[ Page 10677 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. H. Lali: I have three guests in the gallery. The first one is Mr. Tony Toth, president of the B.C. Road Builders Association. He is talking to members on the opposite side today, convincing them to support my efforts to access roadbuilding dollars from the federal Liberal minister, David Collenette. With him is Frank Rizzardo from Merritt, vice-chair of B.C. Road Builders and a constituent of mine. He is very busy building this season. Jim Poole, chair of the maintenance section of B.C. Road Builders, is also here. I'll be having dinner with these folks later this evening. I would like the House to please welcome all of these gentlemen.

C. Hansen: A longtime friend is in the gallery; I think many people recognize him as someone who wears many hats as a community activist in Vancouver. I hope the House will help me welcome Anthony Norfolk.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the pleasure of introducing a friend of my wife who teaches ESL, Marget Arthur. She is here with her husband Charles Arthur and 14 adult ESL students from Vancouver Community College. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today are my parents Paul and Shirley Ramsey, accompanied by my wife Hazel. They've been out enjoying the wonderful summer in Victoria this morning, and they will be out again this afternoon enjoying it a little more. But they have decided to come indoors for a while to observe question period. Would you all join me in making them most welcome.

G. Janssen: With us today is a delightful young man who has become well known to our caucus and to some members of the opposition, and that is Rick Zanatta, who is working in our office. It is pleasure for me to introduce him here for the first time. Visiting him is a dear friend, I think, Michelle MacKay, who is from Edmonton. I ask the House to make them both welcome.

P. Calendino: In the gallery today is a friend and constituent, Mr. Doug Noel. Mr. Noel is a retired businessman who spends part of his days finding cedar logs to keep the Goldwood Industries sawmill operational in Richmond. I must say that it is a mill that somehow has managed to buck the trend by maintaining about 80 well-paid IWA members working on two shifts year-round, and they are now looking for some more timber to add a value-added shift. Would the House please make Mr. Noel welcome.

P. Nettleton: It is my privilege today to introduce to the House a very special, precious little life that came into this world in Duncan on Monday, July 27, at 10 p.m., weighing in at 8 pounds 10 ounces, and appropriately named, I believe, Thorin Harold Nettleton, much to the delight of my wife, our two children and me. I should also say for the record -- and to remove any sinister, dark cloud of uncertainty that may impact this child's future -- that this child was not conceived in my office.

The Speaker: It will be a while before we top that one.

E. Conroy: My wife Katrina and my son Ben are in the gallery today. I'd like to ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTRY'S
ACTION ON ABUSE ALLEGATIONS

Hon. L. Boone: The member's wrong; the Ministry for Children and Families did not do nothing. All of those allegations were investigated by ministry staff and taken very seriously, as we do all allegations. They were investigated. There were medical examinations done. There was no evidence found to indicate that there was abuse taking place -- either from the medical professions that were there. . . . In fact, they interviewed the children, and the children did not reveal it. It wasn't until the children were removed from the home and felt safe enough and revealed this that it in fact came to the attention. . . . But it is not a fact that nothing was done by the ministry. Every action was taken by the ministry to get to the bottom of this information.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: That is not true. The father reported to this ministry, to 17 different social workers. A doctor examined the children and said that he suspected sexual abuse. The social workers never even contacted the RCMP -- never once -- to get them involved. How can the minister say that they did everything in their power when they ignored 17 calls for help from the father, and they never called the RCMP in?

[2:15]

Hon. L. Boone: I really object when the member says that nothing was done, and I object to her saying that this isn't true and that hard-working staff didn't do the best they could. The staff in this ministry are extremely concerned about the welfare of children. They always are and they always have been. They investigated the information they had. They interviewed the children; they had medical examinations. All the information that they had did not indicate that abuse was taking place. That's the information that was done; there was nothing further that these people could do to find out what was happening. They interviewed the children, they investigated, they had medical examinations, and nothing backed up the facts that showed that these children were being abused.

[ Page 10678 ]

C. Clark: They had 17 reports from the father. They had a doctor who said that he suspected sexual abuse. They never called the police. And it's not a question of whether anything was done; it's a question, again, of whether enough was done to protect these children, and in this case, enough was not done.

Will the minister stand up today and at least -- at the very least -- admit that her ministry has failed again, that enough was not done and that she's prepared to try, for once, to do something about it to ensure that children in British Columbia are properly protected?

Hon. L. Boone: You know, hon. Speaker, I'm getting a little tired of this member constantly criticizing staff. When they do take children as they did in Quesnel, she criticized them and said that they were taking them unnecessarily, when all the evidence there clearly pointed to the fact. . .and was later backed up by the children's commissioner, backing staff up on this.

They had investigations. Time after time they investigated every single solitary allegation by the father. The fact that the evidence didn't come forward, the fact that there was no evidence indicating that there was abuse taking place, is not the fault of the ministry staff.

I really think it is time that this member stopped abusing staff the way she does. We have hard-working staff out there doing the best they can under very difficult situations. I know that I wouldn't want to be the one making those decisions. I don't think that member over there could make any better decisions, either, if she was given the situation that these people are faced with day after day. They make good decisions all the time on behalf of children in this province. In one situation where the information doesn't back up a situation, and this member accuses the staff of this ministry of not doing their jobs. . . . She ought to be ashamed of herself.

REMOVAL OF BABY FROM FOSTER CARE
BY SPALLUMCHEEN BAND

Hon. L. Boone: The member probably knows -- he should know -- that the Spallumcheen band was given the right to deal with aboriginal children many years ago. In fact, Grace McCarthy was the minister when that happened. In this case here, I certainly understand the concerns of the foster parent. I know that there's great attachment that comes with foster parents to the children.

However, this case actually went before a judge. The judge accepted and approved the plan of care. So this is not something that is being done offhand; it is something that has been approved by the judge. We believe that it's in the best interests of the child.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: That was the same thing that was said, in essence, in the Murphy case, which was proved to be false afterwards. All children in British Columbia deserve to have their rights protected under provincial law, and this is no exception. Now this government is debating whether or not they even have jurisdiction to protect this little girl. Will the minister acknowledge her responsibility to protect the rights of Baby F. under our provincial legislation and act immediately to ensure that the best interests of this child are put first, as we have committed ourselves to under the convention on the rights of the child?

Hon. L. Boone: It has gone before the courts. I believe that the courts have the final say as to whether the best interests of the child are at stake there. They approved the case plan for that child, so I believe that the best interests of the child are being taken care of.

FOREST REVENUE PROJECTIONS

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We can expect the stumpage revenues to increase when the Asian economy turns around and when the general economic climate in forestry improves.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: Under this government's dubious forest stewardship, we see first-quarter revenues down $105 million. In fact, the loss for the first quarter is larger than what the NDP government anticipated for the entire year. Will the Minister of Forests tell us today if he stands by his ministry's revenue projections, or can we expect a multi-hundred-million-dollar revenue shortfall in the coming year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think this member should know -- and I've said it in the House and to him directly -- that the official projections are made by the Ministry of Finance. They take advice and information from the Ministry of Forests. Generally there is agreement on what they are, but the final responsibility is with the people who set the budget, because they are the ones who look at the economic indicators. We can only do it for what we know of the forest economy. There is teamwork involved.

It is no surprise that there are weaker second quarters than anybody had anticipated. I can go back and quote any number of forest analysts who did not predict the situation that we find ourselves in today.

R. Neufeld: All over the province stumpage revenues are down because timber harvesting is down. The Cariboo, the

[ Page 10679 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is a broken record that we hear from the other side. At the risk of repeating myself, I will remind people that at the time the jobs and timber accord was set, we had certain projections for where the economy would be. No one predicted that pulp and solid wood would be down at the same time. It is unfortunate. We feel for those families and workers who are not employed today, and there are approximately 10,000 people, although it has improved over the past few months. There are a lot of people out of work.

There still are, however, some 70,000 to 75,000 people working in the forest industry. I think we have to remember that they are out there helping to keep the economy going and helping to keep revenues coming in here to pay for education. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .health care and the other things we expect and want.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, it's my job to make sure the broken record is continually heard about the promises that have been broken by this government on a continual basis. That's my job. This is not a broken record; this is a province that's almost broke.

On April 6, the official opposition read a briefing note to the Minister of Finance prepared by the director of the revenue branch of the Ministry of Forests. It states: ". . .we appear to overestimate revenues when [forestry] markets are weak or weakening. . . ." This was read to the minister. Forest revenues are presently down by one-third. Does the Minister of Finance stand by her budget prediction of this April that there will only be a 6.5 percent drop in forest revenues, or does she now concede that she has drastically overestimated the revenues for another year in a row?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The forecasting is constantly under review. We have just completed the first quarter, of course, as the hon. member knows. Yes, there are changing circumstances throughout our economy. We are keeping a very close eye on our revenue projections, forestry being one of them. We have very conservative revenue projections in our budget, and to date, I am not changing from those conservative revenue projections.

But I would also remind the members opposite that the forestry industry itself does not take the same position as the Liberal opposition does, by any stretch of the imagination. In regular meetings with the industry. . . . They know the circumstances that face their industry: the softwood lumber agreement, the softening markets in Asia, the requirement to shift markets and deal with environmental concerns. They know all of those issues that are facing them. They are working with us to do everything possible to meet not only our budget revenue projections but also those of the community.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have the honour to present the report of the business done in pursuance of the Educational Institution Capital Finance Act during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1998; and the report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act during the fiscal year ended August 31, 1997.

Reports from Committees

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: I have the honour to present the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: This report deals with the committee's review of seven reports of the auditor general, a further report on the disposition and retention of documents and includes, finally, the response of the Public Accounts Committee to the question posed to it by the Minister of Finance on the issue of what should be included in the provincial government's reporting and accounting entity.

Motion approved.

Petitions

[ Page 10680 ]

[2:30]

Interjections.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Will the member present his petitions, please. This is not a lengthy procedure.

F. Randall: Well, I'm trying to, but I can't hear myself.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will all members on both sides of the House come to order, including the executive council members.

F. Randall: I just want to say, hon. Speaker. . . .

The Speaker: Member, please. If you want order, wait until there is order. Thank you. Now proceed, briefly.

F. Randall: In all, hon. Speaker, there were over 3,500 signatures collected in Liberal constituencies, asking the Liberal MLAs to support Bill 26 -- which we know they did not do. These are available for them to scrutinize. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, thank you.

F. Randall: . . .so they can contact their constituents.

The Speaker: Thank you for presenting the petitions; I appreciate that.

R. Thorpe: A point of order, hon. Speaker. It's very hard for members to present petitions that they never received. So perhaps in the future we could make sure we get the petitions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

J. Cashore: I request leave to present two petitions.

The Speaker: Proceed, member.

J. Cashore: The first petition is from the Georgia Strait Alliance and Reach for Unbleached -- 3,060 signatures requesting government to uphold the law to eliminate organochlorines from pulp effluent by the year 2000 and to purchase bleach-free paper.

The second petition is 106 signatures from Coquitlam calling for mandatory assessment for all of those convicted of driving while impaired.

F. Gingell: Yesterday I had the honour to present a petition from some 300 residents of Delta and Surrey who were concerned about compulsory rehabilitation programs for all drivers who display a drug dependency. The petition, evidently, was not in the correct form. I believe that it is now corrected, and I hope that it will meet the stringent tests of the table officers so they may file it in their offices rather than in mine.

E. Conroy: I have a petition from over 1,000 people from the Salmo-Nelson area requesting assistance in securing the rail line that's being abandoned from Salmo to Troup Junction.

Orders of the Day

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $20,284,523,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1998, and section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 2), 1998, and is granted by Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 1998-99

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 49 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of government programs for the 1998-99 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by the Committee of Supply after consideration of the estimates. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the report of resolutions from the Committee of Supply and, in addition, has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund, the necessary funds toward defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999. It is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I would ask you to wait just a moment while the bill is being circulated to all members.

[ Page 10681 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time now.

This supply bill is the final supply bill for the 1998-99 fiscal year, the first having been passed on March 31, 1998, when the Legislative Assembly authorized appropriations for three months, and the second having been passed on June 30, 1998, when the Legislative Assembly authorized appropriations for an additional one month. This bill, which is in the same general form as previous supply bills, requests a total supply of $20,284,523,000 for voted expenditures as outlined in the schedule to the bill.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I point out the requirement for passage of this bill in order to provide for the expenditures of the government for the 1998-99 fiscal year. I move second reading of Bill 49.

Motion approved.

Bill 49, Supply Act, 1998-99, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, 1998-99

Section 1 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[2:45]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 49, Supply Act, 1998-99, reported complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. J. MacPhail: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 49, Supply Act, 1997-98, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call third reading of Bill 14.

WORKERS COMPENSATION
(OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

YEAS -- 36
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Hammell	Boone	Streifel
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Conroy
Priddy	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Sihota
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Doyle	Giesbrecht	Janssen

 

NAYS -- 29
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	de Jong
Plant	Reid	Coell
Chong	Whittred	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	G. Wilson
Weisbeck	Hogg	Hawkins
Coleman	Stephens	Hansen
Thorpe	Symons	van Dongen
Dalton	Masi	Krueger
McKinnon		J. Wilson

Bill 14, Worker's Compensation (Occupational Health and Safety) Amendment Act, 1998, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 22.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

V. Anderson: On section 1, I'd like to move an amendment. The amendment is here, and I believe that the minister already has a copy.

[SECTION 1, by adding subsection (f) to amend the definition "near relative" by adding the words in boldface: "near relative" means a grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, half brother or half sister, friend, caregiver or companion designated by patient and includes the legal guardian of a minor and a committee having custody of the person or a patient under the Patients Property Act.]

V. Anderson: The amendment is to deal with the definition of "near relative." At the moment, all of the persons who

[ Page 10682 ]

I think the indication is that we want to be able to notify a person who will be supportive of and helpful to the person. So what we've suggested is that we add the words for persons who can be notified and who would be ones who would take the place of relatives. They would be a friend, caregiver or companion designated by the patient.

It would read, then: " 'Near relative' means a grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, half brother or half sister, friend, caregiver or companion designated by patient and includes the legal guardian of a minor and a committee having custody of the person or a patient under the Patients Property Act."

We think this would be very supportive of the patient. It would be supportive of those who are giving care, and it would give options which are normally not available for persons who have this need. So the motion is to add the words "friend, caregiver or companion designated by patient" as one of the other choices that would be available.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry. One of your colleagues was good enough to give me the amendment. Because I wanted my staff to see it, we sent it out to be copied, so we don't actually have a copy. But we are now about to have one. Thank you.

But maybe while I'm on my feet, I'll ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the gallery today there a number of people who are here because of their interest in Bill 22. I would like both to introduce them and then to make a comment.

Let me first do the introductions. From the Victoria branch of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society are Marilyn Duncan, Renata Varwig, June Pryor and family members of those individuals. As well, we have Gail Simpson, executive director of the Capital Mental Health Association, and Ramsay Millar, who has had the courage to speak out about the tragedy in his family.

As I do that welcome, I want to comment that many of the changes that happen in legislation, regardless of whether it's mental health legislation or any other kind of social policy legislation, happen because of the courage that family members and individuals have to stand up and to tell their stories publicly. I really want to acknowledge the work that the people in the gallery have done in that regard, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

[3:00]

S. Hawkins: This side of the House would also like to welcome the interested members in the gallery from the Victoria Schizophrenia. . . .

The Chair: Is leave granted, members?

Leave granted.

S. Hawkins: We would like to welcome those members as well.

Just an add-on to this amendment: it is consequential to section 37, which is advice to a near relative. One of the members, the member for Okanagan-Vernon, rightly pointed out that there isn't always a near relative, as defined in the definition here, that brings the patient to a facility or is there to be given notice to when a patient is discharged. Oftentimes it is a friend or someone else that is designated by the patient, who the patient goes home to or has an affiliation with. So that is the intention of amending this definition to include a friend, a caregiver or a companion. The member for Okanagan-Vernon, who has a lot of experience in this area, and certainly the member for Vancouver-Langara rightly point out that it is often someone in that category about 50 percent of the time if they don't have a grandfather, a grandmother, a father, a son or a daughter, as listed in this definition. So the intent is to broaden it so we include all of the patient's significant others.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: I wonder if I could ask a question of clarification of the member. In the last part of the suggested amendment, where it says: ". . .and includes the legal guardian of a minor and a committee having custody of the person. . . ." When you're talking about a minor, were you only talking about the legal guardian part? We're not suggesting a friend, a caregiver, whoever. It's simply. . . . That would cause me some concern. Otherwise, I think we might be okay with this one.

V. Anderson: I think we've taken the definition as it is in the act and have added these words -- and this would apply primarily to adults, because otherwise the legal guardian of a minor would automatically be the person to whom that would go.

S. Hawkins: The reason it's put before that is so that it doesn't come after "includes the legal guardian" -- so it is for the age of majority.

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

A. Sanders: I wish to move an amendment for section 1(e), and I'll provide that for the Chair's viewing. I've provided it to the minister already.

[SECTION 1(e), to delete the words in strikeout and add the words in boldface: "treatment" means safe and effective psychiatric treatment and includes any procedure necessarily related to the provision of psychiatric treatment.]

A. Sanders: The purpose and intent of this amendment is to add to the definition of care. What we have in section 1(e) is the definition of "treatment." In this section, the definition reads: " 'treatment' means psychiatric treatment and includes any procedure necessarily related to the safe and effective provision of psychiatric treatment." There are many people who would come under the category of "advocacy for

[ Page 10683 ]

What we're talking about here is a definition of the treatment people are receiving, assuming, in the mental health bill, that they're receiving it probably for psychosis. Therefore we are giving a much more precise definition to the kind of treatment we're talking about. I feel that this would most definitely be in the patient's best interest, should they find themselves coming under the need of psychiatric care. So I propose that amendment -- the movement of two words to be adjectives for "psychiatric treatment" as opposed to adjectives for "provision."

S. Hawkins: On speaking, following that member, can the minister explain why "safe and effective" was put before "provision of psychiatric treatment" in the last part of the section, instead of before "psychiatric treatment"?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm wondering if I can just check one more time. The member for Okanagan West may have spoken to it as well. We were just reviewing it as we received it. If you could just do it one more time for me -- the reason to move from "safe and effective provision," which of course we would want, up to "safe and effective psychiatric treatment." One would anticipate that any psychiatrist providing treatment to a patient would be providing treatment that had documentation and research that it was both safe and effective. So if you could help, please, again. . . .

A. Sanders: I'm more than pleased to give an explanation. You know, when we look at the patient that this aspect of the Mental Health Amendment Act is really focused on, we're talking about people in acute psychosis or about chronic patients who have psychosis and require treatment. We are defining what treatment means in section 1.

If we look at the historical perspective of someone who has acute psychosis, what used to be safe and effective treatment 100 years and, actually, 50 years ago was detainment, chemical holding patterns, being in a circumstance of perhaps even being locked away. That was provision of safe and effective treatment. Now safe and effective treatment is 95 percent chemical. So what we're talking about here is not only how far we've come, but delineating that we do understand that we are committed to giving patients who have significant problems the correct and appropriate psychiatric treatment. No longer can an individual who is the director of a facility designate that safe and effective provision of psychiatric treatment is simply detention. What we're looking at now is the psychiatric treatment aspect. In other words, there has to be some statistical basis and some relevancy to the treatment that we are providing for that patient. It has to be within the realm of what we know to be the best advice, knowledge, statistics and pharmacological evidence we have that would give us the psychiatric treatment.

I think the purpose of this amendment is to give clear instruction to people that they have to be looking after our patients, and they have to be looking after those patients in a psychiatric facility with the safest and most effective psychiatric treatment possible -- as opposed to simple detention, as opposed to keeping them locked up in a room, as opposed to doing nothing. In other words, this is a motivational factor. By putting those two words -- which are already in the definition -- in a more proactive place in the sentence, we can guarantee a provision of much better service and much more active service for their significant problem for people who are admitted to any facility, be it a regional hospital or a tertiary care facility.

That is the purpose. It is to make sure that we are up to date, that we are doing what's best for the patient, that we are doing it expediently as opposed to sitting around and maybe getting to it in three or four days, and we're doing it based on the knowledge of psychiatry that we have as opposed to what might have been the standards of care 50 years ago.

Hon. P. Priddy: I want to clarify one thing, and we may be able to move on with this. In my day -- which wasn't 50 years ago, although on the odd day it might feel like it; 35 or 40 years ago -- we would have designated the treatments that I saw in psychiatric hospitals as safe and effective by those standards. I know the member appreciates that we can only use the standards that exist today based on the knowledge that we have of treatment that is both safe and effective. As long as "safe and effective" is seen within that range -- you don't always know about a particular person -- to be able to define it in that way, I think, is acceptable. I think it does define the service, and I don't have difficulty with that as long as we realize we're looking at it by current standards. You're right: somebody might say detention -- I just checked -- but I can't imagine we're detaining people without treatment and considering that to be safe and effective. I think we can support the motion.

[3:15]

On section 1 as amended.

V. Anderson: I think it's more than semantics, but I'd like to request to the minister. . . . We've changed the definition from "mentally retarded person" to "mentally disordered person." I understand, I think, the reason for doing that. But I'm wondering if we might go a step further and reorder the words of the definition to talk about "person with a mental disorder." I think we have moved beyond the step. . .where a mentally disordered person is disordered in one sense but not disordered in another sense. A physically handicapped person is a person with a physical handicap; they're not a handicapped person in every aspect of their person; they're only handicapped in one part of their person. I think we need more and more to make that distinction.

I have a handicap, musically; I can't tell one note from another. But that doesn't make me a handicapped person per se. Since we're trying to get to a healthier point of view. . . . I haven't made it in the form of an amendment, but I'm suggesting to the minister that the term be reordered -- it's a person with a mental disorder rather than a mentally disordered person.

I think that makes a significant difference if the person is whole in their own right. They happen to have a mental disorder or a physical disorder or handicap, but their whole person isn't disordered because of that; it's only a part of them. I think that makes a basic difference as we move from the attitude that we used to have about mental illness to the attitude that we now have -- that this is a whole person, who happens to have a particular disorder that we're pointing out. We get into the problem where a person may be a mentally

[ Page 10684 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: I just want to be sure that I understand it correctly, because you've given it verbally. Let me see if I interpret it correctly, and then I'll comment. Instead of saying "mentally disordered person," your recommendation would be to say "person with a mental disorder," as many of us who come from that particular background have learned to do over the years. Yes, we will.

The Chair: Shall section 1 as amended pass?

V. Anderson: Was that amendment included? The minister said that she would. . . . Or do I need to make it formal?

The Chair: Member, your memo will have to be in writing.

Is it the will of the committee to stand down section 1?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

A. Sanders: Section 4 is amendment of the old section 16 of the Mental Health Act, and I have submitted to the minister a proposed amendment to section 4(c)(b.3).

I'll just ask for a ruling here. My colleague from Okanagan West says that I do not need to propose this amendment now, because we have changed it, in section 1, under definitions. But my amendment was very simple and very similar to the previous amendment, in the definition of treatment; I wanted to add the words "safe and effective" to the kind of treatment that was provided. So if that will be appearing in section 4(c)(b.3), then that's fine, and I can live with that. But just a ruling, hon. Chair, if that's the case -- based on the amended definition in section 1(e) that has been accepted, I believe that I can now withdraw that amendment to section 4. I think that it will already be effective.

S. Hawkins: I'm sorry. We're moving kind of quickly on this. We're trying to keep up here.

With respect to section 4(h), I wonder. . . . When I read it, it says that the director has the authority to detain the patient. Section 15, section 37, regarding leave, says that the director can send the patient out on leave. I wonder if there is some provision in this section -- and if the minister can tell us where the resources are -- or if there's something under this section that will help me feel comfortable that the patient is actually being sent out on leave with appropriate resources in the community to support those kinds of leaves.

Hon. P. Priddy: Whenever I stand up to answer before staff have handed me something, I don't know if they're all busy sucking air. . .if I think I might know the answer. Of course, they have more experience than I do.

Under the regulations, it will say that a physician cannot discharge or place a person on extended leave unless she or he is satisfied that the resources are there to support that person.

S. Hawkins: Am I correct, then, in reading sections 35 and 38. . . ? Section 38 talks about approved homes, but there's nothing in the sections that tell me that. The minister is giving me her assurance that the regulations are going to say that, but I don't find anything in the act that gives me comfort that that is there.

I know that the minister has received a lot of correspondence, and so have I. One of the major concerns is regarding the resources out in the community for people that are going to be on leave or extended leave. I want to get the point across that that is a huge concern. That was certainly a concern of ours when we saw the changes to this act, and I don't see anywhere in the act where it says that. The minister is saying that that's going to be a regulation. I hope that is in the regulation. I hope that there is some framework there, and I hope that there are going to be resources there. Am I correct to understand that there is nothing in the act that says there should be appropriate resources for patients in the community before the director releases them? It was in the old act, and I don't see it in the new amendment.

Hon. P. Priddy: No, it does not speak of resources in the act. I think it's highly unusual to actually find comments about resources in the act itself. But I would reference section 15, section 37, on leave: ". . .if the director considers that leave would benefit a patient. . . ." Now, I would hope that the director or a psychiatrist would, when looking at whether something would benefit someone, look at the issue of resources. If there are no resources, then clearly it's highly unlikely to benefit someone. So that still is in section 37, and then the other criteria around resources will be in the regulations.

S. Hawkins: I saw some indication of disagreement when I said that it was in the old act -- with resources. My understanding, because section 37 is referenced here and is amended later on. . . . In the old act, section 37 does say that the patient would go on leave, on the conditions that the director may specify, to the care of relatives of the patient or others capable of assuming responsibility. That gave me some comfort that there would be some conditions or measures in the community that the patient could rely on.

That's missing from the amendments to this act under section 37, and it certainly isn't anywhere in this section. If it is happening by regulation, I hope the minister keeps that commitment. I think that's been one of the huge concerns with changes in the act: that we don't just discharge people or put them on leave and find them on the street or in jail or somewhere that's not in their best interest.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure that I caught the last part of the question. I was reading the old act. I think section 37 under the new act is actually better than section 37 under the previous act. Although it's only a small change, it does say that the person has to benefit, which does speak to the kinds of resources that might be there. I do guarantee the member that the comments about the physician having to ensure that there are resources to meet the person's needs will be in the regulations.

[ Page 10685 ]

On section 6.

G. Hogg: I would ask whether or not there is any reconciling necessary between the age of consent for someone under the Infants Act, under the age of 16, who is deemed capable of consenting under the Infants Act. . . . Is there any reconciliation necessary between the Infants Act and the provisions under section 20(2)(a)?

[3:30]

S. Hawkins: What are the legal implications? We have an age of consent under the Infants Act, and we have a different age of consent under this act. Has the ministry looked at that?

Hon. P. Priddy: There has been some canvassing of constituency groups around this issue. We do not seem to have had a difficulty around the difference between the two. . . . Secondly, when you are talking about someone who is under 16 being admitted by a family member, I think they are in a much different situation than a 15-year-old who is being asked to decide, or somebody is trying to decide whether she or he is able to make a decision, about some plastic surgery or something else that's being done. But when you're talking about someone who is under the age of 16 and has a potentially serious and persistent mental illness -- because, as I remind people, this is really where we're focusing in many ways -- I think that's a very difficult place, and it's almost impossible to be asking a 15-year-old to make a decision on it.

I hear the member's comments. We will continue to monitor that, but at this stage, with the people we've consulted with and who would be concerned or interested in this, we haven't had concerns raised.

S. Hawkins: I'm raising the concerns on behalf of interested parties who have brought it to our attention. I think those concerns did go to the minister, because I got a copy of that. The reason I bring it up is that the Infants Act does make particular reference to medical treatment -- and psychiatric treatment, I would suggest, is medical treatment. I don't know if this has ever played out before, but just for consistency, I'm pointing out that the act is inconsistent with medical treatment and consent in the Infants Act. I won't belabour the point. I'm just raising it with the minister as there may be a problem later.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 8, in the proposed section 22 (1), (2) and (5) of the Mental Health Act, by deleting "72" and substituting "48".]

S. Hawkins: Can the minister just explain why that amendment was put in place?

Hon. P. Priddy: There have been some concerns raised that people are uncomfortable with the 72 hours. I mean, it is three days. The reason for this amendment being here at all is that in many places it's. . . . Not in all, and in urban areas it certainly happens less, but in some parts of the province it's almost impossible to get two psychiatrists to be able to make this determination on admission. We obviously didn't want to say one psychiatrist can make an admission, and then that's the end of the story, and that person is there forever under one signature -- it certainly does not seem reasonable to me, in my experience. When I heard the concerns that 72 hours might be too long, we trekked a bit with the psychiatric community in terms of. . . . If it was 48 hours, would people still think they could get the second person there to make sure that there was a second opinion, a second medical examination and certificate that would have to be completed by the second physician within a certain period of time? Because of people's concern, we reduced the amount of time.

S. Hawkins: We've heard the same concerns. In fact, I would go a little further, because right now it is 24 hours, and we recognize that there are areas in the province where it might not be reasonable to get that. But I think that for the patient's comfort and for the patient's rights as well, I would propose to add, at the end of the minister's amendment, the words: ". . .and every reasonable effort must be made to receive a second medical certificate within 24 hours, and in no case shall this exceed. . . ." I don't know if the minister is amenable to that, because I think in some communities it might still be reasonable to get that within 24 hours, and I think that is the time frame that we've been on before. If we want to extend it, that's reasonable in the communities that are isolated or where it's difficult. But keeping patients' rights in mind and in keeping with the intent of keeping detention reasonable, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to try to make sure every effort is made to try to get that second notice within 24 hours.

Hon. P. Priddy: There are two things: one of them is that I don't think there is a 24. . . . I'll stand corrected, of course, as I always am willing to do, but I don't think that there is a 24-hour period currently. So we're not moving from 24 to 48 hours. There isn't a current period of time. I would hope that somebody would not say, "See that; it says 48 hours," and then wait till the forty-seventh hour to go out and find the second opinion, because certainly somebody is going to have to spend some time with that individual, making that assessment. While 48 hours is the maximum, then I expect the hospital staff to make every effort to find people as soon as they can -- 48 hours is the most they can have to do that. If they can do it in four hours, that's perfect.

S. Hawkins: I was just asked: am I proposing the amendment, or am I just thinking about it? Maybe I'll change it to thinking about it, because I stand corrected: there is no time limit now; it's two signatures needed at the time to commit. But, for the record, I would hope that every effort would be made to get those certificates as quickly as we could within the 48 hours. That's for the record.

V. Anderson: Just on the previous discussion, I'm wondering if the minister would undertake to put in a process which keeps track of how long it takes to get that 24-48 hours, so there's some record and some evaluation.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's an excellent idea and actually is already underway.

[ Page 10686 ]

On section 8 as amended.

S. Hawkins: Section 22, sub-subsection (3)(c)(ii), where it reads: ". . .requires care, supervision and control in or through a designated facility to prevent the person's or patient's substantial mental or physical deterioration. . . . " I wonder why this part was added. It's new in the section. What does it mean, and what is this new deterioration standard?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things in response to the question. One is sort of the standard which we have used for this, and then I'll talk a bit about how people might view the issue of deterioration. Obviously, it varies entirely from individual to individual.

We have used criteria that are supported in three different ways. One of them is that Manitoba and Saskatchewan use this particular wording, these particular criteria in their legislation. The Manitoba court has actually found them to be in accord with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As well, there was a case in British Columbia that went to the Supreme Court here, the McQuorcal case. It actually came out with the same result -- that they supported this kind of clause about criteria.

[3:45]

In the provinces that have these criteria. . . . One of the issues that people will raise -- and I'm quite frank about it -- is: "Well, that means you'll commit more people if you use this kind of criteria." In point of fact, as they've monitored that, in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan, it has made no difference. There certainly has been no increase in committal rates of people in those provinces. That is one of the concerns, though, that people raise.

So we're talking about assessing a substantial deterioration but not having to wait to the point that someone has either hurt themselves or someone else before we can say: "Now you have to have treatment." That's safer for the person themselves -- you have to look at it through the person. . . . But it is indeed safer for the person, their family or caregivers, and the community.

S. Hawkins: There was also a question about why it was substantial mental or physical deterioration. Many of the physical things that happen are as a result of the mental illness. Why is it separated there as mental or physical? Why wasn't it just mental deterioration?

Hon. P. Priddy: Maybe I can help a bit here. When it says "mental or physical," we would really be talking about a physical deterioration as a result of a mental disorder. We're not talking about physical deterioration because someone has developed some physical illness that's totally unrelated to the mental illness. If somebody physically deteriorates as a result of the mental disorder, if their physical condition is directly related to their mental disorder -- they've stopped eating; they're living on the street -- then that would be the case. Physical deterioration related to another kind of illness would not be taken into account in that way.

S. Hawkins: When we get to section 22(6), we see that there's reference to the person being transported, admitted and detained for treatment "in or through a designated facility." When we look at the definition of "designated facility," it's pretty broad. It includes an observation unit. I'm just wondering if the minister can tell me what kinds of facilities she means by designated facility.

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of the phrase "designated facility" -- or the minister designating facilities, if you will -- there really hasn't been any current change to that. The minister has always been able to designate provincial mental health facilities -- facilities that are not normally designated as hospitals, such as Riverview, psychiatric units found in general hospitals, the children's unit at Maples -- and observation units as well. Although we don't currently have observation units in any facilities in the province, they could be established in small hospitals. This isn't some large expansion of "designated facility"; it is simply closing up that terminology. The only addition to what is currently in place might be observation units in very small hospitals, where there's no facility. But at this stage we don't have any more.

S. Hawkins: So with reference to "designated facility," we're still talking about an institutionalized model; we're not talking about a room in a group home. Am I correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct.

G. Wilson: Let me come back, please, if I could, to section 22(3)(c)(i), and explore the language for a moment. It says: ". . .requires treatment in or through a designated facility." I think it's fairly clear if you're receiving treatment in a designated facility, but if you're receiving treatment through a designated facility and it is involuntary with respect to admission, we have to ask ourselves whether that means that admission can take place and then you can be released from. . . . Because there are no beds, no availability, you would essentially then have medication governed -- or the application and administration governed -- through a facility without you actually being in it. If the minister might explain that a little bit more, because we've heard a lot. . . .

I'm very sensitive to the fact that there are many families who want to do the very best they can for members of their family who have mental illness. But we also have to respect the fact that people with mental illness have some rights that need to be protected. If there is involuntary admission, and that cannot be facilitated because there are no beds in the facility or there's no prescribed facility that would allow them to be treated in that facility, and they are released but they're nevertheless on forced medication, we run into what is potentially a difficult problem. Would the minister tell us what she anticipates being meant by "through a designated facility" and whether or not that means that in fact a person can be admitted and then effectively discharged without being discharged?

[ Page 10687 ]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

The Chair: Shall section 8 as amended pass?

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I think the minister is about to answer a question.

Hon. P. Priddy: I actually thought it had passed, but anyway. . . . The intention of this is really to speak to the issue of extended leave. It's not to admit someone where you know that there isn't any facility for them and then sort of do a throughput into the community. When we talk about either "in" or "through" a designated facility, it's intended to speak to the issue of extended leave.

G. Wilson: Just a couple more questions on this. The use of extended leave, I think, is something that most of us will support, because I think that there has been significant benefit through that process. Where I guess we run into some difficulty. . . . For those people who are self-advocates and who have mental illness, there is a concern, and the minister needs to hear this concern. Their concern is that the language is now permissive to the extent that if we are dealing with involuntary -- and this what we're talking about -- admissions. . . . Their concern -- and I'm expressing it as best as I can, as it has been told to me -- is that this language means that you can have an involuntary admission beyond extended leave and effectively be hooked on a system or in a category that they can't easily get out of. That causes them some concern, especially people who may be responding well to medication, people who may in fact wish to try as best as possible to stay out of the institutionalized process that they are involved in -- and they do have some rights, I think. If the minister might just address the concerns of those self-advocates, I think that we might move on.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think that those are legitimate concerns that the member raises, and they've certainly been raised with me as well -- certainly by some people who are in the gallery today.

In the situation of extended leave, where. . . . You're right that it's still an involuntary commitment, but you're in the community, and that seems to me a whole lot better, wherever it's possible. However, I don't think you find yourself in a position that you can't get out of. People on extended leave have the same rights as anyone who is in the facility, which is that they can ask to have that extended leave reviewed after the first month, after the second month, after the third month, after six months -- and at 12 months it's automatically reviewed. So those opportunities are there for appeal or review.

G. Wilson: I'll take on face value what the minister is giving me back, because I have no way of knowing if that meets the test of those who have been talking to me. I'm assuming that they would have some response, and I'll listen carefully for it when this is through.

The second issue that's related to that is that it would appear that there is now, in the amendments in the act, a greater dependency on one's history of mental health, in terms of its relation to those appeal processes and whether or not a physician places a greater degree of weight upon the history of mental health. I think the concern that people have is that they don't want to see legislation -- and I hope I'm expressing this properly -- that, by its wording and language, prohibits them from ever moving forward to the point where they might consider themselves well.

Hon. P. Priddy: I just want to respond to the member, and then the member for Richmond East has a question or a comment.

I think that so far we've covered a couple of issues that that have been raised the most, and I think you're raising the other one that I hear the most. I think it's important to restate -- and, by the way, I absolutely understand the concerns as expressed -- that it is one of the things taken into consideration when people are looking at extended leave or discharge, but not the only one. The intent -- I just want to say it for the record; I think the member knows that -- is to try to prevent the damage that happens when people leave and they're back in three weeks, and then they leave and are back in four weeks, and then they leave and are back in six weeks, which becomes a fairly deteriorating process. Nor is it the intent to say that if two years ago you left the facility and didn't stay on your medication or weren't able to follow treatment, you're here to stay. There's nothing like that at all.

The goal is to provide people with as much community access, with as much support, as we can. I think that while people might look at the history as is related -- did this happen last month or the month before? -- certainly nobody is going to do some accumulated history and say that because someone had this experience two years ago, they're never going to be able to have the community experience again. I don't want that; we don't need to have beds filled in that way. Worst of all, I don't think that's appropriate for the patients, but it is one of the factors that has to be considered to prevent some ongoing deterioration from what some people do experience as that entire revolving door process.

[4:00]

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not certain I understand the question, but let me give a partial answer. If it's not what you need, please let me know. Someone certainly must be admitted through the admitting process for a facility. I don't know if that answers your question or not, but that is the case.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

S. Hawkins: Section 24 deals with the review of detention. In section 24(2.1)(a), "all reasonably available evidence concerning the patient's history of mental disorder" is to be considered. Where do we get that evidence? We go on to look at compliance with treatment plans following hospitalization. I want to know where this evidence is being solicited from.

Hon. P. Priddy: Medical information would simply be gathered from the hospital or psychiatric records. There's not

[ Page 10688 ]

S. Hawkins: There's more than that being considered here. It's quite a broad reference to "reasonably available evidence. . .including. . .hospitalization. . . ." Then it says: ". . .compliance with treatment plans following hospitalization. . . ." I think perhaps this was probably one of the sections that was being considered when families came forward and is perhaps one of the sections that came out of the coroner's jury recommendations.

I'm wondering about "compliance with treatment plans following hospitalization." Is that evidence going to be gathered from family? How would medical people know, I guess, how the patient or person complied with treatment plans after hospitalization? What net are we casting to draw this evidence? How far are we going to reasonably collect this evidence?

Hon. P. Priddy: Generally, what will happen. . . . There are, I guess, two parts to this: one about the records and one about families. If someone has failed to follow treatment for a period of time in the community, the likelihood is that it will be on the hospital file, because they will have come into contact with the health care system because of going off that treatment. If that has not happened, they may have gone off their treatment and may be managing fine. So the likelihood is that this information will be on their hospital files, which will summarize the previous admissions that they've had. The other piece is when there is a notification. When there is a plan to discharge a patient, family members are notified and can provide information to the facility.

S. Hawkins: Under subsection 24(2.1)(b) it speaks to "an assessment of whether there is a significant risk that the patient. . . ." I want to know what the definition of significant risk is in this section.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is very difficult to quantify, if you will, serious risk. I think that one of the things people look at along with serious risk is probable risk, looking at the situation that the person is currently in.

I'm not trying to not answer the question, but serious risk for different people is very different, depending on the situations that they live in. It may be that they're living in an environment where the physical risk is quite great, given -- I don't know -- where they might be living. Or the risk of emotional deterioration may be great if they're living on their own, they're isolated and so on. That risk may be greater for that person than for somebody who is experiencing emotional deterioration but is surrounded by a support circle or a network of family and friends.

I'm sorry, member, but it is very difficult to quantify. But I think that along with the serious risk, people would also consider probable risk.

S. Hawkins: The reason I ask is that it's new language -- the section has been amended, and it speaks to an assessment of whether there is a significant risk. The minister was using "serious and probable risk," but the actual wording is: ". . .whether there is a significant risk that the patient, if discharged, will as a result of mental disorder fail to follow the treatment plan the director or physician considers necessary to minimize the possibility that the patient will again be detained under section 22."

Exactly what is the test? I guess that's what I'm asking. How will that assessment be made? What criteria will be used? What is the test for significant risk? That's new language that's not found in the old section.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry -- I think I misunderstood the question the first time, because I was sort of looking at what that would mean in the community. When we talk about significant risk in terms of looking at plans for discharge or for extended leave in the community, first off, it is a medical judgment -- a psychiatrist's judgment -- about what that would be. But those considerations would relate to the kind of circumstances the person would be moving out into, the level of support that would be available for that individual. Significant risk could relate to the current status of that individual's mental health.

Thirdly, and we spoke of this earlier, significant risk could relate in part -- and only in part -- to the person's history in terms of being able to help themselves and for us to be able to help them to maintain safety in the community by following a treatment plan and being able to take medication if that's necessary -- and it mostly is. There might be a significant risk relating to personal history around family members, where there's been a real risk to family members previously when that individual has returned to that environment -- so maybe it means looking at a different environment. Those are some of the things that would be taken into consideration.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

A. Sanders: Section 11 talks about a number of things and uses some terms that have kind of changed meaning. One is "detention." I speak specifically about the differential between. . . . What we need to look at here is the differential between language, understanding and the outcome of two terms, one being "detention" and one being "extended leave." I think in this section and maybe in the regulations there will be further explanation or something.

What I'm concerned about is: when we look at the word "detention" in section 11, who gets the right to a review panel? Do the people who are detained have a right to a review panel? How about "extended leave"? And do we have something in there to really give good, solid ground, so that the courts will say that what we have put in section 11 will in fact stand up in court when we're looking at the terms "extended leave" and "detention"?

Hon. P. Priddy: The access to a review panel includes both people who are being detained and people on extended leave. They both have equal rights to a review panel every month, every two months, every three months, every six months. They also have a right to a second opinion, which we haven't talked about at this stage. But they have a right to a second opinion as well.

A. Sanders: Just one more question -- on section 25(2.1)(b), at the very bottom of the page -- to do with the part of the section that talks about assessment and significant risk. I guess I just need an explanation. If a person is off medication several times and now fails to comply again -- on a voluntary basis refuses to comply with the medication -- is there a potential for a patient to be indefinitely committed?

[4:15]

[ Page 10689 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: I hope I've understood it correctly. If not, I know the member will give me assistance. If someone who is in the community. . . . Did you ask about voluntary as well? No? Okay. Could somebody be retained indefinitely? I suppose that is a possibility, but not without the regular and vigorous. . . . And so there should be, because there are a lot of examples across this country that I've seen in my work -- paid work and my unpaid volunteer life -- where people have been retained in institutions with absolutely no review whatsoever. So if a person is there, they're there because they continue to meet the criteria for detention, but it would still be reviewed on a regular basis. There's nothing that would say somehow that this person has been assessed as having to be there indefinitely. It is still assessed on a regular basis.

S. Hawkins: Since the question comes up, why wouldn't it be an automatic review? Why is it at the director's discretion to hold a review up to 12 months. . . ? Why not just make it an automatic review after 12 months?

Hon. P. Priddy: If I understood the question, for people on extended leave the director will review by discretion. . . . It is regulatory, if you will, that such a review will be done at 12 months for people who are on extended leave. So it's not at the discretion of the director; it must be done every 12 months. The reviews that happen every month, every second month, every third month, etc., are not automatic. However, they can either be asked for by the patient -- or the resident -- or by someone on their behalf.

S. Hawkins: There's also a term used in this section about the reasonable likelihood that the patient would be discharged. If I'm correct, that is the basis that is being used to hold the hearing. Again, I'm wondering what kinds of criteria the director would be using in making this review. Maybe I'm under the wrong section in asking this. Is the likelihood of the person being discharged or of their deterioration being based on the patient's own part -- by that, I mean what's happening to the patient -- or is there also consideration of whether the patient has enough resources in the community to support them? The test is that there is a reasonable likelihood, and I'm wondering what that test is being based on.

Hon. H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. H. Lali: Today in the gallery are members of the traffic control safety committee. The committee has worked for over one year on a very important safety issue: increasing safety for traffic control people. It's a committee of stakeholders that have set aside their differences and presented me today with an excellent report. It is our collective hope that this and future work will save lives.

The staff members of the committee here are Bob Marsh, who is the committee chair; Valerie Hanson from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; Dave Buhr, B.C. Safety Council; Joe Divitt, Canadian Union of Public Employees; Larry Ford, city of Vancouver; Linda Kaivanto, Ministry of Education; Michelle Laurie, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Wes Law, B.C. Government Employees Union; John Marriott, JJM Maintenance Ltd.; Tony Toth, B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association; and Bob Young from B.C. Tel. Joining us by phone was Jan Jorgenson, with JCat Holdings Ltd. Would the House please make these members of the committee welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: When discharge planning is approached, if you will, a number of things are taken into consideration. Does the person still meet, or do they no longer meet, the criteria for being detained? What is the current health mental health status of that particular individual? But beyond the current mental health of the individual at that particular time, there are other issues that need to be looked at as well: for instance, what kinds of supports does the person currently have available to them in their community? We would look at things like stepdown housing or supportive housing. What kind of housing is that individual going to have when they go to the community? We would look for things like significant others. Who are the people around them? Do they have a support circle, or are they all on their own? How will the person handle the issue around administration of medications? Will they need support to do that, or are they going to be able to do it totally independently?

As well, at the time of discharge, those family members -- not the far-ranging ones, but those family members who are close to and involved with this individual -- are notified that there is a discharge review happening. Family members can submit information by leave, if you will, of the chairperson of the discharge panel. Family members or significant others can submit their responses as well.

S. Hawkins: This person, when they're on an extended leave and under involuntary admission. . . . Again, perhaps I should have brought it up earlier, but it seems to be applicable in this section as well: what is the difference between this person, who is on extended leave under involuntary admission in the community, and a community committal? That is the question that's being asked of us to bring up, because a lot of the groups that are concerned about the changes in this act are concerned about the concept of community committal and the fact that perhaps the resources aren't in the community to handle those kinds of circumstances.

That's why I ask about the test whether or not there's a reasonable likelihood for this person to be discharged and for a hearing to be held. The minister has given me some factors that might help me to understand how the director makes those kinds of decisions. But could she tell me what the difference is between a community committal and this extended leave of an involuntary patient -- whether that person can be discharged or not -- in the community, which the director has to make the review on?

Hon. P. Priddy: Community committal is actually only a term that is legal -- for want of a different way of describing it -- in Saskatchewan. Some people will use the terms "extended leave" and "community committal" interchangeably, but we don't actually have something in British Columbia called community committal. So if people are talking about it here, they're talking about extended leave. In Saskatchewan, they do actually have something called community committal, which is where individuals are involuntarily committed but do not necessarily go through an institution for that purpose.

S. Hawkins: So am I correct to understand that something like this extended leave could also be called an out-patient committal? Can that term be concomitant with this?

Hon. P. Priddy: The terms that. . . . Yes, I suppose that the member could refer to it in that way, and so could anyone else. But we choose to use the terms "extended leave" or "conditional release," and we try to stay away from that kind of labelling in the community of committal, although indeed

[ Page 10690 ]

S. Hawkins: The reason that I'm asking is because of the concerns that we've received on this side of the House, and I did make a commitment that we would raise those concerns during committee stage. I think the minister's probably aware that there are groups that are very concerned about the new changes in this act, and I'm concerned that perhaps the consultation wasn't done with all these groups to address their concerns.

The other night I introduced Mr. Roderick Louis, who was sitting in this House, and I notice he's in the gallery again. I was given a letter from Mr. Louis the other night. It is dated May 8, 1998, and it appears to come from the adult mental health division of the ministry. Mr. Louis was asking about out-patient committal or community committal, and this is the response he was given by the ministry less than two months ago. It says:

"Dear Roderick Louis:

"In response to your telephone call of May 7, 1998, requesting information on a draft proposal for out-patient committal, I can advise that the ministry has not developed such a proposal. Furthermore, it is not a legislative consideration that is currently being pursued.

"We do have materials from the Canadian Mental Health Association and information from other jurisdictions on this topic, which I would be pleased to forward to you if you would like.

"You are likely aware that one of the recommendations made by the coroner inquest into the death of Brenda Barrass was that a committee be struck to explore community committal as an option for supporting people with mental illness. To respond to the recommendation, a committee has been established to examine issues associated with this. However, the committee has only been formed, and no materials have been generated."

[4:30]

But extended leave or conditional release has been in the act for 20 years. So there's nothing new in this act about extended leave. Whether somebody understood the term community committal differently -- or whatever term that was just used -- I don't know. But extended leave is no different here than it's been in the act over the last 20 years. What is different is that we're saying to people: "You need to use this in a more consistent way. We have to have more patients able to benefit from it, and we have to make sure the resources that are necessary for that are there to support people."

G. Hogg: With respect to the minister's last comment regarding adequate resources, it seems to me that in section 25(d)(2.1)(a)(ii), when we're talking about compliance with regard to treatment plans, the assumption that is carried within that is that there is a balance that must exist between the issue of the mental disorder and the resources there to deal with it. If the resources are not there, the onus would rest upon the mental disorder, and that would be the judgment call, rather than whether or not there were adequate resources and services available.

I only want to reinforce the comments that the minister made with respect to that: that the effectiveness of this section and, indeed, the effectiveness of the act, to a large degree, be contingent upon those services and support networks being made available through such things as the mental health plan and other services which are necessary to make this in fact workable, rather than become reliant on the issue of the disorder.

Hon. P. Priddy: I realize there wasn't a question there, but I'll take the opportunity anyway, if you'll just grant me that tiny bit of latitude. Thank you, hon. Chair.

The member is correct, and I appreciate his restating that. We do have a responsibility under the mental health plan to look at more supported housing or independent housing, much more assertive case management, rehabilitation, job training, family support and so on. It is not reasonable that the person who is detained in the facility should be made to pay that price because there aren't the resources in the community. It's not yet a perfect world; I know that.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the amendment to section 13 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 13, in the proposed section 28 (6) by deleting "72" and substituting "48."]

Section 13 as amended approved.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

S. Hawkins: With respect to second opinions, we want to be very clear on this section. We want to know what assurance there is in this section that it will be an independent second opinion that the person will be getting.

Hon. P. Priddy: We do have an amendment for section 15. I move the amendment to section 15 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 15, by renumbering the proposed section 34 as section 34.2 and by adding the following proposed sections:

[ Page 10691 ]

Notice to involuntary patient

34 (1) The director must give a notice to a patient on

(a) the patient's detention in or through a designated facility under section 22 (1), 28 (5), 29 or 42 (1);

(b) the patient's transfer to a designated facility under section 35;

(c) a renewal of the patient's detention under section 24.

(2) A notice under this section must be given in writing in the prescribed form and orally and must inform the patient of the following:

(a) the name and location of the designated facility in or through which the patient is detained;

(b) the right set out in section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

(c) except if the patient is detained under section 29 (1), the provisions of sections 23 to 25, and 33;

(d) the provisions of section 31;

(e) any other prescribed information.

(3) If the director is satisfied that a patient was unable to understand the information in the notice at the time the notice was given to the patient, the director must give the notice again to the patient as soon as the director considers that the patient is capable of understanding the information in the notice.]

Notice to patient under 16 years of age

34.1 (1) The director must give a notice to a patient on

(a) the patient's admission to a designated facility under section 20 (1) (a) (ii), or

(b) the making of a report under section 20 (4) in respect of the patient's admission under section 20 (1)(a) (ii).

(2) A notice under this section must be given in writing in the prescribed form and orally and must inform the patient of the following:

(a) the name and location of the designated facility to 5which the patient is admitted;

(b) the right set out in section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

(c) the provisions of sections 21, 25, 31 and 33;

(d) any other prescribed information.

S. Hawkins: Could the minister just tell us what the intent of that amendment is, please?

Hon. P. Priddy: The section on patients' rights was in the regulations, and we've moved it into the act, because we felt that it was important to do that. We've actually done a bit of expansion to the rights, which says that when involuntary patients receive notice of their rights, they have to receive them both orally and in a written manner. If there's any uncertainty at all about whether someone did not understand them, given the circumstances under which they're first given, then there is a responsibility for those to be both read and given orally again.

S. Hawkins: Thank you. That certainly helps me understand the section better, and that addresses one of the concerns that was going to be the next question I ask the minister. Getting back to the first question I asked, what assurance is there that the second opinion the patient is seeking will be an independent opinion?

Hon. P. Priddy: The patient can choose their own physician for a second opinion, and we will be putting that in the regulations.

Amendment approved.

On section 15 as amended.

A. Sanders: Section 15 is a long section involving sections 30 to 39 of the Mental Health Act. I'd like to ask a question on section 34; then I'd like to move an amendment to section 37.

Section 34 is "Advice to near relative." Under this section it states that the director must send to the near relative a written notice if the patient has been admitted to a designated facility. I just want some clarification from the minister with respect to this section. Specifically, what I'm interested in -- and I think it is important -- is that there's a whole other set of conditions that we have missed in this section. What this says is that if a patient is admitted to a psychiatric facility, it's the right of the facility to inform them.

Many of our psychiatric patients, as the minister pointed out herself in section 8, possibly present first with physical deterioration -- a suicide attempt or many other things -- prior to the diagnosis of acute psychosis or recurrent psychosis. What I would be interested in is if the minister feels or her staff feel. . . . I'm looking at: what about when psychiatric patients are admitted for medical reasons? Let's look outside the lower mainland. If you are in Quesnel, for example, you're admitted into a hospital; you're not admitted to a psychiatric ward. A bed is the psychiatric ward. The physician or the director would notify the near relative and say: "This person is in with acute psychosis." More frequently, however, you may find that that patient comes into the hospital after either a suicide attempt or physical deterioration. It could be malnutrition, alcohol problems or anything else.

I would like to see this section include not just notification because of psychosis. I would like to see it include physical deterioration, as well, as we have already defined it when we talked about section 22(3)(c)(ii). The minister rightly pointed out that quite often patients present perhaps not with psychiatric symptoms but with acute deterioration and that we would have an involuntary committal because of substantial physical deterioration. I'm just looking for some direction as to whether the minister feels this section includes that or whether I should perhaps put forward an amendment of that nature.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think my answer is that I'm not sure. In order for the family, friends or significant others -- whoever that person is -- to be notified, that person has to be, regardless of. . . . It may be physical deterioration related to the mental health diagnosis, but the person has to be involuntarily committed before we would do that. You wouldn't do that for someone who has sought help independently.

In the example that you used, you'd actually have to go to Prince George to do that. We don't have the ability to involuntarily commit in a hospital such as Quesnel. If someone came in with acute psychosis, came in voluntarily with physical deterioration, then we wouldn't, because that person has voluntarily sought help. You wouldn't notify a family

[ Page 10692 ]

A. Sanders: This is an important section. I feel that we could make it better. First of all, that patient that we mentioned would be committed in Quesnel and perhaps transferred to Prince George later -- if in fact there was a bed. Sometimes the patients are held there for a day or two or three. The general practitioners commit the patient and then transfer them to Prince George when a bed is available. That's a pretty typical scenario for most of our interior towns, based on the bed supply at Prince George Regional Hospital.

I'm sort of thinking about if a patient is in hospital, are we doing what we've set out to do in this act -- that is, inform the relatives so that there is some support system outside of the hospital and some information link. I guess what I'm thinking about is a patient that I mentioned under second reading of Bill 22. A gentleman who is a schizophrenic patient was admitted to the hospital with acute diabetic ketoacidosis. Apparently, the family wasn't phoned. If they had been phoned because we had Bill 22 in place, would that family have been informed when that patient had been in hospital with acute ketoacidosis, when in fact that particular problem was because of uncontrolled schizophrenia and an inability to take the medicine because of paranoid delusions and concerns that these pills would increase his problems?

Really, I'm trying to figure this out. If people who have concomitant medical problems that are of a serious nature -- and diabetes is a very good example -- go off their medications, are perhaps on extended leave or whatever, and are admitted to the hospital not for psychiatric reasons but for what appears to be a medical problem, would the family be informed in that case? Yes or no? If the family wouldn't be, then I think we're going to miss a lot of people who are in trouble from a mental health point of view but who are admitted with medical diagnoses onto medical wards.

[4:45]

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: We're just checking if there's a difference between the old act and this one, and there is not. If there's a grammatical correction, we're more than happy to do that. What this is really intended to say is that if someone has been admitted to a particular facility, and say that they're there for two weeks, then they're transferred to another facility, and two weeks later, they want to have their one-month review, then all of that time is counted. You don't sort of start and stop the clock again, because that would be a real disadvantage to the individual. So that's what it's intended to mean. That's what was in the last act. But if there are commas missing, we'll add them.

G. Hogg: With respect to discharge, in section 36, I wonder what is the anticipated impact of this section, and consequently of the act, on hospital bed-days throughout the province -- whether or not we're anticipating there will be fewer bed-days utilized as a result of the discharge provisions and the resources which we're anticipating to be supported with this, or whether or not we're anticipating a similar number of bed-days to be utilized, given the passing of this legislation.

Hon. P. Priddy: We don't expect to see any. We will obviously be monitoring this, but any significant change. . . . Certainly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, there wasn't a particular increase in committal rates. What I think we may see -- if we do our job well -- are fewer people coming back to the hospital. I don't expect to see those in great numbers in the beginning, but we may see fewer people being readmitted as a result of the use of extended leave and better supports in the community.

A. Sanders: Under section 37, which deals with leave, I'd like to propose an amendment. I gave this amendment to the minister and her staff to peruse prior to this afternoon's session. What section 37 says is that if a patient has leave, "the director may release the patient on leave from the designated facility" which they inhabit. What I have done in the amendment is to add the phrase: "providing appropriate support exists in the community."

On the amendment.

A. Sanders: There's very good reason for those additional words, hon. Chair. The purpose of the amendment to section 37 is to prevent what I call dumping. That basically happens when the hospital psychiatric unit is full, and there is a need to free up beds on the weekend. The discharge team sits around and decides who it is that gets to go and who gets to stay. Often this is an absolutely necessary thing to do, because there is traditionally need for the beds over the weekend. So what I'm looking for, hon. Chair, is some coordination between the community and the hospital or facility so that when that person is discharged or put on leave, the appropriate phone calls and the appropriate arrangements have been made to provide that there is in fact a support system in the community that can absorb that person, and we know that they're not going to end up on the street or in Stanley Park or somewhere else once the leave has been put in.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think I would be amenable to the amendment if we could the amend it a little bit -- if you would just let me try a friendly amendment first, accepting it as you've put it forward and adding the phrase "to meet the conditions of the leave," so it's very much about an individual. Okay?

A. Sanders: Hon. Chair, I withdraw my amendment and look forward to the amendment brought forward by the minister.

[ Page 10693 ]

[SECTION 15, by adding the words in boldface:

37. Subject to section 40 and the regulations, if the director considers that leave would benefit a patient detained in the designated facility, the director may release the patient on leave from the designated facility providing appropriate support exists in the community to meet the conditions of the leave.]

On section 15 as amended.

S. Hawkins: The same concerns we had about some of the other sections we also have about section 39. This section gives the director the authority to make conditions for leaves. I'm just having a quick look at this, and I'm wondering what these conditions are. Can the minister give us some examples of these conditions? They were in the old section. They're not in this new section, but I would assume that the intent is still there in this new section.

Hon. P. Priddy: What this is really intended to do is to keep pace with, I guess, innovative or currently accepted practices and protocols. To be able to put that in regulation, as opposed to waiting a year to come back to the House to amend the act, is what this is intended to do.

S. Hawkins: I'm confusing myself here. I appreciate the minister's answer to that, but I'm also wondering. . . . Again, I'm on section 39(2), and it says: "Subject to the regulations, a patient who is on leave or has been transferred to an approved home under section 37 or 38 may, if the conditions of the patient's leave or transfer are not being met, be recalled. . . ." So the conditions would be what the director sets out. We did amend the other sections, so I'm clear on that. But I'm wondering how the director knows that the conditions of the leave aren't being met. What framework is in place? What reporting mechanisms are there so the director knows that?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are a variety of ways. I think there's probably one that's more. . . . Maybe it's the one I've seen and quite liked the look of. There are a variety of ways: through the physician, through contacts the person might have with the health care system because they are not able to follow the protocols. But I think the most important one here is aggressive case management. For instance, there is one pilot project going on in the province on aggressive case management. The individual may have an appointment on a daily basis or every other day to come to a particular facility to get their medication and just to check in to make sure they're okay, to have a meal or whatever that might be. If the person doesn't come, people go and look for them to make sure that they're okay. That's not something we've seen in other places. They don't do that in a police kind of way; they do it in a way that checks to make sure folks are okay and that encourages people to come in. I actually think the assertive case management part will be the best tool we have for identifying to the director when that's happening.

S. Hawkins: I guess these are concerns related to extended leave. As the minister pointed out, extended leave wasn't being applied consistently before. With the changes to the legislation, it's hoped that there will be a more consistent use of extended leave and perhaps more extended leave. Again, the question I have is. . . . The minister gives some interesting examples of how the director might know that the conditions aren't being met -- through a physician, a friend or whatever. There are huge concerns that the resources to track it aren't in the community or that the resources aren't being provided to continue the supervision or authority that the director might have in laying down those conditions. I need some assurance that there is going to be some way that this is going to be done that can give us and the critics that have problems with the sections here some assurance that there is indeed going to be continued supervision, authority or resources provided to ensure that the conditions for extended leave are being met.

[5:00]

We do have $10 million this fiscal year. I was actually going to give a little overview of it, but maybe by the time we get to another section we can do that. The way we will do that is by directing those mental health dollars across the province into things like assertive case management, supported housing and additional psychiatric sessions. Those are all things which will begin this year as additional supports in the community. There's no place to guarantee that in the act, except for the part in the regulations that says that the director must ensure that there are resources for the person.

S. Hawkins: With all due respect, we've heard that before, and we've seen the resources not be there. We just finished estimates. We asked about the mental health plan and the $10 million, and this member didn't get very much assurance that it was actually out there. That's why I ask these questions, because I think we are. . . . I hope we're not putting the cart before the horse, because we've now got legislation. We don't know if the supports are out in the community, and, frankly, we don't know if $10 million is going to be enough. We have not seen the implementation framework for that $10 million, and that's why I ask these questions.

I am not the only critic of this. I have received numerous phone calls and correspondence with respect to concerns around these kinds of sections that put the person in the community with conditions. We don't really know if the resources are going to be there to meet the needs of this person and, frankly, to meet the needs of the director who's supposed to be tracking these persons to see if they're actually meeting the conditions of their extended leave. I wonder if the minister can tell me: what is the person's right of appeal? If the director decides that the person is not meeting the conditions, what right does the person, then, have to appeal that? I don't think we. . . . The minister says that it's not a perfect world out there. Frankly, I don't think we have the resources right now for the person to be tracked to see if they're actually meeting their needs or not, whether it's through a physician or a friend or whatever. I would put to the minister that in the first little while, I think, it is going to be kind of confusing -- whether the person is actually doing what they're supposed to do or meeting the conditions of their leave. I'm wondering: is there a right of appeal on behalf of the person, and what is it?

Hon. P. Priddy: The method that would be used would be the second opinion.

[ Page 10694 ]

On section 16.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the amendment to section 16 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 16, in the proposed section 42 (2), by deleting "72" and substituting "48".]

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 1.

The Chair: On section 1 we have an amendment by the member for Vancouver-Langara:

[SECTION 1(b) be amended by changing "mentally disordered person" to read "person with a mental disorder".]

Section 1 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 22, Mental Health Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 22, Mental Health Amendment Act, 1998, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 36.

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACT
(second reading)

This act, first and foremost, is about better meeting the transportation and transit needs of the people of greater Vancouver. People in and around Vancouver have seen the impact of tremendous growth in the region over the last ten years, most noticeably on transportation services, air quality and general livability within the region. It has become increasingly apparent that the current approach, in which transportation decision-making is divided between local governments, provincial agencies and ministries, is not working. So I would say that a new integrated arrangement for funding and managing transit and transportation in the region is needed to deal with the problems of traffic congestion and air pollution and to keep pace with the transit service demands of Greater Vancouver's rapidly expanding population.

Over the last year, the provincial government and the GVRD have been working cooperatively to reform transportation funding and governance in the region. The product of that cooperative approach is this act, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act. It formalizes the agreement on transportation funding and governance that was ratified by the province and the greater Vancouver Regional District on February 27, 1998.

The act is based on five major principles: local control over transit and transportation; integrated decision-making for transit and roads; adequate and appropriate funding; protection of the rights of the existing employees; and consultation with the public, municipalities and organizations affected by transportation decisions. One of the significant features of this legislation is that it puts control over transportation and transit decisions in greater Vancouver in the hands, finally, of people who live there. That not only fulfils a long-held goal of local governments in the region, it is an important step toward achieving a transportation system for greater Vancouver that is truly responsive to local concerns and needs.

The principles in the legislation were developed hand-in-hand with the GVRD and its member municipalities. At the same time, though, the GVTA Act does ensure that the province will maintain a strategic role in major transportation decisions that are important to our provincial economy.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The act creates a new single regional transportation authority, and the authority will be established no later than April 1, 1999. It will be managed by a 15-member board, 12 of whom are appointed by the GVRD and three by the provincial government. The GVRD appointees will be either mayors of municipalities or GVRD board members, and they will be drawn from various geographical areas within greater Vancouver to ensure broad representation throughout the region. Each of the three directors appointed by the provincial government will be either a Member of the Legislative Assembly representing a greater Vancouver constituency or a cabinet member with responsibilities related to those of the authority.

Under the terms of the GVTA Act, this regional transportation system must support greater Vancouver's regional growth strategy. In other words, transportation planning in the region must be integrated with land use planning. As well, it must support air quality objectives and economic development within the region.

I will very quickly outline the GVTA's major areas of responsibility. The GVTA will assume responsibility, first of all, for all public transit in greater Vancouver -- services such as B.C. Transit buses, SeaBus, handyDART, SkyTrain and the West Coast Express. At the same time, B.C. Transit will work cooperatively with both the provincial government and the GVRD and other stakeholders to make sure that the

[ Page 10695 ]

[5:15]

Secondly, the GVTA is responsible for a major road network across the region. Currently the province and each of the 20 municipalities control their roads, but there's no effective means of managing cross-regional traffic. So under the terms of the act, the GVTA will designate the integrated system of arterial and other major roads that cross the region as a major road network. Provincial highways will remain the responsibility of the province. The designation of a major road network under one authority will make it easier to plan and manage the movement of commuting traffic and goods in a coordinated way and to deal with the problem of increasing traffic congestion in greater Vancouver. As well, it will allow for better linkage and coordination between major municipal roads within greater Vancouver and the provincial highway system which connects the region to the rest of the province and beyond.

The GVTA's third major area of responsibility will be transportation demand management. The basic goal of transportation demand management is to reduce the need for new transportation infrastructure and to reduce traffic congestion by making better use of existing transportation facilities. Some examples are high-occupancy-vehicle networks and the promotion of car pools and van pools, etc. Currently there's no single agency responsible for transportation demand management in greater Vancouver, and that's changed under this act. The GVTA will assume that responsibility.

Finally, the GVTA will take over the job of administering greater Vancouver's vehicle emission monitoring program, the AirCare program. That program was established by the province a number of years ago to address the problem of air emission from vehicles, which is the biggest source of pollution in the area. By assuming responsibility for AirCare, the GVTA can help ensure that the program can continue to support the shared air quality objectives of both the province and the region.

I just want to address funding briefly. The concept of local control clearly is meaningless unless the new authority is also given control over funding for transit and transportation, including the power to set its own budget and raise its own revenues through existing revenue sources and new funding opportunities. That's why, in addition to creating the new authority, the GVTA Act also provides new funding arrangements for transportation in the greater Vancouver region. These arrangements provide for the division of existing assets and debt, cost-sharing for new assets and ongoing funding powers for the authority. They ensure that the GVTA will have sufficient revenues to cover current debt servicing and operating costs and sufficient new powers to fund substantial growth.

I'll just highlight some of these. In an unprecedented move, our province has agreed to transfer 4 cents of the existing gas tax to the GVTA, growing to 6 cents by the year 2005. As well, a forecasted $51 million in property tax revenues which now go to pay a share of hospital-related debt will become a revenue source for the GVTA. The responsibility for hospital debt will be assumed by the province. At the same time, some $5 million in revenue from the West Coast Express which currently accrues to the province, plus $10 million in revenue from parking sales taxes, will also be transferred to the new authority. This $148 million will be combined with the estimated $315 million in fare and tax revenue currently collected by the Vancouver regional transit commission. The province will continue to pay 100 percent of the debt servicing on SkyTrain guideway and West Coast Express infrastructure.

I also want to reiterate that the province will continue to take full responsibility for the provincial highway network and will assume a substantial share of the cost of the new rapid transit project, and we will negotiate cost-sharing arrangements with the GVTA for other major new or replacement transportation infrastructure projects.

In other words, the province retains the lion's share of debt -- about $1 billion worth; the new authority, on the other hand, gains 100 percent effective control and the funding powers it needs to fulfil its responsibility, including tax points transferred from the province. Again, I say that this was not a unilateral decision; it was actually arrived at through some very cooperative and fruitful negotiations entered into very willingly by both the province and the GVRD.

This new authority has been based on great public consultation, and that will continue under the new act. We've made it a requirement under the GVTA Act that the new authority consult with the public, municipalities and other affected organizations on transportation decisions. They are going to have to consult before any increase in property taxes and before they assesses project toll charges and motor vehicle charges for the major road network.

In conclusion, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority is the culmination of more than a year of discussions, consultations and negotiations between the province and the greater Vancouver regional district. With its comprehensive approach that combines management of transit and roads and links transportation planning directly with land use planning, the GVTA Act represents a new model for transportation governance. It's an important step in the process of building a truly world-class transit and transportation system for B.C.'s largest urban area -- a system with the capacity to grow and expand to meet the transportation needs of tomorrow. It will mean benefits for the people of Vancouver in terms of improved transit, better roadways and better air quality. Because the greater Vancouver's transportation network is so important economically to our province as a whole, it really means benefits for all British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker, with that I'm pleased to now move second reading of this bill.

D. Symons: The minister's glowing terms about this bill sound very good, and I must say that in my heart I would hope that everything the minister said will end up being the case. If that were the case, I might be able to fully support the bill. However, I do have some concerns, and I'm not too sure whether those concerns are with the bill itself or rather with this particular government that's introducing it -- that may be my main concern.

The bill intends to give funding, or supposedly is going to give funding sources and decision-making over transporta-

[ Page 10696 ]

So when we're talking rapid transit, up until fairly recently everybody's understanding of what was meant by rapid transit was an on-grade transit system. That describes the one going down Broadway. When it was first introduced more than a year and a half ago, there was a great outcry from many of the businesses along the Broadway corridor, saying: "We can't lose our traffic corridors. We don't want to give up a traffic lane." There were concerns about intersections and all the rest. But what they were concerned about was the fact that the interpretation of what was being spoken about at that time -- as I said, up till recently -- was light rail transit on grade.

That went on a good number of times, as I say, through the time they were having discussions, through the time they were working on a draft agreement and after the time of signing that draft agreement. It was light rail transit on grade. It was only about two months after the time that an agreement was signed that it included something called a rapid transit project, which, I repeat, was thought by everybody up to that point to be on-grade light rail transit. It was about two months after the agreement was signed in February that suddenly we heard: "Oh well, it might be an idea to use SkyTrain instead, because we'll overcome some of the problems of the traffic intersections and the noise and various other complaints -- losing traffic lanes and all the rest." Suddenly we find that it moved initially. . . . It wasn't sort of sudden; Arthur Griffiths floated a balloon, and a week later the Premier sort of inflated it even more. This light rail transit that was on grade in people's minds was now becoming, really, a SkyTrain.

Very soon after the balloon was floated, the Premier came on board talking about the fact that the prices weren't all that different. I found that astounding, hon. Speaker, because for years I've been working with transit as my critic role. Every time I used to ask, from '92 onward, when the Premier was the minister responsible for transit improvements, the message I got all the time was that the SkyTrain put in by the previous administration was eating up all the money in the transit system and that we couldn't afford to buy the buses and do all the other things that needed to be done, because SkyTrain was just so horrendously expensive. It chewed up all the money and left no options for the other needed infrastructure in the transit system.

So it was sort of amazing that after being told how expensive SkyTrain was in relation to everything else, now we had the reverse story coming out. We had this story coming out that, well, the differential between the two of them. . . . People wanted some grade separation and some other things along the light rail system: "Well, gee, if we put it up in the air, you know, it's only going to cost a couple of hundred million dollars more, and that's an insignificant amount of money."

What we also found when they were comparing costs, though, was that indeed they were comparing costs of the complete rail transit system that had been proposed to begin with -- roughly 33.5 kilometres of light rail on grade -- with a 20-kilometre SkyTrain. So it's not surprising that if you chop a third of the project off, you could get the cost of that down, even though the capital costs for building it are supposedly more.

They're talking about phase 1 of the complete project, I suppose, which would include Coquitlam. Phase 1 sort of drops Coquitlam off; it drops off the western extremities, I think -- SkyTrain along Broadway. It doesn't go to Granville or Arbutus anymore. It stops at Commercial Drive. There are a lot of changes that have been made to it, and somehow they made those prices sound similar.

But the real problem is that the people who signed on to the concept -- the mayors and councils of the lower mainland -- signed on for. . . . When they were signing on, the only one they had in mind was the light rail transit on grade, because that's the one that everybody had been talking about. So when I found that definition in the act. . . . I read the act and thought: well, my gosh, that sounds very much like the light rail transit everyone's been talking about for years. It says in the act, under the definitions: " 'Rapid Transit Project' means a rail transportation system connecting a location in the general vicinity of the intersection of Broadway Avenue and Granville Street in the City of Vancouver. . . ." That's a real stretch to say that Commercial Drive is in the general vicinity of Broadway and Granville. A big chunk of it has been chopped off on one side. It says: ". . . the intersection of Broadway Avenue and Granville Street in the City of Vancouver to a location in the general vicinity of the Coquitlam Centre. . . ." I find it very difficult to interpret the Loughheed Mall as being in Coquitlam Centre's general vicinity. Nevertheless, it goes on: ". . .the Coquitlam Centre at the intersection of Loughheed Highway and Barnet Highway in the City of Coquitlam and connecting to a location in the general vicinity of a Skytrain station in the City of New Westminster."

I think we find that the thing that is described in the act as being rail transit sounds very much like what was being discussed for years prior as a light rail transit on-grade system. So I jumped to the conclusion -- and was told at a briefing recently that this conclusion was apparently incorrect -- that this meant an on-grade system. Indeed, they're simply saying "rail," and whether that rail is on the ground or above-ground, that rapid transit could be SkyTrain or the light rail system.

[5:30]

When she was introducing the bill, the minister talked about consultation. Well, that change was done without consultation. There was no prior warning to the people who signed on to this agreement with them that they were going to change from light rail on grade to SkyTrain. Consultation wasn't there. They heard about it through the press. Mr. Puil said that the first he heard of it was when he read it in the press, and that's supposedly not the way the major player for

[ Page 10697 ]

The hypocrisy of this, I guess, is that just months before they had signed an agreement that was going to give transportation decision-making over to this new transportation authority. I will admit that it's not in effect yet. We haven't passed the bill yet, and it won't come into effect until next year, on March 31, 1999. But you would think, hon. Speaker, that when you enter into an agreement that's going to turn decision-making over to another authority, in the interim, between that coming into effect and the time you've signed the agreement, you would live up to the intent of that, which is to give them the decision-making. So at least if you wanted to change the parameters of that agreement, which was signed in people's minds, you wouldn't just simply unilaterally change one of the major projects that's outlined in it. In fact, it's the only major capital project that's outlined in this particular bill.

So we have this problem here with a government that supposedly talks of consultation and even signs an agreement that brings in the idea that you're going to have decision-making, and then after that makes a unilateral change in the whole project they've been discussing. That does not speak to me of a very auspicious start to this whole arrangement of transferring authority over to the greater Vancouver regional district and to this new authority called the GVTA. While there was some support shown -- and I must admit that there was some support shown for the type of technology that the government had proposed, for this change that the Premier had made from light rail on grade to SkyTrain. . . . There is public support for it. SkyTrain is nice; I wouldn't deny that people like it. It looks good. It transfers a good number of people, and on the operating side it's fairly cost-effective. On the capital cost side it's very expensive, and that's really the problem.

Besides the fact that people thought that the technology sounded good, they also had concerns that this might change the size of the pie, of which we are paying 40 percent. The GVTA agreement will do a 40-60 split on the capital costs for this particular project. Suddenly they're concerned that if the Premier is wrong in saying that these two systems are roughly the same price. . . . If the full system, when it gets out to Coquitlam, is going to be more -- and I can't see why it will not be considerably more than the cost of light rail transit. . . . If that's the case, then they're finding that the 40 percent they're paying is of a much larger pie. Therefore they're going to have some problems financing it, keeping the current bus system operating well and improving the vehicles they have, because a lot are near their life expectancy and will have to be replaced. They'll need a lot more vehicles -- 200, 300, 400 more vehicles over the next five years -- in order to meet the growing demand for transit in areas that need transit. They've got to expand the system, as well as replace the system, and they're now concerned that with these added costs, they aren't going to be able to do that. There's going to be real pressure on them.

The minister did mention that they'll be given some ways of doing that: they can put on a property tax or a vehicle tax. I'm sure that these are going to float very well with the electorate in the greater Vancouver area. We can even put. . . . I guess we can't add another. . . . We can put tolls on. That sounds great for new projects. It must be a new project, though, and site-specific. Nevertheless, these are the options they're given. Mr. Puil has suggested -- and many of the other mayors have been assured by Mr. Puil, at the meetings I've attended -- that they will not put a property tax on.

My concern really is that when they see the added costs -- the shortfall between the revenue funds that have been transferred over to them and the costs that are going to occur over the next few years. . . . In doing what has to be done in the transit system in Vancouver, there's going to be a differential between the authority and funding streams that have been given to them and the expenses they're going to have to meet. So they're going to have to approach, one way or the other, one of the options they've been given for fundraising. It's going to be very difficult, I think, for them to raise property taxes. But it looks like that might be the one they're have to settle on, because the other ones are about as unpalatable to the general public as the property tax.

People think: yeah, the vehicle tax is fine; we'll punish the drivers all the time by putting on a vehicle tax or tolls and so forth. But there's a fair percentage of people in the lower mainland who use their car. And to a great extent, some of them have to use their car, because transit -- no matter how many buses you put on -- won't meet their particular needs. As a matter of fact, a lot of people I've spoken to about this said: "I agree with the idea of 'going green' -- riding the bus -- but it doesn't work for me." I think we'll find that there will be a lot of people that will be of that opinion. The costs are going to go up considerably, and one way or the other, that's going to have to be paid for. So we have that one problem with the SkyTrain being brought in.

We were also told that this was an alternative proposal -- just something thrown out there to consider. Within three weeks of the time we were told that this was just something the government was considering. . . . We find out that the Premier had been talking to Bombardier, and within three weeks of the time they started floating the balloon about using SkyTrain, we find out they've signed a memorandum of understanding with Bombardier, the supplier of SkyTrain. A memorandum of understanding isn't something where a couple of people sit around a coffee table one afternoon and have a cup of coffee and throw out a few ideas and say, "Well, we agree on this," and you sign your name at the bottom of it. It's a really substantial document when you have a memorandum of understanding. There is a considerable period of time -- months, usually -- that takes place in discussions back and forth to come to the agreements that they feel they can work on for the actual signing of a contract. A memorandum of understanding is something that takes time to put together. When it was signed by the Premier of this province and a member of Bombardier on June 24, that wasn't something that was done just in the week or two previous to that. That was something that was worked on over a period of time.

Hon. J. MacPhail: What does this have to do with the bill? Not a thing.

D. Symons: It's all related. The minister asks why I'm not talking about the bill. It's all related to the credibility of the agreements that this government signs. While we're agreeing on local decision-making, the government unilaterally made a significant change in what was understood as the major capital project, both in technology and in the size and scope of that particular project. To my mind, the government can't really be trusted. This is a government that one of their own members has said can do whatever it wants. We found out. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse me. I really must caution the member. We're not talking about the credibility of the government or the administration of government. We're talking about, in particular, second reading of Bill 36.

[ Page 10698 ]

The fact that we have an agreement here that says you have certain funding streams coming in, certain arrangements that are set up in this. . . . We can't be too sure whether those particular things are going to be adhered to one, two or three years down the line. We've had experiences with other things. . . . We had an experience just yesterday, and I guess we'll finish it off today, of changing something that was 12 years old. The government simply decides unilaterally that they're going to rewrite history. They can rewrite history in this too, and we can be into problems. So that's one of the concerns that I have.

The second concern I have deals with the structure of the board of the new authority. It parallels to a great extent the board of the GVRD. We're going to have representatives from the various communities around the lower mainland. That in itself is good, because we're giving local control to them. As a matter of fact, it parallels what has been sitting there as the transit commission of Vancouver for a good number of years. Along with that, we find that we're adding three government-appointed MLAs to this particular board, so it's not quite all local control: "We're going to have our people in there, just making sure that things go the way we would like." There are 12 others, then the three, making a total of 15. That isn't diluting it terribly, but it does add another dimension -- and not a local dimension -- to the board of governance.

I also feel that what's somehow lacking here, which the Vancouver International Airport Authority has, is having people in there with some expertise. Now, a mayor of a community. . . . Take the mayor of Richmond. He's got a community of 150,000 people who he's mayor of and responsible for. He's got his plate full. Therefore I don't think that the mayor of Richmond -- and he's a very good man -- is going to have the time to run what needs to be run in the city of Richmond and, at the same time, to be fully aware of all the problems dealing with transit and transportation issues in the lower mainland, so that he can bring a good view to the table when they're discussing them. That means that you're going to be dependent a great deal upon the hired staff you have, I guess.

That brings me to another issue that I have a concern about. Indeed, when we read through the bill, we find that the current structure of B.C. Transit is simply going to float over, if you will, to become the GVTA. The labour agreements and management structure seem to be pretty well intact, in the sense that everybody's guaranteed the job they've got, more or less, to hang onto. That's fine for employment, I guess, but it seems to have frozen in place the opportunity for this new authority to have flexibility in the way they're going to work.

One of the concerns that many of the mayors had when they thought they were getting control of transit was that they would have flexibility to make the changes that they felt needed to be made in the transit system in the lower mainland. I know that's a touchy point with some of the mayors now -- that they don't see the flexibility there that they thought they would be getting when they got control. So you're giving them the control, but the flexibility seems to have disappeared.

The last thing I'd like to mention once again -- and it harkens back to what I was saying earlier -- is that the capital debt, if they're going for the SkyTrain technology, is really going to drain finances away from all the other needed things in transit and transportation in the lower mainland. Since you've lumped the roads, a couple of bridges and ferries and so forth into this -- which is great; it's all part of an integrated transportation system. . . . When you lump all of that in together and you put a SkyTrain capital cost on top of it, there's not going to be much left for anything else.

I have a quote here that I think might be worth making, because it's from somebody that's knowledgable in this field. It was made on June 29, 1992, in response to some questions I was asking regarding funding for transit improvements. The response came back:

"The primary reason for this deficit" -- there was a deficit in B.C. Transit that year -- "is, of course, the rather expensive capital costs of SkyTrain and the completion of the SkyTrain extension to Whalley. That was one of those unfortunate situations where. . . . I won't criticize the previous administration except to say that these bills have a way of coming home some years later. Of course some of the financing of SkyTrain was easy to enter into by any government, because the bills aren't paid for some years hence."

[5:45]

Let me give you a couple of examples of what a true regional transit authority would do and what it would prohibit. A true regional transit authority would not have provincial representation on the regional transit board. The evidence is overwhelming that when the provincial government is involved in regional transportation decisions, they stop being regional transportation decisions and they start being provincial political decisions. That's one of the reasons why we've had so much difficulty in managing transportation in the lower mainland over the last number of years.

The other thing that I think is important to note is that the idea of a transit authority is to give true local autonomy and independence, true regional independence, so that those transportation decisions -- to use the words of my colleague from Richmond Centre -- are integrated and thoughtful, and reinforce the regional plans, the quality-of-life plans that are there for the region. The transportation system must, in fact, put its first dollars towards the most important and top-priority transportation issues that the region faces.

Everyone understands that transportation improvements -- whether they're transportation improvements across the southern part of the province, in the north or on the lower mainland -- are almost a bottomless pit in terms of cost. I understand that. There are not going to be enough resources there to make every single decision that every community in every region may want. But I do believe it's important that we allow those decisions to be made directly by regional authorities as opposed to being imposed, influenced and

[ Page 10699 ]

I want to be clear about this: it is not a problem that is unique to the New Democrats; it was a problem that took place with previous governments as well. In fact, I think it's an institutional problem that we have to overcome to make sure that transportation decisions are made so they reflect the best interests of the region. There is a challenge for this government.

Let's just look back not just at the history of this bill but at the actions of this government with regard to the people who have worked, I believe, very long, hard hours at the regional level, trying to put together an agreement with the province that they felt would work. One of their critical concerns was that they not only wanted it to work in the short term; they wanted it to work in the long term, and they thought they were working cooperatively with the province in developing this.

So what happened? The first undertaking from the province was that there will be an appointment of the head of the rapid transit project, and the region will receive five names of five individuals who the province feels are capable of managing the rapid transit project. That did not take place. The province did not submit five names and did not include the region in the selection. The province submitted one name only. The regional negotiators sat there and said to themselves: "Well, we'd like to have an authority. Maybe we can go with this one, then." Not that they had a choice, not that that name was their first choice -- it was their only choice. That was the first example of a unilateral decision by this province. It was the first example recently of a unilateral decision. However, you don't have to go back very far to see a number of other examples of unilateral decisions which have cost the regional taxpayer significant dollars and which have not solved the transportation decisions in a way that meets the priorities set out by the regional concerns.

What was the next thing that happened? I think this is a significant point. The province has signed a number of protocols with the region in the past, saying: "We will not act unilaterally without the approval of the region. We won't expect any support for our decisions without the approval of the region." A number of decisions have been made that indeed were unilateral decisions that no one anticipated. The most recent example of that has to do with what's known as the rapid transit project.

You can tell that the bill was written probably three or four months ago, compared to the most recent announcements. What has happened in the regional district? What has happened in the lower mainland? For almost three decades, the people of Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Anmore and Belcarra have been calling for rail transit to service the northeast sector of the region. The first regional transportation study that was done in greater Vancouver said that the first line would go from downtown Vancouver to the SkyTrain stop in New Westminster. The second priority project would take you from New Westminster to Coquitlam.

What happened? The people of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam were left out in the next decision. The next decision was to create the SkyTrain bridge across the river to Surrey. People in Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam and Port Moody were told: "Don't worry. We've connected with Surrey now. That's what we needed to do. You're right at the top of the list for the next phase of rapid transit development." What happened? There was a major announcement in 1989: SkyTrain was going up the hill to Surrey Central. The people of Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody were told again: "Sorry. You're right at the top of the list for the next phase."

At least in terms of this legislation, the definition of "Rapid Transit Project" points out that they finally understand that. They finally understand that it's time to get a light rail transit system out to Coquitlam that can be afforded, that will be supported by an integrated bus service and that will make sure that we maximize the benefits of that public transit service to the people of the northeast sector. Where is this rail transit project supposed to take you from? It's supposed to take you from Broadway Avenue and Granville Street in the city of Vancouver to a location in the general vicinity of Coquitlam Centre. Now, for those who haven't paid attention to what the regional plan has been since 1976, Coquitlam Town Centre is supposed to be a critical centre for urban, commercial and residential activity. It's supposed to create a critical mass of jobs, where people can work, play and live. That's one of the critical reasons why you need to take rail transit to that centre. It will help reinforce that regional development plan. It will help maintain the quality of life in greater Vancouver. By providing more jobs in Coquitlam Town Centre and more transit access, so that there's more access to the various parts of the region, you end up reducing the amount of automobile traffic which is imposed on the regional grid.

People have talked about that for a long time -- for over 20 years ago now. And what does this bill tell you? What does the current proposal from the province tell the people from Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam?

Interjection.

G. Campbell: This is the right language. But what does the province announce? The province announces a SkyTrain system that will get you all the way to Burnaby. The fact of the matter is that the dollars are not there to provide this system, to provide the people of Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody with a rail transit system. That's what's supposed to happen.

There is potential for rail transit. We can move forward rapidly with rail transit. But no, the province feels that it's better, that they know best. After years of denigrating the system and saying that it's too expensive -- that it guts the transit system, that it doesn't work -- the province says: "Whoops, we changed our minds." Did they do it on the basis of any studies? Not one. There is not one study. There is not one financial study that's legitimate; there is not one environmental study or transit study that's legitimate. That is the fact of the matter.

The people of greater Vancouver deserve to have a regional transit authority. They deserve to have a regional transit authority that is truly a regional transit authority. The people of the northeast sector deserve to have rail transit that gets to the northeast sector for the first time in over 20 years. It's time to deliver on that undertaking. This government is going to fail those people again, and that is not satisfactory to those of us on this side of the House.

When you look at this agreement, it is clear that very little thought has been given to how, in fact, this facility will be able to be upgraded over the long term. There is very little question. . . . Indeed, even when you talk to people from the region, they are simply hopeful -- and I should underline that -- that maybe this time they'll be able to trust the government. I hope that if this bill passes, the government will prove me wrong. But I think that their trust is misplaced. One of the

[ Page 10700 ]

People are concerned. They are worried about the costs and how they're going to be able to move forward. Until this government creates a regional transit authority which is clearly independent and autonomous, which is properly funded and which assures people in the regional area to be covered by the transit authority that they will make the decisions with regard to transportation, then I do not believe that the title of this bill is appropriate. This will be another example of where provincial participation undercuts and undermines the necessity for professional regional transportation planning.

I would hope that the minister will come up with a number of amendments that will ensure that this is a regional transportation authority that the regional district, not the provincial government, will be able to direct; that will remove the provincial representation from the board; that will require that dollars are made available at regional request; that will prohibit unilateral decision-making by this government being imposed on the regional transportation authority, which will not lead to better transportation solutions but will indeed fall far short of one of the most fundamental goals of a new rail transit system: to service the people of Port Coquitlam and Port Moody. They once again are being left out by this bill and by this government's unilateral decisions.

[6:00]

Only the Liberal opposition could say that's bad. Only the Liberal opposition could ignore every single positive aspect of a bill that delivers on the Livable Region strategy for the very first time and delivers on an integrated transit system that will be unique in this country. Only the opposition could stand up and talk about something that's not even in the bill -- technology, a train discussion. This discussion about the size of the train, whether the train is electric, whether the train has a driver and the colour of the train is really a very unusual discussion. I have to tell you, as minister responsible for B.C. Transit, that all I know is that people want a train that gets them to where they are and saves their air quality. The discussion about the kind of train and technology is, to me, bizarre. But again, only the Liberal opposition could be bizarre about a bill that is desperately needed by the people in the lower mainland.

I can tell you that I look forward so much to the debate on the detail of this bill, so that the opposition can once again find how to represent no one, clause after clause. I move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 36 approved on the following division.

YEAS -- 36
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Hammell	Boone	Streifel
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Conroy
Priddy	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Sihota
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht

 

NAYS -- 24
Sanders	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	Reid	Neufeld
Campbell	Coell	Chong
Whittred	Anderson	Penner
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hogg
Coleman	Stephens	Thorpe
Symons	van Dongen	Dalton
Masi	McKinnon	J. Wilson

Bill 36, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

[6:15]

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 6:15 p.m. to 6:50 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 36.

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACT

On section 1.

D. Symons: Just a couple of questions on the definitions section. I notice under "designated employees" (a), (b) and (c). . . . I know it's "employees of the government. . .the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. . . ." I'm curious as to where the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia enters into the GVTA agreement.

[ Page 10701 ]

D. Symons: An obvious one; it had slipped my mind at the time.

And the other one, if I can just have confirmation. . . . I mentioned during second reading the definition of a rapid transit project, and the opinion I got was that this did include SkyTrain. If I can just have confirmation of that, because that has been in my mind a bit of a problem, as you would gather from what I said in second reading. It was at least a concern that that meaning of rapid transit project did include the possibility of either on-grade light rail or SkyTrain. Or is it just one or the other?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd actually like to take the opportunity to, first of all, answer the question with a yes. The difference is: light rail transit can have a driver, or it cannot have a driver. SkyTrain doesn't have a driver, and it's a light rail transit project. There are light rail transit projects that have drivers and are called LRT -- so it includes both.

Section 1 approved.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

D. Symons: Moving quickly to subsection (2)(c), I guess what I'm after here is whether there might be some sort of conflict of meaning. I have to refer to section 33 and the definition that we just looked at. Section 4(2) says: "Despite subsection (1), the authority is not responsible for" -- and then we skip down to (c) -- "the planning, acquisition or construction of the Rapid Transit Project except as contemplated in section 33." Therefore, when using "Rapid Transit Project" as defined previously, we have it as a light rail or SkyTrain sort of project that goes from Granville through to Coquitlam. Then we skip to the light rail project in section 33, which is going to come up later, and it doesn't specify the boundaries of the light rail project; it just gives the light rail project. So I'm curious when they say that the authority is not responsible for it, because in section 33 it says that the government is responsible for doing the transit here. Is there any sort of thing that means any other project from here on -- the authority still won't be responsible for any other light rail project? Is this the same one? I'm wondering why this specific section is actually in here.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This section makes it clear that the authority is not responsible for the planning acquisition of the rapid transit project, except as in section 33. Section 33 outlines the responsibility of the authority, which is to negotiate and to agree upon cost-sharing and to sign off on that. Section 33 outlines the obligations by agreement.

D. Symons: Okay, because I thought that the opening words of section 33, "The government may plan, acquire. . . " more or less said the same thing, so I was a little confused there.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

D. Symons: During her introductory remarks in second reading the minister made comments regarding what would be subsection (2)(e), where they may -- and I note the word here is "may" -- appoint advisory committees in order to advise the government on various operations. I'm concerned that the word "may" is here, because the way the minister described it, there would be advisory committees. They were required -- was almost the word used there, I think -- to have advisory committees to advise them. I find the permissive word rather than the requirement word here. Sections (e), (f) and (g) all have the word "may" in there. Certainly in relation to advisory committees, I would hope that somehow there might be the necessity of having them rather than the possibility of having them.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there will be advisory committees, and in fact they're currently being structured. But in legislative drafting the permissive is used so that there is flexibility to those who we are transferring the authority to, to have flexibility on how they establish those advisory committees. It happens, but it is only in special circumstances that a legislature mandates certain activities. This is allowing the flexibility of the type and nature. . . . But GVTA-in-waiting is well up and running and getting their advisory committees in place.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

D. Symons: Subsection (3)(d) is the one that interests me, because here it spells out the four members from Surrey, Langley, Richmond and so forth. I gather now that there has been an agreement made whereby Surrey will have two of these members. Now, is this a memorandum of understanding, or is it just an agreement among the mayors themselves that would do that?

Certainly subsection (d) simply says that you will choose four from that particular configuration of communities; it doesn't specify that any one gets two of them, as seems to be an agreement that was mentioned in the press recently. What is the status of that? Is that only as long as those communities named here agree to basically allow Surrey to have the two and they will share the remaining ones? Or is there something more firm than that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member refers to an agreement within the GVRD. This is how they have resolved amongst themselves to meet the requirements of the legislation. I do know that they've done a great deal of consultation and compromise amongst themselves. That will be the way appointments are made, as is their right under the legislation.

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

[7:00]

[ Page 10702 ]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, they stay as separate employers under the act. Under the successorship rights of the Labour Relations Code, they bargain as separate employers as well. I might note that there is an insertion of a management rights clause in this section for the first time as well.

D. Symons: I'm still not quite sure if at some time in the future -- because this bill spells out that they stay separate -- the different groups that make up the three transit arms, as I'll call them, decide that they want to work as a single employer and the three or four unions that are involved also decide they want to work as a single union negotiating group. . . . If they want that sort of arrangement, would this preclude that from being done? Or can it be done when contracts run out and they renegotiate a new contract? Could different contractual arrangements be made?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This section does not preclude joint bargaining.

D. Symons: It's not in the bill, but it's in the memorandum of understanding, and it relates to this particular part. In a section that was recently signed -- and I don't have that memorandum here -- there is reference to union representation. It talks about the ICTU, the union that currently represents them. I notice that there are some labour problems within the union, and it's possible that the Canadian Auto Workers will become the bargaining agent for. . . . Would that part in the memorandum of understanding just roll over then, and would it now become the other? Is there going to be a problem in the memorandum of understanding that relates to labour if the union changes?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, there won't be any problem.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

D. Symons: Also harkening back to the minister's comments during second reading, she talked about the fact, I believe, that when they want to impose taxes or access some of the funding arrangements that are allowed for in the bill. . . . The minister made a comment about the fact that they would be able to make those decisions and have to seek some consultation or approval of them. I think, when we look at section 15 and tie that in with another section -- although it talks about being able to do this. . . . In section 15(3), it says that they must consult with the public in all municipalities, relating to the various assessing of any taxes, project tolls, etc.

I believe, by section 35 and something in section 25 as well, that on the first introduction of these -- that first use of that particular one -- they don't have to consult with these other groups. They can impose them directly from the GVTA. If you want to raise it, it's on subsequent ones that you would have to do that consulting. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is correct to the extent that the status quo taxes are established by the authority. Any change in the status quo requires consultation, yes.

D. Symons: I think they name project tolls and motor vehicle fees. These charges are not status quo taxes, are they? I assume you're meaning the fuel tax, the tax for hydro and all those taxes that are currently there. This talks about the new taxes that they might use at some future time as a revenue source. It says here that they must consult. I find in looking at other, later sections further that that "must consult" does not apply in all cases, and that's what I was getting at. There seem to be some exceptions. Is it true that on the first application of bringing one of these new charges in, they don't have to do the consulting, but on further changing of that -- if they're going to change it upwards -- they have to consult; if they're going to reduce it, they don't have to consult?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay, let me try to approach it this way: on new applications there must be consultation. But on the existing ones, such as the member mentioned, there has to be consultation for change only.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

D. Symons: If we can just look at section 16(3). . . . I guess it's really section 16(3)(a). It does seem to give some sort of control in here, in a sense, that you have to go looking for approval of ones. . . . But I note that there is an exception in here where they say that the proposed tax or charge "is necessary and unavoidable in order to meet the debt obligations properly incurred by the authority under section 31. . . ." It says: "A bylaw assessing a tax, a project toll charge" and all these various things "does not require ratification by the Greater Vancouver Regional District board of directors before coming into force if. . . ." And then it says: "Well, if they really need it to meet their obligations." I would think that usually, if a corporation is behaving in a way that's responsible to the public, they would be doing things fairly tightly budgeted. Indeed, the necessity may be there. So this seems to be a bit of an out, I would think, from having to go through that procedure of getting ratification.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This provision is actually a provision to ensure that the GVTA can borrow money. The section deals with how the GVRD board has to ratify GVTA decisions, because the GVTA is a creature of the GVRD. This section ensures that the GVTA can't be put in a position where no one will lend them money or they won't be able to borrow solely because the GVRD is tardy in ratifying their decisions. This really is an exemption or an exclusion required so that the GVTA can meet their debt-servicing requirements in a way that maintains the creditworthiness of the authority and assists the MFA to become a fiscal agent. So this is an insurance policy.

Section 16 approved.

Sections 17 through 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

D. Symons: Again, just a question here on section 29, "Charges and fees." "The authority may, to recover all or any part of the costs associated with improvements to a part of the major road network, assess, by bylaw, toll charges on persons using that part of the major road network." These, I gather then, have to be ratified by the GVRD, and I gather that these

[ Page 10703 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The time limit of not being able to impose until October 1, 2001, is for the motor vehicle charge. Project tolls can come in at another time, but they have to be ratified.

Sections 29 and 30 approved.

On section 31.

D. Symons: Just concerns, I guess. Can you give me a flavour for what you think would possibly be in a five-year horizon? Maybe this is not a fair question to ask, but I'm curious. The debt cap we have in here of $1.05 billion. . . . It seems to me if we're going to go into a SkyTrain project, and the transportation authority is already assuming $550 million of the current B.C. Transit debt -- I think it's about one-third of the total debt cost of B.C. Transit. . . . They are going to be taking about a third of that $550 million. We're virtually halfway to that cap before we even consider SkyTrain. Very quickly then, this cap. . . . I notice it can be raised fairly easily, if necessary, by simply getting ratification of a raise from the GVRD.

It seems the GVTA in its decision-making is quite closely tied into the GVRD. Throughout the act, I find quite often that in order to do something the GVTA may wish to do, basically they have to go over and get approval from the GVRD, and this seems to be one. I'm just concerned about the size of the debt cap, considering that the project is included in this particular act. There's only one major project included in here: the rapid transit project. That one is likely to raise -- even with the fact they are only taking 40 percent of capital costs -- the number very close to this cap already.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member makes an important point. But this is an important provision to provide the authority with time to prepare its service capital and borrowing requirements and plans for approval by the board and ratification by the GVRD. But it also provides time to work out the authority's borrowing requirement pertaining to future debt. Indeed, when that's worked out the legislation can be amended.

Section 31 approved.

On section 32.

D. Symons: I guess this just goes back. . . . I'll do it very briefly if I can treat 32 and 33 together, because we have major projects. . . . I'm gathering here, particularly with the second part, that the government must enter into negotiations on a major project. I was hoping the SkyTrain one would have fallen under this section rather than, as you've informed me by the definition expansion of it, under section 33.

I wonder why, then, the government, in turning the authority over. . . . I guess I'm on section 33 already; I'll pass section 32 in a moment. I wonder why the government has basically retained the design and, I guess, the whole project management for SkyTrain. But they're saying that the authority will probably be the people who will be doing the management of any future projects.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is really a good-faith section that says there is an agreement to agree. That's what this section says. There will be areas where the province will be proceeding on -- for economic and job creation reasons -- a development project that affects the same area covered by the GVTA. What this says is that the province agrees to reach an agreement on the impact of some of those projects. Section 33 deals with a very specific project.

Section 32 approved.

On section 33.

D. Symons: Just one quick one on section 33(2)(b), where "the authority and the government agree on the design, scope and cost of the project." We're most likely talking about SkyTrain or rapid rail transit. If for some reason the people that will now be coming to the GVTA decide that either the scope doesn't match what they want -- it doesn't get out to Coquitlam, initially anyway -- or the design, I guess, of the SkyTrain rather than the other one, or the cost -- which, I think, is the main concern they may have. . . . If they are not in agreement with any one of those three parameters, then that means that this section would stand down. Since that's the only project that's really included in the act, does everything else hold still, but they can just back out of the Skytrain? Would that then refer back to section 32, where they might say: "Let's discuss another project rather than that particular one"? What would be the case if for some reason they decided they weren't going ahead with this particular project -- for one of those three "outs," I'll call it here?

[7:15]

I am not only hopeful; I am confident that an agreement will be reached and that all of the terms and conditions outlined in section 33 will be met and agreed upon. However, if for some reason a black cloud literally floats over the lower mainland and brains do not function properly and there is no agreement on that, then this clause -- and only this clause -- does not apply. The rest of the act is in full force and effect.

D. Symons: I wasn't going to ask anything else, but something you said just made me wonder. You said you're in consultation, basically. I gather, then, that the consultation really wouldn't be on the cost, because the cost is spelled out here. It's going to be a 60-40 split. I gather that, because that's spelled out here, they couldn't negotiate with you. Saying for this particular one that's now floating about, that because the type of technology they're going to use might be, or could be, more expensive. . . . They couldn't maybe say, "Well, how about a 65-35 split?" or something of that sort. So there can't be any negotiation on that, can there, because it's spelled out in here. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is what this section says. We need a rapid transit line, and based on the information we have to date, which was the 1995 ten-year plan of the provincial government, and also taking into account the Livable Region strategy of the greater Vancouver regional district, we think it makes sense that a 60-40 split -- right now, conceptually -- is

[ Page 10704 ]

Within those parameters of agreeing on the design, scope and cost of the project and an understanding that as of that date, it made sense for a 60-40 split, negotiations will continue. But I must say, just for the hon. member's information, that how we, both the GVTA and the provincial government, comply with that clause. . . . Discussions, consultation and negotiations would take place if we were doing the light rapid rail transit project at grade or if we were doing SkyTrain.

J. Dalton: I just want to draw the minister's attention. . . . The first part of subsection (2) says that the government must contribute 60 percent, and the region must contribute 40 percent. That's obligatory in the statute. Is the minister telling us that it is subject to negotiation between the parties if they want to change those figures? Or would we have to have some statutory amendment to do so?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That clause is on the costs -- 60-40; it specifies on costs. The determination of those costs will be made in the context of the design and scope of the project.

Sections 33 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is an amendment to section 38 standing in my name sitting at the Table, and I've provided the members opposite with a copy.

[SECTION 38, in the proposed section 38 by adding the following subsections:

(3.1) For the purposes of this section, assets that become assets of the authority under subsections (2) and (3) include records and parts of records, and without limiting this, and despite the Document Disposal Act,

(a) subject to subsection (3.2) of this section and to any orders made under subsection (8) (a), all of the records and parts of records of B.C. Transit that are located in the transportation service region or are associated with the provision of transportation services in that region are transferred to and become the records of the authority on the date that subsection (2) comes into force,

(b) all of the records and parts of records specified in an order made under subsection (8) (b) are transferred to and become the records of the authority on the date that subsection (3) comes into force, and

(c) none of the transferred records are subject to the Document Disposal Act.

(3.2) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3.1) (a), in the event of a dispute between B.C. Transit and the authority as to whether any record or part of a record becomes an asset of the authority under subsections (2) and (3.1) (a), the minister or a person authorized by the minister may decide.]

On section 38 as amended.

D. Symons: I'm just trying to read my notes here. I am looking, I guess, at section 38(8)(d), where it says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make orders. . . . This is transferring of assets and liabilities. It says: ". . . (d) respecting the terms and conditions of a lease under subsection (6), including specifying different terms and conditions for different assets referred to in that subsection. . . ." I'm curious, because there's going to be quite a bit of transfer of assets involved here, whether this includes any of the cars on order now for SkyTrain. I gather there are 20 cars on order for the current SkyTrain, and ordinarily, I guess, they would have been delivered in a period of time. Under which bailiwick, basically, is the expense of those cars going to fall?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Those cars will arrive after the GVTA is in effect, so a transfer will not be required. They will go directly to the GVTA.

Section 38 as amended approved.

Sections 39 to 77 inclusive approved.

On section 78.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the amendment in my name tabled with the Clerks. I have provided copies to the members opposite.

[SECTION 78, by deleting the proposed section 78 and substituting the following:

78 Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165, is amended in the definition of "local government body" by striking out "or" at the end of paragraph (n), by adding ", or" at the end of paragraph (o) and by adding the following paragraph

(p) the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority;.]

D. Symons: I wonder -- just for the edification of people who might be curious about what's going on this evening -- if you might give just a very brief description of why the amendment is there and the effect it has.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Section 78 is to make sure that the GVTA is designated as a local government body under the FOIPPA -- Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

D. Symons: I might ask on that, then, because this is affecting the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, why was this necessary? What are you trying to protect the GVTA from -- giving information? Or are you trying to make it available so that people can get information from it? In which way is this changing the access to information?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The full range of the act applies. There is protection for their in-camera minutes, but this is to properly classify, under the act, the new authority.

Amendment approved.

Section 78 as amended approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the amendment in my name tabled with the Clerks, and I have provided copies to the members opposite.

[SECTION 78.1, by adding the following section:

78.1 Schedule 2 is amended

(a) by striking out the following:

Public Body: Vancouver Regional Transit Commission

Head: Chair, and

[ Page 10705 ]

(b) by striking out the following

Public Body: British Columbia Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority

Head: Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations.]

Sections 79 and 80 approved.

On section 81.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the amendment to standing in my name tabled with the Clerks. Copies have been provided to the members opposite.

[SECTION 81, by deleting the proposed section 81 and substituting the following:

81 Section 2 of the Hospital District Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 202, is amended by adding the following subsections:

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2) but without limiting section 49 of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by order,

(a) may dissolve the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District so that there is no regional hospital district for that area, and

(b) may provide for the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District and, without limitation, may provide that some or all of those assets and liabilities become the assets and liabilities of the government.

(4) The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations may make payments out of the consolidated revenue fund, without an appropriation other than this subsection, for the payment of liabilities transferred to the government under subsection (3)(b).

(5) If the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes an order under subsection (3) dissolving the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District,

(a) each of the directors of the district ceases to hold that office on the dissolution of the district, and

(b) the Lieutenant Governor in Council may order that any or all of the powers and duties of the district become the powers and duties of the government.

(6) Despite subsection (5), none of the powers and duties of the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District respecting taxation of real property under this Act may become the powers and duties of the government under subsection (5) except that, if the district is dissolved at a date other than the end of its fiscal year, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may

(a) order that, in relation to the taxes that the district might have been entitled to requisition and collect for that fiscal year, the government may requisition, collect and retain the proportion of those taxes that the number of days in the fiscal year during which the district remained undissolved bears to the total number of days in that fiscal year,

(b) order that the government may exercise any and all such powers and duties of the district as may be necessary to allow the government to requisition, collect and retain those taxes, and, for that purpose, those powers and duties are deemed to be exercisable in relation to that portion of the fiscal year, and

(c) make any other orders that may be necessary to give effect to paragraphs (a) and (b).

(7) Despite subsections (5) and (6), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, delegate any or all of the powers and duties referred to in subsection (5)(b) or (6)(b) to any person or body.]

Amendment approved.

Section 81 as amended approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's an amendment in my name that I've provided to the Table, and I've provided copies to the members opposite. I would call that.

[SECTION 81.1, by adding the following section:

81.1 Section 4(2) is repealed and the following substituted:

(2) Except as varied under subsection (1), this Act, other than this Part, applies to a municipal regional district declared under section 2(1)(b) to be a regional hospital district and to the municipal regional board, for their respective functions as the regional hospital district and the regional hospital district board as it applies to a regional hospital district incorporated under this Act and to its board.]

Sections 82 to 90 inclusive approved.

On section 91.

Hon. J. MacPhail: My apologies for rushing you, hon. Chair. I'm calling an amendment standing in my name that's been provided to the Table, and I've provided copies to the members opposite. Section 91 is amended to correct a typographical error.

[SECTION 91, in the proposed section 91 by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting the following:

(a) by repealing paragraph (b), and .]

Section 91 as amended approved.

Sections 92 to 104 inclusive approved.

On section 105.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's an amendment that I've tabled in my name that I would call, and I've provided copies to the members opposite.

[SECTION 105, by deleting the proposed section 105 and substituting the following:

105 Section 22(2) is amended by striking out "12" in both places and substituting "12.1".]

Section 105 as amended approved.

Sections 106 and 107 approved.

On section 108.

D. Symons: Section 108(d) talks about "repealing subsections (3) and (4) and substituting the following. . . ." It will read: "(3) The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia or

[ Page 10706 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The program remains unchanged.

Sections 108 to 127 inclusive approved.

On section 128.

D. Symons: Just a quick comment on section 128, which is the commencement dates. I notice that there are some exceptions in here -- sections 29(3), 38 and so forth. The rest come into effect by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So why are these particular sections omitted? Would not the whole act come into effect? Why are you saying that this act except these sections comes into effect on order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The sections that come into force on March 31, 1999, or on a date earlier, are the powers of the board; but the rest of the sections are allowed to come into effect so that the conditions are in place when the board takes over.

Section 128 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

[7:30]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill 36, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that the proceedings relating to the third reading of Bill 22, intituled Mental Health Amendment Act, 1998, be declared null and void and that the said bill be recommitted forthwith with respect to an amendment to substitute the phrases "person with a mental disorder" and "persons with a mental disorder" for the phrases "mentally disordered person" and "mentally disordered persons" respectively.

Leave granted.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the amendment to Bill 22 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[Bill 22 Mental Health Amendment Act, 1998 to amend as follows:

(a) By adding the following proposed sections:

1.1 The phrase "mentally disordered person" is deleted and the phrase "person with a mental disorder" substituted, wherever it appears in the Act.

1.2 The phrase "mentally disordered persons" is deleted and the phrase "persons with a mental disorder" substituted, wherever it appears in the Act.

(b) The phrase "mentally disordered person" is deleted and the phrase "person with a mental disorder" substituted, wherever it appears in the Bill.

(c) The phrase "mentally disordered persons" is deleted and the phrase "persons with a mental disorder" substituted, wherever it appears in the Bill.]

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 22, Mental Health Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. P. Priddy: By leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill 22, Mental Health Amendment Act, 1998, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 28.

TOBACCO SALES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

Every year in British Columbia, over 5,800 people die as the result of the use of tobacco products. In addition, many thousands more are made ill or incapacitated as a result of tobacco use. The economic impact on the province as a result of tobacco-related illness and health care costs is over $1.3 billion a year. That's more than one-seventh of the provincial health budget.

In addition to the huge public health burden and the cost to taxpayers for health care, it has been disclosed in recent months through litigation in the United States, most par-

[ Page 10707 ]

With these revelations has come growing alarm on the part of the public and governments everywhere. In response, this government has undertaken a range of measures, including legislative changes, in order to prevent and reduce the use of tobacco products and to restrict the power of tobacco companies to addict young people to their poisonous products.

The Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1998, makes a number of significant changes which toughen the Tobacco Sales Act and provide the government with stronger tools for protecting our kids from tobacco. We're introducing an amendment that will place British Columbia among world leaders in the fight against the tobacco industry and its decades-long campaign of deception, delay and denial.

The Tobacco Sales Act will be amended to provide express authority for the government to make regulations forcing the tobacco companies to disclose the ingredients and additives in tobacco products, the poisons in cigarette smoke and other tobacco emissions, and the health hazards of tobacco use, including exposure to secondhand smoke. The tobacco companies have repeatedly told us that they believe smoking is "a matter of individual choice." At the same time, they've gone to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth about the addictiveness of nicotine, the health hazards caused by smoking and their efforts to get our kids hooked. It's time to expose the deadly truth about tobacco products and their health effects and to allow consumers to make truly informed choices about the use of tobacco products.

We have prepared and approved in principle the regulations that will force the tobacco companies to disclose this information, and we are prepared to bring them into force with the proclamation of this legislation. Contraventions of these regulations will also constitute an offence under the act. Because tobacco products contain a highly addictive substance, I am under no illusion that the use of tobacco products will be completely eliminated soon. However, I am committed to doing whatever it takes to reduce the incidence of tobacco addiction and to make it much more difficult for companies to earn enormous profit from making our children sick. In the coming months I will be making further announcements about this government's efforts to address this very serious public health problem.

The other amendments in this bill include the following major changes. The definition of "conviction" will be broadened to include convictions for offences under the federal Tobacco Act. Suspensions of licences to sell tobacco may be imposed where there are repeated convictions. Currently, this is limited to convictions for offences under the provincial act only. With this amendment, the federal and provincial statutes will be linked, providing a stronger deterrent effect and allowing enforcement to become much more consistent. If a business is repeatedly convicted of offences under the federal law, its licence to sell tobacco may be suspended under the provincial law.

Second, licence suspension periods for contravening the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act will be doubled. The Tobacco Sales Act provides for suspension periods based on the number of convictions in a five-year period. Currently, the periods specified are three months for a second conviction, six months for three convictions and 12 months for four or more convictions. These periods will be increased to six months, 12 months and 24 months, respectively. These changes are also intended to increase the deterrent effect.

Third, a retailer which has had its licence to sell tobacco suspended for contravening the act will be required to post a sign publicly during the suspension period, announcing that its licence has been suspended. This amendment will allow the public to be warned that a retailer has repeatedly contravened the Tobacco Sales Act by selling tobacco to kids and that tobacco products should not be sold at that location at all during the period of suspension. In smaller communities that can mean a serious loss of business and respect from their customers. That's a powerful deterrent.

Fourth, additional offences will be created, along with an increase in fines for convictions under the Tobacco Sales Act. It will now be an offence not to post a sign announcing a licence suspension or not to post health warning signs at the till. Maximum fines for all offences will be increased fivefold. Currently, the maximum fine for a first offence is $500; for the second and subsequent offences, it is $1,000. These amounts will be increased to $2,500 and $5,000 respectively. Despite increased enforcement activity, some retailers still consider the current fines to be merely a cost of doing business. This is unacceptable. We are determined to establish fine levels that will serve as a real deterrent to retailers who persist in breaking the law.

Taken together, these four changes -- including federal convictions to calculate when a suspension is imposed, increasing the length of suspension periods, requiring suspension notices be posted and creating additional offences and heavier fines -- significantly strengthen the deterrent effects of the Tobacco Sales Act and provide greater protection against the sale of tobacco to young people.

In closing, I ask for the support of the entire House for these amendments. The health of young British Columbians continues to be one of our most vital resources. The amendments I'm bringing forward today will, first and foremost, help us protect their health, now and in the future. I move second reading of the bill.

[7:45]

[ Page 10708 ]

When we had a technical briefing we asked for the so-called tobacco strategy. We asked for the framework and the plan, the implementation of this strategy. It's very loosely defined, and we were told there's no document to describe that strategy. So I am very skeptical about the reasons for bringing about the changes that the government is introducing. I guess one reason I'm very skeptical is because the NDP put out a fundraising letter to their membership in which they introduced a flyer that very clearly had on its cover: "They're pushers in pinstripes. They target 12-year-old children. We've got to stop them." What was interesting was that this fundraising letter for the NDP piggybacked onto the government's tobacco strategy in a fundraising attempt. . . .

G. Plant: That was a coincidence.

S. Hawkins: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston says: "That's a coincidence." Well, I don't think it's a coincidence. I've been around for a little while now, and I guess I'm a little cynical or skeptical. They mailed this package to thousands of members, soliciting funds to help the government -- to help the NDP -- fight the big tobacco companies and help children. But you know what? It's not clear in their letter whether any of the funds they collect from the NDP fundraising drive actually go -- if even a penny of it goes -- into helping stop our children from smoking. I don't think a penny of it goes to any of the initiatives in the so-called tobacco strategy. I think that's very misleading, and just the tone of the letter, the pitch for money. . . . Here it is; I'm quoting from the flyer: "Please complete your reply form today to let me know how you feel about the NDP's leadership. We are the only party showing this kind of leadership in Canada. So we urge you to make a donation to the NDP as a sign of your support on this very crucial initiative."

They go on and try to associate the in political opponents with the big tobacco companies. How fair is that? Again, what I think I'm seeing here, and what I don't like, is not a real effort to stop people from smoking or to help children to not make that choice. What I think I'm seeing is politicizing a very important issue. Frankly, I don't like that.

The problem with tobacco addiction is that if we really care about it, we could really do something about it. But the problem with tobacco addiction with this government is that I don't think they're really doing anything to help people stop smoking. If they really wanted to help people stop smoking -- and I raised these issues in the Health estimates last year, when the first piece of legislation came out under the tobacco strategy last year. . . . The single most effective thing that the health care system can do is help smokers stop smoking. If this government was serious about helping smokers to stop smoking, the single most effective smoking cessation strategy, clinically, is the application of the transdermal nicotine replacement therapy, commonly known as the patch. There's a couple of patches; I think we've heard the names of two: Nicoderm and Habitrol are a couple. They're not covered as a benefit under Pharmacare. If we were really serious about trying to help people and trying to reduce the cost to the health care system, as this government says their tobacco strategy is aimed at doing, would we not cover that kind of thing under the health care system? They're relatively cheap, and the benefits are relatively great. But it's not covered there.

The next most effective smoking cessation strategy is the use of oral nicotine resins, or the nicotine gums. I know people have heard about them too. The stronger ones are by prescription. And Pharmacare doesn't cover that either. If the government was really serious about helping people stop smoking, I would think initiatives like that might come forward; but they don't.

In fact, the government collects about $400 million or $450 million -- almost half a billion dollars -- from tobacco taxes, but very little of it goes back to helping patients and people stop smoking. I question whether the government really wants people to stop smoking. We know that smoking is the leading cause of preventable premature death in our society. I would personally and vigorously support measures directed at reducing the prevalence of tobacco use in our society, and I would personally and vigorously support measures to help educate children and people to choose healthy lifestyles. I have serious reservations about what the pieces of legislation we see coming forward are actually going to do to help people to stop smoking.

Back to the bill. There are some concerns with the bill. We did speak to some of the retailers. There are some concerns I'd like to just outline in second reading, and we'll take them up in committee.

Just as a little case history or a little story. . . . In my town, we are fortunate that an organization named Operation ID -- which is a Canadian coalition of responsible tobacco retailers funded by the tobacco companies -- has set up a project whereby they've set up Operation ID school zones. The school zone pilot project in my community will target all tobacco retailers within one and a half miles of middle and secondary schools within city limits and 26 other outlets in the central Okanagan. The program is budgeted at $1.5 million, and they are hoping to educate retailers to not sell to minors. Retailers understand that there is a serious problem there, and they are proactively working in our communities to deal with that problem.

Kelowna was chosen as a pilot project, and I'm very happy about that. They are training managers and younger clerks, and they hopefully will use this community as an example for creating a zero tolerance program where retailers won't be able to sell to minors -- period. Taxpayers are paying nothing for this program. This is being funded by the retailers and the tobacco companies, and I wish them all success.

When I speak to children about whether. . . . I know there's advertising on TV, and some of it is good -- some of the posters are good -- and children look at that. But there are some inconsistencies around what's actually happening and what we'd like to have happen. Frankly, children under 19 are allowed to work in retail stores. They're allowed to sell cigarettes, but they're not allowed to buy them. There's a bit of an inconsistency there, and the retailers recognize that. It's illegal to sell cigarettes to minors, but it isn't legal for minors to buy or to smoke cigarettes.

Problem number two, which the retailers and the children point out to me, is that high schools condone smoking by having smoking areas. The minister and the government are proposing a bill that will post a sign in retail outlets that says: "We are not allowed to sell, because we sold to minors"; yet in

[ Page 10709 ]

Problem number three: bootlegging isn't illegal. If it's illegal to sell, why shouldn't it be illegal to buy? High schools have a big problem. Bootlegging is people of age, being the middle person, going and buying the cigarettes and then selling them to under-age people. There's very little being done about that. So those are the kinds of concerns that children and retailers have brought up and wanted me to pass on.

As far as the signage provisions that are in the bill, well, I'm not sure we're convinced on this side of the House, in the opposition that I sit in, that the infringement on privacy and civil liberties produced by the sign provisions is necessary to achieve the public policy goals that Bill 28 tries to address. What the minister is saying is that this will stop children from smoking, this will stop retailers from selling, this will take away the product from retail stores, and we should see a reduction in children smoking and in children illegally buying. I don't know if it will do that. I don't know if the minister has hard data to verify that. We will follow that up in committee as well.

Should the government be doing more? Yes. In the government's own funded group, called the therapeutics initiative, there is a "Therapeutics Letter." Letter No. 21 -- I found it on the Internet -- is "Effective Clinical Tobacco Intervention." In their own letter, in their conclusion, they talk about the challenge to health care professionals and what we can be doing to help people. It says: ". . .offer to the smokers who are ready to quit, behavioral and pharmacological treatment and follow-up." None of that is funded right now by government. The government takes in almost half a billion dollars, but funds almost nothing -- I should say funds nothing -- in trying to help people to quit smoking. It's a huge impact. The minister recognizes it herself. She says in information that she's distributed through the press that the impact on smoking-related diseases on the health care system is around $400 million. The government takes in $450 million in taxes, yet very little of that money -- or none of that money -- goes into getting the people who are in the health care system to quit smoking. I think we could start there if we wanted to reduce the cost to the health care system and help people make healthy choices and quit smoking.

There were other initiatives. Every year I see the member for Burnaby-Edmonds introduce a bill called the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act -- a wonderful initiative. It's supported on both sides of this House. It's the government that must bring those bills forward for debate in order to have this House engage in debate and decide whether we will give that bill approval and pass that bill. But you know what? That bill has never been called for debate. What that bill does is ban the sale of flavoured chewing tobacco -- cherry-flavoured tobacco, strawberry-flavoured tobacco. We know that flavour is added to the tobacco products to entice our children. It makes it more tasty. We know that chewing tobacco causes cancer of the mouth.

With all credit due to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, he brings that bill forward every year. It's two years in a row now that I've seen him do it. I would love to see that bill come up for debate. I would love to see the government pick up his initiative and put it in one of the pieces of legislation or pass it as it is. I think that's great. We should ban flavoured tobacco. Those are the kinds of little things we can do that would have a huge impact, but government's chosen not to do that.

[8:00]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the Minister of Health to close debate.

Hon. P. Priddy: I will do this fairly quickly, because I know that there are a number of these questions that we will have a chance to pursue more extensively in committee.

It's important to remember that this bill is one part of a larger initiative. Nobody is saying that by this bill only, we will cause all children to not start smoking or to be able to stop. What we are saying is that if you can prevent tobacco from being sold to children in retail stores by whatever means -- deterrents, fines, suspensions, pressure. . . . I saw a sign in a store. As people know, because I say it every time I have an opportunity, I am the grandmother of a two-and-a-half-year-old. If I saw my local store with a sign like that, I would go to other places for whatever products I needed. That would be a real deterrent for me to shop there.

What this does is say that at a retail level, you cannot -- there will be significant deterrents -- sell tobacco to children. This isn't about adults. The costs are about adults in the end, but this is about children, those children who either have not started or may have started and we can get them to stop. We know that of all the people who start smoking before the age of 19, 80 percent will be addicted and 50 percent of those will die. That means 50 percent of 80 percent of the kids smoking in this province today will die of a tobacco-related illness. We have to put in every measure we can, and every one of those starts to make some difference.

We will probably talk more about prevention in the next bill, but it is not accurate to say that this government does not spend any money on prevention. Two and a half years ago, I think the government was spending $750,000; we're currently spending $5 million on initiatives around prevention, and we can spend significantly more.

I'm hoping very much that everybody will be able to support this. There may be items for discussion, but I believe that in the end everybody will understand that this is a part of the continuum that protects our children.

I move second reading of the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1998.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Bill 28, Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1998, 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 second reading of Bill 29.

[ Page 10710 ]

TOBACCO FEE ACT
(second reading)

I spoke earlier of the economic impact on the province as the result of tobacco-related illness, and the health care cost is in excess of $1.3 billion per year. This act establishes a requirement that tobacco companies must, every year, register and pay an annual licence fee for the right to sell their tobacco products in British Columbia. If a licence is not obtained, the act includes a prohibition on the sale by wholesalers and retailers of the products of the tobacco company. The total revenue from licence fees in this fiscal year is set at $20 million. In future years the amount will be set by government regulation. The total revenue will be apportioned among the tobacco companies according to the size of their market share in British Columbia. In other words, the more a particular tobacco company contributes to the problem, the more responsibility they have to contribute to the solution.

The tobacco industry may say that the imposition of a fee is unfair, or that the total fee revenue is set much too high, or that they already pay their share of taxes. First, tobacco companies do not pay their share of taxes. Most taxes on tobacco products are paid by individual smokers in British Columbia, not the tobacco companies. The companies pay some corporate income taxes and a modest health promotion charge at the federal level. That's all. Giving tobacco companies credit for taxes that smokers pay on cigarettes is a bit like giving the oil companies credit for taxes that drivers pay on gasoline. Let's be honest. Taxation is really a red herring, thrown out by an industry that has spent decades trying to hide the truth about this. Let me be clear: this new licence fee requirement is not a tax. The legislation specifies that the licence fee revenue will be used to fund the cost to the government of developing and implementing our comprehensive strategy for reducing tobacco consumption in British Columbia. We have already done a lot in this area in the last two or three years, and we intend to and need to do a lot more.

[8:15]

There's another way to look at this fee, too. Broadcasters, telephone companies, radio stations and other businesses pay for the costs of regulating their industries through licence fees. If B.C. Tel has to pay a licence fee to cover the costs associated with it doing business in the province, why shouldn't Imperial Tobacco be subject to the same requirement? The answer to that question is also very obvious. When the federal government imposed a health promotion surcharge on the tobacco industry in 1994, the tobacco companies used it as a reason or an excuse to raise their wholesale prices, and industry profits have risen 50 percent -- a 50 percent increase in profits over the past four years. Well, we don't intend to let that happen here. Tobacco companies will not be allowed to simply pass on the cost of their licence fees to the consumer in the form of higher product prices.

This legislation will provide the government with the legal authority, if necessary, to impose limits on the prices at which tobacco products are sold in British Columbia and to recover from the tobacco companies any increased revenue they receive as a result of attempting to pass the cost of the fee onto consumers. If it becomes apparent that tobacco companies are trying to pass on the cost of licence fees to consumers, the government will have the ability to order a freeze on tobacco product prices. We hope that taking this drastic step will not be necessary, and I don't believe it will be. We hope the tobacco companies will obey the laws of a province from which they take tens of millions of dollars in profits every year. But if they don't, we will not hesitate to take decisive action under the provisions of this act to ensure compliance by tobacco companies or to prevent unlicensed tobacco companies from selling their products here in British Columbia.

This act provides for the appointment of a director to administer the licensing and price regulation processes. For the purposes of enforcement, the director will have the power to appoint inspectors and auditors to examine the records and premises of businesses involved in the selling of tobacco products. If the government orders that tobacco product prices be regulated, the director will also have the power to hold hearings on prices and to decrease prices if it is found that they include some or all of the cost of a licence fee. If prices are regulated, tobacco companies will have a very limited opportunity to apply for price increases that do not include the cost of licence fees. They will have to bear the burden of proof to prove that there is a necessity to raise their price. Under this legislation, the government will also have the power to apply for injunctions to prevent unlicensed tobacco companies from selling in British Columbia or to order compliance with the price regulation provisions.

Hon. Speaker, I have two amendments to this bill. The first amendment simply extends the date by which an initial application for a licence must be filed. The bill presently specifies August 31 of this year. We've modified this to indicate that it will come into force 30 days after the act comes into force, just so that we give people due notice. The second amendment provides that an appeal of certain decisions of the director in relation to price controls may be taken by a tobacco manufacturer to the British Columbia Supreme Court. This provision is consistent with other appeals authorized under the bill.

[ Page 10711 ]

S. Hawkins: I'm pleased to rise in debate on second reading of Bill 29, the Tobacco Fee Act. I agree that the government should be doing something for the people of British Columbia. But you know what? I don't know if this bill is going to do anything for the people of British Columbia. When I looked at this bill, I couldn't believe some of the sections in it.

Again, I do believe that smoking is addictive. I know the harm it can cause people in our province. I know that. I was a nurse in the public health system for years. I was a cancer nurse; I worked at two major cancer centres in western Canada. I know that, and I know what kind of real efforts we should be taking to help people to either stop smoking or not even start smoking. I don't think a bill like this achieves any of those goals. Frankly, I don't believe that the way to reduce teen smoking is to create a price-control bureaucracy, but that's what the NDP is doing through this bill. Price controls have never worked. They have been tried many times before, and price increases are inevitably passed on to the consumer. That's concern number one. I don't think that that would work.

The bill creates a whole new bureaucracy and lots of red tape. This bill creates a director of licences and fees. Through this bureaucracy, he issues licences, calculates and imposes licence fees, sets price controls, suspends and cancels licences, hears appeals and appoints inspectors and auditors. My goodness, it's more red tape from a government that said they were trying to reduce red tape.

The most concerning part of this bill is that it collects $20 million from the licensees, the tobacco companies. The government says that this $20 million is going to offset the cost of their tobacco reduction strategy to help the people of B.C. We asked for this strategy at the technical briefing, but we didn't get it. The bureaucracy wasn't aware that there was a document or a framework that they could give us to show us where this $20 million would go. There's no line item in the Health estimates that says $20 million is going to be spent on a tobacco strategy to improve the health of British Columbians. There is nothing like that. How do we know it's $20 million we need? We asked how they calculated that number. They weren't able to give us that information either.

The most disturbing part is that the government wants us to take their assurance that that $20 million is going to be spent on tobacco reduction strategies for British Columbians. They want us to take their assurance. They're promising that's going to happen. You know what? There is not one provision in this bill that says that they have to put in that $20 million; in fact, the provision in the bill says that money goes into general revenue.

You know what? I don't trust the government. Call me cynical. I don't trust the government to spend that money on tobacco reduction strategies. The member for Okanagan-Penticton must agree with me, because he's got an amendment on the order paper specifying that the $20 million be put into trust so that it will be spent on tobacco reduction strategies.

Again, the bill is badly drafted. There are lots of loopholes. There is a lot of bureaucracy and red tape. There is no guarantee that the money is going to go anywhere except into general revenue; that's what's in the bill. Frankly, the government says that they're targeting tobacco companies that have 5 percent or more of the market share. Well, there's nothing to stop corporations from refiguring themselves to become less than 5 percent of market share and avoid paying the fees. There's nothing to stop them from doing that.

I don't know what this piece of legislation is trying to achieve, because I don't think that it's going to achieve the public policy that this government says is behind this bill, which is to stop people from smoking. Price controls aren't going to work. The $20 million that the government says they're going to collect is going to general revenue. We asked for a document or something from the government that outlines their tobacco strategy and the costs associated. We got nothing. So I am very, very skeptical. The government is politicizing a very serious public health issue -- to my mind a very, very serious public health issue.

The members know how I feel about that, because just a few minutes ago I showed an NDP fundraiser that hopes to tag onto the end of this strategy and raise money for the NDP for their own fundraising purposes. Frankly, I find that appalling. That is what I think are really the goals of this legislation. It's for political purposes and not really for the purpose of helping people to stop smoking or helping our children to not start smoking or educating people on healthy lifestyle choices. This bill does none of that. With that, I'll close my comments on second reading.

Hon. P. Priddy: We know we will get into more of this discussion at committee stage, but I have just a couple of comments here. One of them is that on my side of the House, my party is quite used to receiving fundraising letters on a regular basis. Perhaps other parties don't do that. My members get them on an extremely regular basis. I see nothing wrong with either the Liberal opposition or our government bragging to our own party members about the work that we do.

S. Hawkins: Not a penny goes to the kids.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the member realizes perfectly well she's not categorizing that correctly. Are we proud of what we do as a government? You bet we're proud of what we do as a government for kids and smoking. We will brag about it anywhere we have the opportunity to do so.

Now, the member mentioned -- and we can go into this at committee -- where the $20 million came from. . . . I don't know why people couldn't tell her. I can tell her. We estimated how much tobacco companies spend on promoting their product in British Columbia. Now, if it turns out that tobacco companies spend less than $20 million promoting their product -- as they say -- then all they have to do is show us their books, and the fee won't be $20 million. It will be whatever it is they spend on promoting tobacco in British Columbia. It could conceivably be less than that. But we have got to do more prevention than we're doing now. I guess it's easy enough to say: "You should just spend more on that part." Well, we hear a lot about spending more here, here, here and here. We're already spending $1.3 billion on the costs related to tobacco. Let's let the people who are profiting by $100 million in this province every year contribute with us as partners to not addict, to not make sick and to not destroy the lives of children in this province.

[8:30]

[ Page 10712 ]

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 29.

Second reading of Bill 29 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Lovick	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Sihota
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
	G. Wilson

 

NAYS -- 22
Plant	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Whittred	Jarvis
Anderson	McKinnon	Penner
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hogg
Hawkins	Coleman	Stephens
Thorpe	Symons	van Dongen
Barisoff	Dalton	Masi
	J. Wilson

Bill 29, Tobacco Fee Act, 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: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 30.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

TOBACCO DAMAGES RECOVERY AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the important topic of tobacco reduction strategies again this evening, and in Bill 30 we're really talking about the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act. This bill is another important step in our government's strategy. It's a building of pieces of strategy to change the way tobacco companies do business in British Columbia. In particular, this legislation supports our government's intent to make the tobacco industry accountable for the harm its products cause to the health of British Columbians and for the cost of treating tobacco-caused illnesses.

Each year nearly 6,000 British Columbians -- mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, friends, co-workers -- die; 6,000 people die, and thousands more become ill or incapacitated as a result of tobacco use. Tobacco is a harmful product. In fact, it is a product that if used exactly as intended, is likely to kill you. B.C. spends nearly half a billion dollars yearly in health care costs alone to treat smoking-related diseases.

Internal tobacco industry documents suggest that tobacco companies spend millions of dollars on marketing and promotion to enlist new replacement smokers, as they call them -- replacement smokers is the phrase the tobacco company uses; we've seen that from the court cases -- and to dissuade smokers from quitting. Children and all British Columbians have a right to be protected from a highly addictive substance that may kill or injure those who use it. There has to be greater accountability on the part of the tobacco industry for its products. A new legal strategy was adopted in B.C. last year to introduce such accountability.

Last July this Legislature passed the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act. Under this act, smokers may bring individual lawsuits. They may also bring class actions. The Tobacco Damages Recovery Act also authorizes the provincial government to sue the tobacco companies to recover health care costs attributable to smoking-related diseases. This is a new departure in Canadian tort law, the area of law that deals with claims for wrongful action.

The legislation passed a year ago permits the province to bring a tort claim in the aggregate. This is an innovation. The law of torts has grown up on the basis of individual claims related to individual wrongs. Even class actions are, in truth, individual actions in such cases. Certain issues may be tried and the results may be binding to all members of the class, but damages must be assessed for each member of the class.

The name of the act has been amended to make it clear that the government's direct action is for the recovery of the costs of health care benefits which the government has incurred in the treatment of tobacco-related disease. Claims for personal injuries or death arising as a result of a tobacco-related disease can continue to be brought by individuals, and we are now seeing more and more of those cases. There's quite a precedent-setting one in Florida that is currently going on. The act also contains a number of amendments that distinguish between a claim for damages by individuals and a claim for the cost of health care benefits incurred by the government.

Since 1994 in the United States, more than 40 states have lodged legal action to enable state governments to recover health care costs attributable to smoking. The tobacco companies have settled prior to the commencement of a trial in Mississippi, Florida and Texas. The only suit by a state government which has actually gone to trial is a claim by Minnesota. This spring the tobacco companies settled before that trial concluded but after it began -- not before it started -- for $6.8 billion, payable over 25 years. The state of Washington's lawsuit goes to trial this coming September, 1998, and Oregon's lawsuit will proceed in 1999. Some state legislatures have passed legislation to allow lawsuits by state governments to recover tobacco-related health care costs.

The act we passed last year and these amendments are based in large part on similar legislation passed in various states in the U.S., such as Florida, Vermont and Maryland. While British Columbia is the very first province in Canada to introduce such an act, the legislation is certainly not unprecedented.

I will describe the elements of the key changes which are being made to the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act. Although

[ Page 10713 ]

An important change involves shifting the burden of proof in relation to certain aspects of cause or causation. At trial, the government must initially prove three elements of the case: first, that the tobacco industry breached a legal duty, such as the failure to warn of dangers inherent in tobacco use or such as sale of a defective product; second, that exposure to tobacco products causes disease; and third, that the defendant manufacturers sold tobacco in this province.

Once these elements are proven, the burden shifts to the tobacco companies. It will then be their obligation to show that their breach of a legal duty did not cause or did not contribute to any or all of the costs of health care which were incurred. Now, if the tobacco industry can prove that any breach of duty which may have occurred did not cause or contribute to the health care costs incurred by the province -- for example, because teenagers would have taken up smoking anyway, which is what they say, and those already smoking would have kept on smoking -- then the industry will escape liability.

[8:45]

Hon. Speaker, another important feature of these amendments is to clarify what constitutes an aggregate claim. The government is authorized to bring a direct claim for health care costs that have been provided or will be provided to residents of the province who have suffered disease as the result of exposure to tobacco products. In that regard, the amendments also establish that in an aggregate claim it is not necessary to identify specific individuals or to present evidence on an individual basis. Proof of such an aggregate claim will rely on statistical and epidemiological evidence which is derived from the population as a whole.

I should point out that such use of statistical and epidemiological evidence is not novel; this kind of evidence is introduced on a regular basis in the courts by individuals claiming damages for their injuries. In view of the special nature of an aggregate action, it's essential to introduce some procedural modifications. Examination and production of documents relating to individuals will be limited to a statistically meaningful sample of those documents. Fairness is ensured by giving the court the discretion to determine what is statistically meaningful. So it will be at the discretion of the court to know what is a meaningful sample of documents. At trial, all documents relied on by any expert witness called by either the government or a defendant must be produced. Privacy of individuals will be protected by requiring the government to delete any personal identification from all information which is disclosed.

Another important set of changes involves the corporate structure of the tobacco industry. The nature of these changes is to broaden the definition of what constitutes a tobacco "manufacturer," and to widen the linkages to related companies. The effect of these changes is to establish a more accurate and realistic description of what constitutes a tobacco manufacturer. Provisions have been added to ensure that various corporate entities which effectively own, control, are related to or have a substantial interest in the manufacture, promotion or sale of tobacco products will be subject to this legislation.

Any legal entity, whether in the form of an affiliate, a joint venture, a trust, a partnership or some other arrangement which has a beneficial interest in a corporation which produced, promoted or sold tobacco products that may give rise to a claim under the legislation will not be able to avoid liability behind some kind of corporate veil.

One further change involves the extent of liability of an individual manufacturer. These amendments establish a presumption that when the government presents its case against a manufacturer, the manufacturer will be liable for the proportion of health care costs equivalent to its share of the market for that product. However, it will be open to the manufacturer to show that such apportionment is unfair, if that's what they believe, or does not accurately reflect its contribution to exposure and disease. This presumption is a reasonable one, and in fact was the basis agreed upon for apportioning liability for health care costs among tobacco companies in the Minnesota court case, which was resolved for $6.8 billion.

The proposed amendments are prompted by developments since the act was passed last year. At the time, it seemed, based on revelations in documents obtained from the tobacco industry, that a consensus had been reached that nicotine is addictive. In 1994, in sworn statements before a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, CEOs of five U.S. tobacco companies swore that they did not believe nicotine to be addictive. A year ago it was thought that the tobacco companies would abandon that position.

Since that time, however, ambiguous statements by CEOs of the five main tobacco companies in the United States, testifying in January of this year before a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, have placed this in doubt. In a statement to the committee, Geoffrey Bible, chairman of Philip Morris, declined to adopt the view expressed in the U.S. Surgeon General's report that tobacco is addictive. Apparently the industry believes that it's merely habit-forming; moreover, they apparently do not concede that tobacco can increase the likelihood of specific diseases in smokers.

To provide just a bit more background as I move towards conclusion. . . . Then came the Minnesota case. This is in fact the only case which has actually gone to trial. At trial the counsel for B.A.T. Industries PLC continued the rhetoric engaged in by the tobacco industry, suggesting: "Well, you know, there's some controversy about health hazards associated with the use of tobacco products," and "Tobacco products are not addictive."

This position has been maintained despite the report of the U.S. Surgeon General ten years ago, which found that tobacco is addictive, and despite even earlier Surgeon General reports which confirmed the health hazards associated with the use of tobacco products. The industry now says that tobacco is not addictive.

The resources of the tobacco companies in many respects, as we know, exceed those of governments. They say they've been conducting scientific research for decades. Well, this will provide an opportunity for them to bring it forward. The issue of addiction lies at the heart of the controversy over tobacco.

[ Page 10714 ]

"Project 16," which was done in 1977 as a report for Imperial Tobacco, studies attitudes to smoking in 16- and 17-year-olds. The study says this about its purpose: "Since how the beginning smoker feels today" -- those are the 16-year-olds -- "has implications for the future of the industry, it follows that a study of this area would be of much interest." "Project 16" was to learn about how smoking begins, how high school students feel about smokers, and how they foresee their use of tobacco in the future. This is a report that targets children, to figure out how we get more children to use tobacco. It was over 20 years ago that that research was conducted.

"Project Plus-Minus" was another report prepared by the same firm for Imperial Tobacco in 1987. So now we're ten years later. It followed up on "Project 16" and included males and females 16 to 24. The study was designed to examine why young people smoke and included probing the areas of quitting. They were very concerned about why young smokers were quitting. They wanted to know why. The study found that starters -- kids just starting -- no longer disbelieved the dangers of smoking, but they almost universally assume that these risks will not apply to themselves and that they won't become addicted. Once addiction does take place, it becomes necessary for the smoker to make peace with the accepted hazards, and this is obviously done by a wide range of rationalizations.

We've learned a lot, even in the last year. We've learned of the revelations from Minnesota earlier this year. So what is the significance of that? The significance is that research shows that if young people start to smoke before age 19 -- and children in this province are smoking as young as eight on a regular basis -- it's likely they will become long-term adult smokers. The industry has targeted these very young children and teenagers. Why do teenagers, once they take it up, continue to smoke as adults? We believe it's because nicotine is addictive. The companies say no. Well, they'll now have the opportunity to bring forward their research and show evidence that says: "No, no, no, people continue to smoke because they want to, not because nicotine is addictive."

Have the marketing activities of tobacco companies and their product caused or contributed to exposure to smoking? If the companies' marketing activities and their products have not resulted in anyone taking up smoking or continuing to smoke, it's appropriate to ask them to prove it. They introduced the commodity into the stream of commerce. If it turns out the tobacco manufacturers knew all along it was addictive, then the onus should be on them to establish that the nature of the commodity and their marketing didn't affect the behaviour of people who are now smoking.

In conclusion, the province will contend that the tobacco companies target young smokers to replace those who die or quit. That's what they're called; they're called replacement smokers. The province will also contend that any argument based on free choice cannot be sustained, because 90 percent of smokers are recruited at an age when most of them are not old enough to make a free and informed choice. All of these issues will have to await the judgments of the court.

The Tobacco Damages Recovery Amendment Act is an innovation in this country and is being looked at seriously by other provinces. The most serious attempt to enlist the justice system in the cause of public health by any province is in British Columbia. For all of these reasons, I ask for the support of the entire House for the amendments to the act as set out in Bill 30.

S. Hawkins: I 'm pleased to rise in debate of Bill 30, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Amendment Act. Last year the government introduced this legislation to allow the government to sue the tobacco industry as a means of recovering the costs of tobacco-associated illnesses in the health care system. Last year I asked the same question and didn't get the reassurance that any money recovered from this lawsuit would actually be put back into the health care system. The then Minister of Health, who's the Minister of Finance, and the Premier both couldn't give that commitment. They couldn't give that commitment, and they said the money was going into general revenue.

So I question again the reasons for bringing forward legislation like this. I question how sincere the government is, because the minister stands up and says the tobacco companies deny that smoking is addictive. But you know what? We all know it's addictive. The government knows smoking is addictive. The minister says that. The government allows it as a legal product -- allows it to be bought and sold -- and the government profits from it. This province takes in $450 million -- almost half a billion dollars -- a year in profit from taxes on tobacco. If it's such a bad product and it's causing such bad things to people in the province, why does the government feel it has to sue? What other actions can the government take to make it healthier for people to live in B.C.? Are there other things the government could be doing? I don't know. But we didn't oppose this legislation last year; the government can have this legislation this year.

I would like to see a commitment from this minister and this Premier that any profits that come out of the lawsuit will actually go back into the health care system to provide for the patients who are suffering the ill effects that this minister stands up and talks to us about.

But you know, I've been here a couple of years now. I hate to be cynical, but this government that talks about an anti-addiction strategy in cigarette smoking shows its very evident hypocrisy. This is the same government that says it's going to reduce addiction in one area -- cigarette smoking -- yet has gone ahead with a massive, massive gaming expansion and is going to increase gambling addiction. So I'm finding it hard to juxtapose the two in trying to figure out what this government's anti-addiction strategy really is.

[9:00]

I want to quote from the party fundraiser that Brian Gardiner, who's the NDP provincial secretary, sent out. It talks about this tobacco legislation. The sheet says:

[ Page 10715 ]

"The B.C. government plans to sue the tobacco industry for half a billion dollars a year to treat the health problems they cause. And when we win this case" -- "we" meaning the NDP and the government -- "it'll help to improve health care for all British Columbians."

"And when we win this case, it'll help to improve health care for all British Columbians. And it'll hurt tobacco companies in the only way they care about -- financially."

"But our most effective strategy is to prevent cigarette makers from addicting our children.

"I believe our four-part attack on the tobacco industry's policy will save many kids from tobacco addiction [by] legal action against tobacco companies, enhanced school-based prevention programs, hard-hitting public awareness messages, heavier fines and tougher enforcement of tobacco sales regulations.

"And please send your donation to the NDP today, so we can continue to provide leadership on this and other crucial health issues. Thank you.

"Sincerely,
Brian Gardiner"

"P.S. The B.C. NDP is the only party in Canada that has taken such strong measures to protect young children. Please let me know if you support our initiatives and please send your donation to help our work. Thanks."

I think it's very important that people do understand that smoking is an addiction. I know every member on this side of the House does understand that. We need to make sure that we provide programs and a smoking strategy that really deal with the health of British Columbians -- some real prevention strategies for people, not just looking at ways to bring more money into government because we're cash-strapped. We know the government had that problem last year with respect to two balanced budgets that weren't there, and we know that the same problem exists this year. Again, I get a little cynical about why we're embarking down this road, but those may be some of the reasons. We hope that we do get a commitment this year, and I'm sure we'll discuss it in committee stage -- that the money indeed will go back into the health care system to help those people and to help the health care system deal with the impact of tobacco related diseases. We hope that some of that money will go into real strategies to help people make healthy lifestyle choices. We need education strategies, we need prevention strategies, we need counselling strategies and we need therapeutic and treatment strategies around these issues. As I mentioned in response to other bills, if the government really wanted to do something, there are things the government could do: effecting smoking cessation strategies through nicotine replacement therapy, nicotine gum or smoking cessation programs. But we don't see any of this coming through from the government. In fact, I mentioned before that we have asked the government for an implementation framework, a budget for their tobacco strategy, and we've received none.

We have other concerns around the changes in the legislation, the way it stands this year, and I'm sure we'll raise those concerns in committee as well. At this time, I'd like to say that I don't oppose this bill, and I don't think members on this side of the House are going to oppose this bill. But I do have serious concerns about the way this bill is written, the way this bill is presented and the party politicking around this very serious issue.

Hon. P. Priddy: Just a few comments in closing. If we could divert the dollars spent -- because this is what the Tobacco Damages Recovery Amendment Act is about -- and if we could recover or not have to spend those kinds of dollars on tobacco-related illnesses, the other things we would be able to do within our health care system around wait-times and things for children and all kinds of other programs that would make a huge difference in communities would be quite extraordinary. This government would gladly forgo any tobacco tax revenue if all tobacco sales stopped in B.C., with the subsequent improvement of health care and quality of life to citizens of British Columbia. That would be more than worth it to this government.

I was not part of the debate last year, and I'd be surprised if the Premier and the minister said that we would not devote the dollars from the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act to health care, but I want to assure the hon. member that we absolutely will. Money recovered from the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act will be directed towards the health care of British Columbians. That's what it's for, that's why we're doing it, and that's exactly where it should go. And that is what we will do.

This is about being able to compensate this government for the costs it spends on tobacco-related illnesses, to be able to have additional dollars to support people with those illnesses and to improve the health care system in this province. That is its sole and only purpose, and that's what we will do when this legislation passes. I move second reading of Bill 30.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Bill 30, Tobacco Damages Recovery Amendment Act, 1998, 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 second reading of Bill 38.

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1998
(second reading)

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

This bill amends the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Teachers) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act, the Pension (Municipal) Act and the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act. This bill will ensure that same-sex couples covered by most B.C. public sector pension plans will soon be eligible for spousal benefits. These amendments will extend pension benefits for public sector workers to all couples in

[ Page 10716 ]

[9:15]

With this initiative, the people of British Columbia ask the federal government to update its legislation -- in particular, its income tax legislation -- and challenge the other provinces of Canada to move forward with us to end discrimination based on sexual orientation. That concludes my brief remarks.

G. Plant: Those were brief remarks. I suppose it's the prerogative of government that the minister introducing the bill gets to make brief remarks and reserve his right to say whatever he wants to say until the conclusion of debate. That's fair enough.

A year ago, we were here to debate certain changes to the Family Relations Act. Those changes expanded the web of obligations that exist upon the breakup of relationships to ensure that those lawful obligations also applied to same-sex couples. In doing that, we took a step towards ensuring that the laws of British Columbia did not violate the constitutional requirement of equality. But the constitutional requirement of equality is more concerned with substance than it is with form. The path that the government chose last year to achieve public policy purposes, which I think all of us in this chamber supported, raised for a number of members an issue of conscience, because for them it trespassed on important personal conceptions of the meaning of marriage and the meaning of spouse.

We in the opposition thought that those were important considerations. I thought they were important considerations. I thought it important to see if we could find a way to achieve the public policy purposes that were at the heart of Bill 31 without tripping over that issue of conscience. That is, could we resolve the public policy problem in a way that brought people together rather than dividing them, in a way that ensured that the requirement, the objective, of achieving equality was met? But at the same time, we tried to see if we could accommodate the concerns that people have with respect to the traditional conception of family and the importance in that context of traditional words.

So I put amendments on the order paper, hon. Speaker. I suggested that we could accommodate all of those competing interests by creating a new term for the purpose of that act, and the new term was "domestic partner." The idea of the amendments was to preserve the word "spouse" for persons in a marriage relationship or in what is traditionally called a common-law relationship and to create this new category of persons -- dependent partners -- in a same-sex relationship. I tried, within the limits of language, to create a definition which I thought honoured the wishes and expectations of persons who are in same-gender relationships and to create some sort of definition that would have the requisite level of certainty that the courts need in order to make these decisions, recognizing that the language used by the government to achieve its objectives was pretty open-ended and itself not very careful.

The amendments then said that all of the obligations which Bill 31, the Family Relations Amendment Act, was going to extend to same-sex couples would in fact be extended to those couples. It would just be done under a different rubric.

The government rejected those amendments, and Bill 31 was enacted in more or less the form that it was originally produced by the government. I can't remember if there were any consequential amendments, but substantially the bill that the government had designed was passed into law.

Around that time, the Attorney General made a commitment -- an important commitment. He said: "You know, this issue of equality is not going to go away. The courts have told us there's a problem with the extent to which our legislation in British Columbia and elsewhere, federally and in other provinces, may or may not offend the constitutional requirements that we treat all people equally and in particular that we not discriminate on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation." The Attorney General said that what he was going to do about that problem was ask the B.C. Law Institute to have a look at all of the statutes of British Columbia -- survey them all to identify all of the places where these potential issues and challenges to legislation on the basis of discrimination might be made.

For a government that says it's committed to the principle of equality, I think that's a pretty reasonable step. Let's go and get the B.C. Law Institute -- a new body, the successor in some respects to the old B.C. Law Reform Commission -- and give it a project. Let's ask the institute to look at the laws of British Columbia, all of them, and to begin to help us understand the ways in which those laws might need to be changed in order to accommodate the requirements of the constitution and in order to respect the basic equality rights of all British Columbians. I want to come back to that project a little later in my remarks.

But what has also happened is that it is a year later, and the government has introduced a bill. This bill, Bill 38, deals with pensions. It makes changes to five public sector pension plans. I want to talk a little bit about what I think those changes really are, because, frankly, I think there is probably less here than meets the eye. There's probably less here than meets the eye, because I think that some of the people who are concerned about the issue of fair treatment for same-sex partners in relationships have not spent perhaps as much time as they could have trying to understand what is actually being done here in terms of the technical requirements, the technical parts of pension legislation.

It isn't going to make for riveting dramatic rhetoric, but I want to spend a minute or two just explaining what I think is actually happening here. I could pick as an example any of the five pension plans that are amended in this bill. I will choose the Pension (Public Service) Act. The first thing we need to see about the Pension (Public Service) Act is something that is common to each of the five pension plans being amended here. In this case, it's in section 26. Actually, let's do it numerically. Let's do it in section 18. Section 18 talks about pension plans and outlines the kinds of pension plans available for the public servants of British Columbia who are enrolled in pension plans that are subject to this act. Those individuals, those civil servants, have a number of options in terms of the pension plan that's available to them. One of the options is that they can elect a plan called single life, payable for the life

[ Page 10717 ]

It's interesting. I have to admit that the first time I listened to the press releases and the news accounts of what the government was doing here, and I tried to understand what was happening, I thought: "Wow, something really revolutionary is happening here." In fact, maybe it's the law in British Columbia that public servants have no opportunity in their pension plans to create a joint survivor pension plan for anybody other than their wife. But that's not the case. In fact, the law as I understand it -- it may be that the Attorney General will correct my understanding, and I would certainly welcome that. . . . But I have talked to some of the people who in fact operate these pension plans, and they tell me that I'm pretty darn close to the truth. The fact is that the law now is that if you are a member of a public sector pension plan under the Pension (Public Service) Act of British Columbia, you can choose a pension plan option which allows you to nominate any person on the face of the planet Earth to share in that pension benefit. As I understand it, that is the law. You can make that nomination; you can choose anybody you like. I assume the plan operates according to that nomination, but here's an important thing. . . . I could make the point at some length that if that's the law in British Columbia, there's a lot less to this statute than meets the eye. I could begin to wonder whether the government was ever so slightly attempting to mislead the public of British Columbia, who don't know about the details of public sector pension plans, into thinking that they were undertaking a wholesale revolution of public sector pension plans.

[9:30]

I haven't quoted the section exactly, but that's the gist of it. In the section as it's currently worded, the gist of it is that if you're married and you're an employee registered as a member of this particular pension plan, then you are deemed to have elected that 60 percent of your plan will be paid on the joint life and last survivor plan. That is, you can't elect to put all of your pension into the single life plan; you can't elect to put all of your pension into the guaranteed pension plan; you can't put it into some of the other options. Sixty percent of it has to go in the joint life and last survivor plan unless your spouse files a waiver.

In fact, I'm told that it's pretty common in the public sector for a husband and wife to both be public servants -- both be participants in one or another public sector pension plan. I'm told -- and this is anecdotal evidence, but it sounds pretty credible to me -- that in most of those cases waivers are filed, so that most people in the public service are probably in a situation where they have a single life plan or the guaranteed pension plan. Here's the interesting thing in public policy, which is wrapped up in this presumptive entitlement. I think that what the Legislature that enacted this provision was trying to do was protect the position of spouses.

It's trying to protect the position of the person who is married to the public sector employee to ensure that the spouse, as the statute now reads, has some entitlement. If that person survives the death of her or his spouse who was the employee, he or she won't be left destitute. In fact, some arrangements will have been made to ensure that this person gets at least 60 percent -- a share of whatever the pension that is payable when you have at least a 60 percent which is elected and forms part of the joint life and last survivor pension plan.

I'm going to explain how the amendment that the government seeks to make here affects this. I think the kernel of the public policy purpose here is to protect that relationship of interdependency. The law says that there's a purpose in interfering in the private domain of pension plan members to the extent of ensuring that they don't get the option to leave out in the cold people who are dependent on them.

In the traditional marriage, of course -- the relationship that was probably contemplated by the people who designed these schemes -- that situation was a husband who worked and a wife who did not, a husband who could be part of the pension plan and a wife who had no other income, a husband who would have the opportunity to make the election and a wife who had some moral expectation and entitlement to be sure that if something horrible happened -- her husband died and left her, sometimes with kids -- there would be something there for her. I think that idea of dependency, the idea that the law has a legitimate role in this area to protect persons who are dependent on others, is an important and legitimate reason we have this scheme. It is also an important reason for the amendment that the government is introducing, and it is an important reason that this section needs to be amended further in the way contemplated by the amendments I have put on the order paper and, for that matter, that the member for Peace River South has also placed on the order paper. It's that dependency which I think is the issue.

The scheme, as written in this act before amended, protects only people who are married, because the definition of spouse is limited, in my understanding, to the relationship of husband and wife in a marriage. Now, here comes the constitutional argument. The constitutional argument is the argument that to create that special category and entitlement for spouse gives rise to an argument that the law is discriminating against persons in same-gender relationships who are not married to each other. That is, it's wrong for the law -- so goes the argument -- to single out married partners and give them this presumptive entitlement and to not extend the same benefit -- if benefit is the right word -- to partners in same-gender relationships.

In other contexts, specifically in the context of the Income Tax Act of Canada, people have challenged the provisions of that act that do somewhat the same thing in terms of limiting entitlements around pensions to persons in a marriage. The courts, most recently the Ontario Court of Appeal in a decision in April of this year, have said that it is discriminatory for the government of Canada, in the context of pensions, to limit these kinds of entitlements to people who are married. It discriminates on the grounds of sexual orientation. The courts say that's wrong and that has to be fixed.

[ Page 10718 ]

I need to explain the second thing that this bill does -- the second basic aspect of pension plans which are affected by these amendments. Go back to the Pension (Public Service) Act; the section is section 26. It's all about the pensions that are paid to the spouses or beneficiaries of deceased contributors. In effect, I think the term that we're talking about here, which is often used, is pre-retirement death benefits. What happens if a person who's a member of the pension plan dies before retirement? Well, then the pension plans have some arrangements. If you're unmarried, generally speaking, your estate gets a refund of the contributions you made to the pension plan. Generally speaking, that's the approach that's taken in these five acts -- before the amendment.

If you are married, though, your spouse -- your survivor -- gets a bit of a bump up, the pension is deemed to vest, and then the spouse gets survivor benefits. Now, follow the logic again. That arrangement now exists only in respect of people who are married to each other. What this bill does is it seeks to extend that to common-law and same-gender couples. But the theme of dependency, I suggest, is still the pervading theme. What we're trying to do is to ensure that if you have the traditional family situation of a husband who works and a wife who doesn't, a husband who dies before the pension vests. . . . What do we do about the widow?

There is virtually a lifelong commitment to a pension plan. It may be months before the date of retirement, and yet tragedy happens, the husband dies, and what does the wife have? It would be wrong, say the legislators, to deny the wife something like the pension that she and her husband would have had if her husband had only lived just a few months or a few years longer. So what we do to ensure that the widow is protected in that situation is we give people who are married different pension rights in terms of pre-retirement death benefits than we give to single people. And back to the point, what this bill does is it expands the category of people who would be entitled to pre-retirement death benefits to include same-sex and common-law couples.

But you know, one thing that's interesting is that there is, I think, a pretty fundamental unfairness that still exists in that basic structure. Why is it that the person who isn't married or who doesn't really have a relationship that would be recognized even under this expanded definition. . . . Why is it that the estate of that person only gets a refund of premiums, whereas the estate, the beneficiary, the survivor of the person who did have the relationship gets what could conceivably be a much larger amount of money? Although I've been talking about the example of the widow whose husband dies a few weeks or months short of retirement, clearly there may also be other examples where the widow. . . . The widow in my example may be a relatively young person, maybe in her thirties or forties. She may have years to live, and yet if the pension plan contributor was not married, all the estate would get would be a refund of the premiums.

Now, there's a disparity there. This bill doesn't correct that disparity. I think it's an important disparity; I think it's pretty darned unfair. I think it's a pretty darned unfair way to administer a pension plan. But I understand -- and I certainly don't want to say that I have it on any binding authority -- that that disparity may get fixed. That is, the people who are running these public sector pension plans and the people who contribute to them -- the employers, employees -- understand that there's a problem here, and they're going to try to fix it. That will become significant when I talk about the cost implications of the amendments that I'm proposing.

So to sum up part of what I am saying, there are the two things that this bill is about. First of all, it's about the presumptive entitlement of persons who are in dependent relationships with pension plan contributors to ensure that there is something there for them when the contributor dies. It's also about this idea of pre-retirement death benefits. It's not a wholesale revolution of pension plans.

There's been a lot of talk in the press about cost implications. If we were to change the pension plan this way or that way, what would it cost? What I'm told is that if you go back to Section 18 that I looked at earlier, which outlines all of the pension options available to public servants, the actuaries work it out so that each of those plans has essentially the same present-value cost implications. So it doesn't really matter which one you choose; there is really not much difference in the cost.

And I'm told, in fact, that the amendments proposed by the government in this bill will have no cost implications to the taxpayers. The Attorney General himself has made this claim. I think it's the Attorney General who says that these amendments will cost the taxpayer not one red cent. I checked into that, and that's my understanding of it too. That is a point I want to come back to.

[9:45]

We can get there. We can get to the place we want to be and we need to be and that the courts have told us we should be. We can get there without redefining spouse or marriage. I think that the amendments I'm going to talk about in a minute or two show how that could be done.

This bill doesn't take that path. This bill takes a path which I think, in part, is simply dictated by the expedience of the legislative draftsperson who says: "It's much easier to solve this problem of how to ensure that the plans don't discriminate by simply changing the definition of word spouse, and then we can leave most of the rest to the statute intact." The problem with that approach is that it hurts a lot of people who believe very strongly in a particular conception of marriage and, in particular, the conception of the idea of spouse.

[ Page 10719 ]

Here's the challenge: we support the public policy behind the changes to this bill, but for some of us there is a problem with the choice of language. Choice of language raises an issue of conscience, and I respect that viewpoint. I think the one way you can deal with that, recognizing that the government knows of this issue, the government knows of my proposal to amend, the government knows of other ideas for how to improve and deal with this problem. . . . It has not yet said that it will solve the problem that way. We're going to have to vote on this bill in second reading as it is, and for some of my colleagues the issue of conscience is so important that they will probably vote against the bill. Then we will try to amend it and persuade the government that you can get there, you can get to all the right places, without hurting people that don't need to be hurt, people whose views and opinions are legitimate and deserve to be respected.

What I've done -- I won't go on at great length -- is I have resurrected this idea of domestic partner. It may not be the most gracious or elegant term ever written, but I think it's workable and serviceable for the purpose. I think it achieves the objective that we ought to be primarily concerned about here: preserving people who are in a situation of dependency, who are at risk if the persons on whom they are dependent make bad decisions.

I've made one very important change to the definition that I wrote last year. Last year I wrote a definition which talked about relationships in the following way: I said that the relationship had to be close and personal; I said it had to be of primary importance in both person's lives; I said it had to have the attributes of permanence, sharing, interdependence and physical intimacy. Well, the archbishop who has inserted himself into this debate makes the point that the requirement of physical intimacy -- which is actually implied in the government's approach to this -- is probably unfair. It means, for example, that same-gender partners in a non-sexual union may in fact be outside the scope of the government's bill, and I think that would be unfair. It certainly means that people who have lived in lifelong relationships -- say a brother and a sister, a mother or father and a disabled child, those kind of relationships -- will not be caught by this bill. When the employee dies, the persons who are dependent on that person may well be cast out and dependent on the public purse for survival, and I think we should try to avoid that objective here.

What I've done this year is I have taken out the requirement of physical intimacy, and I have left a definition which speaks to relationships which are of primary importance in people's lives, which are permanent, which involve sharing and which involve interdependence. Those are relationships that we can sanction, those are relationships which are worthy of protection, and those are relationships which capture the spirit of the idea of dependency, which is really the reason why these provisions exist in these pension plans in the first place.

I've placed some amendments on the order paper. What the amendments do is they remove discrimination, they enhance freedom of choice, they promote responsibility in dependent relationships and they don't do it in a way that alienates those who have a traditional concept of marriage and spouse.

The Attorney General has said that he's interested in this idea. That's what I read in the press. Now, he hasn't said whether he likes or doesn't like the concept of domestic partner, and we can disagree on terminology, but he has said that he likes the idea of expanding the zone of people who can make these claims. But, he said, one of the problems is that there are cost implications. Well, he's wrong. I've asked, and I am told that there are no cost implications -- none that are significant. The number of people whom we're talking about extending this entitlement to is statistically very, very small. When you are dealing with the presumptive entitlement. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Less than 1 percent, my colleague points out. Remember, I said there are two ways in which this operates. When you are dealing with the first way, which is the presumptive entitlement that arises to ensure that the participant in the plan makes the dependant partner a participant in the joint life and survivor plan to the tune of 60 percent, there's no cost. There's no cost to that, because it doesn't matter how many people choose that option, as opposed to the other options. The actuarial implications are essentially a zero-sum game. There's no cost at all.

Now, let's look at the pre-retirement death benefit. If we were to expand drastically, dramatically, the number of people who could participate in that particular side of the issue, then there might be some cost implications. But there are two points. First of all, we're talking about, I'm told, less than 1 percent. It's not a big group of people; it's a very small group of people. Secondly, we're talking about an aspect of the public sector pension plans which the government is going to change next year. So that's not a problem.

If cost is being used as the Attorney General's reason for not accepting the amendments, I certainly don't want in the slightest for us to be on the hook as advancing an argument that suddenly exposes the public purse of the province to untold millions of dollars of extra costs. But that's not what I'm told. I've even asked the superannuation commissioner and I've asked the former deputy superannuation commissioner: what would be the cost implications of this change? I'm told that they're virtually insignificant. So clearly that's not a reason to oppose the approach we're taking.

If the Attorney General, who has all the legislative counsel and staff at his disposal, can show why there's a problem with a word I've used or with the way the amendments work technically, I'm delighted to enter into a dialogue with him and his staff to see if we can do this in a way which makes good technical sense. There's no pride of authorship here. What we're trying to do is solve a public policy problem.

In conclusion, let me return to something I began my remarks with. I began by talking about the project which the Attorney General created for the B.C. Law Institute when he asked the institute to look at all of the statutes of British Columbia to see, in general terms, how they did or did not offend the requirements of the constitution in terms of equality. The B.C. Law Institute has begun the work on that project. I've got a progress report. It's pretty good; they're doing lots of research. They have identified a whole bunch of issues -- sixteen legal principles and issues -- that are at stake here. There's a range of statutes. The Wills Variation Act is one that

[ Page 10720 ]

Here is my problem: somehow or other, one of these little statutes jumped the queue; that is, this project, which I thought was a sincere and real attempt by government to ensure that we would have a thoughtful, comprehensive, structured and orderly approach to this, might not be that. Because do you know what? The first opportunity for a little. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: You know, the Minister of Advanced Education talks about justice delayed. There may be 30 statutes on the books that break the constitution of Canada. He's not introducing a bill to amend any of them. Get on the bus. Do your job. Don't lecture me about the constitution. Don't lecture me about justice denied. Imagine hearing a lecture about justice denied from a government that runs a provincial court system -- the chief judge of which says is a system in crisis.

There is the seed of doubt in my mind that we may not actually be engaged in a purely high-minded enterprise in principle, that we may not be engaged in an exercise of righting wrongs, of addressing equality and of pursuing public policy purposes. Some might say that if we were truly engaged in that process, we wouldn't have this bill now; we would have a report from the B.C. Law Institute. We might refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform. We might talk about it. We might all agree on the way to solve the problem, but that's not what we're here to do. We're here to take this bill. . . .

I'm certainly prepared to put that question to one side, and I will. I think it's an important issue that is presented by this bill, and it's an issue that deserves to be taken seriously. It is a serious task that we have here: to right wrongs, to ensure that the law achieves its purposes and to do so in a way that brings people together, rather than divides them. I think we can do that here. I invite the Attorney General and his colleagues to study the amendments when we get to the committee stage of the debate on this bill. I hope we have a good discussion about why they might be the solution or why they might not be the solution.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill.

[10:00]

The hon. member says: "Well, here's the challenge. We support public policy, but it's a choice of language." Well, maybe the challenge is trying to deal with a divided caucus on this. That's what it sounded like to me.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, it sounded like that to me. It sounded very tortuous and not to the point. Quite frankly, the member for Richmond-Steveston says that dependence is the issue. We say that equality is the issue. That's the issue we're dealing with. Discrimination is the issue, and this bill sets out to solve that discrimination.

I was going to say to the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston -- I don't want to get his back up -- that parts of his speech. . . . I thought he was going to make someone like Herb Gray sound like a fiery orator. He was on every side of the issue. I think this bill is very simple. Bill 30 is a pension amendment act. It allows same-sex couples in the public sector to be eligible for pension benefits. It's not tortuous; it's simple. It's a simple principle, it's long overdue, and the government has enough courage to bring it in. That's what this is about. The bill is about equality. It ends discrimination based on sexual orientation. That's about equality.

The Attorney General, in his opening remarks, in his short speech -- right to the point -- mentioned that we were the first province in Canada with this. B.C. is leading the field in this area of social policy, as it has in environmental policy and in other policies in the past. Quite frankly, it takes courage and leadership to do it. I want to salute the Attorney General, who is a tireless fighter for equality rights and is getting well known in the province and in Canada. I want to salute my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is forever pushing this issue. He has done very well and is articulate, and no doubt the House will hear from him soon.

I want to say a little bit about my own riding, Vancouver-Fraserview. The people who reside in this riding are from many different backgrounds and cultures. In fact, if I might say so, they are a collection of people from minority cultures, in the sense of the majority in British Columbia and in Canada still being of European background. These are Chinese Canadians, Indo-Canadians, Filipino Canadians -- and I underline Canadians -- and other groups have come from different parts of the world, with skin not as white as mine. They are people who are sensitive to discrimination.

I want to address my constituents tonight. I say to them, to people who are basically in minority groups, that discrimination against one minority, whether it's Chinese Canadians or Indo-Canadians or Filipino Canadians, whether it is women or whether it's gay people, is discrimination against every one of them. That's what my constituents understand. That's why I rise to support the bill.

About a year ago, I think, I was with Archbishop Adam Exner of the Roman Catholic church, at the anniversary of this wonderful Holy Family Hospital in my riding, which some Catholic sisters had come out and started years ago. We were at an anniversary, and I got a chance to talk to the archbishop. The archbishop has said that we should try and extend these principles to everyone. The Attorney General has replied, and I would say that I agree that this is worth looking at.

Now, the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston said he was trying to follow that tonight. I was listening, and I'll check the Hansard on that to see whether I can follow that and to see whether there is any room there. I agree with the archbishop. I think we should look at relationships per se of people who have stayed together for a long time. They deserve a little help if the other person that they're dependent on dies and there's a pension. I agree with that. But it seems to me that this will take more time, more debate. It's a more extensive issue. This is not a complicated issue. This is a simple issue; it's had extensive debate. It cries out for amendment. It doesn't affect a lot of people, but it's an important symbolic issue. It doesn't cost a lot of money, but it's an important issue of equality.

[ Page 10721 ]

The fellow had a plane, and the family had a little winery south of San Francisco. They worked together on the winery as a bit of a hobby and a bit of a business. The fellow's partner got the plane fixed, put some money into it. I guess something happened; he flew down one night to see the winery. The other fellow, the one who phoned me, was busy working, so he couldn't go down. The plane went down, and he had some trouble with the plane and radioed that his electronics weren't working very well. They suggested that he go to another field and put the lights on and he would land. Before he got there, the power in his plane completely failed, it crashed and the fellow died. The fellow who phoned me said: "You know, what happened after that was that I almost got kicked out of my apartment because nobody recognized our relationship. The will was there but it hadn't been signed, so I didn't inherit anything. I didn't get any of the pension, because it didn't automatically pass to the gay partner." The family almost excluded him from the funeral. Here was real discrimination.

So people understand what discrimination is. That's why this bill tonight is about equality, and that's why you have to take stands on these issues, and you have to forge ahead. That's why B.C.'s a great province and Canada's a great country, because we have taken these steps, and we're forging ahead to create a province where there is real equality. That's what this bill is about, and that's why I support this bill.

T. Nebbeling: I want to speak briefly to the amendment presented by the member for Richmond-Steveston. I feel the need to do that, because last year when we debated Bill 31, where we had a similar amendment, I also spoke in favour of the amendment at that time. I did this because I felt that by focusing the whole debate on the label that the same-sex partners were going to get in this bill, we really took all the attention away from the intent of that bill. That was to protect children from harm under certain circumstances.

I see the same happening here again. We are not focusing on the pension benefit package that will go to same-sex partners when this bill has passed; we're back again into the debate on whether we have the label of spouse or the label of domestic partner. The previous speaker from Vancouver-Fraserview said: "You know, we have to keep it simple." That triggered a thought process for me, because what we are doing is looking at two definitions here. We're looking at the spouse definition and the definition of a domestic partner. The spousal definition, as I think we are now aware, is a man and a woman who, through marriage, become husband and wife. Now, I can ask my partner to come to this place one day, and if we stand together, there is no way that anybody can describe the two of us as husband and wife. That is the visual aspect. The emotional aspect, after 27 years of partnership, has never been based on the definition of husband and wife. We are two guys who fulfil that mandate or the definition that domestic partner describes, and that is, in short, a close, personal relationship to another person that is of primary importance in both person's lives and which has the attributes of permanence, sharing and interdependence. That's me and my partner. That fits the picture 100 percent.

If this definition does exactly what the spousal definition does as far as finding that equality and finding those equal rights that the spousal definition has given in the past to marriages or traditional relationships, then we should go for this. The one thing I was concerned about last year when we debated Bill 31 -- and I shared it with the member for Vancouver-Burrard -- is that I knew at the time that it was going to create controversy amongst people who really have no problem with same-sex partners, who have never really spoken about it, who accepted them.

A year later we know that the gay and lesbian community today is not doing so well, because a lot of controversy has happened in the past year. We have had special interest groups using the debate triggered by Bill 31 as a platform to start spreading homophobic messages. They have gone around. The fact that this happened because of the introduction of this bill. . . . I'm talking about the Kari Simpsons of the world who have travelled this province, standing up and fighting the entrenchment of same-sex partners' rights in legislation.

[10:15]

B. Goodacre: Listening to the previous speakers, the issues of conscience, public policy and language all struck me as pretty germane to what we are addressing in this debate. I appreciate the words that we just heard from the speaker from West Vancouver-Garibaldi and also from the speaker from Richmond-Steveston. The point of this so-called issue of conscience in their own caucus -- inasmuch as this language that we introduced through "spouse" in Bill 31 last year caused a bit of concern for certain members of their caucus in terms of their attachment to a certain religious dogma that they've grown up with. . . . I suppose that's fair, in a way, but when we're talking public policy, we have to bear in mind that any gains that we make as a society are necessarily going to effect changes in perception on the part of all members of society.

To paraphrase Shakespeare's take on perception, for a moment: "Nothing is good or bad," he said, "but that our thinking makes it so." I think that one of the things we really have to pay attention to here is that we do have folks like the archbishop who are particularly attracted to defending certain conservative values that our society is quickly discarding in our move towards a society of inclusion.

One of the things that really attracts people like myself, in particular, to defend the kind of changes that we're making here is that the symbolism behind these changes is very strong. The symbolism indicates that as a society we're prepared to introduce language into common practice that represents a true movement in the ideas that we have of who we are as a society -- and that's a society of a greater commitment to equality for all.

For that reason, I think it behooves this Legislature to deny the amendments that we've been hearing about, to move

[ Page 10722 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: I am very pleased to rise in this debate and offer my perspective on Bill 38 and what it means for this Legislature and this province.

This bill speaks to a fundamental issue of human rights, and I am very proud that we, as a government, have seen fit to face this fundamental issue of human rights. It is one that the courts have already addressed in other jurisdictions -- in Ontario, as the member for Richmond-Steveston indicated. I believe that the Nova Scotia courts have also looked at this issue. So we can't say that we are tremendously far ahead of others who have thought about this issue, but at least we are taking action and moving ahead to address and face this fundamental issue of human rights, and we are doing so up front, directly and in a way that everyone can see. The Legislature is being called upon to act in the name of respect for human rights, to end the discrimination against same sex couples that has existed with respect to pension benefits.

I must say that I was saddened by the performance in this House of the member for Richmond-Steveston. The member gave a very eloquent lawyer's argument, but it was an argument that was designed much more to avoid the issue, rather than to illuminate it, and to try to deflect attention from the fundamental core issue. I think that's sad. I think it's sad when members of this House use their talent, their skill and their opportunity to try to distract us from dealing with core issues of fundamental rights, issues that the courts themselves have drawn to our attention and asked us to deal with.

I should say that if I had to analyze that argument, it really came down to a three-part avoidance strategy on the part of the member opposite, on behalf of the Liberal Party. You have to pierce through some of the code words to understand that avoidance strategy. But I think it's worth doing that to understand exactly what that argument was all about and what the position of the members opposite, as represented by that member -- is all about.

First of all, the member opposite suggested that he and his party were interested in accommodating competing interests. What that really amounts to, when you translate it, is they're interested in obfuscating the issue or getting rid of it. The method they propose, if you look at the amendment they have proposed for this legislation, is to delete any reference to a person of the same gender -- just eliminate that notion from the vocabulary, eliminate it from our consideration. The fact that there has been discrimination in the past against people because of the fact that they have been in same-sex or same-gender relationships is to be blotted out. We are to ignore it, if we are to accept the proposition of the member opposite.

It's quite extraordinary. If you actually read the proposed amendment, it talks about deleting the words "a person of the same gender." Now, that's a sign of recognition and courage and owning up to the problem that the courts themselves have drawn to our attention -- namely, that people who are in a same-sex relationship have been discriminated against. The answer from the member opposite and his caucus is to suggest that we should obliterate that from our consideration and delete it from the bill.

The second strategy is to talk about this as an "issue of conscience." Let me unpack that little euphemism. That translates as "equivocate on the issue." From the statement made by the member opposite, I assume that the method of equivocating is to allow for a free vote. We're faced with a fundamental issue of human rights, and the members opposite suddenly decide that this is a good time to allow members of their caucus to equivocate and exercise their choice on a matter of fundamental human rights. Discrimination is really a matter of choice, and they're quite prepared. . . . Indeed, the member said he's proud of those members in his caucus who take a position at variance with what the courts have told us is a discriminatory position. The position represented by an "issue of conscience" is: let's equivocate on the issue; let's turn this into an issue of relativism; let's deny that this is an issue of human rights at all.

The third strategy is the let's-await-full-review strategy. Even though there have been court cases -- indeed, very recently -- drawing this issue to our attention and providing the opportunity for us to move forward on this very important matter, the member opposite would have us delay. He would have us avoid the issue. Justice delayed is okay by him. In fact, he'd like to refer this whole matter to a committee that would study it for the next decade.

That is the position of the Liberal Party. Isn't it deeply revealing? When faced with a fundamental issue of human rights -- an issue that the courts themselves have identified as one of discrimination that should be corrected by legislators -- and when faced with the opportunity to correct it, the answer from the Liberals opposite is to obfuscate, equivocate and avoid. That's the moral courage that they have summoned up in their ranks to deal with this issue. It's a very sad commentary on the state of that caucus and the moral fibre they bring to these issues.

I want to say that it has a striking resemblance to the position they take on other such issues, such as the Nisga'a treaty. In the Nisga'a treaty, we again have an issue that the courts have told us is one of human rights, that we need to get on and negotiate to give first nations the rights that they have been denied. We have an opportunity to do that, and there, as here, the answer from the members opposite is: "Let's find a way to get rid of this issue. Let's equivocate. Let's avoid the issue. Let's find some lawyer's arguments to take the issue off the table."

I think British Columbians listening to this argument have to ask themselves this. . . . The member opposite would have British Columbians believe that the Liberals have suddenly found within themselves a deep concern for the needs of other domestic partners. Other domestic partners are suddenly a top concern of theirs in reviewing this legislation. Why is it that this sudden concern for the needs of other domestic partners arose only when the issue of gays and lesbians entered the picture? That's the question.

They've suddenly found a conversion and concern on the issue with respect to a Nisga'a referendum. I think British Columbians need to ask themselves: why is it that this Liberal caucus has suddenly become preoccupied with referenda, and why did that preoccupation arise only when the rights of aboriginal people were put on the line? Could it be that their position on these issues is simply one of equivocation, delay and political expediency? I hope that the answer is no, but everything that I've heard from the member opposite and the strategy that they are pursuing in trying to avoid this issue, in trying to equivocate on this issue, in trying to delay on this issue and on other issues, suggests that the answer, unfortunately, is clearly yes.

It is a sad moment for this caucus in this Legislature and for a party that has prided itself on taking tough stands on

[ Page 10723 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to enter this debate and follow up somewhat on the comments of my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education. I want to refer to the comments of the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, an individual whom I respect. In fact, I understand and fully respect the positions of a number of members on the other side of the House who have spoken on issues concerning gays and lesbians in the past. I know where they're coming from.

This is an important piece of legislation. It's one of a series of important pieces of legislation that is designed to end discrimination against gays and lesbians, to afford them the same rights and protections that the rest of us enjoy. I've listened to the member's argument with interest, and I've listened to the argument that was made last year. Unfortunately, he has a difficult task. He's trying to walk a fine line, to weave a shield that presents a public face of tolerance behind which a face of intolerance can also hide. Too often now what we see -- time and time again, when it comes to issues of gays and lesbians in this province -- is that a sizeable contingent in the opposition raises "objections."

The member for Saanich South raised the issue around Nisga'a. Well, why is it that every time gays and natives are mentioned, the opposition somehow has problems? It's special rights; we can't have that. The hon. member talks about the fact that the legislation is not the right way to go and that we need to amend it. We don't need to amend it; we need to pass it. We need to recognize that there are people in this province who lack the same rights and protections that the rest of us do, and we need to address that.

What we watch in here is one face, a projected face of tolerance, but the face of those who would deny that is largely absent. If I felt that this debate was on principled grounds, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But it's not. Too often it's on expedience. Too often it's on the basis of -- to quote the member for Chilliwack -- "I'm with my constituents on this one." Does that mean that he's not with his constituents on other votes? What is so different about this particular issue from other issues that it's: "I'm with my constituents on this one. I'm not even prepared to look at what it is we're trying to accomplish. I'm not prepared to look at the rights that are being questioned or the ability to access a pension that's being questioned, that's taken for granted by people throughout the rest of the province, be they black or white or yellow or whatever colour or ethnic background"? When it comes to sexual orientation, all of sudden there's this alarm bell raised. It is destroying family values. Somehow it's imposing a moral ideology on the rest of the province. It's not. It's ensuring that people who have been in a relationship are treated equally.

[10:30]

I understand the dissension in the Liberal Party. Why don't they just recognize it? We have in this province, I believe, an opportunity to move forward. We need to take that opportunity and not hide behind rhetoric, not hide behind intolerance, not hide behind what is perceived to be "the majority view" in your particular riding, but to recognize that there is a significant minority in that riding. When you say, "I'm with my constituents on this one," you're prepared to deny them the same rights that your constituents, whom you pretend to represent or say you're with, already enjoy. So I'm supporting this piece of legislation because it's the right thing to do. I hope that when the time comes, the entire House will support this piece of legislation because it is the right thing to do. Twenty years from now, people will be asking what was all the fuss about.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm proud to rise and support this legislation as put forward by the Attorney General without amendment. Not only am I proud to stand and support this, I actually celebrate supporting this, because supporting this legislation is around fairness, equity and redress.

I just want to use some quotes that I've been reading recently about this. The member for Chilliwack, I believe, was quoting an article that I just had a look at, saying that the creation of families. . . . Sorry, in not supporting the legislation, he was saying that the creation of families is special. Well, you know what? He's absolutely right: the creation of families is special. The creation of all kinds of families is special, not one select kind of traditional heterosexual family. All families that are created are special. So he is right. He is wrong in opposing the legislation, but he is correct in saying that families are special.

He also uses as a basis for his lack of support for the legislation the fact that when Canada was formed, laws were developed which supported and promoted the nuclear family. Canada was formed 131 years ago, and in 131 years all kinds of things have changed in this country. If we based every single social policy change made in this province on the fact that when Canada was formed, this was the basis of the understanding, we would have had no movement in areas of people who didn't own property being able to vote, women being able to vote. My colleague talked about aboriginal people. We would still have laws that allowed men to beat their wives. All those things were there when Canada's laws were formed.

Well, sorry, it's not a rationale to base it on. Who says that two lesbians in a relationship raising children is not a nuclear family? Who says that two gay people in a relationship raising children is not a nuclear family? I say that that is a nuclear family, and if we cannot move from an 1867 understanding of a nuclear family, we are in serious difficulty.

I want to congratulate the Attorney General for putting this forward and the member for Vancouver-Burrard for his strong advocacy on this, but I want to congratulate two other groups for the work that they have done. I want to congratulate gay and lesbian activists in this province, because much of this has come about because of their strength and their courage to stand up and tell the stories of their families. I know from the community I live in how hard that can be and what

[ Page 10724 ]

I want to also comment that this is way more than symbolism. This isn't symbolism. This is real. It's heartfelt. It's a deep-rooted part for many, many families in British Columbia. There is no symbolism for me in this piece of legislation.

I want to talk for just a moment about my friends who are in lesbian relationships raising children, and why there is a difference or why raising children is more unique in lesbian relationships than it might be in gay relationships. I think we would agree that there are more lesbian relationships raising young children than there are gay relationships, although I know that lots of gay relationships have raised children and done a very fine job of that. These are mostly children being raised by women, and women, as we all know, still make significantly lower wages than their male counterparts. So the principle of being able to have a pension available to support those children if something happens to a partner is absolutely critical, because they aren't going to get a pension from somewhere else. I can absolutely assure you of that. So there is some uniqueness to the people that I know in lesbian relationships around (a) women's wages being lower, and (b) the responsibility for raising children.

I want to go back to "creating families is special." You're right; it is. I was talking to some friends of mine today who have their grandchildren here visiting. The grandchildren came in, and I had something for them, and they said: "Can we show this to Grandma and to Grandma Lynn?" Well, Grandma and Grandma Lynn are the two grandmas in their life, and that's wonderful; that's a special family. Is creating that family special? You bet it is. And it is a wonderful, close-knit family. Should it be treated differently? Should these grandchildren grow up thinking that somehow their family is less worthy because their parents or grandparents don't have the same rights to support that other relationships and families do? No, of course they shouldn't. That's why I think this legislation is so important.

I also don't want to have to do this in the courts. I don't want us to be known as the province that had to be dragged kicking and screaming into court in order to enact this change. I want this government to be known for the legislation that it brought forward on its own, proactively, because we believe that it's the right thing to do.

Lastly, I want us to do this for those children who are growing up and are being raised by parents in lesbian and gay relationships, to know that their families, in terms of. . . . Does a three-year-old know? No. Can a 15-year-old read this in the paper? You bet they can. And can they understand it? They sure can. And I want them to know that they and their families are as valuable as any other family.

People know the community I live in and the community I come from. I've watched in my community what has happened to children in gay and lesbian relationships when the public or the people who were elected have come out and said: "This is wrong." Those children end up afraid to go to school. We have got to look at this as fairness and equity and redress if for no other reason than to say to those children: "You are legitimate and, like everybody else, you come from a creation -- from a very special family."

T. Stevenson: Obviously this is a very difficult debate for all of us. I'd like to say at the beginning that I realize that the member for Richmond-Steveston is in a difficult position. He is putting forward a position for his party that I totally disagree with. I think he knows that, and we probably will have debates in the future about that, but I do respect the member greatly and have done so for the last couple of years while we've been in this House. My remarks, though, are going to be a little different than I had originally intended, because I was angered by the remarks from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, and that probably will come to light in the course of what I have to say.

But first of all, I'd like to say that I am very proud of this party. After the NDP came into power in 1991, it completely reversed the situation for gay and lesbian people in this province. Prior to that time, when the Socreds were in power, it was a very discouraging place for gay and lesbian people. We were not protected in law in any way. We were not in the Human Rights Code, we were not allowed to adopt, and we certainly did not have the definition of "spouse" to include us. All that has changed in these past short years. It has made a huge difference to gay and lesbian people and communities throughout this province. There is much still to be done, and this bill that we're dealing with tonight is part of that.

However, it is apparent to me, after looking back at the record, that the Liberal Party took a distinct right turn on issues of gay and lesbian people after the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was forced to leave the leadership and a new leader came in. Then all of a sudden, there was unanimity in the votes regarding gays and lesbians, say, in the Human Rights Code. All of a sudden we now have this party doing everything it can, it seems, to block equality for gays and lesbians in the province -- and again this year with this legislation.

Last year, as we've all mentioned, we brought in a bill to change the definition of spouse and to protect children. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi emphasizes that it was to protect children, and indeed it was, but it was also to change the definition of spouse. He seems to be a bit confused. Quoting Hansard, he picked up Webster's dictionary and in it found that spouse said husband and wife. I'd like to inform the member that the legal definition we're dealing with has to do with the legislation, and that's what's changed. It has nothing to do with marriage; it has nothing to do with husband and wife.

[10:45]

The member went on to say: "Why should we do that? [The gay community isn't] looking for a new label today." Having said that, he then turned around and said we need this new label of 'domestic partner' -- agreeing with the amendment that somehow we should have this specialized label, ghettoizing gay and lesbian people. We don't want equality; we don't want to all come under the same rubric. We want to have this new label.

Fortunately for gay and lesbian people, the member across the way -- who isn't particularly active in the com-

[ Page 10725 ]

I have a caucus, as he can see, that stands up one after another and supports gays and lesbians. So far we're heard nothing from the members opposite to support, other than to try and change the definition. You have to speak alone and for yourself. I want to say that for me it's a great privilege to be in this caucus, which has been supportive and is changing the lives of gay and lesbian people -- not sitting back and criticizing or watching.

Again this year we have another attempt at "domestic partner," trying to block equality for gays and lesbians. But this time it comes under the guise of giving pensions for all, pensions for everyone. All of a sudden the Liberal Party has become very interested in pensions for everybody. They were never terribly interested before, but now, when gays and lesbians are going to have pensions, all of a sudden the Liberal Party is very interested in pensions for everyone. It seems to me to be a very fast conversion.

I wonder where this conversion came from. I happened to be reading the Sun today, as we all do, and I noticed that the Liberal justice critic, the member for Richmond-Steveston, said that the changes are in direct response to Vancouver's Roman Catholic archbishop, Adam Exner. He doesn't seem to have concerned himself about what the Anglican Church and their bishops have said, or the United Church and their moderator. This one particular archbishop, he's decided, is the model that the Liberal Party should follow. I found that very interesting, so I went back to the letter that all MLAs received from the archbishop. I'm sure that all members on the other side received a copy of the letter to Premier Clark. I went through this letter rather carefully, to know what it is that the Liberals are basing their amendment on. The archbishop writes, first of all: "I am opposed to this legislation for the following reasons." First of all, the. . .legal meaning of spouse is a "regrettable" development and will in the long run be "detrimental to our society." The archbishop says that changing the definition of spouse is all of a sudden going to be detrimental to society. I don't know what's going to happen to society, but the Liberals think that's the case. I know that various members on the other side have spoken in the press about how marriage and relationships are falling apart and so on, so they obviously agree.

I would really like to hear members in the opposition get up and tell me how this is going to be detrimental to society. Nobody addresses these questions. Then the archbishop goes on to say that the legislation "further undermines the concept of marriage." Maybe the Liberal Party could help me with that. How is it in fact undermining marriage? This has nothing to do with marriage. We never talk about marriage.

Then the archbishop says: "Biologically, such couples" -- that is, gay and lesbian couples -- "are simply not equipped to be husband and wife." Well, that's interesting. Maybe the Liberal opposition could speak to that. I know the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi definitely agrees with that. Then the archbishop says: "To tamper with the concept of marriage is a disservice to society." Why is this a disservice, and how are we tampering with marriage? Again, I'm sure there won't be one Liberal who will get up and talk about any of these things that they speak of in the press but don't seem to want to talk about here. Yet it's what underlines their amendment.

In the third point that's raised in the letter, the archbishop says: "Will not the same be true, perhaps even more so, for children growing up with two parents of the same sex." He feels that two parents of the same sex will have real problems -- in fact, even greater problems than single-parent families -- in raising children. I would like to know if the Liberal Party can help us on that with any statistics about gay and lesbian families and how these are detrimental as well.

Now, the fourth point that's raised is that this proposed legislation is basically unfair. The archbishop says gays and lesbians "should not be given special rights and benefits not enjoyed by others." Well, I find that one rather difficult. This term "special rights" keeps coming up and coming up. Again, maybe the Liberals could help me with this. It seems to me that when gays and lesbians have been paying into pension plans for years and years, it's a rather special right when you don't get anything out at the end of it. It seems to me to be quite special. You just pay in to help all the heterosexual folks and get nothing out. Maybe that's the special right.

I've spent a good deal of my time in the church, and I understand from being in the church that there are special rights for folks sometimes. I know that the church, for instance, doesn't come under the Human Rights Code and doesn't have to worry about that. Now, there may be reasons for that, which we church people agree on -- doctrinal reasons. Also, of course, churches don't have to pay any taxes. I would think that would be a special right. So when people start to talk about special rights for gays and lesbians, maybe they should look at their own special rights. Maybe there's good reason for the special rights. Maybe they should think about it.

Now, here's the next one that the archbishop raises, which I would hope the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi could help me out on: "How will the government verify if the same-sex couples who apply for pension benefits are actually sexually active?" I don't know how you do that. I don't know how we do that with heterosexual common-law couples. There must be a way. There must be some sort of a check and balance that we can. . . . And then: "What kind of stability will be required before a same-sex couple can apply for pension benefits?" I don't know. Again, maybe the Liberal Party could help us with that. Stability is difficult in heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Finally, the letter ends up -- and maybe this point is why the Liberals have decided that the archbishop's words and letters should be brought into legislation. He concludes by saying: "While that may be so, our people will no doubt make their voices heard when election time comes around." Maybe the Liberals have decided that the right-wing church vote is worthy of going after. I find this letter interesting and obviously very disturbing. I make fun a bit, but it's not funny at all, because what the archbishop is really saying is that he doesn't feel that gay and lesbian relationships are legitimate ones or worthy of pensions.

I also agree, though, that we should extend pensions to a greater number of people, but that's not what this legislation is about. This legislation is about equality. If the Liberal Party wants to suggest to the government over the next couple of years how we might expand it to others beyond that, I think that the archbishop has a very worthy suggestion. I'm just concerned that the Liberal Party is using the archbishop for political reasons -- not policy problems that they have, but political problems in their own caucus and outside of it.

Last year, when I suggested to the justice critic that I thought this was basically a matter of expediency and that

[ Page 10726 ]

In other words, we can't do anything that's going to make anybody uncomfortable. We wouldn't want to make Kari Simpson uncomfortable. We wouldn't want to make anybody that disagrees with this uncomfortable, because this is somehow going to take a step backwards. I have to completely disagree, and I think there is more of an element of appeasement in this than the Liberal opposition would like to admit.

So this is what the Liberals are backing. I ask again: why haven't they polled other religious leaders? Why have they chosen one particular religious leader who is known as not being open to the gay and lesbian community in any way? Why haven't they spoken to other interfaith groups, such as the Jewish community, and polled them to see what they might do in the way of amendments? Why are the Liberals simply blocking that equality for gays and lesbians, bobbing and weaving as we saw so well tonight?

Why are the Liberals not speaking, I ask? Why are those who are so opposed to this legislation not here and speaking out? Why won't they go on record as to what they really believe? Maybe it's the same reason that they won't speak publicly about aboriginal people and this treaty. Yes indeed, there are a lot of right-wing voters, and I suppose this will help the Liberal Party pick up some of that Reform vote. But there are lots of gay and lesbian voters, and their families and their friends. Recently in Toronto, 750,000 were in the Gay Pride Parade. Last year in Vancouver, 100,000; this year probably more. I will be interested to know how many Liberals are supporting the gay and lesbian community and being in the parade. I'll be looking for the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I'll be looking for some of the other members. I can tell you that there are quite a number of both cabinet ministers and backbenchers who will be in the parade supporting the gay and lesbian community. Of course, maybe you're all too busy. But it will be noted by the gay and lesbian community, and your votes and your amendments are noted. We also realize, like aboriginal people, that you will be having a free vote. This is the only issue that you have a free vote on. . . .

[11:00]

T. Stevenson: That they have a free vote on. That concerns me, and I know that concerns the gay community, because I have spoken to many about this, and it has been editorialized in our gay press.

In conclusion, hon. Speaker, obviously I am opposed to this amendment, and I would urge all members, including the opposition, to vote for this bill, which is basically a bill of equality.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I feel it again. He is in the chamber. His presence is in the chamber. He is not physically seated in a chair. He is not up there in the public gallery. I do not believe that he is watching on television, but I feel his presence. I feel -- I say I feel -- the presence of the almighty Vander Zalm. For there is no other explanation why it is those members of that Liberal flock have chosen to flee the debate around this bill -- no other explanation. But I say to the members opposite: have no fear, hon. members, simply because you are in the presence of the great Bill Vander Zalm, the almighty.

I say to the member for Chilliwack: rise up, hon. member, and tell us why it is that you do not believe in the equality of treatment of individuals. Tell us why. I say to the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who is not in this chamber, to stop trembling. Come into this chamber and tell us why it is that we all ought not to be free to choose who ought to be our pension beneficiaries. Speak out, hon. member. I say to the member for Matsqui, who is hiding in the sanctuary of his office, to come out of that office and enter into this chamber and tell all of us that discrimination on the basis of race or sexual orientation is an evil from which society must be cleansed. And tell us that this bill cleanses that evil. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat for just a moment, please.

I want to remind all members that when we are discussing hon. members in the House, we make no reference to their presence or absence in the chamber. I know the hon. member is aware of that.

M. Sihota: I will take note of that point.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the power and the glory of electoral victory will never come to those who lead a House divided. I say to him: speak out! Show us the strength of your leadership, the strength of your conviction. Unite your caucus, hon. Leader of the Opposition. Unite them in the name of equality. Unite them in the name of tolerance. Unite them in the name of dignity. Unite them in the name of understanding. Failure to do so will not only incur the wrath of the liberal-minded member's community of Vancouver-Point Grey but will also condemn that political party to eternity in political opposition. It will condemn them in that regard.

How truly sad it is that the Liberal body politic, once strong and healthy, is now diseased and divided. If I were a physician I would say that those healthy red cells in the Liberal body are now being invaded by crazed Reform white cells, resulting in disorientation, loss of personality and a lack of strength of conviction. So rampant is the spread of this disease that the Leader of the Opposition, once himself a true red cell, is now a white cell. Once a Liberal, now a Reformer.

It is a medical mystery to me how it could possibly be that all these red cells have now become white cells. Why did this happen? When did it happen? Perhaps it happened when the hon. member for Peace River North was injected into the Liberal caucus, into their fold, and caused this disease to spread as rapidly as it has. Perhaps it happened when the Leader of the Opposition, complete with his weakened immune system, met with the leadership of the Liberal Party led by that anti-abortionist John Hof. Perhaps it happened when the Leader of the Opposition realized that in one month alone, Bill Vander Zalm has had more press than the Leader of the Opposition has had in the last six months. Perhaps that's when it happened.

I say to the members opposite -- the true Liberals opposite: have no fear, for there is a cure to this disease. A magnetic force is required to suck those diseased cells out of the Liberal body politic and restore it to its former self. That magnetic force is found in the personality of Bill Vander Zalm. I say to the reform-minded members opposite: stand up and

[ Page 10727 ]

G. Wilson: As entertaining as that may have been to the members opposite, I frankly think that any member of the public who witnessed that last affair will now know conclusively why that member isn't sitting in the cabinet anymore and is now sitting in the back bench.

Some Hon. Members: Get a life! Get a life!

G. Wilson: Get a life, I'm told. I have to tell you this, hon. Speaker. From my perspective, sitting where I sit, where I can see two parties in debate on what I thought was going to be a reasonably intelligent commentary on the amendment of the pension acts, I have seen this degenerate into a bunch of name-calling, slanderous commentary which is absolutely despicable.

Those members opposite have not in any way sat down and substantively addressed the issues in the amendments that were proposed by the member for Richmond-Steveston. The have rejected them solely and only under the guise that those amendments are somehow intended to mask some level of homophobia. I find that absolutely despicable.

I find it really difficult to sit here and listen to the member for Saanich South turn around and tell us how that government opposite is the champion of the protection of individual rights and freedoms, when those members opposite kept us standing on our feet all night on a bill that removes the fundamental right of British Columbians to sue a government. Where were all those members standing up in animated protection? Where were they all when they were legislating collective agreements for teachers? Where were they all defending the human rights and the individual rights and freedoms of teachers in that bill?

Hon. Speaker, let me tell you that there are many British Columbians for whom this bill is an extremely important piece of legislation. I know that the member for Vancouver-Burrard finds this bill an enormously important statement in law for people who are of homosexual orientation. I respect that; I fully respect it. I personally have no objection whatsoever -- and nor do any members of my party -- to same-sex couples receiving pension benefits -- none whatsoever. But the question is: is this legislation and drafting the most appropriate way in which to bring about that level of fairness? That's what I was hoping we would have a chance to debate.

It is well known -- and my comments have been carried in the press -- that there are many people in the gay and lesbian community with whom I have spent time consulting over the last six weeks, who are divided, frankly, on how the language should be written. Not all -- and it will perhaps come as a great shock and surprise to members opposite -- agree with this government. Not all think this government is doing a splendid job. In fact, not all in the gay and lesbian community support this government. Many run for other political parties. That may come as a real shock to the members opposite who think that they somehow have the exclusive understanding and right of people of homosexual orientation. That is offensive in this chamber.

Let me also say that with respect to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, an individual who I greatly respect, I find it somewhat offensive that that member, who is of faith himself, would stand up and quote selectively from letters from the archbishop and suggest that the archbishop, who is indoctrinated into the Catholic faith and is speaking of Catholic dogma -- something to which they are logically tied -- is somehow homophobic. That is an insult to people of the Catholic faith. For a member of the cloth to do that in this chamber is reprehensible.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: "Come on," says the member opposite. Listen to your commentary and read your Hansard. It is reprehensible.

I believe -- and I believe that other members believe -- that we must move toward the provision of law that provides equality for all British Columbians. I firmly believe that. I believe that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. I believe that we must move to find ways to remove any level of discrimination in all legislation, whether that discrimination is on the basis of sex, orientation, race, colour, creed, language or religion. That's what we aspire to do when we come in here as elected Members of the Legislative Assembly, and that's what we attempt to do.

I don't agree with every part of the language of the amendment that the member for Richmond-Steveston brought in, but I believe that it was brought in in an honest attempt to try to find some level of intellectual debate over language on pension law. I believe that's what that was brought in for. I want to believe that that's what it was here for, and I hoped that we'd have some intellectual discussion on that question.

In looking at the expansion of pension benefits for people, it seems to me that the test. . . . I think that -- at least from my recollection of the comments, because it was some time ago, before we slipped into a huge defence of the homosexual community in British Columbia, which I do not believe was under attack at any time in this chamber but has been vociferously defended. . . . I believe we were talking about dependency as a test for the transfer of benefits. That's what I think we were talking about, because I believe it is correct. My reading, certainly, of history. . . . People who are far more knowledgable about pension law than I am say that the reason a person was allowed to transfer their pension in the first place was because it was done at a time when men worked. The majority of women didn't, and they had children who were dependent and needed the pension of their husbands should they die. That is what happened.

[11:15]

[ Page 10728 ]

G. Wilson: I intend to vote for the legislation, member. I intend to. Do I agree with the language of it? No. Do I think it could be worded better? Yes. I do think it could be worded better. Do I think we should be drafting public legislation or legislation regulating public sector workers that defines and somehow makes distinction between heterosexual and homosexual people? No, I don't. I don't think that it has any place in the legislation in parliament.

I don't think the government, frankly -- to quote my own mentor -- has any place in the bedrooms of the nation. I don't think it's any damn business of ours what the relationship of people is. If there is a dependency established, then pension benefits should be transferred -- end of story. I don't think it's the government's business what your relationship is.

I intend to vote for this in second reading, because I have spent time with members, not only the gay and lesbian community, who are of the faith that I am, the Catholic faith -- understanding it, listening and talking to their leaders to understand where they're coming from. I don't always agree. I certainly don't always agree.

Surely to goodness there's some level of tolerance and understanding for honest debate without getting into that level of diatribe, which I find disgraceful. Surely we have reached some level of maturity in this place, where we can actually have an honest discussion around a set of amendments which seek to address concerns that people in this province have addressed. Now, you may find those concerns offensive. You may not even find those concerns necessarily relevant. Nevertheless, the people who raised them have done so in an orderly manner through their elected representatives, and it's better to do that than through some kind of societal backlash against people of gay and lesbian orientation.

I would sooner have the intellectual discussion so that we could raise the level of education, so that people would understand that there is nothing to fear in this legislation. People could understand that there is nothing to be afraid of; there is nothing to shy away from. We can embrace new legislation that can bring equality to us, which has not been seen before. Isn't that our role -- to demonstrate leadership on those questions? I would have thought that was our role.

I intend to vote for this legislation, because I believe it to be progressive to the extent that it does start to eliminate a systemic discrimination that needs to be eliminated. I don't like its language. I think its language could be more inclusive and could provide a much broader base of public policy description that goes a lot further than this government has been prepared to take it.

I heard the minister say that he was prepared to look at those kinds of changes. I'm ready to sit down and work with him on those kinds of changes, because I want a society where there is no discrimination. I would like a society in which we can be accommodating of people because of their differences and recognize that all of us can be equal under the laws of the province and yet celebrate the fact that we are different in many ways. That's the kind of society that I'd like to see.

Boy, I'll tell you, from my perspective, from where I sit in this chamber. . . . I don't agree with all of what I saw brought in by the member for Richmond-Steveston, but I think there's merit in it, and it deserves to be discussed properly in committee. I sure hope that it gets a far better reading in committee stage than I heard it get in second reading debate. Not only is it sensible and proper public policy to remove discrimination for people of homosexual orientation, but the gay and lesbian community deserve an intelligent, intellectual debate that lets them know that at least the members of this chamber have reached the level of maturity where we can come to a majority decision -- maybe not a unanimous one, but a majority decision -- that says: "British Columbia has now come of age. We are now mature enough to recognize that systemic discrimination is not acceptable in our society." That's what I had hoped we would get out of this debate tonight, not what we've unfortunately been treated to so far.

G. Farrell-Collins: Last year in the debate on Bill 31, I had no intention of standing and speaking, because I felt that the other members from my caucus who spoke had summed it up. They had made the positions clear on both sides of the issue, had stated where our caucus stood, had offered a solution that united as opposed to divided people and, quite frankly, had performed exactly the way members of this House should perform.

I had no intention of participating in the debate tonight either. I thought the member for Richmond-Steveston spoke eloquently for a length of time when he highlighted the positions that people come from, the legitimate feelings that people have on this issue, and offered a suggestion. He did a brilliant job of looking at what the real problem is -- not just for gay and lesbian people, but for all British Columbians -- and how we can solve that inequity in legislation.

Also, the comments from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who I know feels very strongly and emotionally on this issue. . . . He has gone to great lengths throughout his whole life to teach tolerance by example, to lead by example and to show patience and understanding when I'm sure that he didn't want to show patience and understanding. But he did that.

I have sat here for every single word of the debates that have gone on here tonight. Like last year, it was the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin who made me stand up and speak. Last year, after what I thought was an excellent, respectful discussion and debate, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin got up and lit into an aggressive, verbally assaultive, politically partisan rant on an issue that need not be like that. This year he used ridicule. This year he stood up and took what the members opposite tell us is a fundamental human rights issue and turned it into partisan ridicule and a rant against members of the opposition, members who aren't even here.

Before he stood up, the member for Richmond-Steveston and I looked at each other; we had exactly the same thought, and we made a bet: "How many times do you think he's going to talk about Bill Vander Zalm?" And we both said ten. Unfortunately, it was six, so we both missed by a little bit. But I've listened to the discussion tonight, and I got a sense from the NDP that they were looking for a fight, that they were hoping that they could goad the opposition into a big brawl and donnybrook over this issue.

On an issue of human rights, on an issue of equality, as the government put it, I can't believe how much anger, how much hatred -- quite frankly, how much vitriol -- came from the members of the government towards members of the opposition or members of the public who view this item differently. Now, not all members did that, but about three or four of them did. I ask those members who like to put themselves on a pedestal with all those people through history who have challenged human rights, who have tried to lead the changes that would give people rights and benefits and privileges and equality. . . . I would ask them to ask themselves if

[ Page 10729 ]

Ask yourself if you can put yourself anywhere near the same level of some of the world's great human rights advocates. Ask yourself: were you even in the same ballpark, or were you doing exactly what those other people out there that you apparently despise so much, that you hate so much. . . ? Were you engaged in looking for a fight? Were you trying to unite people of this province? Were you trying to gather them together to support an issue that you feel strongly about, or were you trying to divide them? Were you trying to make it "us or them"?

I ask the members opposite to think about that. What was their motivation when they stood up? Was it to pick a fight, or was it to try and find a solution? I must say that the speech I was most disappointed in was that from the member for Vancouver-Burrard. I was especially upset by the way he referred to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and ridiculed him for how that member chooses to refer to himself and his partner of 29 years. How dare the member for Vancouver-Burrard criticize that member for how he leads his life and how he chooses to call himself and his partner!

How can you stand up, on the one hand, and advocate human rights -- how can one stand up and advocate tolerance. . . ? How can a minister of the cloth stand up in the House and ridicule another individual for the very thing that the member is standing up and arguing in favour of? I can't understand it. What arrogance to suppose that he has the right to tell another member of this House how he can define himself. I'm shocked that somebody could feel that they had the right to do that. Where does somebody get that self-righteous arrogance from and claim to be an advocate for tolerance? How does somebody do that and claim to be an advocate for tolerance?

The minister opposite, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and a couple of other members of the New Democrat caucus talked about uniting the opposition. I think the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was probably the most abrasive in his manner of dealing with that. He talked about uniting the opposition -- how you have to be united. You'll never get anywhere unless you're united. The Liberal opposition is united. We're united behind amendments that will guarantee the very rights that the government wants, and will go further, because they'll guarantee those same rights to every single British Columbian who chooses them.

So if one asks oneself, after listening to the debates here tonight, who is trying to stand up to make sure that most British Columbians -- in fact, all British Columbians -- have access to the same rights and privileges that every other British Columbian has. . . . Which position is it? It's clearly the position advocated by the member for Richmond-Steveston. Clearly, without a doubt, that's what it is. So, hon. Speaker, the Liberal opposition is united. It is united behind giving rights to every single British Columbian regardless of who they are, who they live with, who they sleep with, who they choose not to sleep with. They should all have the same rights, and that's what the amendments by the member for Richmond-Steveston will achieve.

[11:30]

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: And I hear the Minister of Human Resources say the same thing.

He makes the allegation and the charge that the only reason members of the opposition are making the comments that they are or taking the position that they assume they are is because they are looking for votes -- trying to gather the right wing. And then, in the same breath -- he didn't even pause for a breath -- he reminds and threatens members of this House and indicates that there are over 100,000 voters in Vancouver alone who will remember how they voted and will make a determination on how they're going to vote based on how members in this House vote on this piece of legislation. He says there are 100,000 individuals who are gay and lesbian or are relatives and friends of gays and lesbians who show up at the parade, and they will take note and vote accordingly.

Well, who's dividing? Who's dividing British Columbians? I didn't hear one member from this side of the House stand up and say anything close to that, and they never have. I only heard that from the member for Vancouver-Burrard, a minister of the cloth, a man who I thought was sworn to unite people and to preach tolerance and understanding and acceptance, not division, not dividing, not hatred, not all of those evil things that I thought he was sworn to fight against.

So I ask you: if somebody were to look at the debate that took place here tonight, who's trying to find a solution to the problem? Who's trying to find the broadest possible set of rights for British Columbians? Who is trying to unite, and who is trying to divide?

The government has specifically chosen the wording in its bill because the member for Vancouver-Burrard and other members have advocated that issue alone and want to put on the list that gays and lesbians should be entitled to these benefits and these privileges -- and that's fine. But there are thousands of other British Columbians who are entitled to them also. Are we now going to start listing those people that are entitled to benefits and rights in this province? Or are we going to make the assumption that every British Columbian is entitled to them and draft our legislation accordingly?

I believe that the wording of this legislation as proposed by the government, and the rejection out of hand of the amendments put forward by the opposition that would go further, indicate exactly the motivation of the government. They want to do exactly what they did before the last election. They want to divide British Columbians. It's "us or them." It's: "Whose side are you on? Do you support the NDP, or do you support all the other evil political parties in the province? Whose side are you on?" When in the history of Canada has anybody had the nerve to run an election based on whose side you're on, whose team you are on? "Are you with us or against us? If you're against us, then you must be evil."

That is exactly the motivation behind the wording of this legislation. It is exactly the motivation behind the out-of-hand rejection of an amendment that would grant more rights to more British Columbians than what's contained in the legislation. The government is determined to drive gay and lesbian voters -- not people, voters -- away from all the other evil parties in British Columbia and onto the side of the New Democrats. Well, I think that gay and lesbian people in British

[ Page 10730 ]

So let's talk about uniting British Columbians. Let's talk about giving rights to all British Columbians. Let's talk about bringing people together, not dividing people. Then let's go out and let them decide how they're going to vote on real issues -- like if they've got a job and how well their kids are going to do. Are they going to get to go to school, and do they have medical attention when they need it? We can secure their rights and also provide good government without dividing British Columbians. We can do it by bringing them together, not by dividing them.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We've had some debate in this House tonight on a very serious issue that goes to the core of who we are as human beings, as British Columbians, as Canadians and as citizens of a world that is becoming increasingly smaller. I want to say that I share some of the worries expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, who just finished speaking. But dignity and decorum aren't only for one evening. Equality, fairness and a sense of decency toward each other are things that we should remember each and every day that we speak in this august assembly -- and we don't do that. When someone else, perhaps, speaks in terms that bite us, in language or in a manner that bites us -- rightly or wrongly -- as good human beings, we ought not to use words such as dignity, integrity and decorum to then launch an attack.

I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. member, but it is difficult for me. All last night I watched and heard the most unprincipled attack on this side of the House, and we said not a word -- not a word. We are talking about some of the most fundamental issues. We were talking about British Columbians last night, and we're talking about British Columbians tonight. We ought to behave with dignity, honour and respect toward each other. We are the leaders, the elected leaders, of this great province.

Yes, it is important that we unite people. The nature of the beast in this chamber is politics, and that sometimes brings the best out in us and sometimes the worst. It is for us to judge and to try and determine whether or not we can control ourselves when we stand on our two feet and speak to each other about each other and in what kind of language and what kind of terms we speak about each other. No one is holier than anyone else in this House. Let's get on with talking about equality and uniting people.

What we're doing by bringing this legislation in today is taking one more step towards equality. The hon. members have said they want to go farther, and I agree. I said some time ago that we are prepared to look at that. We differ on the question of whether or not it would be costly, whether or not it would be doable, but there isn't one person in this House that doesn't want to go the full length in terms of equality if at all possible, fiscally and otherwise. The question is: as we're engaged in that debate, do we stand still until the debate is completed? That's where the opposition has betrayed its position. If they had stood up and said: "Yes, we differ on the issue of whether or not we can do the entire stretch of equality today. We don't have a consensus on that. . . ."

By the very position that the hon. members have taken, they agree with us that it's all right, by their logic, to extend pension benefits to same-sex couples, but they want to go farther. And I'm saying that at this point I don't know whether that's doable. I don't know whether that's fiscally doable. I don't know whether that's appropriate. The most honourable thing for the opposition to have done would have been to say: "Yes, we don't have consensus. So instead of fragmenting the population, let's go forward and do what you, the government, are proposing, and we can deal with the rest as time goes on."

The hon. leader of the PDA in this House is taking exactly that position, and that is the most honourable position, distinct from the rest of the opposition. He says: "If that's the consensus, let's move forward. If there's a problem with the rest, if there are some questions that can be answered, we can work on that."

What we're trying to do is end discrimination. There is no question whatsoever in my mind that pensions in the past have been based on the relationship of not only just dependency but marriage -- a loving, sexual relationship, a close, personal relationship in a marriage. Gays and lesbians have been living in marriage-like relationships for decades, longer than the pensions have been around, but we haven't treated them the same as we have treated the heterosexual couples who have similar relationships. It is incumbent upon us, as people with some leadership skills and ability, to say: "Yes, this is discrimination. Let's end this right now. Let's not have the courts tell us to do it. Let's take leadership and do it today."

We will look at the rest. Several weeks ago, in response to Archbishop Exner's letter, I said: "Yes, we're prepared to look at that. Yes, we will consider that." But it is important that when we speak, we speak quite frankly and fearlessly.

I know what the hesitations and the difficulties are, and I want to make sure, for exactly the same reasons, that as we move forward -- when we extend benefits beyond same-sex couples at any time in the next year or two -- we move together. For the same reason, hon. members, that you say there are some hesitations on the other side, in opposition -- some difficulties you have to contend with -- there are real issues of fiscal responsibility, doability and whether or not these things can be done that have to be resolved before we can provide pensions to all relationships of dependence.

[11:45]

I respect the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain for standing up and speaking his mind, but I think that one has credibility if one practises what one preaches. That's why I want to make sure that we as British Columbians, as those that have been blessed and privileged with positions of leadership that the people have placed us in, perform all our tasks with dignity and respect towards each other at all times, without any venom of personal attack, in this chamber or anywhere else in British Columbia.

With those remarks, I conclude and move second reading.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 10731 ]

YEAS -- 55
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Priddy	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Lovick	Farnworth	Waddell
Hartley	Sihota	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Kasper	Doyle
Giesbrecht	Janssen	Sanders
C. Clark	Campbell	Farrell-Collins
de Jong	Plant	Abbott
Reid	Coell	Chong
Whittred	Anderson	G. Wilson
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hogg
Hawkins	Stephens	Symons
	McKinnon

 

NAYS -- 11
Neufeld	Jarvis	Penner
Coleman	Thorpe	van Dongen
Barisoff	Dalton	Masi
Krueger		J. Wilson

Bill 38, Pension Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998, 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 for consideration of Bill 50.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1998

On section 1.

S. Hawkins: I just have a few comments about this section. First of all, as I stated in second reading, I was quite pleased to see that the government had gone ahead with this initiative. Last year, when we were all being lobbied by the Transplant Society, it was, I believe, the intention that it come through a private member's bill. I had advised that it was probably better, if they wanted to get it through, to bring it through cabinet.

I am disappointed, however, that it has come through as such a significant change to the Human Tissue Gift Act. It has come through in the form of regulations. I am very disappointed to see that. When I look at the legislation enacted in other jurisdictions, all of those changes have been set out in the legislation, and the House gets to debate those and decide if they are appropriate for the changes being suggested in this form. When I look at the extent of proposals being made in the regulations, I'm disappointed that this House is not going to have the chance to look at those, to debate those and to perhaps improve on those.

Although I'm very happy that there is going to be legislative referral for all deaths in hospitals or care facilities to the organ procurement organization or the Transplant Society, when I look at the model -- and I think it's the Pennsylvania model that I have before me -- there are all kinds of changes that are going to be needed in these regulations, things like a routine referral system, which has to be established for acute-care and community care facilities for all deaths and impending deaths. Hopefully, in the regulations -- and I hoped it would have been in the legislation -- there are some provisions for a course or training for those who will be designated to report those potential donors. We would hope there would be stipulation in the regulations for who will be authorized to report and what kind of training those people will need. We hope there will be stipulation for who will be authorized to investigate and obtain permission. We hope there will be a system for identifying potential donors, and we hope to see what guidelines would be created under those provisions.

We hoped that we would have seen in this legislation provisions for non-compliance or some kind of penalties for non-compliance, because we hoped that if there were guidelines set up, hospitals. . . . There would be a tracking system to make sure that hospitals or care facilities would follow those guidelines. We would have hoped to see and debate in this legislation the rights and duties at death. We would have hoped to have seen and debated in this legislation liability issues, consent issues. We would have hoped and liked to have seen in this procedures for procurement, for harvest of organs, and priority use for this tissue.

In addition, in the Pennsylvania model there are provisions for police and emergency personnel. There are responsibilities delineated there, and we would have hoped that perhaps the government in their wisdom would have set that out in the legislation for us to see as well, so that we could have debated that. Confidentiality requirements, prohibited activities -- we would have liked to have seen requirements for that laid out before us in this legislation. As well, in the Pennsylvania model there is a requirement for facilities -- and, in our model here in B.C. for the B.C. Transplant Society -- to submit an annual report. We would have hoped that those requirements would include tracking the success of this initiative.

[12:00]

[ Page 10732 ]

Unfortunately, I don't see any of that here. It's disappointing, because when I look at the legislation as it stands now, it's in three parts and 14 sections. What the government did was tack on section 15 sort of as an afterthought -- which disappoints me -- instead of making a part 4 that very clearly makes it a new, important initiative, which is the legislated referral of potential organ donors, and then sets out the guidelines very clearly for this House to see, to debate, to encourage, to support.

In law school, this was the kind of law that was looked down on. Regulations are hidden law. That's what they are. They are not made by the House; they're made by one side of the House. An initiative as important as this one, I think, deserved the support and the debate of the whole House. I want to express from this side of the House our disappointment that we were not given the chance to look at the intelligent drawing-up of this piece of legislation so that we could have debated it, so that we could have had our input on what we thought was important, what we thought could have been included.

I know that there are some concerns around this being in regulation. Members of the Transplant Society, members of procurement teams around the province and certainly the physicians that work with organ donorship have concerns around that. Those are the comments I want to make. I have laid out some of the provisions that we expect, hopefully, will be in the regulations. Perhaps the regulations will just be temporary, and perhaps next year we'll come back with an amendment to this act and it will actually be legislated. Then we can have a proper debate. Perhaps it won't be tacked on as an afterthought in section 15 regulations. I think it's important enough to stand on its own as a part 4 in this bill and clearly state a new initiative. This is the first piece of legislation of its kind in Canada, and hopefully it will be a model for the other provinces. I really hope it will be. Where it's been implemented in the States, it has been successful, but part of that success is the way the legislation is set out. It's not done in regulations; it is done in legislation.

I hope the minister will take this suggestion with the great degree of sincerity with which it is intended, and that the minister will allow the regulations to be reviewed by this side of the House, or through the Select Standing Committee on Health, which is an all-party committee. I think these provisions are important enough to do that. Those are my comments, and if the minister has comments, I would welcome them. We are supporting this section because we think it is an important initiative, but we are disappointed that it's done in the form of regulations. It seems like a very hurried afterthought kind of initiative. I think it deserves a lot more importance, and I think it deserves the debate of this House.

Hon. P. Priddy: By no means is this piece an afterthought at all. But let me comment on some of the things that the member has said. We have not had a full opportunity to do the kind of consultation for the regulations that needs to be done. So this will actually be a two-step process.

One of them is that we will actually go out. . . . The B.C. Transplant Society is a very active partner with us in this, and we and they -- the ministry and the member for Rossland-Trail and others -- need to talk to hospitals, to professional staff within the hospitals. All of the things that the member has mentioned that you would hope to see in there all have to be worked out. They're all very valid points, and they all do have to be worked out. So it would be a two-part process. One of them is to go and do that consultation, get that information, bring that back in, do a draft and then circulate that draft again. I'm happy to circulate the draft to the member or to whoever you'd like us to circulate that to.

We clearly didn't want to put regulations in without doing that broad consultation, and there was not time to do that. The only other option was to wait until next year, and I didn't think that we wanted to do that either. That's the reason that it's come forward in this way, but it's by no means an afterthought, and we're happy to show you the draft regulations.

Section 1 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

On section 2.

J. van Dongen: The minister will be aware of some of the concerns that I expressed about this section and two related sections in second reading debate. I just want to ask two questions, which come directly from statements in the press release issued at the time this bill was tabled. The first quotation is: "This change will bring real improvements for thousands of businesses and individuals applying for Crown land tenures." I wonder if the minister could explain precisely how those improvements will take place, and why those improvements were not possible within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That goes to the heart of the issue, I would expect. The B.C. Assets and Land Corporation -- which is the new name -- has a much more specific, narrower focus on land sales and tenure administration than the ministry was able to have in the past. By their very nature, ministries have fairly broad mandates. By focusing on achieving very targeted objectives, BCAL -- for short -- will be able to achieve efficiencies and results which meet our government's objectives and speed the process. BCAL also has greater operational flexibility to put the resources in place when and where they are needed. It also has the ability to look beyond one year. It can explore opportunities and undertake expenditures which may only be fully recovered in the following year. BCAL pays its costs by receiving a portion of the revenues generated by its activities. Therefore there will be a direct relationship between government revenues and the cost of generating that revenue.

[12:15]

For the second question, again I'll read a quote from the press release to help focus the question: "The purpose of the change is to bring more resources to deal with Crown land applications and address the backlog issues." I know that the minister has indicated that within a Crown corporation there may be somewhat more flexibility with which to bring forward resources, but is it the intent and expectation of the government that there will be more resources put to these

[ Page 10733 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me begin by saying yes, there will be more resources put to land tenure administration. However, it's not just a matter of more resources. BCAL has greater flexibility to focus the resources where and when they're needed. It can also utilize private sector resources for specialized needs. BCAL is definitely taking a business like approach to tenure administration. It can now put in place resources to process tenures, even though costs may not be fully recovered until the following year. We already addressed that issue. Frankly, ministries are constrained by ministry expenditure votes on a year-by-year basis and by staffing limitations.

R. Thorpe: What amounts of expense are being taken out of the ministries' annual budgets with this transfer?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The ministries are still working on this and will present to Treasury Board the exact amounts that will be transferred.

R. Thorpe: Based on the minister's answer, will it just be vote 35, or will there be other votes involved in the gathering of the expense dollars that will be transferred out?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it's within that vote that it will be transferred.

R. Thorpe: I would hope that when that work is done we could be provided with the details. How many FTEs are being transferred out of Lands in this exercise?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, that's the actual final figure that we're working on and I'll be pleased to provide that information. It's around 90.

R. Thorpe: So the bottom line is that when we have these numbers, and we have them outside, those dollars and those expenses will no longer appear in here. They'll be, for all intents and purposes, off consolidated revenue and in a Crown corporation. They will not be in the consolidated revenue book. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There will be a reporting in the summary accounts, because BCAL is a Crown corporation. What will now happen is that placing the business functions of Crown Lands in a corporation will actually provide greater transparency in fiscal reporting. I'm not suggesting that the member is suggesting anything else, but I just want to clarify it for the record. Currently the costs of Crown Lands operations are included in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks expenditure vote, while the revenues are shown quite separately in the Crown Lands account. The new structure will clearly show the net revenue to the province and, therefore, will actually reflect the true cost of Crown Lands operations.

R. Thorpe: I don't want to get into a long debate on this. What we are doing is taking some expenses out of these accounts and helping to balance our budget -- yes, we will flow up some net dividends, but I don't want to get into that debate now.

Is this the branch that was going to deal with the commitment made by the government to deal with the extensive backlog of commercial back-country properties in British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise: has the exercise of starting to reduce that backlog -- the commitment made to industry -- started, or is it delayed while you go through this transfer exercise?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the process has been started already. There already has been a reduction. I don't have the numbers, but I'd be pleased to get those for the members. It's already started, and this transition process won't delay that.

M. Coell: If I can just paint a little bit of a picture and get a comment from the minister. . . . This ministry and this Crown lands part of the Ministry of Environment has created a lot of backlog and potential loss of jobs in the province. At the same time that I see the transfer of this, I don't see a plan. We see one line in a document that says: "We are transferring this, and we hope to solve some problems." I think that's pretty poor -- for a miscellaneous statutes document to have one line: "We're transferring Crown Lands to a new corporation that will solve the problems."

Experience has shown us that the government hasn't been able to manage this branch and has created huge backlogs that have hampered the potential for job creation. I would think the government would want to keep a closer rein on it and try to manage it properly, rather than move it off -- if there wasn't another reason. It appears to me that the other reason is that you're going to fund the FTEs -- whether it's 50, 100 or 150 -- out of the sale of property. That's what I hear the minister saying. The new corporation will be funded out of the dividends from the sale of the property, back-country leases or Crown tenure leases. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, I just note for the member that BCAL, the new corporation, and the anticipation of this was thoroughly canvassed in our estimates. This is the resulting legislation from that. The hon. member is quite right. We are putting this in a corporation to make it more efficient, to more closely tie the costs of managing, leasing and selling the land with the revenues generated. We're taking a business case to this issue.

M. Coell: That could have been accomplished within government, in my opinion. The problem is management. The problem is going to be management outside of this ministry as well. So I want to say to the minister that what I see here is a problem not being solved and a lot of history of Crown Lands, which worked for many years before this government and didn't have huge backlogs, not being faced up to. What's happened here is a government not able to face up to and deal with the problem, that will shuffle it off and hopefully, at the same time, create some revenues to help our budget. I don't think that's to the benefit of the people of British Columbia. I'll be very surprised if this works any better when you don't have a plan. We don't see a plan here other than the one line. So I'm sorry that we will not be supporting this.

Section 2 approved on division.

[ Page 10734 ]

On section 4.

R. Thorpe: Do these questions apply to all forms of beverage alcohol, or is it to a specific form of beverage alcohol?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All beverages.

R. Thorpe: What will be the basis of the exemption?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The general manager is going to develop criteria, and those criteria will be considered by cabinet. The general manager will be making decisions on a case-by-case basis.

R. Thorpe: Is the government not providing any direction on exemptions to the general manager of the branch?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I've said, the criteria aren't in the legislation. They would be developed in consultation with the general manager, and the general manager would then be guided by the criteria in making individual decisions. The criteria will likely limit eligibility to a handful of facilities, such as stadiums or concert halls that have a capacity for large public gatherings, serve a wide geographic area with a provincial or regional focus, are not primarily engaged in the service of alcohol, are primarily a venue for professional, adult-oriented sporting or cultural events and provide an economic and cultural benefit to the community as a whole. There could be others; those are the kinds of criteria that a general manager would look at.

R. Thorpe: Is it envisaged that those exemptions will only be in the lower mainland, or will they be available throughout the province of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This would obviously depend on the general manager. If there is a facility elsewhere in the province other than the lower mainland or Vancouver Island. . . . Yes, I think that this is not area-specific.

R. Thorpe: So from that, I will take it that the Attorney General, the minister responsible, is saying yes, it will be applicable to the province of British Columbia. On a regional basis the same definition could apply, because the impact could be the same within those regions. So we can move on. The minister may want to confirm that.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

R. Thorpe: Again, what will be the general direction for the exemptions and the general direction for exemptions in this area, please?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sections 4, 5 and 6 deal with that exemption, and the collective criteria would be considered in the context of those sections in determining by the general manager where these exemptions ought to be granted. They could be anywhere in the province with a regional focus, and those criteria are yet to be developed.

[12:30]

On section 6.

R. Thorpe: In the development of regulation. . . . I'm pleased that the co-chair of the streamlining of government regulations is beside the minister responsible, and I know that the minister has made a commitment to all British Columbians that stakeholders will be involved in the development of such regulations. Will the minister commit that there will be total stakeholder involvement in the development of these regulations? And will that stakeholder involvement include all beverage alcohol sectors that are produced in the province of British Columbia, plus the major associations -- namely, the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association, the Neighbourhood Pub Owners Association of British Columbia and the Restaurant and Foodservices Association of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There would be consultation. I will not commit to any specific organization being consulted. I don't know how a particular restaurant could be impacted by, for instance, GM Place getting an exemption for a particular event or events. So there would be consultation; there always is. The general manager would consult with the usual stakeholders that he consults with. He would then craft the criteria and make recommendations to the cabinet, and cabinet would then either change them or accept them as they are. The general manager would be free to determine the exemptions on a case-by-case basis.

R. Thorpe: That's exactly the reason -- to follow up on the minister's example, if I could -- why in fact you would involve the Restaurant and Foodservices Association of British Columbia. As you just stated, you don't know how it would impact on them, so that is why you would involve them. Okay?

Hon. Chair, one of the concerns that has been brought to my attention. . . . I'm sure that if the minister's had a chance to read his mail from small brewers in British Columbia -- namely, Granville Island Brewing Company, Okanagan Spring Brewery and Pacific Western Brewing from Prince George. . . . These companies are very concerned about the impact of 100 percent exclusivity. Can the minister commit to British Columbia suppliers that there will not be a total exclusivity clause in the regulations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The regulations will set terms and conditions. They may include a requirement for consumer choice of product, some responsible-use messaging as part of any advertising agreements. Those kinds of issues would be taken into account. I don't believe the regulations would lead to total exclusivity, as the hon. member puts it. There would be some choice.

R. Thorpe: This will be my last comment. It would be important to ensure that those various stakeholders are involved. As I understand it, the regulations that are to be developed for this particular situation are, by government standards, fast-tracked to be ready for October. That means that there's going to have to be some very meaningful, tight discussion to get these regulations ready by the fall. I would just ask that the minister, in consultation with his staff, take into account the comments we've made here today seeking representation and meaningful stakeholder involvement from beverage producers and those retailers in British Columbia that would be impacted or have the experience, and that their concerns be registered in this fast-track system.

[ Page 10735 ]

R. Thorpe: It should pass -- unless the member for Prince George-Mount Robson has any question with respect to her local brewer.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

T. Nebbeling: In the list of definitions, the words "lottery scheme" have been added. Throughout the act we see those words replace the word "lottery." What is the significant need to do this?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's to make sure that the terminology within this act is consistent with the act that governs the Lottery Corporation, but more particularly, with the Criminal Code of Canada.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

T. Nebbeling: Talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, section 8(c) repeals section 2(1)(d) of the Lottery Act. Can the minister explain why this section has been repealed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That takes out what was wrong with the original order-in-council. In a sense, it takes out the power of the minister and replaces it in a later section with what should be the correct wording, which is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

T. Nebbeling: The section that stated that lotteries in British Columbia must be conducted only if they are permitted under the Criminal Code of Canada. . . . In the definitions of terminology, that is within the Criminal Code of Canada. Now you say you're taking out that section.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What we're doing is making this act consistent with the Criminal Code of Canada. For the Criminal Code of Canada, the correct terminology -- which is later on -- should be "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." It should not be, as it was in the existing order-in-council, "the minister may." The power that would come to me as a minister comes through the Lieutenant-Governor-In-Council, not by virtue of being a minister.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

T. Nebbeling: Under section 9, this bill allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to delegate discretionary authority. Considering that this section includes a significant delegation of power, the question would be: who would be eligible to receive such power or delegated authority?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This wording is what is required in terms of being consistent with the Criminal Code of Canada in order to delegate authority to the Gaming Commission, so that they can issue the licences. It would be the Gaming Commission that receives the authority through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

T. Nebbeling: Section 9 of the bill also goes back in history to retroactively ensure that gaming licences were validly issued. This section tends to wipe clean the history of gaming in this province. My question is: what effect will this section have on the culpability of the NDP in the issue of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. M. Farnworth: None whatsoever.

T. Nebbeling: Does this section limit in any way, shape or form the ability of the Nanaimo charities to seek legal redress for funds illegally diverted from charities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it does not.

G. Plant: One of the things that this section does is refer to a number of provincial officials -- cabinet-level officials and others -- over the course of time from 1986 forward. It refers to the Provincial Secretary, the Minister of Government Services, the Attorney General and so on. And then it says that all the authority that those people had is conclusively deemed to have been valid. Is the problem here that the Lottery Act has given powers directly to the minister ever since 1986? Is that the defect that the government is trying to cure here, which has given rise to all the issues that have arisen in respect of retroactivity, unanimity and all of that? What is the problem that goes all the way back to 1986 and needs to be fixed?

[12:45]

G. Plant: In speaking to the latter case first -- that is, the period between 1986 and 1987 -- am I getting it right in saying that the Crown's concern is that if it was the minister or a responsible minister who issued the licences, then there is an argument that that's outside the authority of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada because that says that it's the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who issues the licences? Is that the essence of the point?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

G. Plant: Dealing with the period from 1987 forward, the minister, in his answer a few minutes ago, spoke about a regulation that came into effect in 1987. Would I be right in guessing that the concern that he is operating with here relates to the fact that the licensing power under the regulation was granted to the minister again, as opposed to cabinet? In other words, is it the same general problem?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I am mindful of the member's legal expertise. Not being a lawyer myself, I hope I phrase this in the correct way.

[ Page 10736 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know, and I'll probably answer again. The Criminal Code contemplates the province being able to delegate the authority, but it doesn't actually do it. In fact, it anticipates that the province will have to enact legislation to do that, and that's what needs to be done.

G. Plant: Then try me on again for the explanation of what the problem was between 1987 and now which needs to be fixed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Now I know why I'm not a lawyer.

The regulation was right, but no one had given the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the authority to give the power to the Gaming Commission.

G. Plant: Who would have the authority to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that authority?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Legislature.

G. Plant: That's interesting. Let me just be sure that in this context we're talking about the 207(1)(b) licensing scheme, not the 207(1)(a) licensing scheme. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

G. Plant: So the contention is that in order to comply with the requirements of 207(1)(b), the province first has to give authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and then further authority flows from that. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's correct.

G. Plant: The problem raised in the Carpentier lawsuit, which is the subject of some media attention, is, I think, a different problem than the one we've been discussing. At the risk of posing a not terribly subtle question, is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Which litigation? There are two.

G. Plant: I'm looking at the reasons for the judgment of Mr. Justice Owen-Flood in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Bingo Association case, in which the judge struck down aspects of the gaming scheme. It's his logic and analysis of what the problems were with the scheme that was before him that I'm looking at, and I'm mindful of the fact that the regulation that was attacked before him was a regulation that doesn't go back to a date earlier than this government. In fact, it's a very recent regulation. He was very concerned about issues around the extent to which the province was taking more fees than it was entitled to as part of that scheme. It seems to me that that is conceptually a different problem than the problem that the minister has explained in terms of the roots of the problem, but maybe they're connected. That's a little fuller explanation of what I meant when I asked the question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Owen-Flood decision dealt with two key issues. One was the use of proceeds, and that's what his judgment spoke to. It did not speak to the issue of conduct and management.

G. Plant: Well, let me put a different way what's on my mind. Was it the Owen-Flood decision that caused the government to sit down and look at its regulatory scheme around gaming and lotteries and, from that exercise, find this defect that apparently goes back to 1986? I'm not sure that I see the Owen-Flood decision taking me to that problem. Of course, I'm not an expert in the regulation of gaming or lotteries. I'm trying to find out if there's a connection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Owen-Flood decision -- that's the one the member has talked about -- is definitive and is the ruling. But in making his ruling, he also touched on a number of other issues and concerns that he raised but didn't rule on. Upon receiving that, and then saying, "Okay, what does this mean? What are the issues that need to be addressed here. . . ?" That's how that comes about.

G. Plant: So I guess to ask another not very subtle question. . . . What we have before us now is legislation which is intended to correct the security of the foundation for the gaming scheme and its regulation in British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: To give a not so subtle answer, it's to clean up a mess.

[1:00]

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's correct. I mean, this legislation provides for a provincial statute to provide an ongoing authority for the Gaming Commission to do the work that it's supposed to do.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for the answer. Part of the origin of this defect has to do with the way the provisions of the Criminal of Code of Canada are worded and the nature of the authority that those provisions confer on the province or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of a province. As I understand it, the provincial officials -- the lawyers and staff -- have identified some problems with the way in which the province has regulated gambling since 1986, the way in which the province has in effect attempted to carry out the authority it has under section 207(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. What the province is trying to do in this section that will become section 2.1 of the Lottery Act is to retroactively cure any licences or any exercise of authority during the period of that defect.

Now, some might argue. . . . Let me put it this way. I wouldn't want to put it that high, because I don't want to claim that I have thought about this in any more than the most superficial way. But it occurs to me that some might want to look at the question of whether or not the province, acting alone, has the capacity to cure a defect that has a federal root. I don't need to have a discussion about the esoterics of the argument. I take it that the province's position is that it has that power and that it has done so successfully here -- that if there is a defect, if any of the implications of the Owen-Flood decision are correct and if therefore there is some argument about invalidity of licences issued or excess of authority during this period of 12 years, the province's view is that this provision -- section 2.1 -- cures that problem and is able to do that and does that successfully.

[ Page 10737 ]

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

T. Nebbeling: Section 11 -- that's a significant amount of power to make regulations by including regulations related to the conduct, management and operations of or participation in lottery schemes. At the same time, the government has granted itself considerable powers to delegate authority. The minister responsible for gaming has also stated that he will introduce a new gaming act in approximately nine months. Why doesn't the government keep the current system in place until the new act is in place?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Because we feel that it could be challenged and that the Gaming Commission still requires the proper authority to carry out the work it's supposed to do. If that's not in place, then we still have a mess.

T. Nebbeling: So you do acknowledge that you're in a mess. That's good, because we tried to figure that out yesterday -- which would have shortened the debate fast.

The minister is most likely aware that there has been a considerable amount of criticism expressed by organizations and authorities, including the UBCM, about the lack of opportunities for input in the creation of the new gaming act. That criticism continues to happen in spite of the one token meeting that has been held with Mr. Rhodes. Does the minister contemplate any further opportunities not only for the existing group that has had one meeting to have input on the new gaming act but also to widen the group so that more representation and input into the new gaming act is done rather than consulting on the results that will be prepared through Mr. Rhodes and Ladner Downs?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, in fact I do. This comes back to the discussion we had in estimates debate. There's the initial consultation that's taking place in terms of preparation of a White Paper for release in the fall. Once that White Paper is released, it's open for comment, criticism, input and suggestions. As I said during the estimates debate, if people have views that they wish to express, send them in.

T. Nebbeling: Just to complete this little section, I had hoped that the minister would realize that the real criticism is on the fact that the input, prior to the preparation of the White Paper by the parties that have been invited to make contributions to that White Paper, has been restricted to the contents of one meeting. They truly consider that to be not input but just going through a token move to satisfy a commitment by the minister. Will the minister add more meetings for that group before that White Paper is indeed prepared?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There will be more meetings before the release of the White Paper. It's not my intention that a White Paper should be released on the basis of one meeting.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

L. Reid: My question is simply to learn whether this is indeed the enabling legislation that is the transition between what is in place today and what is professed will be in place in the year 2000 under the Workers Compensation Board regulation. Section 13 says: "(a) regulate persons, their premises and their activities, to further the care, protection, promotion and preservation of the health. . .by prohibiting. . .smoking. . . ." My understanding is that that's the transition piece, if you will, until the year 2000, when the regulation will come forward from the Workers Compensation Board. A simple yes would make me happy.

Hon. L. Boone: No, it's not. The WCB regulations would only protect places that have employees, so there still remains a role for municipalities to play in passing bylaws that would protect the general public.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

G. Wilson: I notice that what we're dealing with here is enabling legislation. I understand that municipal enabling legislation is not new, but what is new here is the validation of anti-smoking bylaws. I wonder if the minister might comment on why the government would introduce at this time an amendment that, under section 40(1) of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 2), says: "Despite section 523(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, as that section read before its amendment by the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998" -- which we're debating now -- "and despite any decision of a court to the contrary made before or after this section came into force, a local government bylaw that (a) prohibits or purports to prohibit the smoking or other use or consumption of tobacco products in classes of premises specified in the bylaw, and (b) was approved by the Minister of Health before this section came into force, is conclusively deemed to be valid for all purposes."

Validating regulation, as I've seen it, often likes to go back and dot the i's and cross the t's of bylaws that perhaps have not anticipated all aspects of what was intended by council. But it strikes me that the language of this particular bill anticipates that there may be, in fact, future court decisions made on the basis of bylaws that are made after the fact. It's striking it down in advance. Does the minister not agree that that's what this section does?

Hon. J. Kwan: This MEVA was brought in as a result of the Burnaby decision on June 1, 1998, where the Provincial Court ruled that Burnaby does not have the authority to prohibit smoking. They have the authority to regulate but not to prohibit. That was the court decision that came out of the Burnaby situation. This is merely to enable local governments to have the authority, if they so wish, to not only regulate but also prohibit smoking. But it does not, in future, prevent any court decisions. The courts will decide what they will decide, but this will give local governments the authority to prohibit, as per the June 1 court decision in Burnaby.

[1:15]

[ Page 10738 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: It would potentially affect issues relating to the court where the issue of prohibition is central to the smoking bylaw. It would only be applicable to municipalities which do have bylaws in place. It is my understanding from the Ministry of Health that there are some 87 municipalities which do have pending bylaws that will take effect at a later date. This will prevent the situation that had arisen out of the Burnaby situation for those municipalities.

G. Wilson: So what the minister is saying. . . . For greater clarity, let me just understand. You have a local population who elects a local council. That local council then determines that they're going to put in a bylaw, and that bylaw says that they are now going to prohibit any smoking in a public premises, a pub. There's a smoking prohibition -- you can't smoke in these public places -- and that bylaw is currently being challenged in a court of law. The government is now going to de facto come in and say that despite any decision of a court to the contrary which was made either before or after this section came into force, that local bylaw is going to be deemed to be legal. Is that right?

Hon. J. Kwan: The member is right in part, in that if a bylaw is being challenged on the premise of prohibition, then this legislation would apply and would give them protection for the purposes of prohibition. But if someone wants to challenge the bylaw on some other grounds -- on a constitutional component or authority -- they would have the authority to do that, and then the court will make a decision accordingly.

G. Wilson: So what the minister is saying is that if you're going to challenge this now, you're going to have to challenge it on the basis of a constitutional right. Even though the municipality may have adopted the bylaw in a manner that is not consistent with the Municipal Act, by the nature of section 40 that bylaw will be conclusively deemed to have been validly adopted -- notwithstanding the grievance that may be in front of, say, the inspector of municipalities or a court as a result of invalid action taken by a municipality which has not adhered to the letter of the Municipal Act. Is that right? Whatever the municipality may have done, if that bylaw was invalidly adopted, it doesn't matter. It's now going to be deemed to be law -- correct?

Hon. J. Kwan: The problem that came out of the Burnaby situation, from the court decision, seemed to indicate that there's a very grey line between prohibition and regulation. When municipalities brought in their bylaws, I believe that they were under the impression that they do have the authority to prohibit. The court made a decision to say that they do not. Therefore we were asked to bring in legislation that would validate the prohibition component of their bylaw, and that is what we have done with this legislation.

G. Plant: I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has eliminated some problems here. I for one am glad they've been eliminated. Let me just try to add a little bit to it. I think that one of the problems here is that this sort of validation legislation typically cures a defect in respect to the delegation of authority to a municipality to act, to create a particular kind of bylaw. It says that even if there's a little bit of doubt in the Municipal Act about whether or not the municipality can enact this kind of bylaw, they enacted it, and we're going to cure the defect in authority. But the minister points out that the attack on smoking bylaws -- and I think this may be part of the issue that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is pursuing. . . . There are other attacks that can be made on smoking bylaws. We've already identified constitutional arguments. I'm certainly not going to spend the rest of the night complaining about this, but I think the section overreaches. That's my reading of it right now.

For me, the words of concern are the last words in section 40(1). They say that notwithstanding any of these other things, if a municipality makes an anti-smoking bylaw, the bylaw "is conclusively deemed to be valid for all purposes." It's not saying that we will cure the defect in authority of a particular bylaw. Actually, we're probably going to do that when we get to some of these other provisions in this section. It goes further than that. It says that it's conclusively deemed to be valid for all purposes. Some might say that does go further, and some might doubt that.

For my purposes, anyway, I'm not going to go much further than to ask the minister to confirm that really, from the government's perspective, all they're intending to do is essentially to cure the potential for these kind of procedural irregularities. They're not trying to prevent the citizens of a municipality from challenging an anti-smoking bylaw on the basis of a constitutional argument.

Hon. J. Kwan: That is essentially correct. The intention of this bylaw is to give municipalities the greatest level of certainty that can be given to them with respect to local government authority in the areas of regulation and prohibiting -- more specifically, prohibiting smoking in indoor places. As it now stands, if someone chooses to challenge any bylaw on whatever grounds, constitutional or otherwise, they have full authority to do that.

G. Wilson: I just have one last comment on that, because I'd like to get the minister on record on this question. Does the minister believe that with the passage of this section, legal action filed in court that cites the Burnaby case as their reason why prohibition of smoking in a public facility is not legal. . . ? Is it the minister's opinion that with the passage of this, that argument or file will be foreclosed on?

Hon. J. Kwan: One could never foresee what the courts may ultimately do, but I'm advised by staff and the legal people who drafted this legislation that that is the intent of the legislation.

G. Plant: I actually want to move forward in section 14, to what will become section 43 of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 2). That is at the bottom of page 8. It is a provision that deals with the Prince George water fluoridation bylaw. The minister knows that this appears to. . . . I believe the intention of this is to cure some kind of defect that may have existed when the municipality of Prince George adopted a resolution by its council on October 4, 1954, authorizing fluoridation. That's before even I was born.

The question I have is this. Let me break it down into sequences. First of all, am I correct in assuming that on October 4, 1954, the city of Prince George, by its council, purported to adopt a resolution which authorized fluoridation?

[ Page 10739 ]

G. Plant: The issue being that fluoridation was undertaken pursuant to a resolution rather than by a bylaw. Is that the issue?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.

G. Plant: Has the water in Prince George been fluoridated continuously since 1954?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.

G. Plant: The citizens and the voters of Prince George have had an opportunity, as elections have arisen in that city, to reconsider the wisdom of fluoridation. But in fact the original resolution, the original decision in 1954, has stood the political tests of time -- that is, it's still there; it's still in force. It could be said, in some political sense, to still represent the will of the people of Prince George. Would that be a fair statement?

Hon. J. Kwan: As far as I know, there has never been an electors' assent since that time on that issue. However, in discussion with the mayor of Prince George, he advised me that that is indeed the opinion of the electorate in that city.

G. Wilson: I'd like to explore this a little more deeply. It's my understanding that the reason for this problem is the fact that they actually have had the works fail in '52, '53, in reconstruction, and in that time the water was fluoridated for a greatly smaller population in Prince George. It's also my understanding that it in fact was a law that any fluoridation beyond that point -- because it was brought in by W.A.C. Bennett -- required referendum, that it had to be put to the people. The issue in Prince George as I understand it from talking to a number of different people there, both pro and con fluoridation -- so I'm not making an issue as to whether it's a good thing or a bad thing here; I'm talking about process -- is that the city of Prince George should have held a referendum on the future of fluoridation and expansion of the water system, but it did not. What we're doing here is going back to 1954 in saying that despite the fact that they should have had a fluoridation referendum, we're now enabling them to allow their letters patent and -- notwithstanding the Municipal Act -- allowing them to continue to supply fluoridated water. Isn't that really what we're doing here?

[1:30]

G. Wilson: I'm aware that when the works failed and reconstruction occurred and fluoridation started, that predated the requirement for fluoridated water. In order for the city to fluoridate, they needed to go to a referendum -- right?

Interjection.

G. Wilson: That's right. I mean, I hate to admit it, but it's true. I was actually around in that time.

But what happened was that W.A.C. Bennett came in and required a referendum. So this thing predated the referendum. . . . Then the law came in that said: "You have to hold a referendum." The works failed, reconstruction took place, and since then it's been greatly expanded with new structures built, new services and supply built, and in every case they have continued to supply fluoridated water without going to referendum. There is a body of people in Prince George, as the member for Prince George-Mount Robson will know, who would like very much to not have fluoridated water. There are other people who say: "There's nothing wrong with it. It's great for my teeth. Just leave it alone." So there's a dispute here, and there are people who are trying to challenge on a legal basis the right of the city to continue to supply fluoridated water without going to a referendum.

What you're doing is foreclosing on that argument by saying: "Through this act, we are now basically going to say that whatever has been done up to 1954 is legal." And you foreclose on those who would like to somehow mount a challenge against the city because the city has never gone to a referendum. In a nutshell, isn't that what's going on?

Hon. J. Kwan: At that time, in 1954, the law did not require that the city of Prince George go to a referendum on the issue of fluoridation. The law was then changed in 1957. In this unusual circumstance, in that it predates by three years. . .when they already had fluoridation in place, the city of Prince George asked my ministry to provide enabling legislation for them to continue fluoridation without a voter assent requirement. Having said that, if there is dissent in the community, they can still talk to and appeal to its council, and the council still has the authority to make that decision as to whether or not they want to go to a referendum.

G. Wilson: I understand, and we're in complete agreement -- the 1957 date I understand -- but there are two points I'd like to make for the record. I still think that what this government is doing is foreclosing by retroactively changing the rules. It forecloses on people who may seek legal action against the city of Prince George. As a matter of public policy, I question whether or not we should be doing that. That's why I want to make these two points. Number one is that the infrastructure works and the supply of water that have occurred since 1957 have been greatly expanded, with new supply, new service and new delivery, all of which has supplied, without the matter of voter assent, fluoridated water to the houses and the people of Prince George -- right? That's point one.

Point two is that once this enabling bill comes in, there is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for the city of Prince George to change its practice and for those people who believe they should have had a right, by law, to have a referendum to say yes or no. Their right will have been foreclosed on, because this bill will no longer give them the legal opportunity to challenge the delivery of that water. Is that not correct? I believe that is the case.

Hon. J. Kwan: The city of Prince George and the people of Prince George can still go to a referendum on the issue of fluoridation. The council has the full authority to do that. If there are people within the city of Prince George who disagree with the decision that has been made since 1954 -- and this enabling legislation -- they can voice the exercise of this enabling legislation within the council chambers, and they would have full authority to do that.

[ Page 10740 ]

G. Wilson: My last point on this. . . . I don't disagree that they can still go to council and try and persuade council. But when the minister says to go back and put right what should have been done 44 years ago, plus or minus a couple of years. . . . If the minister will simply say, "Yes, I agree," then at least I will understand where we are and we'll have that clear in the record.

What this bill does is eliminate the legal challenge that may have been made against the city as a result of the city not adhering to law when they expanded the water service after 1957 and the law required that they go to referendum. That's what the law said they had to do, and they didn't do it. They argued: "We're already fluoridating the water." So if the minister will just agree that that's what this does. . . . It basically eliminates their opportunity to challenge the law, because it essentially was not enacted for new infrastructure and water delivery post-1957. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Kwan: It does not eliminate a person's right to challenge any law, and in this instance it does not eliminate their right to challenge the law. But in all probability it would diminish their probability of winning, and that's what this legislation will do.

G. Wilson: So what it says is that you can still go ahead and try to win your case, but good luck, because we've just closed every loophole possible and you might as well give up. But never be daunted. Just go right ahead, and if there is a loophole that the government has missed by miscellaneous statute, next year they'll grab that one too. My guess is that this is what this bill is doing.

Sections 14 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

G. Plant: There are three provisions on the Public Service Labour Relations Act, one of which attracts my interest, and that's section 4(b). These provisions have to do with how people within the public service who are licensed professionals organize their bargaining unit. As I understand it, the situation now is that there are a number of professions that are currently registered in the bargaining unit for professionals. Hon. Chair, no doubt you will be interested to know what some of these groups are: foresters, engineers, geoscientists, agrologists, psychologists, physiotherapists, pharmacists, dentists, veterinarians, architects, surveyors and perhaps teachers in some cases. I may not have the list quite right. What I want to know is: what is the intention of section 4(b)?

Hon. L. Boone: It's to remain the status quo, so that even if there's a change in the professional designation, they still stay within that bargaining unit. For example, if social workers in my jurisdiction became registered social workers, then rather than move into the PEA, they would in fact remain with the bargaining unit, which is the BCGEU.

G. Plant: Who has asked for this change? Where has the pressure on government to make this change come from?

Hon. L. Boone: The BCGEU sought it, and the government's PSERC, the bargaining agent, is supportive of this. That's where the pressures have come.

Sections 36 to 38 inclusive approved.

On section 39.

T. Nebbeling: Section 39, section 22 is kind of confusing. I do not understand what the objective is of this whole exercise, although I do have some suspicions. Just a general question to the minister to set up the mood of the questions that I will follow with: what will improve the B.C. Utilities Commission's ability to perform its duties and carry out its mandate with the amendments as presented to section 22?

[1:45]

In terms of a public policy issue, the decision on whether or not to go through and approve cogeneration plants, for example, is the purview of the province.

T. Nebbeling: So when we talk about section 22(a). . . . That is the section that traditionally applied to producers of power. Now they are also being given the powers to sell and purchase, I suppose, the cogeneration plants and other opportunities that will materialize. Is the minister saying that the Utilities Commission still has a say over the rate structure and the correctness of rates when they are coming from companies that fall under section 22(a)?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is yes.

T. Nebbeling: Do the decisions made by the Utilities Commission then stand, or can they be overruled by an order-in-council or by the minister or by any other authority authorized to overrule?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question is no.

T. Nebbeling: If that is the case, has the minister discussed this particular section with industrial and residential users, ratepayer groups, so that they are aware of this type of new structure on rates that's in the making?

Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points. One is that this has come out of the Jaccard process, which was a public process that had a lot of input. More to the point, this has also been asked for by the independent power producers, in particular as it relates to the power plants or the cogeneration plants. Port Alberni and Campbell River are two examples.

T. Nebbeling: Will there be any regulation, then, on these so-called private power producers which will ensure that the

[ Page 10741 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to the question would be no, it won't have an impact, in part because this power comes out through a competitive bid process that dates back to changes that were made in 1994. So this is the lowest-cost and most efficient power that can be brought on by the IPPs.

T. Nebbeling: There must be in place a set of regulatory guidelines to ensure that the interest of the public at large is upheld. Can the minister extrapolate as to where we can find these guidelines?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess that would be the original proposal call that was done back in 1994, when it was put out for bid and a series of proposals were received and evaluated on their ability to supply power at the lowest possible cost. That's what is coming onstream. So it's not a question of you going out and saying: "We want to sell it at this." The proposal was put out with: "What's the lowest cost that can be supplied?" These are the two that were approved on that basis.

T. Nebbeling: So it's not B.C. Hydro that is involved with any of the capital costs related to these projects that will be suppliers to the hydro system at the lowest cost that the minister says will be available at that time.

Hon. M. Farnworth: B.C. Hydro is not involved in the construction of these plants in any way, shape or form.

T. Nebbeling: Will B.C. Hydro be involved in the future with any construction of capital projects that will be needed to supply all the users of the power, based on the fact that we have an active interest in pursuing new industries to come to British Columbia which will require a considerable amount of new power plants to be developed or upgraded to accommodate the need for all that power? That's my first question.

Is there anything in planning that will add to the power base of B.C. Hydro which could have capital cost consequences?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it is possible that there could be. As an example, Fort Nelson would be one.

T. Nebbeling: The power that will be created by these new plants like Fort Nelson and the Keenleyside Dam will most likely be earmarked for the major industrial users that we hope to see come to this province. This power, because of the Utilities Commission's role being eliminated, is to be offered at the discretion of the minister or of B.C. Hydro to these new industries, and these prices could be well below the regular prices. That means that the capital cost still has to be recuperated, and the profit margins that Hydro can make will have to be recuperated. The obvious conclusion I can come to is that the traditional users, be they residential or commercial, will potentially be looking at rates that are higher than they should be in order to accommodate the power that will be sold at a much lower price than is available for the traditional users.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think we need to separate out Power for Jobs from these projects, because they are not part of the Power for Jobs initiative. Power for Jobs comes primarily from downstream benefits. These are intended to come on stream to supply power into the regular grid, and in most cases -- and particularly in the examples that I've named -- they're to supply power to the existing industry that's already there. They're not being built for some other plant to come in.

A case in point is the one in Fort Nelson, where there already is the mill that's up and running. It currently gets its power from Alberta. There are brown-outs, so there's not a secure supply of power to the town. This will give that secure supply of power to the plant that's already there and to the town. It's the same in the case of Campbell River. It's supplying to the mill, so it's dealing with existing requirements.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe the last question is: can the minister then explain to me why indeed, considering what he has just told us, there is any need for eliminating the role of the Utilities Commission? We have seen the role being diminished with Bill 6, which we discussed in the House, and we see a further erosion here. There has to be some valid justification for doing that, and I have not heard it from the minister. Maybe the minister can come up with another argument to justify this action.

Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points, I guess. The Utilities Commission is still involved in terms of regulation of the rates, but one of the primary issues is around red tape. For example, is it the role of the Utilities Commission, in terms of public policy, to determine whether they should go ahead on the basis of environmental impact or on the basis of social impact? All those issues are addressed under the Environmental Assessment Act, for example, which is an extremely thorough and comprehensive act that captures these projects for all those issues that you as a consumer could identify. The issue around rates is still within the purview of the Utilities Commission. The question is: do you go through this one big environmental assessment process, come out of that and suddenly go to another process, when the issue of the Utilities Commission should really be the rates and the rate structure? It's a question of eliminating the red tape.

T. Nebbeling: I accept -- kind of -- the argument that the minister makes as far as environmental assessment; but the minister also knows, of course, that the Utilities Commission's role goes much further. It looks at the total power structure in the province and at why certain projects are justified from an investment perspective, be it in the private sector with small power plants or be it directly with Hydro. Eliminating from that overview a considerable number of power producers that produce a respectable amount of power is really going to make it very difficult for the Utilities Commission to make decisions based on an overall provincial strategy, which has always been first and foremost for the Utilities Commission. That red-tape argument was never, ever a consideration when the smaller power plants -- the five-kilowatt plants -- were developed all over the place. The Utilities Commission still had a role in that, I believe, and to say now that a rather important large sector is being eliminated from that consideration for provincial well-being just does not make much sense to me.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the member's concern and his points. I would say that if we were going to stay strictly in a monopoly position, then yes, I would probably agree 100 percent. But we're moving to a more competitive marketplace, where the market will decide what is the most cost-effective or what project should proceed on the basis of its economics. At the same time, the environmental, social or

[ Page 10742 ]

[2:00]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hydro still distributes the power. What it's doing is purchasing power now on the open market, and that's the change that's taking place. That's how we're moving to a more open market.

D. Jarvis: It's not really competitive, it's being competitive within itself. It's not competing against anyone else, allowing people to go. . . . What you're saying is that Hydro is now backing off from going out and producing power. What they're doing is going out and asking the independent power companies to produce power that can only be sold through Hydro. Is that right?

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In a sense, the member is correct, in that we're moving to a more open market process. We're doing it in a sort of made-in-B.C. way -- from the position of a low-cost producer already as opposed to, say, going to a wide-open, full competition model as may exist in California, let's say, or in another part of the States. It's more of a gradual approach here in British Columbia.

D. Jarvis: Then it's really not a competitive market basis. What you're talking about is that Hydro is still going to be the monopoly in this province for selling power -- gathering in the power and putting it out throughout the province. They are still going to be a monopoly. This is not an open competitive market that you're talking about. You're just using a bunch of words to deflect the fact that this province probably should have an open market system in which anyone can go out and produce power, provided they can do it in a reasonable manner and to the benefit of the people in this province.

Will the minister still be submitting to the B.C. Utilities Commission his business plans on each project he's doing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: On the issue of the markets, we're moving to a more open market. The generation is now becoming a competitive generating market. In terms of the business plans, it's not the government that's building the plant; it's an independent power producer. So the government would not be submitting business plans to the Utilities Commission. In fact, on the RFP, there were 47 different projects that came in to be able to construct an IPP, and it was on a competitive basis. So that's what's taking place.

D. Jarvis: I would still like to know if Hydro is required to submit their business plan to the Utilities Commission for each project that they're going through. But when we're talking about independent power projects, Hydro still is. . . . You've got to get that through to yourself, I think, and to the public, because you're deflecting the real situation of what's happening in B.C. Hydro. It's still a monopoly; it's not a competitive business. Am I able to go out and start an intensive electricity business and choose where I'm going to get my power from, or do I have to buy it from B.C. Hydro?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If you go through the Environmental Assessment Act and if you can produce it at the lowest possible cost, then yes, you can.

D. Jarvis: But I would still like the minister to answer my question -- whether Hydro is required to submit its business plan to the Utilities Commission.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question is yes, they do. In answer to your comments, don't laugh. There's that guy in Victoria who's just won the case, who could take over that huge computer company.

Section 39 approved on division.

Sections 40 and 41 approved.

On section 42.

G. Plant: Section 42 is entitled "Immunity from legal action." Section 42 is a pretty integral part of the package of immunities and retroactivity and conclusive-deeming provisions, which we on this side of the House spoke about, expressed concerns about and in fact quoted last night. I have just a few questions here to ensure that we've got the context of this right.

Dealing with section 42, first of all, following the judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Owen-Flood in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Bingo Association case, the decision of January 14, 1998, which struck down the province's regulatory scheme for lotteries and gaming. . . . After that decision, a claim was made against the province by the Nanaimo Commonwealth Bingo Association by Mr. Carpentier, which has resulted in a lawsuit. The claim is usually described as being for $100 million or more. The question I have for the minister is: is it the intention of the government, in section 42, to preclude, to bring an end to, that lawsuit?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The claim that we're talking about has two components: administrative law and constitutional law. Section 42 will deal with the administrative law claim as well as every other claim that would come that particular route. It doesn't deal just with that one singularly but with every one that would come that route, but not with a constitutional claim.

G. Plant: Dealing with the second point first, is the minister saying that the government is not intending here to preclude a constitutional challenge to the lottery regulation scheme?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

G. Plant: Is the minister or the government aware of any other claims presently before the courts which are caught by or which it is intended will be caught by the immunity in section 42? That is, is there any other claim out there, other than the Nanaimo Community Bingo Association claim?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, not in terms of if there's been a claim filed or under active consideration. However, in my

[ Page 10743 ]

G. Plant: So the minister is saying, in effect, that he is intending to bring an end to the one claim that we know about and to the possibility of other claims of a similar nature.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

G. Plant: When I read section 42 the first time, I thought about the terms of reference of what's now, I suppose, called the Smith inquiry but was the Nemetz inquiry -- the inquiry under the Inquiry Act into, among other things, societies, gaming and the NCHS scandal in British Columbia. The thought crossed my mind that section 42, or other provisions in this bill, might have -- perhaps unintentionally -- some impact on the way in which the commission can discharge its terms of reference or on the job the commission is going to do. Is it the government's intention here to in any way affect what the Smith commission has been given terms of reference to inquire into?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will take this opportunity to say that great minds think alike. I asked the same question myself when I was first aware of the contents of the legislation, reviewing it. The answer to the question is no, it's not.

G. Plant: Let me pursue, if I may, one hypothetical scenario that may be a qualification to that answer. It may be that as a result of the commission of inquiry, there will be findings made that suggest that certain individuals committed civil wrongs, in addition to whatever may be happening in other places that may amount to criminal issues. There may be findings or observations made or analysis undertaken which expose hitherto unknown flaws in the lottery or gaming scheme beyond those that have given rise to these provisions. There is a possibility that the Smith inquiry might provide the groundwork for someone to file a claim for compensation. There is also the possibility that the Smith commission might say something about the regulation of gambling which we haven't thought of yet. So there are two possible scenarios. Is it the intention of the government in putting forward these provisions, particularly section 42, to preclude people from pursuing whatever legal redress they might have available to them in either of those scenarios?

[2:15]

Section 42 approved on division.

On section 43.

G. Plant: For the minister, who is not a lawyer, this stuff in section 43 is dream language for solicitors. This is what every solicitor acting in every corporate commercial deal wants to have to protect their client and seldom gets. Subsection (1) says: "The Lottery Act as amended by this Act, this section and sections 7 to 11, 42 and 46 (3) of this Act must be applied to and must be given effect in every action or proceeding, whether commenced before, on or after the date this Act receives Royal Assent." What does this add to the existing law? I mean, every enactment is always speaking; that's what the law is. A regulation lawfully enacted is a regulation lawfully enacted. What does it mean to say. . . ? Because every enactment is always speaking and has effect, then necessarily, by operation of law, it must be applied to and given effect. So what does subsection (1) add that doesn't already exist in the general law?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess in non-legalese, extra certainty is probably the short non-subtle answer.

G. Plant: With respect to section 43(3), what of the rest of this scheme is the government afraid is going to get declared unlawful for the purpose of bringing into effect a severance clause?

That's fine. I'm not asking that question. I don't want to have a debate about what particular parts of this scheme still don't work or might not work.

I suppose I have two questions. They're the same question. These clauses, I think, are pretty unusual. I don't think the statute books are filled with severability language. I may be wrong and maybe there's lots of it, in which case that will be what I'm after. The sort of further assurances concept that's embedded in subsection (1) -- not further assurances, but the greater comfort concept. . . . I guess I worry sometimes about. . . . If you put this into one act, is someone going to come along and say, because it's not in some other act, that in fact there is some consequence that flows from it? Are these issues that are simply beyond the pale in terms of credibility, or are they things that have been taken into account by the minister and his staff when drafting these provisions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand what the member is saying. I guess the points I'll make are that, one, in terms of greater certainty and in addressing all the conceivable issues that we can think of, that's why it's there. From my perspective as minister, this particular issue, in the broad picture, has been so mired in controversy and in litigation and has been so in need of a sound basis from which to go forward on -- and that's been one of the goals -- that we need to ensure that it is as certain as possible. That's why these particular sections are there. I fully understand the member's concerns as applied to government as a whole. I would say this is probably unusual as opposed to typical.

Section 43 approved on division.

Sections 44 and 45 approved.

On section 46.

G. Plant: It will not have escaped your attention, hon. Chair, that subsection (3) of section 46 is an aspect of the retroactivity provisions that relate to the gaming scheme. At least, I think that's so, and I'd better make sure of it -- "Sections 7 to 10. . . ." Yes, I think that they're the poison pill in section 46, so I have to advise the minister that I won't be able to support section 46.

Section 46 approved on division.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[ Page 10744 ]

Bill 50, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 2:24 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada