1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 12, Number 11

[ 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

C. Clark: Two days ago in Nanaimo the Supreme Court convicted a stepfather -- seven years in prison -- for, in the words of the judge, sadistically abusing his stepdaughters. The biological father in this case says that he met with 17 different social workers to report the abuse -- 17 different social workers over a period of a year -- and not one of them phoned the RCMP, not one of them rang the alarm bells. This stepfather stayed in that home, brutalizing those girls. How can it be, two and a half years after Judge Gove reported, that a parent can make 17 separate reports of child abuse, and the Ministry for Children and Families does nothing?

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]

Judge Gove reported in 1995, and the minister said: "Yes, there's a problem. We'll fix it." Then we had the Baby M. report. The ministry said: "There's a problem; we'll fix it." Then there was Mavis Flanders. The ministry said: "There was a problem; we'll fix it." And now the minister says that there isn't even a problem. When will she start to take her responsibility as a minister seriously and take responsibility for the failures of her ministry, rather than just apologizing again and again and saying that these problems don't even exist, when children in Nanaimo, like these children, are ignored after repeated calls for help to her ministry?

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 ]

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

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

V. Anderson: To the Minister for Children and Families. Last week the official opposition pointed out to the Ministry for Children and Families that on June 22 the Spallumcheen band abruptly removed 20-month-old Baby F. from her foster home without any transition planning. Baby F. has fetal alcohol effect and cannot tolerate sudden and drastic changes. This child has already been separated from her biological mother, and she has now had another primary bond with a foster parent severed.

As the Child and Family Review Board found last year in the Murphy case, destroying a developmentally challenged baby's bond with a caregiver is a violation of that child's rights. Why has the Ministry for Children and Families refused to even investigate whether or not this baby's rights have been violated?

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

G. Abbott: According to Ministry of Forests stumpage billings, the first-quarter of the fiscal year shows a very considerable loss from the previous years. In fact, these figures show that government stumpage revenues for the first quarter have dropped by 33 percent from last year; however, this government's budget projections show a decline of only 6.5 percent. Can the Minister of Forests tell us when we can expect stumpage revenues to increase, or can we expect four quarters of horrendous revenue losses?

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 ]

coast and the north have all been hammered due to high costs and the high taxation policies of this government, resulting in job loss. So far the volume of timber billed through the stumpage system is three million cubic metres less than last year. Can the Minister of Forests explain to this House how he is going to meet the commitments of the jobs and timber accord with this huge decline in the harvest of timber in the province of British Columbia?

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. A. Petter: I have the pleasure to present some annual reports: the annual report for 1997-98 of the B.C. Systems Corporation; the annual report for 1997-98 of the Science Council of British Columbia; and the 1998 annual report of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I table those reports.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Special Committee of Selection for the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

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

F. Randall: I have a number of petitions that I've been asked to present. In numerous constituencies they're asking

[ Page 10680 ]

the local MLA to support Bill 26, the labour bill. The constituencies are all Liberal constituencies. I just want to read each one here. There's Surrey-Cloverdale, Vancouver-Point Grey, Delta North, Langley, Matsqui, Fort Langley-Aldergrove, Chilliwack, Kamloops-North Thompson, Okanagan East, Cariboo North, Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, North Vancouver-Seymour, Richmond East, Abbotsford, Peace River North, Okanagan-Penticton, West Vancouver-Garibaldi and Surrey-White Rock.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call consideration of a report of resolutions from Committee of Supply. I move that the reports of resolutions from Committee of Supply on April 21, 23 and 28, May 4, 12, 20, 21, 25 and 26, June 4, 10, 12, 15, 23, 25 and 30, and July 7, 9, 14, 22 and 28 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

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 presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled 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 ]

In addition, in keeping with the practice of this House, the final supply bill has been permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

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

The House in committee on Bill 49; W. Hartley in the chair.

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]

Motion approved.

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

Third reading of Bill 14 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

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

The House in committee on Bill 22; W. Hartley in the chair.

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.]

On the amendment.

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

[ Page 10682 ]

are defined as a relative are those we normally consider as family relatives. But many persons who are mentally ill may not have a relative per se available to them, or in some cases it may not be a relative who would be helpful to them.

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]

V. Anderson: While the minister's looking at that, I think the minister will be aware that quite often it is not even a member of the family who will bring in a person for care or service; it may be a companion or a friend or someone that the person is very close to. So it would be only logical that if they are the ones who come in and are able to follow up, the opportunity is there for them to be included. It would be, of course, appropriate to the conditions; but it leaves that option open. I think it's very important that it be there.

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.

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.]

On the amendment.

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 ]

patients." And there are many who look after those patients -- health care givers, psychiatrists, etc. -- who I believe would be more comfortable with the movement of one small phrase in that section. So therefore I propose the amendment that treatment be defined as "safe and effective psychiatric treatment and includes any procedure necessarily related to the provision of psychiatric treatment."

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]

Amendment approved.

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 ]

disordered person, a physically disordered person, and another . . . . If we could just say a person with a mental disorder, and leave the rest of the definition in place . . . . If the minister would on her own be willing to make that definition change, I would encourage it.

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.

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 ]

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

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]

Hon. P. Priddy: I acknowledge the member's point that there is an inconsistency in terms of the age. At this stage, given that this has a whole lot of other consequences as well, there isn't an amendment in this to make those consistent. The Infants Act applies to so many other areas as well.

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.

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".]

On the amendment.

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 ]

Amendment approved.

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]

For somebody who has a persistent and serious mental illness -- not someone for whom this is the first time they've had an acute break -- most people who are close to them, whether that's a family member, friend or professionally-trained staff who are in their life, know what that starts to look like and when that person starts to be at risk.

I think preventing substantial mental or physical deterioration is considered by many people to be preferable to waiting and watching someone with schizophrenia, for example, or another serious mental illness, go through the entire painful deterioration process until you have the criteria of someone needing protection from harming himself or herself or another person. We know that if people can receive treatment before they reach that stage they have a significantly better prognosis, and they suffer less.

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]

L. Reid: My question is very specific. I appreciate the minister's response to the previous questions. Can someone be on extended leave for an emergency room visit? It's a question that a number of individuals from the community have put to me. They see, in fact, that what this truly does is guarantee a vacant bed -- that in some places you will see people basically move forward, because in a designated facility, if it's an involuntary admission, they will be guaranteed a bed. Are they being guaranteed that bed through an emergency room visit, or must they be admitted for that process to unfold?

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.

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 ]

a great search that goes on to call everybody who somebody knows, etc. It would be based on what you and I would consider to be typical hospital psychiatric records.

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.

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 ]

they do still fall under that category. Philosophically you could describe it in that way, but for certain reasons we choose not to use that language.

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."

That's why I'm asking if the new provisions in this act that allow for community committal and allow for the director to discharge or care for patients through a designated facility allow for the person to go to an approved home out in the community and those kinds of things. What is the difference, then, between what is in this act as far as extended leave and what the ministry said: that there was absolutely no consideration being given to out-patient committal? If a person is an involuntary admission and is being put in the community and being followed there, what is the difference? Would the minister not agree that that is an out-patient committal?

[4:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: There's nothing new in the act, actually. There has been extended leave in this province as far back as most of the people who are working in the mental health division can remember -- we have a 20-year veteran here. There has always been extended leave. Now, I would suggest, as would many other people -- and it's one of the reasons for highlighting it some -- that it has not been used to the degree that it might have been, and not many people who have been in facilities have been able to benefit from extended leave. I don't think it's been applied very consistently.

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.

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."]

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Section 14 approved.

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

(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.

On the amendment.

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.

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

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 ]

member. But if the person -- and I think we spoke to this earlier, but I want to make sure it's not broader than this -- is in Prince George instead of Quesnel and is involuntarily committed with a physical deterioration related to the mental illness -- not a ruptured appendix, broken leg or something like that -- then this would include notifying the family of that physical deterioration attached to the psychosis. But the person must be involuntarily committed first.

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]

Hon. P. Priddy: If the person has been committed, the family will be notified; there's absolutely no question about that. But if they have not been, then the family actually wouldn't be notified of either the physical or the mental condition. If the person has been certified, then yes, the family would be notified of both of those.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

S. Hawkins: With reference to

section 35, "Transfers," subsection (3) reads a little funny. I had to look back in the old act, and the language is almost the same. It says: "A director to whose designated facility a patient is transferred under this

section has authority to detain the patient and the time limited by this Act for the doing of any thing runs as if the patient's detention were continuous in or through one designated facility." Just for clarification, I wonder if there are some commas needed in there somewhere, because it's difficult to understand. I'm wondering if commas are needed after "Act" and after "thing." It seems to make sense, then, just for clarification.

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 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: We actually have it.

[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 .]

Amendment approved.

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]

Hon. P. Priddy: That is the whole purpose . . . . I was just looking for a fact sheet; my staff is still looking for that. That is why these changes are being made in concert with the mental health plan. Will it be a perfect world in the first year? No, probably not. We do know that resources are lacking to be able to support people in the community in the way that we would want to, either those on extended leave or those who are not on extended leave in the community but who still need additional kinds of support.

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 ]

Section 15 as amended approved.

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".]

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

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".]

Amendment approved.

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)

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be read a second time now. The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act presents a unique and ground-breaking new approach to transportation governance and funding that can serve as a model for other jurisdictions in North America. It demonstrates the kind of innovative solutions that can be achieved when the provincial government and local governments work together effectively as partners.

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 ]

changeover of responsibility is as smooth as possible. That includes assuring affected employees that their jobs are valued and that their interests are protected. In fact, we've built that assurance to employees into the GVTA Act. We will also ensure that B.C. Transit will be working during the transition period to further upgrade our fleets and to enhance our services to customers, to ensure that the transit system we hand over to the new authority is the best that we can make it.

[5:15]

Even after the responsibility is transferred to the region, the provincial government will continue to provide substantial capital funding for new transit initiatives that have an impact on the provincial economy and will further improve the system. An example of that is the rapid transit project announced on June 24. That's a major capital project that will promote economic development and job creation in the greater Vancouver region.

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 ]

tion issues, to a local authority. I think that, in a sense, in essence, is good. This will become the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. More than a year ago, and then last fall when the draft agreement was completed, and then last February when the GVRD and the government signed that agreement, which formed the basis of this bill, the major transit being considered and being discussed among people, in the press and all the rest was light rail transit on grade.

So when we're talking rapid transit, up until fairly recently eve