us informed about a lot of the other legislation.
That definition happens to be something that would provide for the prevention of the sale of rolling papers or cigarette papers to minors. I would add that if it is a non-tobacco product that they're buying it for, we know that that's something that is prohibited by law as well. There is really no drawback to preventing minors having access to products which are non-tobacco leaf or non-tobacco and yet are clearly being used for only one purpose, and that's the purpose of smoking, whether the smoking is of tobacco or something else.
So it is a friendly amendment. It's an amendment that speaks to what I think many of the opposition members will be saying, and it certainly goes to the heart of what the people who are active in the non-smokers' rights movement would like to see come forward.
On the amendment.
L. Fox: I recognize what the amendment is trying to do, but in real form I think if you control tobacco -- if you can control the sale of tobacco -- it doesn't matter about all the other issues surrounding tobacco. Perhaps my approach to this is because I really don't believe this legislation is going to work anyway, but if you're going to control things like cigarette papers and those other things, then you've got to include a whole list. You have left out pipes and all kinds of other additives that you could use tobacco with.
If this legislation has any possibility of working, you're better off controlling the substance which burns slowly and creates the smoke than you are trying to control all the different facilities and different tools that are out there in order to utilize that substance. With that, I would vote against the amendment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to thank the members opposite for their attention to the details of this act and for proposing this amendment. I want to alert them to some very grave difficulties in enforcement that acceptance of the amendment would provide. As members know from reading it, enforcement of this act is through the provisions of the Tobacco Tax Act, which enables the licensing of tobacco vendors. There are many other vendors who could sell pipes, rolling papers or tubes who might not necessarily be licensed to sell tobacco. There would therefore be no way of enforcing somebody who violated a provision to sell rolling papers to a minor -- or provide a pipe to a minor, to use the example of the member from Prince George-Omineca -- under the provisions of the Tobacco Tax Act.
In drafting this bill, we have done our best to achieve efficiency of administration by not creating a separate licensing system for these purposes. Of necessity, the proposed amendment moves precisely toward the necessity to establish an entirely different licensing and regulatory system. With some thanks to the members opposite for their thought in proposing this, I must regretfully say that I cannot accept it, and will vote against the amendment.
G. Wilson: Speaking -- I'm sure it will come as no surprise -- in favour of the amendment, I'd like to pick up on
[ Page 15038 ]
the point from the member for Prince George-Omineca. He and I have agreed pretty much on everything right through this, and I even do agree that it is going to....
An Hon. Member: One of you is in trouble.
G. Wilson: Yes, this is true; one of us is seriously in trouble.
Having said that, I do think that enforcement of the act as it is now is going to be problematic. I think that making it work is going to be extremely difficult, and we said that in second reading debate. However, because this government has decided that this is necessary and they're going to persist with it, what we're attempting to do now is at least make it somewhat better.
I think that the definition provided within the amendment is more consistent with jurisdictions across Canada, and as a result of that, I think it provides a more consistent approach to this problem than the way it is here. It's a friendly amendment; it's not something that is going to be that problematic. I do think that, notwithstanding the comments from my colleague for Prince George-Omineca, given the fact that the government persists with this, the very least we can do as responsible opposition members is try to improve upon what the government is trying to do.
J. Tyabji: As somebody who is quite an avid non-smoker -- a passionate non-smoker, an irritating person to be around if you're in a restaurant and you're smoking -- as somebody who is that kind of person, I would like to say that it's pretty obvious in terms of practical application why you need this amendment.
If I can just give the minister an example. I know the minister has already said he's going to vote against it, but this is just to give the minister an example. A young person goes into Shoppers Drug Mart, London Drugs, or you name it, and they say: "Well, I'd like a carton of smokes." I've noticed a change since this government has been in, when the Minister of Finance brought in some changes and some amendments. It's very difficult for that young person to get that packet or carton of cigarettes, or whatever it is. They do have little signs posted now in all the gas stations, drugstores and whatever.
But in every single one of those outlets that are not tobacco specialty outlets....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: No, they don't sell smoking jackets -- to the member for Mission-Kent, who wondered if the amendment covered smoking jackets and slippers. They don't sell any of those things. They don't sell smoking paraphernalia, such as water pipes, pipes or whatever the heck it is that the member for Prince George-Omineca was talking about -- all those kinds of funky things that teenagers experiment with. Those drugstores, gas stations or whatever that you can go into all sell rolling papers. It seems patently ludicrous for a young person to say -- and I've seen it happen; I've been standing right there -- "Well, I want a packet of cigarettes," and they've hit a retailer who's saying: "No way; I'm not going to sell you that." They say: "Then I'll take some rolling papers."
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: That's right; that's the brand, isn't it? -- Zig-Zag. Everybody's got them everywhere. I always thought it was kind of strange, when I was growing up, to see these kids who can't get their hands on a packet of cigarettes but have no problem getting their hands on rolling papers and, on the street, getting the other materials they need to make sure that they're still having whatever smoke their little lungs desire.
This amendment would allow the government to give the retailer the ability to say no, the ability to say: "You know what? I'm not going to sell you those rolling papers, because I'm not allowed to." I know that if I were a retailer, I'd want that. Notwithstanding enforcement.... I'm not talking about the government; I'm talking about giving the person who's at the cash desk the ability to say to a 14- or 15-year-old, who they know is not using those rolling papers for paper airplanes: "No, I'm not selling you those, because by law I don't have to."
If there's one thing I've noticed in the last five years, it's a real attitude change. I happen to have talked to retailers who, now that there's a provision for a large sticker saying, "If you're pregnant, smoking may damage the baby," will actually look for that package of cigarettes. If there's a pregnant woman asking for cigarettes, they'll look for the one with that message on it and provide that one to the customer with the message side up. They have bragged to me about this: "I'm really glad that we have this provision now, because I didn't want to say anything when I was selling cigarettes before, and now I have the ability to let the package speak for me."
There are little tools like that. They're not the sort of thing that will be the definitive answer in any of this, but they do provide the retailers with just a little bit of an advantage in trying to get across the message -- whether it's to a pregnant mother, which is not what we're talking about here.... In this case, it's to young people who are not supposed to be smoking. Just a little bit of an amendment makes it a lot easier, and that's just the practical application of it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't want to attack the member opposite's intent here, but I must say.... The member says this is a practical amendment; actually, this is an impractical amendment which will prevent the regulation of sales to minors under the provisions of this act.
Let's look at what it would actually create. It would now create two categories of vendors of this smoking paraphernalia. One category is licensed under the Tobacco Tax Act and subject to these regulations that this member proposes. The other category, which has no interest in selling tobacco, is not licensed under the Tobacco Tax Act and can sell to whomever it pleases. Quite frankly, it is not subject to any of the penalties of this legislation, unless we go with the approach that we have explicitly rejected, which is to create an entirely separate way of licensing vendors that includes both tobacco products and whatever other paraphernalia -- from tubes to smoking jackets -- we choose to put under it. We have rejected that approach for administrative efficiency; regrettably, I again say that I cannot accept this amendment.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 9 | ||
|
Dalton |
Warnke |
Reid |
|
Wilson |
Tyabji |
Anderson |
|
Symons |
van Dongen |
de Jong |
|
[ Page 15039 ]
| ||
|
NAYS -- 34 | ||
|
Petter |
Dosanjh |
Marzari |
|
Pement |
Priddy |
Edwards |
|
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
Garden |
|
Perry |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Miller |
Smallwood |
Cull |
|
Harcourt |
Gablemann |
MacPhail |
|
Ramsey |
Sihota |
Evans |
|
Randall |
Lord |
Streifel |
|
Sawicki |
Jackson |
Serwa |
|
Brewin |
Copping |
Schreck |
|
Boone |
Chisholm |
Neufeld |
| Fox | ||
[5:45]
J. Tyabji: I note the hour and ask for direction from the Chair whether we should go for a few more minutes or if this is a good time to call for an adjournment to 6:30.
The Chair: Please proceed, hon. member.
J. Tyabji: With respect to the conviction definition in section 1, I note that it means a conviction for an offence under this act. A point of clarification from the minister: why wouldn't it include convictions, for example, in a promotion or sale of tobacco products that might have come under a different act?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I might ask the member to explain. The conviction is under the provisions of this act. Convictions under other acts are specified within those acts. I fail to see why the conviction definition here would apply to any number of potential statutory convictions in the province.
J. Tyabji: There are federal laws that someone could have a conviction under. I just wonder why the minister would have it written so that someone who has a conviction under a federal law would be precluded from being deemed to have been someone who has offended the intent of this act. So in terms of the definition of conviction, it should be relevant somehow if they've been convicted under a different act that would run contrary to the intent of this bill, but they may not be convicted under this act.
Hon. P. Ramsey: As we get into debate on the sections and talk about what constitutes an offence under this act, I think the scope of activities that we can regulate against and that have been regulated against will become clear. We are seeking a regulatory scheme for enforcing the provisions of provincial law. I'm not sure how the member would have us expand this ability to convict and punish for transgressing the provisions of provincial law. I'm not sure where we would expand that to. Yes, there are federal provisions. This act enables us to make regulations that I believe can capture a variety of circumstances that we want to address on the sale of tobacco to minors. I don't think we need to go beyond this definition to give us the authority to make sure that the sorts of activities that we're prohibiting are indeed punished and that the laws are enforced.
J. Tyabji: To be a bit more specific, I would note that under section 3.3 we see that the minister may designate a public service employee to be the administrator. The member of the Reform caucus for Prince George-Omineca talked about how difficult it's going to be to enforce this, because there is going to be so much going on -- and how are we going to keep track of it? But section 3.4 talks about reporting convictions to the administrator. I believe the intent of section 3.4 is to make sure that what is going on in the courts.... For example, if there is somebody who has been convicted of dealing to minors or making promotions that are against the intent of this act, that then goes to someone who has been designated by the minister to administrate this act. If someone has been convicted under the federal act, but for whatever reason they haven't also been convicted under this act, I would imagine that the administrator -- in practical application, again -- is going to want to know that there's somebody out there who has been convicted under the federal act. Maybe a charge wasn't brought against that person under the provincial act, so it's a legal technical difficulty. But if the administrator's purpose is to try to keep track of people who have been breaking the intent of the act -- whether it's dealing to minors or whatever offence has been committed -- and if the purpose of section 3.4 is to make sure that the administrator has files on people who may be causing difficulty for the minister, then I would imagine that every offence should be reported to that person. It seems to be just a matter of building in a form of communication, and that's why I would say that in the definition section.... When we get to section 3.4, that should assist the administrator.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to address some of the specifics of enforcement. We're getting slightly beyond the definitions section into exactly what an administrator does under section 3.3 and how that ties into section 3.4 and subsequent sections.
We have a working agreement with the federal government on how we enforce the provisions of both legislations. I must say that the federal and provincial legislation is generally the same, and therefore the offences which will be enforced will be against the provincial statute. That is the way we are avoiding potentially two convictions for the same act -- one under federal legislation and one under provincial legislation. The only exception to this is for tobacco vending machines in adult-only premises, which will be enforced by the federal requirement. In most cases our provisions are identical to federal legislation, except that in the case of sales to minors the age of majority is set for us at 19; the federal legislation sets it at 18. So in all those provisions a provincial enforcement would occur. It would be reported to the administrator of the provincial statute, and licences would be suspended and fines would be imposed under provincial legislation.
We do not want to have a scheme, as the member says, in which you might have double jeopardy for a vendor and they get convicted under two acts. We've reached an agreement whereby provincial legislation will be the one that will be enforced, with the exception of vending machine provisions.
Second, you have one set of administration for offences and for lifting of licences. I don't know if that addresses the member's concerns; I think it does. We have worked with our federal counterparts to achieve some efficiencies in the administration of tobacco sales regulations.
C. Serwa: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[ Page 15040 ]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Deputy Speaker: Minister, before you make your formal motion of adjournment, I would like to offer a report. Earlier today, following oral question period, I indicated that I would examine the Blues and bring back to the House a more detailed ruling with respect to oral questions whose subject matter relates to a bill before the House.
The House, as everybody here knows, has given the Speaker the responsibility for the conduct of oral question period. Speakers therefore have considered the scope and subject matter of both questions and answers with a view to maintaining the free flow of information, while ensuring the most suitable parliamentary vehicle for inquiry and debate.
I have reviewed the rules relating to questions regarding bills on the order paper, and while I am not prepared to embark on a hypothetical proposition, I believe that the following guidelines will be helpful to members:
1. Questions must not be concerned with a detailed analysis of the contents of a bill, as a more appropriate forum would be in committee stage on the bill.
2. Similarly, detailed questions of proposed amendments to a bill would not be in order.
3. A question regarding background material and facts or a general inquiry relating to the subject matter would not be out of order provided it was not otherwise contrary to the rules of oral question period.
My examination of the Blues indicates that the question complained of involved the background of the bill and was not an infringement of the anticipation rule.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the House do now recess.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:56 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 55: minister's office, $432,000 (continued).
R. Neufeld: I have just a few more questions about grain from Peace River North. The minister said that they were going to acquire some cars; maybe you could help me a bit. Where would you acquire those cars and how soon would you be looking at acquiring them?
Hon. J. Pement: If the member recalls, I said that B.C. Rail was pursuing discussions with the grain associations, etc. First, before one would purchase or lease cars, it would be with the understanding that there was a business case to do so. In other words, we have the business to work with. There are leasing companies. Also, of course, with restructuring done in the national system, there is availability of the fleet, depending on what happens with that restructuring.
R. Neufeld: From that subject, on to the Fort Nelson subdivision and the Fort Nelson line. The end of December 1993 was the last subsidy for operations for the Fort Nelson extension. I wonder if the Fort Nelson extension has suffered in regular maintenance because no subsidy was given by the government in 1994. How did B.C. Rail handle this? The $2.4 million is obviously a fair-sized expenditure.
Hon. J. Pement: The maintenance has continued as before, and actually, in the area of the economic opportunities, it has increased on that line.
[3:00]
R. Neufeld: On to a different issue, and that's WesTel. Can the minister tell me whether WesTel pays income and property taxes and lease fees, the same as any private corporation would, delivering the service that WesTel does?
Hon. J. Pement: The company pays all the taxes private corporations do, other than income tax.
R. Neufeld: I'm sorry, I was not ignoring the minister; I was just quickly reading up. Did you say they do not pay income taxes?
Hon. J. Pement: They do not pay income taxes.
R. Neufeld: If they don't pay income taxes, could the minister tell me how they pay their property taxes on the sites that WesTel would own for the towers, specifically, and also any buildings that would be associated with WesTel -- simply because of conversations earlier. There's a grant-in-lieu being discussed. How does WesTel break that out?
Hon. J. Pement: In the case of WesTel, they are leased from Crown Lands or, in any other cases, leased from an entity...
R. Neufeld: They're leased on Crown land. Then do they pay through that lease? Do I understand that correctly? Okay.
I have a couple of problems with British Columbia Railway. I think it's a good Crown corporation; it was certainly part of developing British Columbia in the north where I come from, and for that purpose, it has done well. I've always had some problem with the trucking arm of B.C. Rail, because I still think it competes terribly unfairly with the private sector. I also have a problem with WesTel, which doesn't pay income taxes.
[ Page 15041 ]
Just so the minister is aware, B.C. Tel services my constituency. We have a pretty antiquated system in Peace River North. In fact, a lot of rural B.C. runs on very antiquated systems. All the technology and money for expansion is being spent in the lower mainland, of course, where they can service hundreds of people for the same amount that it might cost to service one person in the north. All that money continues to flow south. When we start to get into competition with WesTel in the communications business, it just enhances that kind of movement. B.C. Tel will respond once again to the lower mainland in order to service people in the more populated areas. This leaves the north, specifically where I come from, without proper services.
Considering the riding she represents, I'm sure the minister is aware of the money some people have to pay to receive telephone service. It's not uncommon for people in my constituency to pay as much as $10,000 to have a telephone put in their house. That's a whopping amount compared to what you pay in the lower mainland. I think all you do is phone B.C. Tel, which flicks a little switch and bang, you're on. You can keep the same number and everything. But in the north we end up with very poor service. With competition such as WesTel and with public dollars getting into the market, we've certainly driven out of the north....
There is a need for money to be spent on infrastructure so that people can receive half-decent telephone service. When companies financed by the public purse -- specifically B.C. Rail -- compete with private industry, it's a detriment to the province. I wonder how the minister would respond to the people in the north, who know that these things are happening. Many have contacted my office.
Hon. J. Pement: We're certainly aware of the difficulties in northern communities. The member is quite right. It's interesting that it's B.C. Tel that basically has that market share in those communities, yet I hear of the competition that WesTel is giving that gigantic company. I have to say that WesTel has less than 1 percent of the market share. Also, WesTel is a competitive company. It isn't subsidized by government; it is run as a competitive company. I really feel that it is not the case at all, in terms of the prices of the infrastructure needs, that WesTel is giving B.C. Tel that much of a difficult time. I'd suggest that the member talk to B.C. Tel.
R. Neufeld: You needn't suggest that I talk to B.C. Tel; I've been doing it for quite a number of years -- and NorthwestTel -- consistently about service in the north. That's nothing new. We've also made representations at the CRTC hearings and, to be perfectly frank, to no avail because, again, of the concentration of all the people in the south of the province and the north going without some of those basic services.
If WesTel is competitive and if it's a good company, would the minister look favourably at WesTel coming into the north -- maybe they should come into the north; they're financed by the public purse -- and start putting in the infrastructure that's needed so that we can have a good telephone system?
Maybe that's an avenue we can go, because we certainly are not winning with B.C. Tel. In the interim, people are going without services that they should be getting. We have exchanges just five miles out of Fort St. John that are 30 years old. It's absolutely deplorable, to be perfectly frank. What I'm saying is that this doesn't help. So maybe the answer is that WesTel should be coming to Fort St. John and starting to set up there. I mean, the services that we receive there are not that great, and maybe WesTel could get their foot in the door with that kind of service to people. Would that be a possibility?
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly WesTel is doing that type of work. They have some of the most up-to-date equipment in some of our northern areas. I recognize the member's concern with regard to antiquated systems. I too deal with that on an ongoing basis with the communities that I'm from. Definitely WesTel has an opportunity to provide some services. But again, I'll say that it is a small company, less than 1 percent of the market share.
R. Neufeld: Could the minister, because of the 1993 annual report, tell me what the assets of WesTel are in dollar amounts?
Hon. J. Pement: Approximately $33 million to $35 million.
R. Neufeld: I had made comments to a newspaper in the north about WesTel not paying taxes as other companies do. I received a letter from Mr. Trotter correcting me. I'm going to read one paragraph. He says: "We have recently had to absorb the 1995 increase to land-lease charges, which you stated in the article were very substantial."
Those are the charges for some of the fees that you don't call taxes, which your government has consistently increased over the years. I guess it's a matter of how you determine what is tax and what is fee. In fact, I think the member for Nelson-Creston agrees with me that in this case some of those increases were unwarranted, unfair and far too high, and are going to pose a problem to a lot of smaller companies in communications all over the north. That covers an awful lot of British Columbia.
Would the minister be able to supply me with the increase that WesTel faced from the year before until now? I don't expect her to have that at her fingertips, but maybe her staff will. If they don't, if they would please advise me of the amount of that increase.
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly we will provide that information.
R. Neufeld: One last question. In 1993 there was an item in the report for $10 million for workforce reduction costs. That had to do with cabooses and those kinds of things. What kinds of expenditures were experienced in 1994, or was that just a onetime cost for 1993? If there was an expenditure in 1994, will there be an expenditure in 1995?
Hon. J. Pement: The $10 million that the member referred to was booked in 1993 and reserved and disbursed in March and June of '95.
L. Fox: I am pleased to enter into the debates. I have a series of questions to ask the minister on BCR, but before I do, I just wanted to recognize the important role that BCR has played in the development of northern British Columbia -- as my counterpart has so accurately stated -- in my constituency, with respect to Fort St. James and the initiative a few years ago of reopening the line to access wood up in the Sustut. It has been important to the economics of that area.
[ Page 15042 ]
But there has been a growing concern from my constituents and constituents all along the B.C. Rail line, around the initiative -- the member for Peace River North spoke to it very briefly -- taken by B.C. Rail to get into rubber-tired business in terms of truck-related hauling. There are arguments on both sides of this issue, but given the difficulties the private sector has in achieving licensing or additional plates in order to do business, I wanted to understand how B.C. Rail deals with the licensing issue. We now see a brand-new initiative by B.C. Rail to take business historically handled by the trucking industry -- in fact, aggressive trucking -- in hauling the Overwaitea supplies through B.C. Rail. We now see B.C. Rail has indeed bid on that business and has been successful.
[3:15]
I guess there are a couple of concerns there. If they were piggy backing that from its delivery source in North Van to the respective community along the way on a railcar, that would be seen as acceptable. But running trucks up and down the highway, carrying business which historically was done by the private sector, leads me to ask how you get around the licensing issues. Do you have the same kinds of requirements in terms of getting plates as the private sector does? If so, I'm amazed, because it doesn't seem to be very difficult for B.C. Rail to acquire extra plates, but it certainly is difficult for my constituents who are in the trucking business to acquire additional plates. Perhaps before we get on to it, I'll allow the minister to respond to that issue first.
Hon. J. Pement: These issues have certainly been raised by some of the trucking concerns and continue to be a dialogue. It's interesting; I think there's a red herring pulled down the pathway at times. If you look at the history of B.C. Rail and other rail services, the majority of the work was done by rail, that being the carrying of fibre, etc. Even with the Overwaitea contract with B.C. Rail 12 years ago, B.C. Rail had this contract, lost it and then regained it. In the case of the tradition or the history, I think one has to look at the rail aspect to it as well. Certainly, in terms of B.C. Rail retaining its viability, it's pertinent that they work toward agreements that they can provide shippers, a good price and the service. That's basically the approach. As far as receiving licensing, B.C. Rail does what any other carrier does; it applies through the same avenues to obtain a licence.
L. Fox: Perhaps any truckers that continually have problems in my constituency with acquiring additional plates because there's been an increase in business.... Maybe there's another opportunity for B.C. Rail to get into the consulting business and advise them how to acquire additional plates. They obviously have more success than the trucking companies in my constituency. I get a number of calls around this issue. Be that as it may, let me just say this: a few years ago we saw some aggressiveness on behalf of B.C. Rail, which....
There's one other issue I should make sure that you're aware of. B.C. Rail essentially has access to tariffs through its mechanism, more so than the average small trucking company does. They have better access to what rates they're competing with than the small guy. Let's say a trucking company in Fort St. James has a very difficult time accessing tariff rates, but B.C. Rail doesn't. To a degree, there's an advantage there.
I want to go back to two, almost three years ago now, when B.C. Rail was aggressive in Fort St. James and substantially undercut the local companies in hauling ties for the CNR contract from Fort St. James to Prince George. In fact, it was quite dramatic. It wasn't narrow; it was a very substantial undercut. That left the residents of Fort St. James concerned that B.C. Rail was prepared to buy that business for a length of time and subsidize it from other areas of its operation. Later on, once it had the contract, it had an opportunity to increase its rates. That's one issue.
We look at the issue of Williams Lake when there was real concern that B.C. Rail bought the chip-hauling business and in fact subsidized that through other services in B.C. Rail.
Being a businessman, I'm not afraid of competition; in fact, I endorse competition. The question is whether or not that competition is fair and whether or not everybody is playing by the same rules in terms of competing. Basically, we see a Crown corporation that has the ability to be dug out by the taxpayers. It has in the past. I recall the B.C. government paying off $90 million, I think it was, of debt for B.C. Rail. That was well before I was even interested in provincial politics, but I recall the number being floated around at that time. Individuals remember those kinds of things and say: "Look, they can undercut us, because if they go belly up or lose money somewhere down the road, they can dig into the taxpayers' pockets through the government. It's happened in the past."
I think there's a real image problem here in terms of whether that type of competition is fair. I would like to see the minister assure my constituents, particularly in the Prince George and Fort St. James regions -- areas serviced by B.C. Rail -- that it is going to compete on an even basis, that it is going to recognize the cost of that specific service and that it's out to make a margin of profit on every service it provides and every tender it applies for.
Hon. J. Pement: Definitely B.C. Rail is out to be competitive and make a profit in the business that they do. They are not subsidized by government. What happened in the past is the past; what is happening now is that they are a business that has to be competitive. I'll remind the member that he started out by saying that this is a service that he feels is good for the northern community. If this company is not doing good business and being competitive, then it won't be there. I would suggest that the member would like to see B.C. Rail continue to make a profit.
L. Fox: I appreciate what the minister is saying, but we also have to be realistic and understand that there are real concerns from the private sector, particularly the trucking industry. I'm well aware that there has been a lot of dialogue within the corporation on this issue. I want to go on the record as being extremely concerned. I suppose some of the concern will be alleviated when we see, somewhere down the road, whether B.C. Rail, within these communities, is going to pay its fair share of taxes. That's been one of the criticisms -- that the truckers in their respective locations are faced with municipal taxes, school taxes and all those other things, but B.C. Rail is not.
As we equal out the playing field so that the impacts and the costs are the same, then there is no question in my mind that the private sector, as long as the costs are the same -- if B.C. Rail has to pay municipal taxes, school taxes and all those other costs....
An Hon. Member: Income taxes.
[ Page 15043 ]
L. Fox: I would argue against income taxes, because I don't think we should be sending provincial money to Ottawa.
In any case, all the other taxes being the same, I'm very confident that the private sector can compete with B.C. Rail. The economics would look after that particular issue. I look forward to the day when municipalities are going to receive their due from B.C. Rail -- something that, believe it or not, I was an advocate of in the North Central Municipal Association, as far back as 1982. We only see now, perhaps for the first time, some initiatives by the ministry.
I want to get on to one other question, and it's precisely around.... It's too bad the member for Cariboo North left, because I think he's had correspondence, as have I and many people in the north, around your passenger service from Vancouver to Prince George, and particularly the concerns of the tourism association about how that's operated and requesting there be a revisit by the BCR in terms of how it might better enhance the opportunities and the service from Vancouver to, specifically, Prince George. My understanding is that at certain times of the year, part of the run is utilized out of North Vancouver by students. They only go partway, and beyond that, oftentimes, the cars are dropped or the seats are empty. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Pement: The decision to restructure the passenger service was made on ridership. The numbers were not there in terms of supporting that system. The Kelly Lake area is where the students.... I'm not sure if those are the students that the member was referring to, but there are students through the Kelly Lake area who use the system, and those students are not affected.
L. Fox: I didn't expect that the students would be affected. My argument, in discussing this issue with some of the tourist associations up and down the line, was going to be that perhaps a special car or something along that line would be attached for the short distance that the students ride so that we could have more seats available out of Vancouver. My understanding is that the students get on in Vancouver. Because of that load, they only ride a short distance, and because of that short distance, those seats are not available out of Vancouver all the way to Prince George. That was the concern -- whether we could come up with some kind of scheme that would accommodate those students but not reduce the number of seats that are available out of North Vancouver.
Hon. J. Pement: I have met with some of the tourist associations, particularly in the Williams Lake area, and heard some of the concerns there. As far as the students go, from my understanding, there's no capacity problem within that area at all in terms of having seats available. There may be occasions, hopefully, when the train is full, and someone cannot then access the service for that given length of time. We're having discussions with associations and looking at the concerns that B.C. Rail has in terms of providing the service, but we're also trying to attract more ridership to the service. We will be monitoring the situation on an ongoing basis.
L. Fox: Point of clarification: is the minister telling me that the students riding just that short distance are not shorting the seats available out of Vancouver or that the train itself is not full enough? Does that mean there is a shortage of seats available at the beginning of the run in North Vancouver? Is that what the minister is saying?
Hon. J. Pement: It's not our understanding that the students are causing a capacity problem with the service. However, if the member would like some numbers, etc., we can get back to him with some numbers with regard to that particular area.
[3:30]
D. Symons: I just might follow along with some questions asked by the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca. We were talking about the trucking arm of B.C. Rail. I'm wondering if it received at least some of its assets, primarily the trucks and maybe some of the buildings they use, at a time when B.C. Rail was receiving subsidies for its operations. Did the trucking arm purchase its vehicles and other assets from B.C. Rail, are they leasing them from B.C. Rail or did they just sort of transfer over to them?
Hon. J. Pement: The subsidy ceased in 1983, and the rolling stock that the company has is purchased by the company for whatever purposes.
D. Symons: So you're saying that from the time B.C. Rail got involved in trucking, whether it be trucking internally with B.C. Rail, hauling chips to use on the rail operations, or now, hauling for hauling's sake outside of rail operation, all these things were bought as a separate arm of B.C. Rail, and it's been financed through itself, and there's not been cross-fertilization?
Hon. J. Pement: This is all part of B.C. Rail.
D. Symons: I would gather the minister is following where I'm trying to lead in this. If B.C. Rail has a trucking arm that is now bidding against private sector ones, but they manage to get a good amount of the equipment they are using free -- in the sense that it is not charged to the trucking expenses of operating that trucking arm -- then they really do have an unfair competition with the private sector if they got their assets without having to amortize those through the trucking arm. That seems to be what the minister is telling me.
Hon. J. Pement: As in many businesses, while this is not a separate company or arm, the costs, the operating costs and the assets acquired or devolved are tracked within the company, and the prices and shipping costs are set according to the performance of that particular area within the company.
D. Symons: I can see that a large or small trucking firm that is strictly in the business of trucking has no problem at the end of the day seeing whether all of its operating expenses are covered by the revenues it receives from the contracts it has. But with B.C. Rail, I'm not too sure whether this line is strictly kept so that we can see that they paid for the equipment they're using -- that everything in there is counted separate from the B.C. Rail account so that we know they're bidding on equal footing.
What you're telling me, basically, is that there's almost no way of tracking that. So I'm wondering how an independent trucker or the public can determine whether B.C. Rail is com-
[ Page 15044 ]
peting fairly with the private sector. Are the books open so that we can see the costs, the operating expenses and everything else that goes along with operating a trucking arm of the rail company? Can we determine whether that arm is completely self-sufficient and is not being subsidized so that they are able to underbid the competition?
Hon. J. Pement: Saying that the company tracks that particular division means that they do have a separate area of accounting that deals with the trucking division. When prices are put forward, they are based on the assets that are needed for providing the service and also for giving the price.
As for the books being open, it's a competitive company, one does not normally open the books for other companies to decide whether they can move around with the information that the B.C. Rail has. There was a consultant who was brought in to review those books, however, and there is a letter expressing some of the information the member is perhaps concerned with, and we would be happy to give you a copy of that letter.
D. Symons: To carry on with that, then, if those books are not open to the general public, I wonder if they might be open to the auditor general. We could ask the auditor general to do a complete audit of the trucking arm of B.C. Rail to determine that they are competing fairly, just so we can settle the minds of some of the private contractors out there.
Just to hit one little point where I think there might be unfair competition from something we learned last year, I gather that the trucking arm of B.C. Rail, along with all the parts of B.C. Rail, is basically self-insured. It is a large enough company to be self-insured, and not very many other trucking firms can do that. They are not of a magnitude that allows them to do that, and just that insurance shaves a portion of a percentage off their operating expenses and gives them that much of an edge over other companies -- that, and in other ways. That's just an instance of one thing I can identify that gives B.C. Rail's trucking arm an advantage over the private sector. I'm sure that there may be other ways and that, as little as they might be, they all add up. A lot of little parts -- little incentives or little additions -- can give them a fair edge over the private sector.
Hon. J. Pement: I believe that you have to look at B.C. Rail as a competitive company. Concerning unfair advantage, you know that anyone can throw in a little piece or portion and say something is unfair. The thing is that this company is providing a service particularly to the northern part of this province. It has to be a viable company, and it is not subsidized by government. If you do not want this company to be competitive, how are they going to maintain the services they have? Let's get real, in the real sense of the word, about it being a competitive company. They lose out on bids by other companies, they gain bids sometimes and win bids sometimes. It's what competition is all about.
D. Symons: There are two responses to that. One, as the member for Peace River North said, is that they have an alternative company within themselves. If they lose it on the trucks, they win it on the rails. That's a possibility within the same firm, and the other truck companies don't have that aspect of it. Also, if we don't know.... I mean, with a private firm we know that at the end of the year, they'd go bankrupt. At the end of the year, you can't keep operating in the red.
Do we know if B.C. Rail is using unfair pricing practices to corner the market, so that at some future date -- as the member mentioned -- they may be able to raise prices to a more competitive level when the competition is no longer there? We will have no way of knowing that, because the minister is basically saying that everything is hidden. In a sense, it's not hidden for the private sector, because they go out of business. They have to, but B.C. Rail's trucking arm doesn't have to.
Hon. J. Pement: Private sector companies do not open their books to the competition, either. This is again a type of argument in terms of competitiveness. One is either competitive or not competitive. I don't think B.C. Rail has any undue extra level of fairness over any other particular company. You have seen that B.C. Rail has lost contracts on occasion as well.
D. Symons: I think we have canvassed that, and we might agree to disagree to a certain extent on the need to have some sort of yardstick to measure whether there is fairness in the bidding process. I guess that's going to be difficult. As you say, they want to keep their books secret because of competitive reasons, but it certainly raises questions.
There is something else that is a bit off track, and you may not care to comment on it. It is related to this in a sense, and I think you'll catch the drift of what I'm after here in a moment. The current NDP government complained very bitterly when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal government and Via Rail were not required to retain passenger service on the E&N line. I wonder why, in this government's mind, there's a different stance when it comes to B.C. Rail operating money-losing services, because they're cutting back in the subsidies given for the Fort Nelson run and for the passenger service and insisting these must be self-sufficient, whereas the E&N is not self-sufficient.
You're saying this is not within your jurisdiction. I realize that, but has B.C. Rail been involved in any way at all in discussions on operating or taking over the operation if the federal government should wish to or if Via Rail wished to remove itself from the obligation of running the passenger service on Vancouver Island? Is there any talk of B.C. Rail taking over management or getting involved? Is the provincial government considering that as part of B.C. Rail or as a separate entity? Would the government do its share, besides blaming the feds for cutting something out and not supporting it? Will the provincial government do its share also to see the that E&N keeps running?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, I'll remind the member that B.C. Rail operates on economic extensions and has continued to maintain those services in particular parts of the province because of the economic opportunities there. At this point no discussions have taken place with the federal government.
D. Symons: I'd like to go back to something specific to B.C. Rail. I guess we've done the taxes and do quite well there. B.C. Rail has maintenance crews who are now competing for maintenance or construction jobs that aren't specifically B.C. Rail -- for sidings and so forth for companies connecting into the rail line. Often this used to be done by the private sector, but I believe that the B.C. Rail crews are now competing against the private sector for these spur lines.
I wonder if we have fair competition here. Does B.C. Rail not have an unfair advantage in that it is insured and uses its
[ Page 15045 ]
own equipment, while other companies have to purchase theirs and amortize over a period of time? These and other factors give B.C. Rail an unfair advantage when it comes to bidding on construction of sidings and other rail-related features.
Hon. J. Pement: From my understanding, B.C. Rail has been doing this for about 25 years. It's nothing new; it really depends on those who are looking for the repairs being done, the particular areas, and all the rest of it with regard to what service we can provide for them.
[3:45]
D. Symons: If B.C. Rail is bidding on what I'll call laying of private rail lines when it's constructing lines of its own, is it open to bids from the private sector as well, so that they have a chance to bid on B.C. Rail lines? Is it a two-way street?
Hon. J. Pement: Where it's cost-effective, yes.
D. Symons: I guess that leads to the question: how do you determine whether it's cost-effective if you haven't opened it to competitive bids to ascertain that it is cost-effective? If things aren't opened up to bids, how can we determine whether we are indeed getting value for money?
Hon. J. Pement: Engineering bids are being put out on given projects. As far as how one determines something is cost-effective, one looks for what service they can get at the best dollar and at the best value.
D. Symons: Just back to the question of WesTel, and I think it's been answered more or less by our questions to do with the trucking arm. But WesTel is exempted from FOI, whereas most of the Crown corporations aren't. There is certain information that WesTel can keep secret which basically private corporations -- B.C. Tel and so forth -- can't, because they have annual general meetings and they have shareholders and so forth who are entitled by law to get certain information. WesTel doesn't have to share that same sort of information. So I'm just wondering if you can explain, at least on an equal basis -- the information must come out at shareholders' meetings for private corporations -- why they cannot have the same information that relates to the operation of WesTel.
Hon. J. Pement: I would suggest the member try to FOI B.C. Tel. I don't think you're going to make it, somehow. I'm sure B.C. Tel doesn't advertise what's in their business plan to the public. It's quite the same with WesTel with regard to being competitive.
D. Symons: I do think that the minister, however, is avoiding the question I asked. I didn't ask that everything is open wide and that their business plans and objectives and so forth.... Those, I understand -- be it private or public -- will be kept secret. But certain things, such as the taxes they pay and things of that sort, are public knowledge with private firms in the sense that the shareholders can have access to that by law. We have corporation laws in British Columbia that insist that shareholders are entitled to this information. We as taxpayers in the province are shareholders, in a sense, in whatever B.C. Rail has, and we don't necessarily get the same information. So all I'm asking for or suggesting be made available is the same sort of information that shareholders of private corporations are entitled to. Can that same information be made public from B.C. Rail and its affiliates like WesTel?
Hon. J. Pement: BCR, and WesTel particularly, is subject to the CRTC, as other companies are, and it has to file information as other companies do.
D. Symons: I have a lot of other questions that deal with taxes. I think these were covered fairly well by another member. They didn't specify GST or PST, and I'm wondering if each of these are also applicable to WesTel as they are to B.C. Tel or any other telecommunications company.
Hon. J. Pement: GST, PST and capital taxes.
D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister might be able to tell us if there is a financial statement available from the last fiscal year. Was the profit or loss for the operation of WesTel realized? And at the same time, what financial return are B.C taxpayers getting on the $20 million of assets that were transferred to WesTel to get it started?
Hon. J. Pement: We are actually getting our financial statements printed up, and we'll soon be tabling those in the House.
D. Symons: I guess I'll have to read the Blues for that answer.
I'll just make one comment. The member from West Vancouver-Garibaldi had asked, as I had, for the report to privatize B.C. Rail. I also got the report. The interesting thing they said is that this thing was so severed that all they were going to give me was the title page. So I have a title page that says "Project West" on it, and little else. It was sort of interesting to see how secretive these reports are. We'll see what I get from the other two that the member from West Vancouver-Garibaldi obviously has.
I think that is it. I believe we have reached the end of the questions I have for B.C. Rail at the current time, so unless the other members have some, we will finish that aspect of it.
R. Neufeld: A quick question came out of the response for the workforce reduction costs, that $10 million expense in 1993. Did I understand you correctly that it was spent in 1994? Why was it expensed in 1993 and spent in 1994? Maybe I just missed the response.
Hon. J. Pement: The reason for the length of time is that B.C. Rail was awarded the right to run without a caboose but had to wait for the award through Vince Ready. Therefore it took that much time. They booked the costs in as expressed, but the length of time for the final decision took us into '95.
The Chair: No further questions? I'll be happy to put.... There's a member rushing to his seat. If you've finished one topic, then we'll move to the next.
R. Chisholm: I have one question for the minister. Could she give me an overview and a bit of history on the new
[ Page 15046 ]
Autoplan 12, which is supposed to be implemented in the fall of 1995? I would like to know why we're going in this direction. What proof do we have that this system won't fail? It seems to me that we've tried this before, and it almost bankrupted the system. I'm wondering what has changed to allow us to go ahead with this type of system. Considering its track record, what can we implement to make sure that this time it is responsive to the needs of the people of the province?
Hon. J. Pement: Autoplan 12 was developed after ICBC received public requests for this type of plan. After recognizing the number of requests that came in, surveys were done. It was found that there was significant public approval for this type of route. One reason is that it's less expensive than the existing short-term policies. Another, of course, is its convenience for people on a monthly basis.
The financial arrangement for the plan is different from the previous plan, which the member talked about. For instance, there is a flexible interest rate, which was not part of the previous program. Also different is the type of technology we now have at our fingertips, particularly in the banking system, to deal with administrative processes.
[4:00]
R. Neufeld: If you register your car under the present system, you get a tag which tells you the month when insurance is due in the following year, etc. If a person is on this month-by-month system but doesn't pay what they're supposed to pay for their insurance, they're still wearing the tag for the year. Is that part of the system going to change, too? Are they going to have different tags for every month they pay? How are you going to control this? The police will see automobiles that have the appropriate tag, yet the insurance bills haven't been paid. How will you know whether they have insurance at that point in time, especially from the point of view of enforcement? I think the police would have an awful time trying to figure out who's who.
Hon. J. Pement: This is no different. If there is an outstanding debt situation where someone is in arrears, it is similar to an NSF cheque situation, and that occurs within the existing plans now. The fact is that we insure the innocent driver, or those who are in an accident who are innocent, even though this particular driver may not have full insurance due to being in bad debt.
R. Chisholm: Half my question was answered there, and I'm glad to hear that the innocent will be covered in those situations. But how do the police differentiate between somebody who has insurance and should be on the road and somebody who hasn't? Our system of tagging with licence plates now runs for a year, and you are going to have them pay for one month at a time. If they then stop paying their bill, they will still have that yearly tag, unless you're changing that system. How will that be controlled for the enforcement of people having insurance being on the road or not on the road?
Hon. J. Pement: As I pointed out to the member, it really is what exists now with the NSF cheque situation. The police can't differentiate; if the tag is on the licence, the tag is on the licence. The issue is when they go to renew the licence and won't be able to renew it or, in certain given circumstances, they can have their licence removed. It would depend on the outstanding debt and the cost to remove that licence as well.
R. Chisholm: My only problem with that is that the person could have been driving on the road for 11 months or longer without any insurance. Meanwhile, the rest of society has paid a set price to have the privilege of being on that road, and they are paying for their responsibility of being on that road. Meanwhile, this individual could be running out there after paying for a month's worth of insurance and have a tag that the police can't differentiate as to whether they should be on the road, legally or not. This person is not paying his share of his responsibility of being on the provincial roads.
Hon. J. Pement: The thing is, as I was saying with the NSF cheque situation, that that exists today, but if you look at our overall concern in this area, it is about one-tenth of 1 percent that we have in outstanding arrears.
R. Chisholm: I hate to stay on this point, but for some strange reason I have an uneasy feeling that there is more out there than meets the eye. If we can't collect the fines, let's say, for driving on the roads -- $160 million -- and we're in the process now of doing that and it's taken us years to get to this stage, what is the difference between that system and this system? You are going to be able to collect and still let individuals be on the road without any insurance, and the police are not going to be able to differentiate.
The system is liable for that person, and that person is not taking any responsibility for being on that road. That is the point I'm getting at. The person is driving the vehicle but taking no responsibility. This system is now taking the responsibility for the individual. Somehow or other, I think that is wrong, and this where the system got into trouble before.
Hon. J. Pement: In comparing to the past, one has to really look at the technology we have for dealing with the administration of these systems. We are better equipped in terms of that type of administration. If a person is in outstanding arrears with the corporation, they will not have the opportunity to renew their licence.
R. Chisholm: I understand what the minister is trying to do, but the fact remains that this government -- all governments for that matter -- does not have a very good track record for collecting debts. Whether you talk about Social Services, medicare, driving fines or speeding fines, we haven't done a very good job of this, and this is another area. The question I asked was: how do the police differentiate between a person who does or doesn't have insurance? At this point in time, when they do not pay their bill, the public is paying for these people who should not be on the road. How do the police get them off the road when they do not have insurance? We are putting the onus on the rest of society to pay for these people. How do we police that in the system?
Hon. J. Pement: The police cannot ascertain whether a driver is in arrears with ICBC. There's no way the police can do that, so to say that they can is not realistic. ICBC is one of the outstanding corporations in British Columbia at collecting debt, so ICBC does very well when you think of the amount of business they do; their outstanding arrears are very, very low. I'm saying to the member that we do have better technology to deal with the administrative process of these plans. We'll be looking at better and more up-to-date technology as we go
[ Page 15047 ]
along. We will also monitor the program. Any new program that comes into place will be monitored. If there is an outstanding issue that we have to deal with, we will deal with it accordingly.
R. Chisholm: We know the police can't monitor that. That's the point: they have no way of monitoring it. The system has issued the person a tag for a year's registration on the automobile. Meanwhile, the person decides not to pay insurance the following month. This person is running around on the roads without insurance, not paying a fair share. Now society has to pick up the tab for the next eleven months for that individual. How is that policed? That is the point I am trying to get at. Why is society picking up the charges for these people? Why are we not able within the system to try to police it?
Hon. J. Pement: The costs are covered by financial purchasers, not by the general public.
D. Symons: I had some questions on Autoplan 12, but I think I'll save them for later and make sure that I don't overlap on the member for Chilliwack's questions.
I wonder if I can just look at a memorandum that was put out by ICBC. I just have page five of five here, but it has to do with corporate image and so forth. It talks about being a not-for-profit corporation, selling Autoplan insurance at cost and being a Crown corporation guaranteed by the province of British Columbia, which I think gives it an edge over other companies. I'm not quite sure if "guaranteed" means that we'll pay all claims even if the government has to put something in to subsidize it, but ICBC seems to set its rates to cover itself.
I'm noticing toward the bottom of this there is a comment: "Finally, every vehicle on the road in B.C. is insured." I'm wondering if I might challenge that claim and see whether it's true. I know there are people who will drive out there. We found out in the paper recently -- I'm going to get to it later -- about decal theft. I assume that's because the person has not taken out a policy, but they want their car licence plate to appear like they have. Licence plate theft would be another way of giving the appearance of an insurance policy that's not in place. If I, as an insured driver, don't take out underinsured driver insurance -- I don't believe it's compulsory -- to insure myself against an accident with an underinsured driver, how insured am I? The other car on the road is not insured, I would assume.
Hon. J. Pement: In terms of the corporation and its viability, we've increased the reserve over the last few years to ensure that we are underwritten as a corporation. But all third parties are protected by the insurance coverage.
D. Symons: You said all third parties? As I mentioned earlier, there can be uninsured cars on the road as a result of decal or plate theft. A driver might be driving without anything at all. It happens particularly in rural areas, where people will be on the road without any licence or insurance at all. Are you saying that these people, if they have accidents with each other, are also insured? If two uninsured people have an accident, they're covered -- is that what you're saying -- by third parties? Or do you simply mean that anybody who has insurance is covered regardless of the person who hits his or her car?
Hon. J. Pement: In the situation the member pointed out, if two uninsured vehicles were in an accident, their medical costs would be insured through their drivers' licences.
D. Symons: In reference to people driving into British Columbia from other provinces, the United States or other countries, what is required as they cross the border into B.C. to make sure that ICBC isn't held liable in the event that they're the cause of an accident and the B.C. driver doesn't want to be charged an extra premium because of an accident attributed to him? Let's say the accident is 100 percent the fault of somebody from out of the province. How is that covered?
[4:15]
Hon. J. Pement: For out-of-province vehicles, there are agreements between provinces with regard to having insurance coming from one province to the other. If there is an accident, then we will go after the insurance company which insured that vehicle. When coming in from the American side, people have to provide proof of coverage.
D. Symons: I'm to understand that as each American vehicle crosses the Douglas border, there is a requirement that insurance be shown to customs? Generally, I don't see the cars slowing down to do that. They're processed quite quickly through the border. Have I missed this when I've noticed them going through the border? Do they have to show proof, because a good number of the States have a somewhat lower limit of public liability and so forth? There's less likelihood of ICBC being able to collect back from an American firm or an American driver who has a very low level of insurance compared to what's required in B.C.
As a driver in B.C., if I'm involved in an accident with one of these people, am I then going to have that come back as a claim on my policy if you're not able to collect from your insurance company for the value of the claim that might come?
Hon. J. Pement: No.
D. Symons: Can I just go back to the border? You said they have to show proof of coverage. Is that done at the border? I'm not aware of it being done.
Hon. J. Pement: When asked.
D. Symons: I would think in essence that means it's not done, because I have yet to see it being done. It certainly would be in very few American plates, I would think, unless it shows up on the licence plate itself so that you could see without asking for something. But maybe the member knows something I don't know about that.
Just reading on, this is from the ombudsman's report in 1993 -- at least, that's what it says at the top -- talking about ICBC. It starts by referring to what might be the no crash, no cash sort of policy:
"The corporation's resistance to paying claims is not based exclusively on the current wave of financial control measures. It is rooted in the corporation's legal obligation to defend its insureds against claims. This obligation puts it in an adversarial relationship with claimants who are also insured with ICBC. Here the corporation 'wears two hats': provider of benefits to the claimant as an insured person and adversary to the claimant in defence of the other party."
[ Page 15048 ]
I think this is probably what we're going to hear this evening in most of the concerns that come up about ICBC -- the fact that it's acting as both judge and jury in a case where the company has to act as the adversary as well as the advocate for that person. This puts it in a very dangerous position. I would say that the calls I get to my office basically relate to that. People feel they are not getting just results from ICBC because ICBC is looking after the financial interests of the corporation as a whole -- people who are buying insurance with them, the policyholders -- at the expense of the claimants who have been involved in an accident. How does ICBC balance out those conflicting obligations?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to a claim -- the claim goes against the other person involved; it's not against your own insurance. The thing is, when there is a claim against, we also have a responsibility to defend, if we are the insurer of that particular licence. It really is the tort system with which we work. In terms of balance, the thing is that we have outstanding cases of those situations that have been before the courts, and we refer to them. On the whole, I think that ICBC is able to negotiate most settlements, and it is actually a minority that go to the court system.
D. Symons: I hate to differ with the minister's interpretation, but my impression is that the claim is not against the other person but against the pot in ICBC. What I'm saying here is that I think ICBC has conflicting obligations. One obligation is to keep the premiums as low as is possible for all those who are insured through ICBC, and one way of doing that is to make sure they pay out as little as they can in the way of claims. On the other hand, it has an obligation to people who take out a policy with ICBC to see that they are properly insured and properly covered against any claims they might have that they are not responsible for, because the accident was caused by somebody else.
In the eyes of many, it would somehow seem that that obligation to keep the premiums and the cost of the company down depresses the amount of settlements, and that seems to be taking precedence in ICBC.
Hon. J. Pement: Our policy is to pay settlements with regard to the type of injury or material damage that is outstanding in the situation. It is not a case of not being fair with the insured. Again, we are dealing with a tort system.
D. Symons: I suppose you can say you are dealing with a tort system if the parties care to take it to court. Beforehand, the tort system is the right hand and the left hand of ICBC shaking hands with each other on an agreement on how they are going to award the claims or the responsibility for an accident. I don't know if that portion of it covers most of the claims. I suspect that a lot people don't go to court or don't press ICBC to that point simply because it is a very large monopoly company in British Columbia, and they feel somewhat intimidated by the size of the company they are dealing with. There can be a problem in that.
One thing that has come up under this is that I have found coming into my office a significant number of issues where people in write-off situations feel their vehicles have been significantly underrated, and they are getting a lot less than the replacement value of a particular vehicle. I don't mean replacement as getting new for old; I mean getting same age for same age. One thing I learned last year is that the licence plates and all the other paraphernalia that go along with replacing a car are not covered as part of an accident. This came about as a fire claim when there was an apartment fire in Richmond, and a good number of the vehicles in the lot underneath were damaged beyond repair. They had all sorts of little out-of-pocket expenses that theoretically I thought would have been included with their claims. They had to buy new licence plates because the other ones melted off the car, and they were responsible for paying for the licence plates for the full year, not for the portion that might have elapsed on the damaged vehicle.
In that respect, can you tell me whether a radio, a tape deck or any of those things in a car that has been a write-off would be included as part of the write-off settlement? If that's the case, then why isn't the licence plate that is on a vehicle also included as part of the write-off settlement?
Hon. J. Pement: I'm trying to remember all the questions the member has asked. With regard to licence plates, it is my understanding that we are now covering those licence plates, because we see them as part of the car. The opinion before was that licence plates were not part of a vehicle. But through the public voice, ICBC now covers the licence plates, so one doesn't have to worry about their licence plate if it gets damaged.
In comprehensive insurance, of course, your stereo, tapes, tape decks and that type of equipment are covered if you have the comprehensive policy.
As for people disagreeing with settlements, it was pointed out to me that there are 58 lawyers advertising in the yellow pages for ICBC work. If people are not satisfied, they do have the avenue of access with regard to taking these issues to court, and they can do that if they don't agree with a settlement that ICBC has put forward. It's an obligation for ICBC to be fair in their settlements and to also use common sense with their settlements. As I say, the majority of settlements are agreed to, and people are dealt with as quickly as possible depending on the complexity of the claim.
D. Symons: In that answer the minister reinforced some of my concerns. If there are that number of people out there who are willing to work on behalf of a client and take the bull by the horns, so to speak -- and I can't say that with a Scottish accent, unfortunately -- it seems to me that they are making a fair or a very comfortable living taking ICBC to court and getting contingency remuneration for doing that. ICBC must be losing a fair number of cases if these lawyers are doing as well as they are, advertising in the yellow pages and getting quite a stream of clientele.
If we just move on a little from that topic -- I think I probably belaboured it -- into the realm again dealing with whether people are getting claims paid a little lower than they should in order to look after the bottom line for ICBC, there has been some problem in the past with at least a couple of repair shops. I know there was pressure brought on those when they claimed that the amount being paid by ICBC for repairs was not satisfactory to bring the car up to the condition it should be to be on the road to be considered appropriately repaired. As a matter of fact, I think two of those firms are no longer in business -- one of them was quite a large, reputable firm -- simply because ICBC refused to do business with them, and that's where the majority of collision repair
[ Page 15049 ]
business comes from in B.C. Would you not agree that there seems to be some need for a position of maybe an auto-ombudsman to deal with repairs, claims and all the other things that come there? That might take us out of the hand of these tort lawyers who are doing very well, thank you, and it might give people another avenue rather than having go to a lawyer.
[4:30]
Hon. J. Pement: Before I get into answering the question, I was remiss in not introducing the staff from ICBC. We have Ken Hardie with us today, manager of public affairs, and Bill Heese, chief financial officer from ICBC. I'm pleased to have their assistance.
I just want to go back. We had 789,000 claims last year and fewer than 600 went to a court situation. I think that's significant in the sense of the work that ICBC does with their clients.
As to the repairs, ICBC's job is to ensure that the car is repaired to safety standards and to the standards of the vehicle. The amount of time given on a job is to industry standards, and we pay $51.51 per hour for work done, which is the highest in Canada.
D. Symons: Is ICBC still sponsoring these speed-reading boards? I think the people out in Lions Bay were using them. We're going to be introducing radar cameras, which we will get to in the Motor Vehicle Act later on. This might be a way of alerting people to the fact that they are over the speed limit without necessarily a ticket being attached to it. I think just recognition of that fact is important. How many do you have, and is there any plan to expand it? Is there any demand on the part of the public to operate these?
Hon. J. Pement: There are 60 of those boards in the province. They are quite often used on a community basis, particularly in lower speed zones -- for example, school zones. Police will often resource those situations -- not each and every time, but on occasion.
D. Symons: I guess the minister is suggesting that possibly parent advisory councils and so forth would access one of these and set it up near their school. I congratulate ICBC for that program; I think it's a valuable one.
I know there's been an ongoing concern about the relationships between the Autoplan agents and ICBC. Sometimes disputes arise over various issues, and they don't feel that they really have anywhere to turn. I brought up the idea of an ombudsman before. I'm wondering if there might possibly be a formalized agreement. I don't believe there is a formalized agreement where each side knows exactly what the rules and regulations and responsibilities are, so at least there's some yardstick with which to measure, if it does become a dispute, how that should be resolved and which one has certain responsibilities.
Hon. J. Pement: The board and staff have been working diligently to develop a relationship with the agents, particularly ongoing meetings to resolve issues that are a concern. There has been an agreement between the agents and the board of directors.
D. Symons: Just a few more questions, and then I'd like to give somebody else a chance to hop in. ICBC brought out a program last November to recognize drivers with road sense in '95. I had some real concerns with some of the issues there -- the concept of rewarding drivers who have remained accident-free for quite some time.
I don't know if I should touch wood or check on it, because I'm not 100 percent sure of what I'm about to say. But I don't believe I've ever had an ICBC claim attributed to me. You'll have to check that out. I wouldn't mind if you do, because I would be curious if my memory serves me right. I did have one that was apparently my fault just around the time ICBC was setting up, and I don't think ICBC picked up the tab on that one. So I don't believe I've had one. I'm not an accident-prone person, I would guess, and that's why I'd better be careful when I leave here tonight. That's why I fear to say anything like that.
But this idea of giving people basically a free accident as a reward if you've had a certain number of years accident-free, in a sense, isn't a reward. I appreciate the thought, but I'd rather appreciate a lower premium than be given a free accident. That seems to be almost counterproductive. If the idea is not to have accidents, and you're saying that if you have one we won't remove your 40 percent deduction with the accident-free record there, that seems to be the least sort of reward that people might want if they had a choice.
Second, I think you also offer a replacement cost policy to some people that isn't offered to other people. You're telling people that part of the reward we are going to give you for being accident-free for an extended period is that we'll allow you to buy more insurance. I'm not so sure whether that's a reward. I'm wondering if you might give something a little more tangible, and maybe more appreciated, by giving 45 percent reduction for an extra few years, or even 50 percent for ten accident-free years. You should give them something of that sort rather than these other things. If they're not costing ICBC one way or the other -- the free accident or the replacement cost policy -- then you're really not giving anything at all. If you are giving something, why not give a 45 percent or 50 percent reduction for extended periods to drivers like me?
Hon. J. Pement: What we are really offering the drivers in these situations are price breaks, which the member is suggesting. The price break is in the Roadstar package that has been offered and also in the area of discount protection. Those are price breaks for those particular drivers under those circumstances. On a whole, I think that if we did as the member suggested, you would see a far bigger issue with regard to costs for ICBC.
L. Hanson: I have a number of questions. I'm glad to see that Mr. Hardie is here, because I'm sure he can answer them.
A while ago, it was announced -- or at least maybe the question was floated -- that maybe there would be a premium charged for cars that are more susceptible to theft. Did ICBC pursue that or has it been abandoned?
Hon. J. Pement: It is an issue that is under study. There have been no decisions made along those lines. However, it's an issue that's really coming out of the private sector. The private sector and consumer associations are looking at the types of car that are more likely to be stolen. They are also looking at the cost of repairing these vehicles.
L. Hanson: Sometimes as you get older, your memory fails you, but I think the original reason that another govern-
[ Page 15050 ]
ment decided to put ICBC in place was that the market was quite discriminatory in its charges for coverage to various people and kinds of cars. As an example, I was in the automobile business. Any male driver under the age of 25 who wasn't married, regardless of his driving record, paid a tremendous premium. If he happened to be driving a muscle car, it probably cost more to insure the car than it did to buy the car in the first place. That, among other reasons, was the reason that the government of the day gave approval for bringing in ICBC.
I ask the minister: does the suggestion that a policy whereby a car that is more susceptible to theft must pay a higher premium for coverage not sort of take us back to those days? I recognize that in some provinces, Ontario of note, the private sector covers insurance. Some individuals have almost an assigned risk program, because people are discriminated against despite their record of driving or experience. It seems to me that the minister suggested that ICBC is looking at a step back in that direction. If we're going to go in that direction, then we might just as well bring back the private insurers who discriminated against individuals in the long-forgotten days of the private insurer in B.C.
Hon. J. Pement: I also said to the member that no decisions have been made along those lines; I say that again. ICBC has every opportunity to look at what is current in the insurance business, and I think it's their responsibility to do so. Again, no decisions have been made. The insurance does continue to insure all with no discrimination.
L. Hanson: That answer was no answer. What I'm asking is: does the minister not see that philosophy as a retroactive step in the non-discriminatory insurance program that ICBC has offered to British Columbia?
Hon. J. Pement: I'd like to remind the member again that we still have basic insurance so that people have that opportunity. There are also other areas of insurance. Again, I say to the member that no decision has been made along these lines. I think it is incumbent upon this corporation to look at what is current in the insurance sphere and at the scope of what is happening in insurance throughout Canada. It behooves them to look at different options and concepts.
[4:45]
L. Hanson: I suspect that ICBC should and does look at what happens in the rest of the world. I guess one of the things that this government and some other governments have been very complimentary to ICBC about is that they are providing some coverage that the open market provides, but not on a discriminatory basis. I simply mention to the minister that the direction that was suggested, that they publicly consider those options, would be a regressive step to the service that has been provided.
Let me change the subject for a moment. It's my understanding that when someone gets a speeding ticket, they are fined, and there's an assignment of some points, as a result of that, against their driving record. If they accumulate enough of those points in the year between their birthdays, there's a fine system that applies. That premium they are paying is because -- as I understand it, and maybe the minister can correct me -- the speeder is more likely to have an accident, so there's a higher premium for the insurance that goes along with the driver's licence. Can the minister...?
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Hon. J. Pement: The driver point premiums are developed according the risk of the driver.
L. Hanson: Well then, in simple terms, someone is caught for speeding; they pay a fine for that speeding if they're convicted; and as a result of that fine and that conviction they are assigned a point system. After they have accumulated so many points, they have their driver's licence cancelled. But there's a double jeopardy situation whereby they pay a fine to ICBC on their driver's licence, depending on those points they've accumulated. What coverage does that provide them, if any, for paying that? Is it simply a fine in punishment for getting a double fine and a speeding ticket?
Hon. J. Pement: I guess one can view these situations in many different ways. However, when one is stopped for an infraction -- and speeding is one that was pointed out -- they pay a fine through Motor Vehicles, and that has to do with your licence and your responsibility as a driver. When it comes to insurance policies, if you're an at-risk driver and you've got an abundance of points, then you are considered a risk.
L. Hanson: Then, from the minister's answer, there's some sort of an insurance attached to the driver's licence as a result of the premium that ICBC requests -- as a result of the greater risks because someone has accumulated points.
Hon. J. Pement: On this issue of responsibility with your driver's licence, definitely if you are stopped and fined, that information goes to ICBC, and the information is then assimilated in the sense of the policy. Therefore through your driver's licence, you are shown that you are at risk.
L. Hanson: Okay, you get a speeding ticket, you get a fine of $150, or whatever the case may be, and you pay that fine to the motor vehicle branch. They assign some points to it. As a result of those points and their accumulation, ICBC sends the individual a bill based on the number of points. There's a scale; I think we all know what it is. What does ICBC provide to that driver as a result of the extra premium they are charging? If the individual doesn't own a car, he still has a driver's licence and a right to drive. What coverage does he or she have as a result of that extra premium which is justified by the fact that this driver has gotten a bunch of infraction points, therefore we have to increase the premium he's paying us? What does he or she get for that premium?
Hon. J. Pement: When speeders are issued invoices with regard to their points, they still get the basic insurance. That's basically what they get with regard to their policies. They don't get extra insurance, if that's what the member is referring to, for paying for the point premiums. They are considered drivers at risk; their licences cover them with basic insurance.
L. Hanson: I think I understand that, minister, but what I don't understand -- and I'm not sure what the minister has explained to us -- is what that coverage is. In what circumstances does someone who just has a driver's licence have coverage that might benefit him or her, or any of the driving public, as a result of only owning a driver's licence?
[ Page 15051 ]
Hon. J. Pement: For example, if you were driving an uninsured vehicle, you would have the basic coverage on third party.
L. Hanson: Let me see if I understand the minister correctly. You have a valid driver's licence. The premium, if there is an extra premium, is all paid up. You happen to be driving an automobile for which the owner's cheque to ICBC bounced and the coverage has been cancelled, but the coverage would apply to the driver because he has a valid driver's licence. That's what you pay for?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes.
L. Hanson: Then I would like the minister to give me her opinion of the circumstance where.... Well, first of all, let me say that someone who is charged for going through a stop sign or someone who runs a red light or someone who is speeding or someone who gets into an at-fault accident probably has some penalty justified, both in terms of a fine from the motor vehicle branch as well as the assignment of points. That risk therefore justifies, through the ICBC system, an increase in the premium that is attached to the driver's licence as a result of the accumulation of those points.
What I don't understand, though, is how the failure to produce a driver's licence when you are driving an automobile justifies not only a fine but also the assignment of points and the increase in the premium as far as risk is concerned for that individual to have an accident. It seems to me that there is some correlation between the number of accidents and the performance of the driver as it relates to going through a stop sign or a red light or to speeding or whatever. The failure to have the driver's licence on the individual certainly justifies a fine from the motor vehicle branch or an assignment of points, but I don't understand how it should increase the premium for the insurance that the individual is carrying.
Hon. J. Pement: I don't know if the member can remember when he got his licence, but I can certainly remember when I got mine -- and I won't say how many years ago.
L. Hanson: You are a lot younger than I am.
Hon. J. Pement: I remember distinctly when I got my learner's and then got my licence. I remember very well the passage in the book that said that as a licensed driver, it was my responsibility to have my licence on me when I was operating a vehicle. I think that is the issue with regard to any driving infraction: there are responsibilities as a driver. There's a system that is set up accordingly. As for the different scale that you were talking about with regard to infractions, when it comes to failure to produce, I don't think points are assigned.
L. Hanson: Did I hear the minister say that in failure to produce a licence, points aren't...? Is that a guarantee?
Hon. J. Pement: My understanding is that failure to produce is not assigned. I'll get back to you with the specifics, but I think it depends on the infractions that you have.
[5:00]
L. Hanson: Well, I have some examples that I'll be pleased to give the minister, and it certainly looks to me like the evidence I have is that points have been applied.
But the point I'm trying to make is that I think there is some justification for a premium for people who are in fact bad drivers and have in fact created situations or infractions that justify a premium being paid. I think that is fair and understandable. But I don't see how the failure to produce a driver's licence is indicative of the operation of an automobile.... If I am correct, I hope that the minister would look at that, and I'd be pleased to provide her with the evidence that has been given to me under those circumstances.
All I'm trying to get across to the minister is that I think there is justification for the premium. I think there is justification for the points that are assigned and some extra charge as a result of that, but I fail to understand the reasoning when it applies to an inability to produce a piece of paper that says.... I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be a fine through the motor vehicle branch and so on. I don't disagree with that, because there is a responsibility. But I'm not sure how that increases the possibility of an accident by the individual.
With that, I would like to change the subject and look at something slightly different. We have had a lot of difficulty over the years with the sale of wrecked vehicles to salvage operators, and it has developed into quite a serious problem. The minister has taken some new initiatives in the hope of curbing some of the difficulties we have had. We have noted that car rings take a serial number and use it to sell a car in another province, and so on. Is there any information the minister can give us that suggests that the initiatives ICBC and the motor vehicle branch have taken have been successful in curbing that kind of operation?
Hon. J. Pement: As a matter of interest, the number of cars that have been stripped for parts and ended up in our salvage yards has been reduced from 50 to five per month since these initiatives have been introduced.
L. Hanson: Another member was suggesting that curbing was part of this problem. Well, "curbing" in the automobile business has a much different meaning than this.
I have one final question for the minister. I think it is recognized that ICBC doesn't have all the records of accidents or claims against a particular automobile, because it is possible that it was paid for by the individual. It's also possible that the collision insurance was obtained from a private insurer, so ICBC doesn't have records. What is ICBC's policy now on inquiries from automobile owners as to the record of what ICBC has, even though it may not be as complete as one would like to see it? There is always the possibility that the information is not complete. What is ICBC's policy as a result of a query?
Hon. J. Pement: At this point, the owner is able to get all the information ICBC has regarding that particular auto, and we are now looking at a pilot project to assist the purchaser with that information as well.
L. Hanson: I have just one final observation, then. Having been associated with the business in the past, I think that ICBC and the minister might consider providing that service even though there was a fee attached, because it's a valuable service. Even if it were done at cost or maybe a little over, you could make a nickel on it. I think the public and even the automobile dealers would use it considerably.
[ Page 15052 ]
I turn questioning back to the official opposition.
Hon. J. Pement: Just for the member's information, failure to produce a driver's licence is zero points; failure to have a driver's licence gets you points assigned. That may be where you got hung up -- that difference.
L. Hanson: The information I have, which seems to be authentic, doesn't show that. I'll pass that on to the minister, because that's the way I think it should be. Maybe it's an error; it's possible. I'll pass that on to the minister, and maybe she or one of her staff can get back to me on if it was authentic or not.
J. Dalton: I sat here listening with interest to the discussion that the member for Okanagan-Vernon got into about risk and whether we're heading back to looking at risk as a factor in insurance or only in certain areas.
I want to raise a point about young drivers in particular, and I will lead off by saying to the hon. minister that I can remember when my son got his licence, because it was three weeks ago. The point I'm raising is that he took an accredited driver's course with Young Drivers of Canada, and it cost us about $600 to do it. We made that decision because neither I nor my wife wanted to spend the time or, heaven forbid, the danger element -- not for us, but for our son to learn from us. So we made that investment.
Of course, he doesn't get anything in any way, shape or form of a break from ICBC for having undertaken that excellent experience and training. I think I can stand here and say that I have every confidence that my son is a good driver. He's probably a lot better driver, at least more knowledgable on the rules of the road, than many people I see out there who are much older.
If we're talking about risk, has ICBC undertaken any studies or discussions about taking into account that people are making a serious investment in taking accredited courses? I recognize some courses aren't accredited. Perhaps we have to deal with that issue another day. Could we not be heading down that road to give some financial recognition for those? My son, for example, primarily operates my car. Of course, he's allowed to do so because it's licensed. I would like to think that maybe there could be a break provided. Perhaps, though, the opposite route to go, which we used to -- as we were discussing through the earlier questions -- because of the risk of the young male driver in particular, is to say to those people: "If you don't have an accredited course, your insurance is going to be higher." Then give the break to a person like my son who has made the investment, in which case he will still benefit.
Hon. J. Pement: I really commend young people who take those accredited courses. I think it's excellent that they take the opportunity to use those types of courses. Yes, ICBC has done some of those studies with regard to the numbers of young drivers that have taken those courses. So far, the information hasn't shown differences in accident rates at this point. To remind the member, in order to get your discount, you must demonstrate skill.
D. Symons: Going back to some of the comments made by the member for Okanagan-Vernon, he commented that ICBC may be keeping records and even making some money by selling information or whatever. I'm wondering if a better repository for that information might be with the motor vehicle branch, in the sense of vehicle damage records and that sort of thing. ICBC isn't the only insurer for collision-type insurance in the province. There are other private sector companies that have an opportunity to get into added insurance. If we put it there, it could be made available to all insurance companies. It could be required that insurance payments be recorded so that there is a record, and anybody buying a vehicle will know the history of the vehicle. That way we can curb some of the problems that occur with curb sales.
Hon. J. Pement: On occasion, one gets confused as to who is responsible for what. ICBC insures the vehicle and has information on all vehicles that are insured, whereas the motor vehicle branch is responsible for the licensing of a driver. With regard to that type of information, I think it rests in the different mandates of the ministry for motor vehicles and with ICBC for the vehicle itself.
D. Symons: The reason I asked the question is, as I said earlier, that it is possible to buy extra insurance from someone other than ICBC, beyond the public liability. Therefore the records of ICBC are incomplete as far as accident reporting may go. If it's not a claim that's gone through ICBC, it won't be in ICBC records. That way it won't be accessible by somebody that's buying an auto at some future time, in order to find out there is something there. If this sort of record was kept with the motor vehicle branch, then when the new owner of a car is seeking the motor vehicle licence, rather than the insurance portion of it, it would be readily apparent that the vehicle has been in an accident, that it has had $3,000 worth of damage done to it, that it has been repaired, etc. That way we offer some protection to people who are buying used vehicles. There would be a single repository for this information, and it wouldn't fall through the cracks.
Hon. J. Pement: It's a case of private industry sharing information with ICBC. There are difficulties in those areas.
D. Symons: Can I assume, then, that ICBC is willing to actively go after the other insurance companies so that they will share information? Will ICBC be the coordinator or gatherer of that information? I didn't really hear that in the answer. Certainly the other corporations aren't going to be involved if the largest player in B.C. isn't going cooperate with them on it.
Hon. J. Pement: I have to say that it really requires cooperation from the private industry. One can be prepared to set up databases, but at this point there is not that sort of cooperation in sharing that type of information throughout the industry in Canada.
[5:15]
D. Symons: I would recommend to the minister that this is something that could be looked into further.
I will change the topic and go onto something I didn't know existed. Apparently there's a Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act; it was assented to in 1981. I'm wondering how many people avail themselves of this and get assistance for their insurance premium from the government. Could you pass that information along?
Hon. J. Pement: The seniors get this automatically. It's a 25 percent reduction on the basic.
[ Page 15053 ]
D. Symons: In this act, is it automatic for persons who are 65 or over? Then I will get a 25 percent reduction in a few years. Is that true? Or is it based on need? Financial need, I think it says here....
Hon. J. Pement: It's not automatic. One has to apply for it, and it's 9.6 percent of the population.
L. Hanson: Having reached that golden age, I happen to know that it's only if you're retired and not working anymore.
D. Symons: One thing that comes up periodically -- and maybe the minister might comment on it -- is that ICBC insures the vehicle, whether that vehicle is driven by one person or a whole family. So the vehicle could, in effect, be shared among a family and on the road for almost 24 hours a day, compared to an individual who uses it to go to church on Sunday or something of that sort. It would seem that the more drivers that are involved with the vehicle, the more likelihood the vehicle will be involved in an accident, if it's on the road more often or has different drivers. Are there any thoughts...? Why hasn't ICBC considered a premium for additional drivers?
Hon. J. Pement: Part of the issue lies with the technology that we have with regard to the one plate, the user and how that vehicle is used. ICBC is actually undergoing some systems changes and will be more able to identify those situations.
D. Symons: I'm just wondering if there isn't some way now, because we have the computer technology, that you could tie together a vehicle and the drivers' licences of those who are driving the vehicle. I'm thinking of a situation where, let's say, I've had a series of accidents, so I've lost all my premium points. I'm paying a premium, rather, by having had a series of accidents, so what I will do is shelve my car for the next few years and drive my wife's car. She has not had any accidents, and maybe in the future I will be extremely careful while driving her car. Basically I think I can get away with that, can I not?
Hon. J. Pement: I had mentioned that we are looking at new systems changes in ICBC so that we can track these situations, but we do not have that technology as yet.
With regard to someone driving their wife's car, they will simply have the opportunity to drive their wife's car. I would suggest that if they have that type of driving record, it will show up fairly quickly.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
D. Symons: When we are talking about an accident-free period of time to get your reduced premiums, does that require that the vehicle this is applying to must be insured for each of those years? Can you just park your vehicle? If you have something in the garage for three or four years and all your demerit points disappear in that period of time, then would you be accident-free for four years and entitled to a 40 percent discount, even if you hadn't used the car at all? You might have been out of country or whatever, or simply driving somebody else's car and being extremely careful during that period.
Hon. J. Pement: In the scenario that the member outlined, if the person parked their car and then went elsewhere and drove, and was able to give proof that they had a good record, then they would be able to go back to the basic insurance they had prior to being in this situation.
D. Symons: The hon. minister is saying that from the time you stop insuring that particular car, or driving it, then the clock stops, unless you can somehow prove to ICBC that you have been driving and have a clear record for that period of time.
I wonder if we can look at insurance for commercial vehicles and particularly commercial vehicles that operate out of province. A good number of trucking firms in British Columbia truck across Canada, and trucking firms in other provinces come into British Columbia. It would seem that for a trucking firm doing a good amount of its roadwork outside of British Columbia, it's advantageous to buy their insurance elsewhere. There used to be a policy where, if they had one vehicle that operated outside the province, they could buy their insurance outside of the province. Now I think they have to have 51 percent of their vehicles engaged in extraprovincial activities in order to be insured outside the province. Why should it matter, basically, where they are insured, as long as they are carrying the appropriate insurance that is required in British Columbia? So whether they buy it in Alberta, Saskatchewan or wherever, if they have the level of insurance that is needed on the vehicle for British Columbia and can show that they have it, why should it matter where they buy it?
Hon. J. Pement: A company has to be an interprovincial carrier before it can acquire other insurance outside of British Columbia, otherwise they have to have the insurance through British Columbia.
D. Symons: Yes, I understand that is the case, but that wasn't the question. The question basically is.... I think, by insisting that people in British Columbia have insurance, you're making sure that everybody on the road is basically covered by some policy in the event of an accident. If that's the purpose for having an insurance policy required for all vehicles in British Columbia, I'm not sure why it matters where that insurance is bought, as long as they can prove financial responsibility by having insurance. So if a trucking firm has 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent -- well, it can't have 100 percent and be a B.C. firm -- of its trucks operating interprovincially, should it matter? They've got the insurance, and they're proving financial responsibility. If they have an accident in British Columbia, the responsibility is there for the financial obligations of that accident. So does it matter whether they have it with ICBC or in Alberta or with private firms? It shouldn't.
Hon. J. Pement: The carrier has to prove that they are an interprovincial carrier. If they have that capability, then they can have outside insurance.
D. Symons: I won't belabour that anymore. I understand that perfectly, but I'm simply asking why it's that way. Is it because the rules have been set that way by ICBC and the government? It seems that if the object of the idea is to make sure that drivers are protected, it shouldn't matter where they get the insurance. For that matter, we can move outside the commercial vehicle realm into the private vehicle realm and ask why ICBC should have a monopoly in British Columbia.
[ Page 15054 ]
Hon. J. Pement: Again, we're talking about insurance in British Columbia; ICBC is the insurer in British Columbia. I'll remind the member that ICBC covers without discrimination as to age, marital status, etc.
D. Symons: As I was insured as a young single male when I first got my driver's licence, I know what the minister is referring to, but I'm still wondering about the free enterprise aspect of it.
To move on to something totally different from the line I've been pursuing for the last short while. I have just one last question before time runs out on us. I brought this up last year, and I'd like to revisit it. When accidents occur on the highway, often the response vehicles that come are attached to some municipality, whether they be fire trucks or ambulances and so forth. Let's leave out ambulance and just say fire. It's an emergency response team from a community. They are not able to bill ICBC for their expenses. So the community that's nearby is paying for that.
[5:30]
I wonder why ICBC, which pays basically everything else, does not feel an obligation to pay the expense of the Jaws of Life or anything else that might be required in extracting an injured person from a vehicle or, indeed, the other services that may be provided by local communities. Once they step out of their community boundaries in order to answer a call of this sort, they may not be covered by the Workers' Compensation Board and their own insurance policies. Yet because they're humanitarian acts and they feel of necessity that they should respond to a call on the highway, they put themselves in jeopardy to do so. Can we have a provincewide policy that would include first-response people, regardless of where their home base may be and where their Workers' Compensation Board and possibly their own insurance coverage for liability...? Could ICBC either pick up that or pay the costs of having these people respond to accidents?
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize that this issue has been brought up by municipalities throughout British Columbia, and it is an ongoing issue. But in ICBC we do pay grants in lieu of taxes; we do contribute to the municipalities.
D. Symons: Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:32 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]