1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th 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 7, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 24

[ Page 8313 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1993

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1993.

Hon. D. Miller: I realize that the introduction of another bill causes some difficulty, but this one's really housekeeping.

Bill 69 amends the Forest Act to improve tenure administration. Some of the amendments in the bill are intended to improve administrative efficiency and clarify existing government policy. Others provide the Crown with increased flexibility to manage forest tenures. In particular, Bill 69 allows for the reassignment of harvesting rights from one timber supply area to another, in specific circumstances and with the consent of the licensee.

Bill 69 also makes provision for smaller tenures and short-term licences to be exempted from annual allowable cut reductions initiated by the chief forester, which are currently proportional. I believe that is well supported. These amendments will improve the administration of forest tenures and provide necessary powers to help deal with changing forest management demands.

Bill 69 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

TATSHENSHINI DECISION AND ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

D. Jarvis: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Your government has recently declared the entire Tatshenshini area as a provincial park. We understand that the same area is subject to an unresolved land claim by the Champagne-Aishihik people. Were the Aishihik people consulted prior to the provincial land decision?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that there was communication with the Champagne-Aishihik people prior to the decision. The decision was made -- as all such land use decisions by this government have been made -- without prejudice to the resolution of the aboriginal title question.

D. Jarvis: My question is to the Premier. The Aishihik have indicated that should their land claim succeed, they would consider proceeding with the mine at the Windy Craggy site. Is it your government's policy to permit such development on native territory? And would such a mine still be subject to the provisions of the assessment act?

The Speaker: Another question, hon. member?

D. Jarvis: The Premier did not answer that question. I guess he believes it's a hypothetical situation. Either he has a policy or not.

The Speaker: Order, please. For the clarification of the member, expressed that way, that was a hypothetical question and would not be in order. I invite the member to ask his last supplemental.

D. Jarvis: Again to the Premier. The natives have a land claim of $8 billion in economic opportunities. Were they informed of this prior to your decision to make this a park?

KEMANO COMPLETION PROJECT

A. Cowie: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Will the minister commit today to honour a request by the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George that all the province's documents and information related to the Kemano completion project be released to the communities involved?

Hon. J. Cashore: This government has announced the process that will be followed with regard to anything further on the Kemano completion project at this time. That has been made very clear. That's old news. A review is being conducted by the B.C. Utilities Commission, and I would advise the member to follow that route.

A. Cowie: Thank you for the commitment. A supplementary question. The regional district, as well as the city of Prince George, have demanded that the documents of the federal government and Alcan be released for public scrutiny. Will the minister ask the federal government and Alcan to make available to the communities of north-central B.C. all the information on the effects the Kemano project will have on the Nechako River?

Hon. J. Cashore: Prior to announcing the BCUC hearing, this government was on record and had corresponded requesting that the appropriate information be made available. So we have already written to the federal government asking them to make those documents available.

WELFARE RECIPIENTS AND CLAYOQUOT SOUND DEMONSTRATIONS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. Under GAIN policy, the number one rule is that employable welfare recipients "must be available for and actively seeking work at all times." Can the minister confirm that this policy would preclude employable welfare recipients from participating in anti-logging demonstrations in the

[ Page 8314 ]

Clayoquot? Does she agree that these recipients should be actively looking for work rather than trying to prevent employed people from getting to work?

Hon. J. Smallwood: My answer is that the member correctly quoted from the GAIN Act.

J. Weisgerber: If the minister understands, as I do, the regulations under the GAIN Act, perhaps she can tell us what actions she is taking to ensure that these regulations are adhered to in B.C., particularly with respect to those employable recipients who are lying around in front of logging trucks in the Clayoquot instead of out looking for a job. Is the minister making any attempt to enforce the regulations under the GAIN Act?

Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, the member is making quite a leap in saying that the protesters are income assistance recipients. Secondly, I want to assure the member that the programs this government has brought in to provide support and real options back into the workplace are effective and well received by people on income assistance. Indeed, we have waiting lists for many of our support programs. The wonderful program around silviculture that we recently announced is just one example. Our staff are actively working to support people on income assistance in finding work, and those people are actively seeking work.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The minister obviously thinks this is somewhat humorous. But let me assure you, many British Columbians working in the forest industry don't think it's particularly funny. The GAIN Act,

section 18, gives the minister the right and the power to reduce welfare payments to those people who aren't actively looking for work. If it's clearly demonstrated that people in the Clayoquot are employable welfare recipients, and are either not available for or are not seeking work, will she take advantage of

section 18 of the GAIN Act and reduce the amount of payments made to them?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member can be assured that we will administer the act, and follow through with our legal responsibility in administering the act and its regulations.

PRIVATE ADOPTIONS

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. Under the material the minister has supplied, the public is still concerned about the meaning of private adoption. Would the minister please define her understanding of private adoptions.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: Since the minister is not willing to define private adoptions, will she indicate whether private adoptions refer to non-profit societies that are providing adoptions?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Through estimates and other questions in the House, we have thoroughly canvassed the issue of adoption. Also, a legislative review is underway in this province at this time. I'm not going to preclude that review, and I'm not prepared to discuss future policy during question period. I have said that to you before.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

V. Anderson: It's not future policy, it's correspondence from the minister to the community in which she said she is going to cancel private adoptions. What does she mean by private adoptions, as indicated in those letters?

B.C. RAIL LABOUR DISPUTE

D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Labour. It has been confirmed that disgruntled B.C. Rail employees shut down B.C. Rail in Prince George with an unsanctioned picket line, while the mediator was still at work in this dispute. The revenue loss for that day is estimated at about $250,000. Can the minister tell us what steps he has taken on behalf of the taxpayers of this province to ensure that B.C. Rail, as a Crown corporation owned by the taxpayers, is not forced to accept this loss?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the ministry offers mediation services in the course of a dispute. There is a mediator involved. I understand that the parties have agreed to go back to the bargaining table, and that there will be no further action today or tomorrow.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

D. Symons: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, but I didn't get an answer to my question. The taxpayers of this province have lost regular revenue from that railway which is going to have to be made up. I want to know what steps the minister is taking to address that issue.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm pleased to take this opportunity to advise the hon. member that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is running a very efficient and productive Crown corporation on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It regularly returns dividends. It is one of the success stories in British Columbia, and it is our belief that that success will continue under his strong stewardship.

BINGO IN KAMLOOPS

C. Serwa: My question today is to the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General confirm that he recently attended a joint meeting of Kamloops City Council and the Kamloops Indian band, in which he

[ Page 8315 ]

gave a verbal commitment to approve megabingos on band land?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It would be easy for me to simply say no, but I'll expand a little further. There was no joint meeting of the Indian band and the city council of Kamloops. I was in a meeting with members of the band council, and the council raised some issues around gambling, which we talked about.

C. Serwa: Widely publicized last week in Kamloops were comments from band councillor Shane Gottriedson, who said that the band has in fact received verbal approval directly from the Attorney General to hold megabingos with prizes from $50,000 to $100,000 on band lands starting this August, and that part of the agreement was that the two commercial bingo operations in the city of Kamloops would be shut down for the two days that the band was holding their bingo. Can the Attorney General explain why he apparently left the band with that idea in mind?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was as surprised as perhaps the member was to hear press reports suggesting that I had given any kind of indication that might have led Mr. Gottriedson to that conclusion. Decisions in respect of gaming in this province are made by the Gaming Commission. I do not participate in those discussions.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

C. Serwa: Has the minister endeavoured to correct the impression that was apparently left with the band and band councillors? Has he formally done that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As soon as I first heard the press reports, I asked staff in the gaming branch to notify both the band and the Kamloops media, which they did.

EEC BAN ON GREEN LUMBER SHIPMENTS

W. Hurd: As the minister responsible for trade, can the Premier tell us what steps he is taking to defend B.C. lumber companies, who are being subjected by the European Economic Community to a capricious and arbitrary ban on green lumber exports?

Hon. D. Miller: I agree with the questioner. The ban is a trade issue; we have communicated that to the federal government. I have discussed the issue with my counterparts in the Atlantic provinces, who are taking actions. We are discussing it at the officials level, and we are prepared to jointly pursue the issue further, depending on the outcome of the current initiatives. We are also continuing to pursue an exclusion for hemlock. We currently have an exclusion for cedar coming out of British Columbia. A big part of the green lumber shipments that leave British Columbia is hemlock.

We are confident that we will gain that exclusion, and thus mitigate the impact of the ban. Whether it's the Premier to the Prime Minister with respect to the softwood lumber issue, or the European issue, we have taken strong steps to defend British Columbia's trade interests.

W. Hurd: A supplemental to the Minister of Forests. Can the minister explain why his government would spend $300,000 on a Clayoquot Sound mail-out, and another $150,000 on posters and a letter on the Tatshenshini? Why is the government blowing $450,000 on puffery in B.C. instead of doing something in Europe where our products are being subjected to boycotts?

Hon. D. Miller: With respect to the lumber found to contain the nematode in the U.K., for example, we have discovered that in fact the logs came from Maine, which is a bit of a paradox.

But given the fact that the Liberal opposition has had months and months to arrive at a decision about Clayoquot Sound and has failed to do so thus far, perhaps they might want to take the time to read the information on Clayoquot. Perhaps they might even draw a conclusion on what their position is before the end of this session.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

C. Evans: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Evans: The Select Standing Committee on Forests, in its study of remanufacturing, recommended that awards should be given for innovative uses of wood. I hope the members for Surrey-White Rock and for Peace River North will agree with me that the member for Mission-Kent should be introduced as the person deserving the first award for the most perfect use of wood: he's wearing a wooden tie.

Hon. D. Marzari tabled the audited financial statements for the British Columbia Heritage Trust for 1992-93.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading debate of Bill 61.

PHARMACISTS, PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND DRUG SCHEDULING ACT, 1993

Hon. E. Cull: The proposed Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act repeals and replaces the existing Pharmacists Act. The current statute has become outdated and inadequate, particularly in the provisions that authorize the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia to investigate and deal with complaints relating to pharmacy services. The bill clearly establishes that the duty of the college is to serve and protect the public and to use its powers to carry out its responsibilities in the public interest.

[ Page 8316 ]

There are three key committees of the council: the board of examiners, the inquiry committee and the discipline committee -- all of which are set out in the legislation. The board of examiners is responsible for conducting both written and practical assessments in connection with registration, continuing competence and discipline.

The inquiry committee is a new, very important addition to the regulatory scheme for pharmacists. The inquiry committee will conduct preliminary investigations of complaints regarding pharmacists or pharmacy operations. It may also commence an investigation when a potentially harmful situation concerning the practice of pharmacy comes to its attention, regardless of whether a formal complaint has been made or not.

This committee can instruct the college inspectors to undertake an aspect of an investigation and can then apply for a court order to enter and search premises specified in the order and seize records, drugs, devices and other things that might afford evidence relevant to a contravention of the legislation. The inquiry committee must decide whether a case can be dismissed, dealt with by means of an undertaking or referred to the discipline committee for a hearing.

The third committee is the discipline committee, which is charged with the responsibility of conducting hearings into serious allegations with respect to the competence or conduct of a pharmacist or a pharmacy owner, including a corporate owner. The hearings are formal, quasi-judicial proceedings at which the respondent may be advised or represented by a lawyer.

The senior administrative officer of the college is the registrar, who must be a pharmacist. The registrar is responsible for the mandatory registration and pharmacy licensing procedures. Where an applicant, registrant or other person is dissatisfied with the decision of the registrar, the inquiry committee or the discipline committee, the person has the right to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, and the right to appeal the Supreme Court's decision to the Court of Appeal if a justice of that body grants leave to appeal.

A pharmacy must be licensed in order to operate. Licensure has two objectives. Firstly, it ensures that pharmacies must meet certain minimum physical and equipment standards. It also provides a record of all the pharmacies in the province, including pharmacies in hospitals, facilities and care centres, as well as the owners and managers of each one.

The bill establishes prohibitions and duties for pharmacists. Prohibitions include dispensing a drug in a manner other than is set out in the drug schedules or other than is set out on a prescription. Duties include providing supervision for qualifying candidates, students and support persons working in a dispensary, and protecting the confidentiality of patient records.

A variety of important public protection measures are included in the bill. For example, the council has the authority to apply to the Supreme Court for an injunction where it believes there is or will be a contravention of the act. Both the inquiry committee and the discipline committee have the power to suspend the registration of a registrant or the licence of a pharmacy during an investigation or pending a hearing or the outcome of a hearing.

Finally, the provisions relating to the confidentiality of personal information are consistent with those set out in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Several provisions from the Health Professions Act have been incorporated into the bill to enhance the consistency of this regulatory scheme with others governing other professions in the health care field. In particular, the duties of the college are set out and a mandate statement is required. The composition of the council must include a minimum of one-third public representatives.

The college is required to submit an annual report to the Minister of Health. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is authorized to request that the council amend existing bylaws or drug schedules or develop new ones. If the council does not apply, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, after 60 days' notice to the college, act on its own to make or amend the bylaw or drug schedule.

Part 8 of the bill strengthens existing regulatory provisions regarding manufacture and sale of medicated animal feeds and veterinary drugs within the province. The so-called lay outlets which sell these products are licensed to dispense non-prescription veterinary drugs and medicated feeds. Inspectors are authorized to enter these outlets and manufacturers' premises to control drugs that may be harmful to human or animal health and to generally enforce the act and regulations.

Inspectors are able to seize and detain things that may contain unapproved drugs or stale-dated drugs when reasonable grounds exist to form an opinion that the thing may contain a harmful substance. The power of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to order the destruction of harmful drugs and substances has been enhanced.

[2:30]

I've noted that this legislation is intended to enhance public protection with regard to the dispensing of drugs and the delivery of other pharmacy services. An important part of that protection is public participation in the regulation of pharmacy practice through the council, the inquiry committee and the discipline committee of the College of Pharmacists. This public involvement to ensure improved accountability of the health professions is a guiding principle and a priority action of this government's new directions for a healthy British Columbia.

[ Page 8317 ]

Other safeguards include greater responsibilities given to the college, clear requirements for pharmacy operations and new measures for the control of drugs. This bill contains many important features, and I'm pleased to be able to bring forward the legislation at this time.

A few technical, minor amendments and inconsistencies in the bill have come to light in the last few days. As a result, I will be proposing amendments to several sections to improve their clarity and consistency. Details of these amendments appear in the motion standing in my name on the order paper and will be reviewed during Committee of the Whole.

Just before I conclude my remarks, I might say that the College of Pharmacists has worked very hard over a number of years with Ministry of Health officials to revise this legislation. They have been waiting a long time to see a new, improved act brought into being. I appreciate, and want to recognize now, the work that the College of Pharmacists of B.C. has done with my staff to put this bill together.

L. Reid: I am indeed pleased this afternoon to rise in debate on Bill 61, the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, 1993. The Liberal caucus stands firmly in support of public accountability. This bill, as it stands before us today, will move us down the road in terms of ensuring that the public has more participation in a regulatory college that will indeed allow the public to better understand how some of these services will be delivered to them in the future. Bill 61 seeks to establish the college's duty, which is to serve and protect the public. The Liberal caucus takes no issue with that. We believe that it is important and timely.

It is my understanding that this bill has come to us today after some 19 years without revision. It is important that we debate this bill in some detail in committee stage. I appreciate the minister's comments in terms of amendments coming forward. We have had discussion on the Liberal benches in terms of how important it is for the role of government to be one of setting standards. We believe this bill moves us down that road and will look at ensuring that the public can expect a certain level of service and, failing that, that they will have some ability to seek recourse surrounding some of those questions.

That has not been particularly clear over the last number of years. It is an issue that is timely today, but it is also an issue of responsible government, and one we would like to see addressed but also embellished in some form. There are issues before us today which look at the rights of current patients, but there needs to be some work in terms of former patients -- i.e., if an individual has ceased to practise, can we flesh out some of these sections to ensure that they have some recourse and appeal around those questions?

A number of the changes are welcomed today by the Liberal caucus. It pleases me that the College of Pharmacists has been consulted on these changes and in fact stands behind a number of the changes that are coming forward. I am in agreement with the Minister of Health in terms of how this bill replicates some of the provisions of the Health Professions Act, and that speaks strongly to my original point about how important it is to put public accountability in place.

If I may speak briefly to a number of the sections that we may indeed be proposing amendments to, one

section looks at sole proprietorships. Right now this bill suggests that if a pharmacist is deceased, the spouse or the other partner would only have five years to dispose of the business. Are we broaching on the ability of business in this province? Do we wish to regulate a profession to that extent? If that is the sole income, is five years a reasonable length of time? We are posing these questions in second reading debate, and we will seek clarification on those questions as we proceed into committee stage.

One of the other overriding questions surrounding this piece of legislation is the ability of pharmacists to exercise some professional judgment. Does this piece of legislation in any way impede their ability to do so? There will be a number of issues surrounding that question that we will be seeking clarification on.

Section 32 refers to misrepresentation. We need to take a look at the significance of drug trials and research and development in British Columbia. Is it the intention of this piece of legislation to restrict drug trials or the use of placebos in a clinical trial? That

section needs clarification. If that is indeed the intention of this minister, we will pursue that in more detail during committee stage of this debate. I am trusting that it is not the intention. I would like to see this government support research and development. That would be a barrier to continuing to have clinical drug trials in this province.

Section 76, which refers to committing an offence, may indeed create more problems for discipline committees in this province. Again, is that the intention of this bill? Without a stricter guideline around the definition of what constitutes an offence, are we muddying the waters? Are we allowing less definition to make the job of the individuals who will sit on discipline committees for these colleges more complex? I don't think that's the intention. However, I do not wish to see huge numbers of regulations and bylaws come forward in order to offset the fact that this is not particularly clear at the moment.

I trust we can resolve some of these questions in committee stage of the bill. Certainly we will be seeking clarification on all the comments I've made today.

One of the comments the minister made in terms of the ability of this piece of legislation to destroy medicated drug products is that it is obviously in no one's best interests at the present time. We will be asking for clarification regarding a hazardous waste disposal plan. Will it fit in with biomedical waste or other hazardous drug disposal at the present time? We look forward to debating these issues in more detail.

In closing, the aspects of the bill that define and refine more clearly the aspects of public accountability are welcomed. I believe this will move us in a direction we wish to proceed in.

L. Fox: I'm pleased to stand up and speak in favour of this bill. In my short experience as an MLA and a

[ Page 8318 ]

member of this assembly, this is probably one of the first bills that have come forward where I haven't been able -- at least on the first go-round -- to find any government agenda. In fact, this is obviously an apolitical bill which would have been brought in irrespective of who was sitting on the government side. It has been a thrust by the pharmacists. I know they have worked hard to get it to this stage. I think tribute should be paid to the College of Pharmacists of B.C. for their dedication and hard work, as well as to the minister for recognizing the importance of bringing this legislation forward.

This bill sets out duties and objectives of the college, which I think is important because it's consistent with the Health Professions Act. The first duty is to serve and protect the public interest. I think that's very amenable and something that I look forward to discussing at some length -- the three committees and the design and functions of those committees -- during third reading. A major component of this bill is the new disciplinary procedures and a process to investigate those complaints. I think there will be a lot of discussion on those clauses in committee stage, and I look forward to that.

If there's one disappointment in the bill, it's that this government found it necessary to place the medicated feeds and veterinary drugs under this act, rather than put them in the appropriate act under the Ministry of Agriculture. I understand that when the Minister of Agriculture is up and ready we will see a transfer of this

section or some amendments to reflect the interests of the Agriculture ministry and the interests of the agriculture industry itself, by having this placed within the Agriculture minister's responsibilities.

That being said, I look forward to committee stage and the clause-by-clause examination and discussions of several points, some of which the opposition critic has raised, and some of which I have some brief notes on.

D. Symons: I would just like to join the two previous speakers in commending the government for bringing this forward. I had the good fortune to be a teacher, and one of my students years ago is now a member of the pharmaceutical association. I happened to run into him a week or so ago while we were recycling our green garden waste, so I mentioned to him that I knew this bill was coming up. I asked him what input he might give me with regard to this bill. Basically he was complimentary of the way the ministry has worked with them over a period of time in order for them to bring forward their concerns on the bill.

I again commend the government -- or whatever government started this process -- on that aspect. Your government carried it through to completion, and that's very good.

I have just one suggestion or criticism that I would care to make at this time. There may have been an omission, or it may be something that is coming down the tube a little later on. I guess we will get to this in third reading, committee stage. I wouldn't mind seeing something under

section 37 about a central registry of prescriptions. Indeed, it seems that in our society there is more and more abuse of drugs, as the number of drugs proliferates. It seems that some people shop around at a great number of doctors and druggists and build up quite an arsenal of medication. When a druggist or doctor is prescribing something, they would be able to quickly look in a central registry to see what that particular patient has had.

It would not stop people from intentionally trying to get around it and using drugs for illegal purposes, but it certainly would protect a good number of people in the province from unintentionally, and maybe in an ignorant way, taking drugs that are not really conducive to their health or that interact with each other and have a negative effect.

I wish that the government would consider putting in something to that effect under

section 37, so that there would be the possibility for disclosure to another pharmacist. An extension of that would be: not only would that be there, but it would be incumbent upon a pharmacist to find out what other drugs the person had taken in the past year or two, in order to better serve the patient, the customer.

With those remarks, I would again commend the government for bringing this bill forward, and I look forward to third reading and passage of this bill.

The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.

Hon. E. Cull: I would like to briefly thank the hon. members for their support for this piece of legislation. They've raised a number of issues that I know we will be able to discuss in more detail during committee stage of the bill.

I would like to now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 61, Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:45]

Hon. E. Cull: I call second reading of Bill 51.

HEALTH CARE (CONSENT) AND CARE FACILITY (ADMISSION) ACT

Hon. E. Cull: This bill, which I will be discussing for the next little while, is one of four and is part of a package that deals with adult guardianship. The Attorney General will be dealing with the other three bills later on in the session.

The Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, along with the other three bills -- the Representation Agreement Act, the Adult Guardianship Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act -- is the result of an extraordinary effort on the part of community agencies, advocacy groups, health care providers and government ministries.

I would like to begin by noting the cooperation and dedication of hundreds of individuals and organizations that contributed to the development of this package of legislation. Almost 3,000 people had

[ Page 8319 ]

input into the process of giving more options to British Columbians who need help making decisions about their health, financial situation, personal life and legal affairs. The dedicated people who worked on this process understand very well that our health system has to change if we're going to meet the needs of people who can't make their own decisions.

Like many British Columbians, the people involved in this process understood full well the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, particularly the following: the system has to be adapted to make sure that everyone in the province has fair access to health services and an equal opportunity to be healthy; people who are involved in obtaining health care services need to be able to get them closer to home; we need to have a greater focus on preventive care and the promotion of good health; and most importantly, we need to empower people to have more control over their own health care, to take a greater role and greater responsibility in making decisions that affect their health.

This act will indeed make it easier for British Columbians to plan ahead for times when they are unable to make health care decisions alone, so it will increase their ability to participate in health care decisions that affect them.

Right now, if the time comes when we require health care or admission to a health care facility and we're not able to give consent for it, our family members or our close friends will often step in and make those decisions on our behalf. It's a very standard and common practice, but it's not recognized in law; at least, it has not been recognized until now. The Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, in conjunction with the Representation Agreement Act, will allow us, while we're still able and have competency to do so, to formally designate someone to make those health care decisions for us.

In the cases where we have not appointed someone in advance, it sets out clear guidelines for having someone, usually a family member, give consent to care or withhold consent to care for a particular treatment or procedure on our behalf.

The act is based on several common-law principles that are set out in the legislation, including: the right of every individual adult to be presumed capable of giving or refusing consent to treatment or admission to a care facility; the right of every adult to make individual health care decisions based on personal views, including religious or moral views, whether or not they're shared by others; and the right to a fair process to determine capability where there are grounds for questioning this or looking into it.

The act strikes a balance between protecting the autonomy of individual British Columbians and recognizing our responsibility as a society to look out for those who can't make decisions on their own. The intent of this act, with the three related bills tabled by the Attorney General, is to allow British Columbians to plan in advance for their needs to be met according to their wishes.

As much as we'd like to be able to plan in advance for times when we're not able to make decisions, it's not always possible, so the act sets out clear procedures for naming a temporary substitute decision-maker to make health care decisions when an individual has not appointed somebody in advance. The act states that this alternative decision-maker must be chosen from a list that starts with the spouse or common-law partner and then goes on to a child, parent, sister or brother, or anyone else related by birth or adoption.

If there's no one on that list who can be found, the public guardian and trustee can authorize someone else to make health care decisions for that person. It could be a close friend or an advocacy organization.

An important safeguard in the act stipulates that the designated decision-maker must be someone who has been in contact with the adult within the last year, someone who does know something about that individual, and also someone who doesn't have a conflict with them. The act also incorporates procedures for ensuring that the current or previously expressed wishes of the adult, if they are known, are taken into account. Only as a last resort, when nothing else is known about the individual, will decisions be made in the best medical interests.

The act sets out the factors that are to be considered when making that decision. The legislation makes a distinction between minor and major health care. In the case of minor health treatment, such as dental care or routine blood tests, it legitimizes the current practice of obtaining consent from a spouse or other close relative. But in the case of major health care -- which will be more specifically defined in the regulations -- it lays out clear protocols and important safeguards.

Obviously, because of the greater risks involved, safeguards are needed in the case of major care, both to protect the patient and the care provider.

In the major health care situation, if the adult has not appointed a representative, then the health care provider has to take additional steps before providing that care. The provider must consult with another person who knows the adult, such as a spouse or a close relative, before determining if the adult is capable of making an informed decision. If the adult or person consulted objects to the decision and there's no one else to consult, then the health care provider must organize a more formal review of the adult's capability.

In either situation, if it is determined that the adult is incapable, the health care provider must tell the adult of that decision and that a family member has been appointed as a temporary decision-maker. The act will also provide for a new health care review board, which may review and rule on any objections to health care decisions within seven days.

Besides minor and major health care, the act also defines emergencies more precisely in order to give better guidance and protection to health care providers. It sets out clear guidelines for health care providers to follow, not only to protect the people under their care but to give legal support to care providers when they believe they're acting in the best interests of their patients.

The act also deals with admissions to care facilities and provides a legislative framework for such admissions. No admission to care facilities will take place unless the adult, the spouse, a relative or another authorized decision-maker has agreed to a facility care

[ Page 8320 ]

proposal prepared for the person who's going into care. The care proposal will set out the type and levels of care, the activities provided and the policies followed by the facility. If the adult does not agree to the care proposal, when there is reason to believe that she or he would benefit from admission to a care facility, then there will be an impartial assessment of the adult's capabilities to make decisions. If the assessment indicates incapability, a substitute decision-maker chosen from the list I mentioned a minute ago would have the authority to accept or reject the proposal on the adult's behalf.

Again, the act has the same provisions for a review of the decision, as well as for continued advocacy on behalf of the adult.

It's important to note at this point that the act does not affect people with mental illness who are involuntarily admitted to a care facility. I'm just going to repeat that again, because it's not that it doesn't apply to people who have mental illnesses; it does not apply to people with a mental illness who have been involuntarily admitted to a care facility. These individuals will continue to be governed by the Mental Health Act, at least for the time being. As members are aware, the Mental Health Act is still under review.

It's been under a review process for some time, which may take up to a year to complete. If necessary, when the process is complete, the government will present amendments to this piece of legislation -- the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act -- to make it consistent with any changes to the Mental Health Act that may result from the review.

I would also like to point out that the act does not affect or reflect any of the issues that currently surround physician-assisted termination of life. As members know, physician-assisted termination of life contravenes the Criminal Code of Canada, and the provisions of this legislation do not allow such action. The procedures set out under this act only permit a family member or designate to act legally on the previously expressed wishes of the adult who has become incapable. If that decision-making should extend to the withdrawal of life support systems, members of the health care team must agree that the decision is medically appropriate.

I think that all members of this House will agree that the bill is comprehensive in its scope and compassionate in its intent. It recognizes the important role that our families, our friends and our communities have in helping us make decisions about our care. It's consistent with the aims of the New Directions strategy for health care in this province that was announced five months ago, and it's a continuation of the government's commitment to bring health care closer to home and to increase personal decision-making for health care.

The intense effort of the many community groups, provider organizations, government ministries and others that have been involved in this process over the last several years is, I believe, a clear indication of the demand for a formal, less expensive and more timely procedure to meet the needs of dependent and vulnerable adults. This act is an important and positive step in achieving those objectives.

With respect to the extensive consultation that we've had with community groups, the government is continuing its consultation on this legislation. We have made a commitment to continue working with the groups with respect to the implementation of the legislation as we move forward in the months ahead. In the time between tabling the bill and today, we received some very good suggestions from external agencies with regard to changes to the legislation, so I will be proposing amendments to a small number of sections to improve their clarity and make the intended application of the legislation more precise.

The sections to be amended involve exceptions to the requirement to obtain consent, rejection of a care facility proposal by an adult and the use of restraints. Details of these amendments appear in the motion standing in my name on the order paper, and they will be reviewed in more detail during Committee of the Whole.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate on Bill 51, the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act. It's my understanding that the public would like to have seen the Mental Health Act precede this discussion. However, it wasn't to be. I look forward to that particular piece of legislation informing and finalizing a lot of the discussion that we're going to engage in today on Bill 51, and I believe that the same discussion will be fleshed out and embellished under Bill 48, the Representation Agreement Act, Bill 49, the Adult Guardianship Act and Bill 50, the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

This is a package, and I believe that the Mental Health Act will continue to frame the discussion and the comments of the minister on the amendments.

The Liberal caucus welcomes the refinement in where this bill can go, because it is definitely an evolution in terms of what society expects and has come to understand with regard to mental health issues, but surrounding more the care of the elderly and how best to seek some kind of balance and consensus around public safety and personal safety, which is somehow interpreted as patient safety. Those issues need to be expanded upon in debate, and we will look at them very carefully during committee stage of the bill. There are some questions, and we will be seeking a number of clarifications surrounding definition.

Substitute decision-makers and assessment are two possibilities of where we hope to frame the discussion in committee stage so as to allow a better understanding of where we hope to proceed on this bill.

I commend the community groups that came forward to produce the framework for this legislation. When numerous agencies reach consensus around very complex questions, I believe we should stand together as legislators and commend their initiative and commitment to completing the task. The people who came forward and briefed members of my caucus and the New Democratic caucus have certainly done their homework. They've looked at the issues, and they've tried to be sensitive and thoughtful around very complex questions. I stand with them, and I hold them in the highest esteem, because how government presents itself can only be enhanced by the need and

[ Page 8321 ]

desire of community agencies to lend their support in bringing forward initiatives and allow their abilities to formulate part of where government wishes to go. I think it has been absolutely outstanding in this case.

[3:00]

The objectives of Bill 51 look at establishing strict legal limits for consenting to health care. As opposition, we seek clarification of some of those questions, but we stand firmly in support of the need to address those questions in legislation. It has often been a misunderstood area regarding who can and cannot access, and who has the ability, under diminished capacity, to reflect on some of those questions for you. I believe that will become a more significant issue as our population ages. It's an issue we need to address in some detail.

The minister made mention of emergency care and minor or major surgery, and those are very necessary

definitions for the purposes of this act.

With regard to admission to care facilities, over the years there have been a number of questions surrounding admissions and informed consent. I believe those issues will be fleshed out under the new Mental Health Act. It is also my understanding that the conditions of the Mental Health Act which would impact on Bill 51 are frozen at the present time. I think that's a useful exercise in trying to rejig some of the current

definitions and the current understanding of where we would like to go. This document may hold some vision for the care of the elderly in our communities.

I made the point earlier that this document must be understood in tandem with the legislation on adult guardianship. In this case, our concern has been driven by the community, and I believe that the community will monitor how this legislation comes to pass. It is going to be an evolution in how carefully and clearly we move forward, but I believe that society's expectations will only enhance how we refine this piece of legislation over time.

In terms of prescribing rights for substitute decision-makers, it's a useful exercise. This piece of legislation puts us on the right road to do that, and the minister and I have discussed accountability, outcomes and cost-benefit analysis. This legislation will look at establishing a review process to look at the rights and duties, and that is a very useful exercise.

There is much that we don't currently understand about mental illness and informed consent, and the only way we can arrive at some type of consensus -- now that the community agencies have come forward -- is to debate this in second reading, but also to seek clarification in committee stage so that all people will benefit from this piece of legislation.

I believe that at the present time a number of individuals are looking to this piece of legislation for guidance. They have unanswered questions -- perhaps for a spouse or a family member, and frankly, sometimes for a very young child -- that have not been resolved on how they can access care and how that care can be monitored over time. If this bill moves us down that road in seeking resolution to some of those questions, we will be providing a very necessary level of comfort for care providers in this province, and that is absolutely the direction we wish to go.

I mentioned earlier that this is part of a multiple policy outreach. These bills -- Bill 51, the three that will look at adult guardianship questions and the Mental Health Act -- will impact on all members of our province, and I think you will see a number of other provinces looking to British Columbia as to how we implement this legislation. The drafting stage is now completed, and the amendment stage will happen -- probably in the next day or so. But the implementation will determine the success of this piece of legislation.

A number of provinces have drafted what they perceive to be well-written legislation over time, and there have been difficulties in the implementation stages. What appears to be a workable, tangible idea seems to fall by the wayside when the definition needs refinement once it reaches the communities and individual care facilities. I believe it will allow families to have greater expectations for particular care facilities in their communities, and I think it will provide those who are offering care a clearer definition of what they need to provide regarding some of those questions.

We haven't addressed a lot of what we consider to be patient rights in this province. I think this discussion will certainly initiate the dialogue. We have much that needs to happen, and it will be done in concert with the Attorney General's office and perhaps with the Social Services ministry. It definitely is an interministerial approach to looking after individuals in our community who we believe are not necessarily in a position to make some of those decisions for themselves.

I believe the estimate from the ministry is that it will be three years before regulatory enactment becomes fully operational. Those three years will be absolutely critical to the success of this bill in terms of implementation. I am not taking issue with three years. I think it is necessary that we allow this legislation to come together for members of the various communities in this province with as much care and deliberation as we've allowed the first writing of this legislation. It's been a very long process at the community level. It spanned a number of years.

I believe it would be foolish to move to the implementation stage without the same deliberation, courtesy and respect around some of those questions. It pleases me that we're looking at an extended time line for implementation before seeing this bill become fully operational.

I mentioned earlier that this bill is the end point after massive public consultation. The consultation began in 1989; we are now four years into this process. Hundreds of individuals and many interest groups in this province were participating in a process which culminated in the report entitled "How Can We Help?" I believe this report is the basis for this legislation. I would applaud the participants in the writing of that report. The premise for having such involvement was to ensure that all the questions were at least brought to the table for discussion.

I don't believe that anyone in society expects every single question will have an immediate answer, but I do know they wish to see a framework, a structure in place so that they can at least anticipate where this government is headed.

[ Page 8322 ]

I believe this bill will give health care providers some confidence and assurance that the decisions they make regarding their own care facilities will be respected and honoured by this particular government. We're moving into an age of provider responsibility. We are placing expectations upon agencies which provide care that seemingly were not in place over the last number of years.

There's a 40 percent likelihood of dementia for people over 80 years of age. This bill speaks very clearly to the need for a legal framework. What we had in the past was inadequate in terms of how we dealt with some of those questions. The bill does suggest some sweeping changes to the issues surrounding the rights of the family and the family's right to intervene.

This bill does not cover the rights of life and death, but it certainly initiates the discussion. I personally think that is a healthy place for us to be at this time in terms of needing, as a society, to discuss some of those issues. I think that's where we need to be heading. As to whether or not this legislation is the stepping-off point for resolving some of those questions, no, I don't believe we're there yet. I believe we're a few years out from formulating some kind of reasonable response. I would also submit that perhaps this legislation will formulate a number of individual responses.

I trust that cases will be taken on their individual merit. I would not wish to see any parliament prescribe a certain set of guidelines for individuals who wished not to be in the position where they were terminally ill and suffering. I think we need to be very cautious about some of those questions, but I'm pleased that we've at least initiated the discussion today.

Given that we're going to have a three-year operational time frame, we're looking at opportunities for regulations and bylaws that will be scrutinized by community agencies and by the public. These questions have often held great concern for families which, in the case of elderly parents, were leaving someone of 60 or 70 years of age who had always been the child in the family. They can now have some assurance that there's going to be some reasonable care provided and some ability to put in place monitors, interveners and the like.

We trust that this bill will create some legislative balance around some of these questions. I don't perceive it to be the last revision. Certainly there will be many revisions and refinements to this legislation as society comes to grips with some of these very pressing questions. In all honesty, I think that a lot of what we are doing today is an attempt to clarify the law surrounding how we deal with individuals who have diminished capacity. A number of these issues have come forward as a result of court challenges. That is the reality. How we respond to that to ensure appropriate care is in place will only be for the good of all individuals concerned.

L. Fox: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the philosophy and principles of Bill 51, the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act. As the previous speaker suggested, this bill is the first of a four-bill package we'll see this afternoon that creates adult guardianship legislation.

The bill describes adults' rights regarding the giving or revoking of consent to health care. That issue is a matter of some concern, especially around the treatment of schizophrenics. I'm very concerned about the lack of restraints on the general principle of giving more autonomy to the mentally ill or incapacitated. While this is a well-meaning and laudable intention, when taken to the extreme it means that people with Alzheimer's, for instance, could be allowed to walk off on their own.

Or, in order to respect their wishes or rights, individuals with paranoid conditions could be allowed to refuse necessary treatment. The point that some people make bad decisions because of their illness is something that should be considered. Decisions made as a result of a mental condition, although they should be respected, should not be respected in the same way as the decisions of healthy adults. Those are some concerns that I have with respect to that area. We'll go into those at some length.

[3:15]

The bill allows health care providers to appoint a temporary, substitute decision-maker. This person is allowed to give or refuse consent on behalf of an adult, assuming the adult does not have a representative, guardian or decision-maker authorized to give or revoke the consent. I think it's a very worthy and desirable process. I look forward to more explanation on some of those on a clause-by-clause basis.

The system for deciding whether an adult should undergo major health care is a very complicated one. Will all health care providers be responsible for knowing the rules of this legislation? That is one question I have to ask. If health care providers do not know the rules, will that create chaos within the health care field?

The bill also establishes some rules respecting admission of adults into some care facilities. We look forward to going over that

section too, in a very complete and satisfactory way, because we do have some concerns about that process. The operator of a care facility is responsible for providing an adult with a facility care proposal, which explains to the adult what type of facility it is and what the facility's policies are. We see that as a very good initiative, and in most cases, I believe that kind of policy is in place now within many of those care homes. If an adult is not capable of making decisions respecting the care facility, the bill provides for a mechanism whereby others can make those

[ Page 8323 ]

decisions. That, too, is something that we will deal with at some length in committee stage.

All in all, although I have many issues I want to deal with, I don't intend to go over them at any length. But I certainly look forward to committee stage, where I think much of the discussion on this type of legislation will take place.

V. Anderson: I rise to speak on Bill 51, the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, because this has been a great concern of many people in our community over many years. It has become an increasing concern as we become more of an urbanized society, as we live longer and as people do not have around them as many family and friends as many people have had in the past.

In my own profession as a United Church minister, I have many opportunities to visit with people, both in and out of medical care, who have had concerns in this particular area -- concerns not only for themselves but for family and friends. This is definitely a move in the right direction, to try and respond to some of the decision-making which needs to be made within our community. We are very aware that there has not been any legal support for many of the decisions that have had to be made. Nor has there been support for friends or family who had to step in and make decisions when the need suddenly arose.

The system that we have in this particular act may be somewhat complex, but it probably needs to be complex for it to have the safeguards that people are demanding when decisions are going to be made for them on their behalf. This is particularly true if those decisions have to be made by people who are not close members of the family, or who are not even necessarily close friends within the community. It is important that there is a process which is clearly understood, and which everybody can appreciate and understand together.

One of the concerns that is not addressed directly in the act, but will no doubt come to the fore as the act is implemented, is the nature of care facilities themselves. We are seeing within this act that as a person is entering into a care facility, there needs to be a description of that facility and the opportunities within it. But we are all aware that the descriptions provided and the actual operations are not necessarily the same, so it's often after you get into a situation that difficulties may arise.

Opportunities are built into this act to monitor those situations as they arise, to review and reflect upon them and to make decisions. That ongoing review of the situation is important.

Within this act there is a sense of ease, hopefully, for the persons who will be in need of care and who will need for as long as possible to make their own decisions and to have them clearly understood and respected. There is also ease of mind for families and friends who are vitally concerned with others. When family and friends disagree with each other as to what care should be undertaken, there is a way for those disagreements to be resolved and worked through. That is fundamentally important.

There is also a protection for health providers. Again and again, health providers have been in a very awkward situation in providing care and then discovering that family or friends would come against them because they did not agree with the kind of care they were providing. There was no place for them to turn for resolution. So although there are complexities within this act, which no doubt need to be looked at and worked out as the act is implemented and experience is gained with it, here at last is the opportunity to have a legal process for the care of all those in our society who need it either on a long-term basis or in emergency situations.

The minister has mentioned that religious and moral values and views will be respected. For that to be particularly mentioned within the act is very important. The religious or moral views, philosophical background, family characteristics or culture from which a person comes can be fundamental to the kind of care they would choose to have, which is not necessarily the kind of care that others would wish them to have. So there can be a great distinction between what a person wishes for themselves and what others in all good conscience are trying to do on their behalf.

It is good for that stipulation to be there, so that the caregivers are aware that the priority is on the individuals themselves.

There is also the opportunity for a stage-by-stage process, and the stages are clearly spelled out within this act. First of all, the care is to be given at the decision of the individuals themselves. Secondly, those who are closest to the individual are to be responsible for deciding the care to be given. Beyond that, there is the opportunity -- and I'm glad to see it within this act -- of advocacy organizations within the community to have a fundamental role.

I think the role of the advocacy organizations will be important not only in the caregiving but in the opportunity to educate the community to the care opportunities that are available. I'm very much aware that the use of this act will depend upon the education and awareness provided in the community at large before people have need of it. There is a great deal of misunderstanding and ignorance even as to the opportunities presently available to people in the community round about them.

The stages in this act also include the temporary caregiver, and there are certain

definitions and limits to that. There are protections so that a person does not feel that once they have been locked in, in their mind, to a certain temporary position, it is permanent. They, or their friends or family, will have opportunities to have it reviewed again, or to step in and question what is happening. The opportunity for a formalized substitute decision-maker is very important, because that decision-maker is of benefit not only to the person who is in need of care but also to the family and friends. They will know who to go to when they have concerns about the particular person's needs.

I commend the community agencies and individuals who have worked so long and hard on the development of this bill and its presentation. I commend their continuing to act as the act is brought into being, to monitor and work with it and to work for changes should they be needed. I also wish to commend the

[ Page 8324 ]

Minister of Health, who has worked so ably with the community in this regard. I trust she will continue to work with them and represent their wishes here in this House. We will ask detailed questions for further clarification and understanding as we go through the committee stage, but it is a milestone to have this kind of bill come forward as part of the package of four that will be presented in this Legislature.

Hon. E. Cull: Once again, I would like to thank the hon. members for their support not only for this legislation but also for the community process that resulted in it coming forward today. The worth of any society is measured in how we treat our most vulnerable members. Indeed, this package of adult guardianship legislation will ensure that we here in British Columbia have some of the best, most progressive legislation, to balance the responsibilities of individuals and their autonomy and society's responsibility to look out for those who need some help in looking out for themselves. With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 51, Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. E. Cull: I call second reading of Bill 55.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. E. Cull: The proposed Health Professions Amendment Act, 1993, is an extremely important bill because it is part of the legislation that is required for our New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia policy initiative. The government, as I think all hon. members know, defined a number of priority actions in our New Directions strategy that was released earlier this year. This particular piece of legislation addresses four of the priorities that were set out in that strategy.

With our New Directions policy, the government made a commitment that, in consultation with all stakeholders, legislation regulating the health professions would be reviewed, and amended as needed, to ensure its consistency with provincially established principles regarding public protection, equity, due process, objectivity and accountability. To carry out this commitment, we propose in this legislation to expand the Health Professions Council, clarify the expectations of professional organizations and strengthen their accountability to the public.

[3:30]

This bill will allow the government to increase the size of the Health Professions Council, which is essential if the council is to take on the additional task of reviewing the scopes of practice and the existing legislation for regulated health professions in B.C. The council, which has served very well during the time it has been established, is composed of three individuals who have been working incredibly long hours, and very hard, doing good work for us. The bill will allow them to have a little bit of assistance so that they will not be shouldering so much of the workload.

Currently, 15 statutes regulate 19 health professions in B.C. The council is now being asked to review that legislation to ensure that it sets up an appropriate regulatory framework which consistently serves the public interest. The council is being given the authority to sit as panels and review this so that they may get on with the job expeditiously and efficiently.

The bill also contains amendments to fine-tune the umbrella framework which the Health Professions Act provides for the regulation of new and emerging professions. Through an application process, the Health Professions Council reviews health professions that are currently unregulated and do not have self-governing status, to determine whether the designation of health profession under the act is in the public interest. The most recent example of an unregulated profession coming forward to the council is, of course, that of the midwives.

The Health Professions Council had to review that application through a fairly extensive process to determine in the end -- and to so recommend to the government -- that it was in the public interest. That is the nature of their work.

Upon designation, a college is established to regulate the practice of the profession. This bill now contains a new

section that sets out the duties and objects of the college so that there is no doubt that the duty of the college is to regulate the profession in the public interest. The bill sets out a number of objects that the college must fulfil in the performance of its duties.

These include the following specific obligations: to superintend the practice of the profession; to govern registrants according to the act; to establish standards of education, practice and professional ethics; to establish a continuing competency program and a patient relations program in order to promote quality assurance and address sexual misconduct issues within the profession; and to provide information to individuals about their rights.

The development and implementation of protocols enabling British Columbians to have access to their own health care records was identified as a New Directions priority action. This legislation will mandate that action.

Also in the bill are provisions that expand the bylaw-making authority of a college established under the act. Among these are: the appointment of an auditor; the payment of special fees by registrants; and the establishment of two new committees -- a quality assurance committee and a patient relations committee -- a patient relations program and rules regarding access to health care records.

The other significant amendment to the Health Professions Act in this bill is the setting of a minimum proportion of public members on the board of a college. This bill would require that one-third of the members of a college board be public representatives. Again, this provision is one of our New Directions priorities and will ensure that there is an effective consumer voice on

[ Page 8325 ]

the college and a watchdog with respect to the regulation of every health profession in the province.

Other, housekeeping amendments contained in the bill include extending the filing date for annual reports from 90 to 120 days after the end of the fiscal year, providing for the transition of membership on both the Health Professions Council and the boards of professional colleges, and allowing only registrants to claim an association with the college.

I believe that these amendments will enhance the safe delivery of health care in B.C. by regulated health professions, and I move second reading of the bill.

[V. Anderson in the chair.]

L. Reid: I'm delighted to see the hon. member in the chair this afternoon.

In terms of responding to Bill 55, the Health Professions Amendment Act, 1993, we will be seeking a number of clarifications during committee stage of this bill. At the present time we stand in support of the intent of Bill 55, which looks at creating a framework to serve and protect the public. The Liberal opposition believes in serving the public. In terms of public accountability, any framework that can be put in place to ensure that that direction is enhanced, is supported by the communities at large and is supported by government is a direction in which we would like to see this government proceed.

I trust -- again, the hon. minister knows I have some interest in this area -- that we will be able to put in place a framework not just for current patients but for former patients. I believe we need to ensure that there is some recourse beyond the courts in this province for individuals whose practitioner has left practice. There seems to be some question about that. There seem to be some grey areas surrounding how individuals can seek recourse from a health care professional in this province who no longer practises.

Does their governing agency -- their college -- have an ability to ensure that they are held accountable? There seems to be some clarification needed surrounding those issues, and if it cannot be resolved under Bill 55, we hope that it at least initiates the discussion and puts some teeth into the ability of the colleges to ensure that patient safety is always the number one concern and priority for any health care professional.

I understand from the minister that opticians, dental hygienists and midwives have applications in. I also understand that the association of marriage and family therapists is bringing forward an application. I would welcome those applications coming forward, because, again, it's an issue of public accountability. A number of individuals in this province have sought counselling services and were not able to ascertain whether or not the individuals who were offering themselves as counsellors had legitimate credentials to be engaged in that line of work.

That is an issue because I believe people, particularly women, seek out those kinds of services when they're at their most vulnerable, and the ability to make decisions about somebody's legitimacy should not always rest with the consumer. I believe that the role of government is to set some of those standards. If the college framework is able to allow individuals seeking those services to have confidence around the individuals they select -- whether it be an optician, a midwife or, in this case, a licensed counsellor -- that is something the Liberal opposition would support.

It's really important that the public confidence is always the priority, and that there are some trust relationships that are highly regarded. Certainly, over time in this chamber you've heard me speak of the relationship between a student and a teacher. The relationship between a health care provider and a patient is an equally precious relationship, which I do not believe we can allow anything to tarnish. If this legislation allows individuals to have more confidence around these questions, the Liberal opposition would stand firmly in support of it.

One area that we will seek clarification on during second reading debate refers to the ability of professional organizations to conduct their business in terms of whether or not it positively reflects the public interest. On the surface, that is an acceptable principle. The issue becomes: who decides public interest? In this case is it solely the Minister of Health? Is it the Ministry of Health? Is there some way to broaden who may indeed make that kind of determination?

Let me give you an example that we would have some issue with. If colleges are able to determine competency around educational programs for their professionals, and if it is determined that that type of programming is not in the public interest, would it not be allowed under this legislation? That is the question we will be posing during committee, because we would hope that the public interest is clearly defined. At the present time we're reading it to be that the public interest will be defined by the Minister of Health.

Indeed, if that was not to coincide with the government's view of the public interest -- and I refer specifically to educational programs -- and if the educational programs were somehow in conflict with what the minister determined to be public interest, would those programs be allowed to go forward? That is our concern, and it is an issue we will hope to examine in some detail as we move through committee stage on Bill 55, the Health Professions Amendment Act. Again, the power to determine public interest will determine the success of this piece of legislation.

It appeals to me in the sense that we must be accountable to the public. The expansion of the council to include lay members and non-care-providers on that council makes sense. It looks at ensuring that the public at large has a voice -- is not just perceived to have a voice, but truly has a voice. The nomination process as to how you end up on one of those councils can be refined to the extent that it is truly representative of different individuals and different groups in the community.

I would like to see the rotation of those individuals continue to expand and continue to reflect a greater number of agencies and issues within various communities. I trust that this will be a timely body at all times, and that we will see new ideas, new expectations and new

interpretations from the public reflect positively on the work of these various colleges.

[ Page 8326 ]

Right now I'm sure the minister is aware that there's a tremendous lack of public confidence in the college structure as it pertains to health care professionals in this province. I refer to the sanctity of those trust relationships, and if this legislation can somehow strengthen those relationships and return some level of confidence to the public, you will see the Liberal opposition support this piece of legislation.

L. Fox: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to the Health Professions Amendment Act, 1993 -- Bill 55. In reviewing this act, it's obvious that the Health Professions Council is going to have to be enlarged somewhat in order to look after its expanded mandate. It's appreciated by our caucus and recognized that it's very healthy to have health care deliverers be part of a health professional council or a college.

But what really rings a bell in this legislation, in my view, is something we've seen in most legislation from the Ministry of Health. While they're setting up a regulatory body which is supposed to be a body of professionals watching over professionals, this government, and this ministry specifically, has held on to the power within those organizations. In fact, it fosters the centralization of power to the minister herself by allowing her -- for instance, in this act -- the right to designate who the chair of this particular council is, as well as the right to always appoint the one-third lay membership of this particular council.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

It would seem to me that if this was truly a council representing the professionals and if the minister truly wanted lay people appointed to the board to look after the people's interest, then at the very least there would be a consultative approach used between the ministry and the professionals as to who those appointees might be. One would think the council itself would have the opportunity to choose the chair from within the structure, rather than the minister carrying the big hammer and the big stick and controlling the council by maintaining the right to designate who the chair is and appointing the chair through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

That to me is a disappointment, because I think what the bill intends to do is certainly the right thing. But what we see here is more centralization in power and the minister holding on to the big stick, so that she can have the last say and control this particular health council.

We will go over those issues at some length during committee stage of the bill, but obviously the intent of designing a council which encompasses more of the health care professionals and gives them a regulatory body for which to be responsible is a good move. I am just disappointed that the minister had to keep the big stick and the right to designate the chair and the one-third lay membership making up the council.

[3:45]

J. Tyabji: I want to comment, hon. Speaker, that your voice seems to have regained its natural lilt, compared to the previous speaker.

I rise to speak in support in principle of the bill. I appreciate that the bill is attempting to address some of the injustices that have been in the professional designation in the past, and how that has tended to break down by gender in a lot of cases.

One thing that I would like to flag as a concern is with regard to midwifery and the enabling legislation that we see before us for midwifery. The minister's intent, as I understand it, is to allow home delivery and, most particularly, to allow that in a pilot project.

I very much support the work of midwives and the move toward allowing them into the system. Where I have a concern is that it seems to me that there is going to be a great vulnerability among the midwives in advancing that concept. It is a new concept to B.C., in terms of legitimizing them and bringing them into the health care system. If there is a pilot project in home delivery, as I understand the minister is moving toward, whenever you have a pilot project, the reason you have one is that there is a reasonable expectation of the potential for failure.

Where I have a concern is that there are many groups out there who would love to have a reason to not allow midwifery to continue. Home delivery is something that is potentially very risky,

whereas allowing midwives to operate in the current environment that many of the health professionals operate in is, I think, the best short-term solution.

In terms of the enabling legislation and how it applies to midwifery, I hope the minister will consider what will happen if that pilot project doesn't succeed, and how any failure in that area is going to be used as a large black mark against the potential success of that group in the future. That is where I have a real concern. As I understand the minister's direction -- I very much appreciate the direction of the bill -- there is a risk in this one area. The risk that could be taken on by the midwives is in running before they walk.

If it goes all the way to a pilot project and home delivery, and that project fails, that could then impact -- particularly if there were some kind of public relations campaign using that -- and it could make the entire group vulnerable in terms of this being a completely new concept that is being introduced to the health care field.

I want to flag that, because our Health critic has adequately addressed all the parts of this bill, but that happened to be an area that, from my perspective, should be talked about in terms of the potential that that group has to not succeed in the broader scope of things.

I look forward to the minister's comments in committee stage, as far as how a pilot project would be enacted, what the regulations would be, how the minister sees that translating in the event of the pilot project not being successful and how that would then be used against the ability of the midwives to be successful in the broader picture.

The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.

[ Page 8327 ]

Hon. E. Cull: I could almost get used to this. This is the third bill I've brought in for second reading today that all hon. members are in favour of in principle. It's something that I hope we can continue.

I want to comment on just two things. One concerns the comments from the member for Prince George-Omineca with respect to the appointment of the chair. The history of this bill is a very interesting one, and I just went back to the statutes to make sure that I was correct in my understanding. The Health Professions Act, which was brought in by the former government, was unanimously supported by all members of this House when it was introduced. The provision that the member is objecting to is in the original bill. In fact, the clarification here is just to allow for more than one vice-chair.

The only difference is with respect to the number of vice-chairs that are appointed. In any event, we can deal with that when we get to committee stage.

The other point is with respect to the comments we just had on midwifery. While they're very interesting and while I would be interested to debate the whole issue of midwifery with the member, there is nothing in this amendment that actually pertains to that. This amendment adds more members to the Health Professions Council so that they can do more work. It adds a requirement under the Health Professions Act that bodies that are set up to regulate health professions must have lay representatives on them and must meet a number of other requirements.

But it's not in any way applicable to the question about the pilot project with respect to home births. I would like to suggest to the hon. member that if she would like to discuss that with me, I would be quite happy to talk to her about her concerns in that regard. With those few comments, we can deal with the rest of this in committee stage. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 55, Health Professions Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 41, Notaries Amendment Act, 1993.

NOTARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 41; M. Lord in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

A. Warnke: Basically, what I would like to do throughout committee stage is seek some clarification. Under

section 3 I want to focus for the first few minutes on

section 43.3 entitled "Corporate registration." The new

section 43.3(1)(

b) indicates that "...all the voting shares are legally and beneficially owned by a member or members in good standing...." This

section stipulates that the voting shares must be owned only by individuals who are notaries. Therefore I suppose it prompts one to ask: what if the corporation is partially owned by an individual who is not a notary? For example, the spouse of a notary may be part owner of a corporation, but the spouse may not be a notary. Therefore the question I would like to pose is: does this

section preclude all non-notaries from being members in corporations?

Hon. C. Gabelmann:

Section 43.3(1)(

b) talks about voting shares. Non-notaries who may have an ownership in a company are not entitled to vote. They are not notaries, and therefore they have none of the rights conveyed by this statute.

The Chair: Just for clarification and to expedite what we're doing here, I think we'll call these sections as they appear here. We have passed over

section 43.2, so with the indulgence of the committee we'll call

section 43.2.

Section 3,

section 43.2 approved.

section 3,

section 43.3.

A. Warnke: I believe the suggestion you put forward, hon. Chair, is a good way to expedite this process.

Still sticking with

section 43.3, the way the

section is worded, it appears that it would exclude the survivor control of the voting shares by a spouse, and so on, but these could be converted into non-voting shares under

section 43.3(1)(c). Does this not limit corporate ownership and interests?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Was the member's question: does this limit corporate ownership?

G. Farrell-Collins: Double negative.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I should reply in triple negative and confuse us all. I'd like the member just to tell us a little more clearly, for my benefit, what he's getting at.

A. Warnke: Maybe the question could be rephrased as to the corporate ownership and interests with regard to those individuals in the example I used. Could we look at this

section in such a context that the wording might actually exclude a survivor control of the voting shares by a spouse? I am wondering how these could be converted into non-voting shares under

section 43.3(1)(c).

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The only surviving spouse who would have any rights is a surviving spouse who happens to be a notary. The bill governs notaries. It allows for the incorporation to include the people who are indicated in

Section 43.3(1)(c). I think it's straightforward.

[ Page 8328 ]

A. Warnke: That's essentially what I wanted: some sort of clarification along that line.

I want to move further on to seek clarification on

section 43.3(1)(e). I don't know if it's really necessary to repeat it here: "...all the persons who will be practising as notaries public on behalf of the corporation are members in good standing or" -- and this is what I want to emphasize -- "are under the direct supervision of a member in good standing." I suppose I'm seeking some sort of clarification here. Must a person who is providing the supervision be with the same firm as the person under supervision?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not certain I have this correct, but I'm going to try this answer, and I will be corrected on my left here if I'm incorrect. What we're talking about is ensuring that all people who are working in a notary office providing service to the public are under the direction of a notary when providing service that is connected with notarial activities.

C. Serwa: I have a couple of questions on

section 3,

section 43.3. It's difficult for me to understand why the name of the corporation has to include "notary" or "notaries." Was that brought in at the express desire of the notaries? Where did it come from? It seems to me that we have many other professional fields that do not have a similar type of restriction. This seems to be an anomaly. Perhaps the minister could clarify that for me.

[4:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The way in which this wording was developed, as I understand it, was that when the request came in for the principle of incorporation to be included in the statute, the notaries were provided with standard language -- a draft provision -- which was based on other statutes such as the land surveyors, who have exactly the same provision in their statute. The draft language was given to the notaries. They looked at it and approved it, and they had no concerns about the use of those words.

C. Serwa: I appreciate the response from the minister. It's strange that members of his own caucus seem to find a great deal of humour in his response. I thought it was inappropriate. The response was fair and delivered squarely.

The second question I have is with respect to the restriction of ownership. There's some question in my mind as to why the ownership of a notary corporation should be restricted in such a manner. Was it an initiative of the notaries that they wanted the ownership restricted? Again, it seems very unusual. It's my understanding that all sorts of other professional corporations may be owned by other than the professionals in that corporation. They may be doctors, lawyers, engineers or any other professionally self-regulated department. Why is this ownership restriction placed on notaries?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The same process of developing the language applied to that provision as in the previous one. This is comparable to other self-governing professions acts where incorporation is allowed. Again, the Land Surveyors Act is, I believe, exactly the same principle, and it's a sound principle.

What we're doing here is allowing professionals who offer a particular service that's governed by a statute to incorporate themselves. We're not talking here about a big company acquiring them and then using them as employees of the big company. That's not the kind of model that's envisioned. This is so that individuals who provide a professional service can incorporate themselves.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much for that explanation, hon. minister. I understood that a company was being incorporated rather than the individual. On that basis, then, I accept that.

V. Anderson: I read in 43.3(2)(b): "...a shareholder of the notary corporation was a shareholder of the notary corporation that previously had its permit revoked." If a person happened to be a minor shareholder in a corporation that did have its permit revoked, which was not the fault of that particular notary, is there a way for that notary to get back in? It almost reads that if you happened to be part of a corporation that had its permit revoked, you're prohibited from joining another corporation and coming back.

I'm trying to clarify whether that's the intent, or whether there is a way for a person who has been in a corporation that lost its permit, for a reason other than that particular person, to come back in.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This wording can be read on its face value. This allows the secretary the opportunity to refuse. It says that the secretary "may refuse" -- it doesn't say "must" -- permits to a notary corporation that previously had its permit revoked, and it also may catch a shareholder of a corporation that had its permit revoked. It's conceivable that the shareholder was not the cause of the revocation in the first instance; if that is so, the secretary wouldn't need to refuse permission upon the new application. But if there was some involvement, the secretary then has the ability to say no.

It's a self-policing discretion, as we've established with quite a number of professional bodies.

V. Anderson: If the person were not allowed to come back in, my understanding, looking at 43.10, is that under

section 36 they would be able to appeal that decision. So there is an option open for that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.

A. Warnke: I also want to explore the exact

section that the member for Vancouver-Langara raised. I suppose the question is: is this in all cases of shareholding? For example, if an individual has 5 percent or 10 percent of the shares, does it still disallow the issuing of a permit?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: My answer to the member for Vancouver-Langara applies to this question as well.

[ Page 8329 ]

It's a discretion of the secretary of the profession, and the appeal mechanism applies, as was noted.

Section 3,

section 43.3 approved.

section 3,

section 43.4.

A. Warnke: This

section stipulates that a notary corporation that holds a permit may provide only notary services, or it appears that way. Does this mean that a law firm that holds a permit can act as a notary, but...? Could the Attorney General submit to us some clarification as to the role of the law firm here?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member will tell me if this isn't the answer to his question. Sometimes I'm not precisely sure as to what the question is. Lawyers are able to do what is provided under their statute. They are notaries for the purposes of this legislation. Notaries are limited by the statute we have here in B.C. regarding what they can do, which incidentally is broader than anywhere else in the country. Notaries can do a wider variety of services here than elsewhere. I hope I've answered the member's question. Lawyers can do notary work.

Section 3, sections 43.4 to 43.6 inclusive approved.

section 3,

section 43.7

A. Warnke: This particular

section stipulates that shareholders, directors, officers and employees may be required to produce all files and records for the purpose of the revocation of permits. We have seen on previous occasions that this is the general practice that is followed when a corporation is under investigation. The files and records are sealed when they are seized, and so forth. What assurances can the Attorney General give that this will be the case under this bill?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, I think that the language, in our plain language style, is clear on the face of it. It provides a process for revocation which the directors will follow. There must be a hearing. They have other remedies. Maybe I didn't get the member's question clearly enough. I'm not quite sure what he doesn't see in this.

V. Anderson: On the same question, I understand that under the lawyers' fee bill, a client must give permission for files to be seized. Can the minister give assurance that it will be the case under this bill that the clients need to give permission before their files are inspected? What protection does the client have with regard to seizure?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The frank answer is that I don't know. The principle is comparable to a doctor being investigated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons or a lawyer being investigated by the Law Society. When that investigation takes place -- as it will under this

section -- there is an opportunity for the professional body to have the evidence it may need to pursue its case. In all those matters, the protection of clients is a paramount concern of the societies. Let's use the College of Physicians and Surgeons, because we have more experience with them than we do with the notaries. The college would not in any way jeopardize the confidentiality or privacy of a doctor's patient when they are doing an examination into conduct that might be under question -- similarly here. In principle, the rules and procedures are the same for all the self-governing professions.

In a sense it raises the fundamental question of self-governing professions and if that is the appropriate way of dealing with this. As a society I think we have decided that it is, and you then have to allow them to properly conduct their investigation.

V. Anderson: I understand that when there are seizures, under Bill 8 there is a

section which says that as far as lawyers are concerned, clients must act before those files can be inspected. They are sealed when they are taken, but the client must be asked. I am asking whether Bill 8 would apply here or whether there needs to be a similar provision comparable to Bill 8 that would apply to the notaries in that protection for the benefit of the clients.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may have a point here which isn't addressed. That's the first thing I want to say, in all candour. As with most professional statutes, while it is a government bill, in many ways it's the property of the professional association -- in this case the notaries -- and this was the language that we agreed to introduce.

[4:15]

It is clear to me that the investigating arm of the association would never disclose or prejudice confidential records that may be seized as part of an investigation. However, I may not be answering this question to the member's satisfaction, and I'm not answering it to my own satisfaction -- I'll acknowledge that. I would like to propose that the precise question that both members have asked be raised with the association and that we see what their response is. By way of correspondence, I will undertake to get answers back.

Following those discussions between all of us -- the members, myself and the association -- if we feel there is a need for further change, I would be very happy to consider that at the next session.

C. Serwa: I continue to read as we go through this bill, and I had asked a question of the minister on an earlier section. It is somewhat confusing to me, because as I read the bill

section by

section I note that most of the reference is to a private corporation rather than an individual being incorporated. From the minister's earlier response, it was my understanding that we were looking at an individual incorporating themselves. But as I read through

section by

section -- and certainly in 43.6 -- it appears to be more like a private corporation than an individual incorporating themselves. Would the minister just clarify that, because there is a substantial difference.

[ Page 8330 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If an individual incorporates, that's a private corporation, so I'm not sure I understand the member's question. In respect to incorporation, nothing here is different, in principle, from the way lawyers are able to incorporate. By this amendment we are extending that option to notaries as well, and that's really all it is.

A. Warnke: I certainly appreciate the comments made by the Attorney General. To help the process just a little, I would like to propose an amendment to Bill 41, Notaries Amendment Act, 1993, and amend

section 3,

section 43.7 by adding

section 43.7(5): "All files and records that are in the possession of the directors and that are about to be inspected, audited and examined under this act must be held in a secure manner until written permission is received from the client, or the file or record is otherwise dealt with on application to the Supreme Court."

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm assuming it is in order, hon. Chair.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can see that it is intended as a friendly amendment.

My reaction is that this may or may not be a good amendment. It accomplishes an end that we have discussed and I acknowledge may well be an appropriate objective. However, given that this is a professional body's governing legislation, it would be wrong for me to proceed to change what we have reached by agreement without consultation with the professional body. I had offered earlier for all of us -- the members who are interested in this point, and myself -- to have these discussions with the notaries' society, and that offer continues. We can present this wording to them and see what they think.

If they're in agreement with this or with wording similar to this that accomplishes that goal, I am quite happy to have that come back at the next session.

A. Warnke: Given the highly responsive response by the Attorney General, I'd be quite willing to withdraw the amendment at this time.

Section 3, sections 43.7 to 43.10 inclusive approved.

section 4.

C. Serwa: I notice that this

section 4 is in response to an oversight or mistake, perhaps, made in the 1981 draft of the bill. Were there other errors made in that 1981 draft that have come to the minister's attention that have not been recognized in this particular amendment?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. As far as we know, the government of the day only made one mistake in that bill.

C. Serwa: I should quit while I'm ahead.

It has come to my attention, for example, that due to an oversight in the 1981 draft, the Western Communities in the Victoria area do not have any notaries. I am somewhat surprised that this hasn't been brought to the attention of the Attorney General. That oversight should have been attended to in this same amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That wasn't as the result of an oversight. I'm not sure how well developed the Western Communities were at that stage as compared to now, given the growth in that part of the province. But the society has not identified any additional seals that need to be included, other than the one in Quesnel.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 41, Notaries Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 44.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 44; M. Lord in the chair.

section 1.

C. Serwa: This

section limits the minister's control over the general manager of liquor licensing to matters of general policy. Perhaps the minister could explain why we're transferring more authority from the minister to the general manager. It is not untypical of what has been happening in the government in terms of transferring responsibility to the bureaucracy. I would like the minister's response on this.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: What we've done is ensure that ministers responsible for liquor licensing will not by statute have the opportunity -- whatever word one might want to choose -- or be tempted to direct the licensing branch favourably or unfavourably on a particular application or amendment. Members who have paid attention to political history in recent years in this province will remember that ministers have occasionally found themselves in trouble by that kind of activity. It was a practice in the very last days and, I guess, last few years of the former government to have the minister responsible indicate by letter to the general

[ Page 8331 ]

manager that the minister would not interfere. I did the same upon taking my responsibilities.

I believe, and our government believes, that it's important that the statute be very clear. What we're saying by way of these amendments is that general policy direction and policy matters are in the hands of the government. We will provide direction to the licensing branch in that respect, but particular applications for licences, amendments to licences or variations or whatever will be dealt with by the licensing branch without any interference of any kind by the minister. I think that's the right public policy.

D. Mitchell: The hon. Attorney General, during second reading debate on Bill 44, was very brief in his remarks. Shortly after he assumed his responsibility as Attorney General he indicated that no changes would be brought in to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act without consultation. With respect to

section 1 or, indeed, any other

section of the act, could the minister tell the committee what specific consultations he engaged in with the hospitality industry, the hotel owners or the Neighbourhood Pub Owners' Association of B.C. prior to introducing Bill 44 in the House?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I think a lot of members know, there is constant discussion with the representatives of people involved in the liquor business in this province. There is a wide variety of interests, and they are all quite vocal in advocating their particular initiatives, causes and goals. With the exception of

section 1, which is a government initiative and not something the industry has been consulted on particularly -- it's something we're going to do because we think it's the right thing to do, but certainly they know about it -- in general, discussions have gone on at great length, and a number of the amendments are in fact the result of representations and discussions.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

[4:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is to clarify and make lawful that the general manager cannot, by his own decision, go beyond what is allowed under the regulations. Believe it or not, I understand that some licence holders have argued that the general manager should in fact extend hours or add seating, for example, beyond what is provided for in the regulations. This is to make sure that the general manager does not have to listen to those kinds of representations. The regulations are what will apply, and if this passes, no individual exceptions can be granted by the general manager.

D. Mitchell: I take it, then, that the hon. Attorney General is saying this addition to the act is going to ensure that the general manager will follow the act or the regulations pursuant to the act -- will, in other words, follow the law. Can the Attorney General cite experiences in the past when the general manager has broken the law?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's simply to prevent people arguing that the general manager has discretion in this matter. It will be clear now that there is no discretion beyond the regulations.

D. Mitchell: Can the Attorney General tell us if discretion has been exercised in the past in such a way that has contravened the spirit of the act or its regulations?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Certainly not in the recent past.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

A. Warnke: The amendment in

section 3, which adds 3.1(b), stipulates that "a special occasion licence shall not be issued except to a person who is not a minor and who, although not a resident of the Province is approved for a special occasion licence by the general manager." Other stipulations indicate that the individual must not be a minor; however, in this amendment the stipulation is not a resident of British Columbia. Therefore I'm seeking some clarification.

For example, if a person from the province of Alberta who is 18 years old, the legal drinking age in Alberta, applies for a special occasion licence, will that person be able to obtain a special occasion licence?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, the law in respect of a minor would be the British Columbia law.

D. Symons: I have a very brief comment on the wording. I hope we're moving toward plain language, but I have difficulty with things like the special occasion licence shall not be issued except to these negatives. Often it's much better if you can get into positives; it makes it more clear and easier to understand. It's not very bad here, but in other cases it gets extremely difficult to understand.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member would look at it, he would see that it is very hard to put that in the positive. You don't want to say that a special occasion licence shall be issued to a person who is not a minor. Sometimes we have to depart from the plainest of language in order to make sure that the law is clear.

Section 3 approved.

[ Page 8332 ]

section 4.

In the old

section 20, the owner has a right to an appeal if the suspension is more than three days. The new

section gives the general manager carte blanche in terms of discretionary power, but the owner is not given any opportunity for the case to be heard in an appeal. I would appreciate it if the Attorney General could clarify the intent of this section.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may recall that last year Bill 58 amended -- or in fact repealed --

section 20 with some wording which the House passed, as I said. That was not proclaimed. What we've done with sections 20, 21 and 22 is take them out and replace them in order to make really clear what the rules are and what the rights of the general manager are in terms of action he can take. There are no new powers granted. I think this is really just to make it clear and evident as to what the powers actually are.

D. Mitchell: The new

section 20(3) deals with the general manager's powers to suspend or cancel licences. I have a concern about whether this

section is too restrictive in terms of the branch's ability to manage.

Section 3(

a) says that the general manager can cancel a licence if a person has been convicted of an offence against prescribed laws of Canada or British Columbia. Offence is not defined, and presumably that will be defined by regulation later on. I wonder if the Attorney General can shed some further light on this particular

section and what is intended. What powers are being given to the general manager? In terms of my specific concern, I wonder if the general manager is being given power to suspend or cancel the licence of an individual who may have been convicted of an offence that doesn't have anything to do with his or her licence. It might be a driving offence that has nothing to do with their ability to manage the operation of an establishment. There could be myriad other examples of offences. I think the Attorney General can see where I'm going with this. There is potential abuse here with the ambiguity. What is actually intended by this section?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, let me back up a little. The member may have made a point that I want to consider. I didn't mean it that way -- I want to consider all points the member makes. The language is the same as it has been for many years. The old act says: "The general manager shall suspend or cancel a licence held by a person who has been convicted of an offence...." That has been in the provision, and that stays.

There is no prescribed list, by regulation, of offences that would be covered by this section. The practice is that somebody who gets a speeding ticket or that kind of thing isn't going to lose their liquor licence as a result. So the practice is to have this as an enabling part of the bill, to be able to give the manager the power that he needs in the event that an offence is committed that makes it a good public policy to take that licence away. That's what it's about. The "shall suspend or cancel a licence" is exactly the same.

D. Mitchell: I understand what the Attorney General is saying, but I think he would agree that the language is very extensive and very strong. I wonder if the Attorney General would consider an amendment to the word "shall." What is said here is that it will become incumbent upon the general manager -- it will become mandatory -- to suspend the licence of any individual who has committed an offence, even though offences are not defined. That could be for any conceivable offence, and I think that's rather too extensive and too restrictive on the branch and the general manager.

I wonder whether the Attorney General would agree that an amendment might be in order to change the word "shall" to the word "may," for instance, which would allow some discretion, because I think some discretion is needed here. In other words, in

section 20(3) "the general manager may suspend or cancel a licence" might be more appropriate than "shall." Would the Attorney General consider an amendment along those lines?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member was getting to me, and I was almost prepared to accept his recommendation. Before I do that, I just want to try the argument on. If you look at 3(a), it says: "...has been convicted of an offence against prescribed laws of Canada or the Province...." That requires us, by regulation, to develop a prescribed list, so the traffic ticket and that kind of item is not likely to end up on that kind of prescribed list. The provision that is there -- that the manager shall suspend -- has been in place for the longest time; it has worked and hasn't created a problem.

No one has raised it as an issue until this very moment, to my knowledge, and the fact that it is working well tells me that we should probably leave it the way it is.

D. Mitchell: I take it, then, that the minister is saying that there will be a list of offences developed and categorized by regulation, and that these prescribed offences will be the ones that will become mandatory for the general manager to take action on, under this

section of the act. Can the Attorney General tell the committee that when that prescribed list of offences is developed and made public by regulation, there will be no discretion left to the general manager in terms of any other offences for him to take action on under this

section of the act?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member makes a good point, and that is one of the reasons why there has been no prescribed list of offences to date. Should some significant activity be taking place -- let's say smuggling -- we want the ability to prescribe it, to enable the general manager to have these powers.

[ Page 8333 ]

Cabinet would be able, by regulation, to prescribe a particular offence. The general manager would then be enabled to use this section. In the meantime, failing a list, the

section can't be used.

D. Symons: With the minister's answer to that last question, I am even more concerned than ever, because it seems he is saying that we are going to change whatever inappropriate behaviour a person might have had in the past.... We can change at will what we decide makes a person liable to lose their licence or not.

From the way this is worded and the way I would interpret it, the concern I have is for somebody who has committed a crime 20 or 30 years ago, because it simply says "has been convicted." They have served their time, or whatever; they have done their payment to society and are now trying to lead a rather clear life. You indicate that it is possible now, because smuggling is evident and they might have done some smuggling 20 years ago and have now reformed their ways, that suddenly the crime they committed will now be prescribed and they could lose the licence.

They would have to lose the licence, according to the way this is worded.

[4:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I suppose that, theoretically, it is possible it could apply to a conviction from long ago. That is certainly not the way it would ever come into play, and it hasn't so far.

What we want to try to accomplish here and what this Legislature has tried to accomplish for almost the last 20 years that the provision has been around, is to allow the general manager, should events occur, to have the authority to deal with a particular problem, together with cabinet. That is what this allows. There is nothing more to it than that.

A. Warnke: I just have one quick question to follow up on something I asked about earlier. I think the question I posed was rather long, and there were two parts to it.

In the old

section 20, the owner has a right to an appeal if the suspension is for more than three days, and that would not go into effect until after the appeal. But the way this

section appears to read, the owner is not given an opportunity to have an appeal to be heard. Perhaps the Attorney General could clarify that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This provision actually works better than the previous rules for licensees who face a potential suspension. I should say that this is consistent with the language in Bill 58, which we passed last year. It's the same provision.

What happened historically was that the suspension would apply and then the licensee would have up to three days to appeal. Under these rules the licensee can reopen the premise immediately upon launching an appeal. The three-day period is not there now; it's an immediate reopening, pending resolution of the matter.

C. Serwa:

Section 20(3)(

a) states: "...has been convicted of an offence against prescribed laws of Canada or the Province...." For my information, is that a new addition to this particular section?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a new way of saying it. When we had sections 20, 21, and 22 in place, it was a more convoluted way of saying the same thing. We have tightened it up and made it clearer.

The old act -- which the member's colleague had the honour of administering not too long ago -- had the same provisions, but it took a few extra sentences to say it. It stated: "...convicted of an offence against those of the laws of Canada or the Province prescribed by regulation...." We have simply said: "...an offence against prescribed laws of Canada or the Province...."

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

D. Mitchell:

Section 6 deals with public safety. I think this is an interesting

section of the bill. I'd like to ask the Attorney General a specific question on

section 24(1). It says that "where in a licensed establishment the conduct of the licensee's patrons or employees is of a riotous, violent, drunken or disorderly nature, or the safety of one or more persons in attendance at the licensed establishment is threatened," the general manager can then suspend the licence and order the immediate removal of patrons for 24 hours. These are rather extraordinary powers, and there has been quite a bit of commentary on how these powers would be exercised. First of all, who would determine what is disorderly behaviour? Who would provide advice to the general manager?

Would the general manager decide on his own? On whose advice and recommendation would he be acting?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The general manager makes the decision. I should point out to members that the old language was: "Where in a licensed establishment the conduct of the licensee's patrons or employees is of a riotous, boisterous, drunken or disorderly nature...." We took "boisterous" out. Members can perhaps understand why that was the case. We have added "or the safety...." We've put the safety provisions in, responding to concerns expressed by various people in recent years.

D. Mitchell: I'm not sure why the Attorney General took "boisterous" out. Presumably it was to safeguard members in our parliamentary dining room -- I'm not sure.

The issue is an interesting one. Presumably this

section has been added to the act to deal with extraordinary circumstances, such as unfortunate incidents in recent years at the Kelowna International Regatta and the Penticton Peach Festival -- different events where disorderly condu