1992 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, No. 13

[ Page 3359 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

The Speaker: Before we begin, hon. members may notice that Orders of the Day was reprinted for this afternoon, and in the rush they have retained the 10 a.m. time. But you should have the proper orders in front of you.

D. Streifel: My wife, Linda, is in the gallery. She and I enjoyed Canada Day yesterday and participated in the swearing-in on the front lawn of the Legislature, where we saw hundreds of new Canadians sworn in from 32 different countries. I was proud to be here and welcome them. My wife is accompanied in the gallery today by my aunt and uncle, Elizabeth Thomas and Harold Thomas. I bid the House make them welcome.

J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, today in the gallery I have my son Adam, who came for the day to see what's keeping Daddy down here. So we'll see how he makes out. I would like the House to make him welcome.

The Speaker: Hon. members, before we proceed to oral question period, last Friday two private members' statements were interrupted by several points of order and comments from the Chair. The Chair has now reviewed the origin of private members' statements, the specific wording of standing order 25A and the general practice of this House related thereto.

Under standing order 25A, statements must not revive discussions on matters which have already been discussed in the same session, nor anticipate matters which have been appointed for consideration by the House. However, at the discretion of the Chair, considerable latitude has been the practice with respect to this prohibition, as strict application would preclude many topics that would otherwise be within the spirit and intent of private members' statements.

Last Friday the Chair offered the further

interpretation that private members' statements were not a forum for partisan political debate. Clearly, debate generally described as "partisan" is a large component of the proceedings in this and other parliaments, and there are rules, precedents and practices that govern how and when such debate can take place. However, it does not follow that every kind of partisan debate is therefore necessarily contemplated within every proceeding for which provision has been made under standing orders.

The comparatively recent innovation in 1985 to provide for private members' statements was intended to give members the opportunity to discuss a wide range of topics related to their individual constituencies or to the province at large. Perusal of the topics selected by members under standing order 25A since its inception clearly reveals this spirit and intent. Often members have used private members' time to discuss topics of personal interest or topics that did not fall within other proceedings in the House.

That is not to say that members' statements have not been controversial or that there have not been clear differences of opinion and healthy debate. In that sense, partisan debate has often taken place during private members' statements.

In reviewing the practice of this House, however, highly partisan remarks that negatively reflect on individual members or groups of members in the House have not been regarded as falling within the spirit and intent of standing order 25A. Subject always to standing order 40, other opportunities for such debate are available to members, as for instance, during debate on estimates or, depending on content, during debate on bills.

The foregoing notwithstanding, if it is the will of the House, the private members' statement provision can certainly be reviewed with the intent to expand the scope or change the focus. In addition, the Chair would welcome any individual members who may wish to discuss privately with the Chair the practice of this House related to private members' statements.

Oral Questions

PULP WORKERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The province has seen labour unrest rise in the province of B.C. over the last several months. We've witnessed it in the education sector, in the health care sector, and we're now seeing a third week of a pulp and paper strike. We have a great confrontation with physicians, some of whom have walked off today for study sessions in Prince George and on the Sunshine Coast. Can the Minister of Labour tell us what specific action he plans to take with respect to the pulp and paper workers' strike so that we can have a speedy resolution on that matter?

Hon. M. Sihota: I note that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked for binding arbitration as an option, and I also note that at least one of the parties has told him to butt out of the dispute. This is a dispute that is certainly complicated. It is one that we are monitoring on a daily basis. It is one that I have had several discussions with the parties about. It is one in which we have had a mediator involved. It is one in which we have had the parties return to the table, and those negotiations again have fallen apart. Positions are relatively entrenched. I am meeting at 2:45 today to have further discussions with representatives and the IRC with regard to future options.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS

G. Wilson: With respect to the rising level of confrontation, there seems to be unrest here.

If I could address my supplementary to the Minister of Health, I wonder if the Minister of Health can tell us if she stands by the words of her colleague the Minister of Advanced Education that "deliberate confrontation with doctors is damaging to the integrity of our profession and to all British Columbians" -- these words written in a letter requesting doctors to send a $1,000 contribution, a $500 contribution or a $250 contribution to members of the NDP.

[ Page 3360 ]

Hon. E. Cull: I don't support deliberate confrontation, as I suppose all members in this House don't support that kind of confrontation. It takes two to consult. We are willing to consult. I think this government has been very fair in offering a very fair deal to the doctors. We've offered them twice the rate of inflation. We've offered to negotiate with them on their fees and benefits. We've offered conciliation and we've offered to cost-share their pension plan. I don't think that's confrontational at all.

G. Wilson: It would seem that the NDP has done an audit on their financial statements from the last provincial campaign. Perhaps the doctors didn't respond enough to the minister's request, and the construction workers perhaps top the list with fair wage....

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Wilson: My question again to the Minister of Health. Can the minister tell us why it was that out of five proposals put to her last weekend by doctors -- five proposals that would have stopped the walkouts in Prince George, the Sunshine Coast and other communities coming out -- none were considered fair enough for this government to sit down and allow for fair and open negotiations to take place with doctors in this province? Can the minister tell us why she is forcing confrontation against the doctors and creating fear among the people in this province?

Hon. E. Cull: I'll tell the Leader of the Opposition what is unacceptable to this government. What is unacceptable is the BCMA's request that we guarantee the right for them to have user fees and that we guarantee we will not prevent them opting out. What is unacceptable is their request that we extend and expand a budget -- which is very reasonable, at twice the rate of inflation -- by adding $50 million to $100 million to it. What is unacceptable is their demand that the Medical Services Commission could go for special warrants, something that is available only to cabinet.

What is unacceptable is their demand that we strip the reference to the Canada Health Act, which protects British Columbians from having medically necessary services deinsured. That is what is unacceptable, and until those types of demands are off the table we're not going to be able to reach an agreement.

[2:15]

NEGOTIATIONS WITH BCGEU

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Today it was reported that the latest offer from the government to the BCGEU on behalf of taxpayers was 5.5 percent in the first year and 4 percent for the next 22 months. Given the size of this year's record deficit, and given Peat Marwick's warnings that public sector wages should not be allowed to increase beyond the rate of inflation, how on earth can he justify an offer that is twice the rate of inflation, twice the rate of settlements in the private sector and far beyond the taxpayers' ability to pay?

Hon. G. Clark: We are still negotiating with the Government Employees' Union. I don't think it's appropriate to get into negotiations in this chamber. We are working hard to get a fair settlement -- fair both to the taxpayers and to the people who work for the government.

J. Weisgerber: Supplementary to the minister. Perhaps he could tell us, then, where he would expect to get the approximately $200 million extra if the settlement put forward by the government is accepted?

Hon. G. Clark: We will ensure that any agreement that's arrived at is within the taxpayers' ability to pay and is fair to the employees.

J. Weisgerber: The surprising thing about this whole business is that even with the offer that the government has put on the table, the BCGEU are unhappy. The government, having raised the expectations of the BCGEU through the settlements that it allowed to go forward -- in spite of the compensation fairness program that limited teachers' salaries to about 4.5 percent, the government allowed them to go to 7 -- and given the effectively $6-an-hour increase the government gave to unionized construction workers on public projects, it seems reasonable...

The Speaker: The question, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: ...that the BCGEU would expect a settlement greater than the one that has been offered by the government. Will the government establish a policy for public sector wage offers?

Hon. G. Clark: I want to remind the members of the House and that member in particular that we are dealing with 16 years of anti-union behaviour by previous Social Credit governments. There are lots of legitimate demands by public sector employees to be treated fairly. We are working hard to work with our employees, to treat them with dignity and respect -- something which was never accorded them in the last 16 years. We are confident that we'll come to an agreement which is in the interest of the employees who work and do a job for the people of British Columbia and in the interest of the taxpayers.

POLLARD VEHICLE INCIDENT

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding the alleged drive-by rundown of a B.C. Ferries employee last week by this government's patronage guru, Mr. John Pollard. The minister has indicated that he will be asking B.C. Ferries to review the incident. Can he advise the House what form this investigation will take and when we can expect the review to be completed and in the hands of the public?

[ Page 3361 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I asked the B.C. Ferry Corporation to treat this incident the same way they treat any other incident. I understand that the Ferry Corporation management has apologized to individuals concerned; the individuals have apologized. It seems to me that there is a current investigation under way with respect to the police. But as far as the Ferry Corporation is concerned with the incident, I don't believe there is any further action contemplated.

W. Hurd: I'm glad the minister talked about fair and equitable treatment for government employees. I'm sure he would agree that the B.C. Ferries employee in this case is also entitled to a fair and equitable hearing on this incident by the Ferry Corporation.

As Mr. Pollard is in charge of boards and commissions in this province and of making recommendations to those boards -- including B.C. Ferries -- would it not be appropriate for this individual to resign until such time as the investigation by the Ferry Corporation and the Delta police is completed?

Hon. G. Clark: This is obviously an unfortunate and regrettable incident for all concerned. There were apologies all around. There is an ongoing complaint, I understand, being dealt with by the Delta police. At this point, I think we're best to leave it at that.

W. Hurd: One final supplemental to the Attorney General. In view of the fact that the Delta police department is investigating the incident, can we expect that his ministry will be picking up the legal costs for Mr. Pollard?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No.

LOAN-GRANT PROGRAM UNDER

FORMER NDP GOVERNMENT

D. Mitchell: I have a question today for the Minister of Social Services. This relates to what appears to be another lurking obligation that was missed by the infamous Peat Marwick review. Perhaps it's obvious why it was missed. It goes back a little ways, to the previous socialist administration. Apparently there was a loan-grant program established to help get charities established in the province. This program, under this ministry, apparently disbursed some $700,000 in grants and loans to various charities throughout the province, including the Nanaimo area.

I'd like to ask the minister if she could please confirm that some of these loans are still outstanding and have never been repaid since 1974.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I thank the member for his question. I have asked senior staff to look into the number of loans still outstanding. The information I have at this point is that something like 20 percent of the total have not been repaid. Some have been written off, but that is through the Ministry of Finance. We will get the names and the numbers, and we'll be happy to table them in the House.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's answer to the question. With respect to the fact that some of the loans have been written off, we would be interested not just in having that tabled in this House. Would the minister agree that if the House isn't sitting when it's available, the information could be made public? That would be useful as well.

A supplementary question to her on this matter. Could she also confirm whether, among those people who have outstanding debts that have not been repaid to the taxpayers of the province, there are any directors of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't have all of the names yet. As I said, I have asked senior staff to provide me with a list. You should know that any grants are governed by the Society Act; none of the profits from any of the grants can go to individuals. If a society were to cease to operate, or to go bankrupt or in any way cease practising in the province, that money then must go to a like society.

The fact that the Finance ministry keeps a record of all moneys that have gone to these grants provides an excellent record for us to go back and look at what has happened with that money. There are societies in this province that continue to operate and that have been beneficiaries of these grants. Those would be the ones we would be in contact with.

EXTENTION OF RAPID TRANSIT TO RICHMOND

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Finance. A little while ago, British Columbia Transit announced three options are being considered for the expansion of the rapid transit system into Richmond. Given the commitment of the governing party now to expanding rapid transit into Richmond, how soon can we expect a final decision?

M. Farnworth: After it goes to Port Coquitlam.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll undertake to get this precise information for the members -- I know members from Richmond will be interested -- but I can't recall. We did leave in place the Richmond Citizens' Transit Advisory Committee, which included on it, I was delighted to reconfirm, Nick Loenen, who was previously on that commission. They have just reported in with it narrowed down to three options, and we'll now be proceeding with more detailed engineering work and the like to see which option is finalized. It's a fairly tight time-frame, but I don't want to mislead the House, so I'll get the information for you.

Ministerial Statement

NORAM DIRECT MARKETING LTD.

Hon. M. Sihota: I rise today to make a ministerial statement about a major scam involving consumers all over British Columbia and even in the United States.

[ Page 3362 ]

I'm told that a number of people have been taken in by the marketing techniques of a Surrey-based company known as Noram Direct Marketing. Today a writ has been filed in the B.C. Supreme Court against Noram Direct Marketing and its sole director, Mr. Thomas Taylor. Noram and Taylor are charged with violating the Trade Practice Act by using deceptive and misleading practices.

Noram has access to huge mailing lists and notifies people that they've been selected to receive valuable prizes or large sums of cash. They are told that if they do not proceed with notifying the company, they will not receive their goods, which may exceed $5,000. The prize-winners are even asked if they want to receive the money in cash, in gold or by way of certified cheque. They are also given the opportunity to receive valuable items such as complete home stereo systems for $24, or a sewing machine. When consumers try to claim these valuable items and cash prizes, they are required to forward, in advance, so-called shipping and handling charges of up to $79.

No consumer has ever won cash prizes from this company. Noram obviously operates on the principle of quantity versus quality -- a huge quantity of solicitation but absolutely no quality of goods. Hidden in the fine print of the solicitation is the actual notice of solicitation for the sale of goods. In this way, Noram thinks it is protected from prosecution.

Other companies, Home Discount Service, National Claim Center, International Warehouse Centre, Award Processing Centre and Phone for Cash, are all Noram-related companies involved.

Accordingly, I have instructed the director of trade practices to take action on his own behalf and on behalf of all consumers who have been deceived by Noram. The statement of claim filed in court today claims reparation for all consumers entrapped by this deception, and in compliance with the Trade Practice Act, demands that Noram advertise full details of any judgment against them in the media.

I urge all consumers who have lost money through dealings with Noram to contact their nearest consumer operations branch so we can advise them of the detail and the manner in which this matter will be dealt with in the courts.

G. Wilson: I thank the minister for providing us information with respect to this action against a company that, it would appear on the surface, has engaged in a less than desirable consumer practice in British Columbia.

There is no question that British Columbians want to know that when events are to unfold, they can expect that that is what is going to occur. Quite clearly, I think that when you enter into a position of trust with a company, it's not unlike entering into a position of trust in many other facets of life in British Columbia, only to find out that what you think is to occur and what you were told or read may take place is not in fact what ends up being delivered. I think that the minister's action is timely on this matter. I'm pleased that he is going to provide us with some feedback with respect to how the outcome of this case proceeds.

I think all British Columbians are leery of any scam, whether that scam is one such as we see here or others that might be attributed to other people who would make promises to the people of British Columbia and then not deliver on them.

[2:30]

C. Serwa: It's rather a pleasure to hear of scams other than the recent political scams, so this is somewhat refreshing. I certainly acknowledge the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services in this particular matter. The actions that have been taken are entirely appropriate. We certainly agree with them. The opportunity afforded the minister in this Legislature through the awareness of the media is also a valuable opportunity that the minister has taken advantage of in his ministerial statement.

There are some other questions associated with it. For example, the minister refers to a massive mailing- list. In view of the legislation that was recently passed through this Legislature, perhaps the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, while it applies primarily to government, may be important to restrict the trade of mailing-lists that tends to go on in the private sector. Certainly there has been a blatant abuse. "Let the buyer beware" has no relevancy here, and that is clear. I compliment the minister and the ministry for their appropriate actions.

Presenting Reports

J. Pullinger: I have the honour to present the report of the special committee to appoint an ombudsman. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Pullinger: I ask leave of the House to move that the report of the committee be adopted.

Leave granted.

J. Pullinger: I move that the report be adopted, and I would like to speak to the report at this time.

As the House is well aware, the committee was struck on March 17, in the first days of this session, to take on the onerous task of replacing the previous ombudsman, who stepped down to head the CORE commission, as we're all aware. The committee members from all three parties took on that very onerous responsibility. They took it very seriously and worked thoughtfully and diligently to ensure that the choice of the committee was in fact the right one. They took on the task themselves rather than hire a consultant, in respect of the difficult economic times in the province these days.

The committee met more than 20 times. In response to the ad that was put out very quickly, we received 421 responses from highly qualified people from all parts of British Columbia -- and all parts of the country, as a matter of fact. As I say, the candidates were very highly qualified and most impressive, and were from a wide

[ Page 3363 ]

variety of cultural and professional backgrounds that truly reflected the face of this province.

We shortlisted and interviewed and interviewed again. It was a great deal of work on behalf of the committee, and I would like to thank very much those members who took the time to work so hard to find a new ombudsman for the province. I would also like to express thanks on behalf of the committee to Craig James and especially to Joan Molsberry, who provided very able assistance to the committee in carrying out its mandate.

On behalf of the committee then, hon. Speaker, I am pleased to put forward the name of Ms. Dulcie McCallum as the unanimous recommendation of the committee for the position of ombudsman and, given the careful and thoughtful work of the committee and the outstanding qualifications of Ms. McCallum, I feel very confident that this Legislature will unanimously endorse that choice.

D. Symons: Having served as the Deputy Chair on the ombudsman committee, I can say we did have a good time working at this -- I don't mean that in the enjoyable sense, but working hard at it. We had a good number of very qualified people. I think it was a strain, in a sense, on the committee to look at these wonderful people and realize that we were going to come up with one. We think we've done a very good job in selecting the ombudsman, and we recommend that the House endorse our decision.

Motion approved.

J. Pullinger: I would ask leave of the House to make an introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the House Ms. Dulcie McCallum, who will be the next ombudsman for British Columbia. Dulcie comes to the post of ombudsman with over 20 years of public service as a nurse, public health official, lawyer, human rights activist and community volunteer. During that time of service, she has received all sorts of honours, which range from human rights awards to her adoption as an honorary Haida. She has volunteered on a number of community boards, including the Victoria Hospice Society.

Her writing on social policy and human rights has been published across the country. She has studied nursing at BCIT and has been a RN since 1970. She studied psychology and criminology for two years. She then went on to get a law degree at the University of Victoria. I think this House and this province will be well served by Ms. McCallum.

Hon. G. Clark tabled the 1991-92 annual report of the compensation fairness program.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I'd like to call motion 60 on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Motions on Notice

REFERRAL OF LOAN PROGRAM TO

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE

Hon. A. Petter: I move motion 60 standing in my name on the order paper.

The purpose of the motion is to enable the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to inquire into and make recommendations with respect to all matters relating to the First Citizens' Fund loan program and, in particular, to make recommendations concerning the effectiveness of the program, its appropriateness in terms of overcoming barriers to aboriginal people's participation in business, and the design and delivery of the program.

I think most members are familiar with the fact that the First Citizens' Fund is a $25 million special fund established by the government of B.C. in 1969. The intent of the fund is to use the interest earned on it to enhance social, educational and economic development opportunities for the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia. Originally the program provided grants for economic, cultural or recreational projects, as well as funding for friendship centres and bursaries for post-secondary students.

In 1988, however, legislation governing the First Citizens' Fund was amended to allow for the small business loan program in addition to grants to be made from the interest earned on the fund. The primary emphasis of the fund became economic development, and the First Citizens' Fund Advisory Committee became the Native Economic Development Advisory Board.

The current loan program provides assistance to eligible applicants by way of a 50 percent deferred contribution, which is made when program participants pay down 50 percent of their loans. Each applicant is eligible for up to $75,000 per business venture.

While the program has enjoyed great success over the past four years -- 150 conditionally approved loans, 28 successful program completions and only three defaulted loans -- it is important that the program continue to adapt to meet the changing needs of entrepreneurs and business people within aboriginal communities. A full program review was planned for 1993-94. There has been a good deal of interest on the part of the aboriginal peoples concerning the program.

In keeping with this government's commitment to aboriginal economic self-sufficiency and to making better use of legislative committees, I seek the necessary support to have the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs carry out a full review of the fund loan program. I urge all members of the House to support this motion.

G. Wilson: It gives me great pleasure to stand today and to speak in favour of this motion. The Liberal opposition has been on record for a long time as

[ Page 3364 ]

suggesting that the use of the standing committees is a very important and useful tool in providing adequate and sound legislative planning for the people of British Columbia. In particular, the First Citizens' Fund is an extremely important part of the overall administration and delivery of services for aboriginal people. I think it is an excellent move by the minister.

I can tell the minister that the Liberal opposition is most anxious to make sure that this aboriginal program be run in a manner that is going to provide the very best benefit to the first nations of B.C. and to look at the prospect of making sure that where entrepreneurial development occurs among aboriginal people we do so in a way that provides them an equal opportunity to compete. I stress the words "an equal opportunity" -- so that they do not find themselves in a position, by virtue of past indiscretion, that they are not able to compete freely and equally with all citizens in the province of British Columbia.

I would say also that moving this to a standing committee provides us an opportunity, I think, to take time for reflection and take time for consultation in various areas of the province where the First Citizens' Fund is a key component to the development and establishment of new programs for aboriginal people.

This is a wise step by the minister. It is one that we fully support. It is one that we will be anxious to participate in in as constructive a manner as possible.

J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak in support of the motion. I think it's an opportune time to examine again the First Citizens' Fund, recognizing that in 1969 the fund was originally established by W.A.C. Bennett. It was, at that time, a very forward-thinking undertaking for the government.

I had the opportunity in 1988 to oversee the amendments to the act that this minister mentioned earlier. When those amendments were considered and brought forward, it was after considerable discussion with the board of directors who govern the activities of the First Citizens' Fund. That board of directors is made up almost exclusively -- if not exclusively -- of aboriginal people from all around British Columbia.

As the select standing committee undertakes its review, I can only urge them to spend a good deal of time meeting with the board of directors who have governed the fund in the past and who are presently engaged in that activity. They've done a huge amount of work considering the options for the fund. There is a wealth of information there for the select standing committee -- not to suggest that it should restrict itself to those board members, but I urge the committee not to overlook the wealth of information that already exists.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Motion 61 standing in the name of the Minister of Health. [See appendix.]

REFERRAL OF TOBACCO PRODUCT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992, TO

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE

I have received to date, and continue to receive daily, many letters of support for this legislation, which will really be one of the most progressive tobacco regulation acts in Canada. We have on record letters of support from the Canadian Cancer Society, the Lung Association, the Heart and Stroke society and many other organizations involved in health promotion and tobacco reduction strategies.

I move the motion that is on the order paper.

[2:45]

L. Reid: It is indeed my pleasure to respond to this subject, in terms of its referral to committee of the subject matter. We believe it's an excellent starting point for discussion. However, our view was and continues to be that after second reading we should refer the entire document to the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. Parts of it, as it stands now, are not enforceable, in our view. We would like to see some more input in terms of how we flesh it out to become a more decisive document. Certainly we believe strongly that ease of access does increase use, and we would like to consider very carefully health promotion and disease prevention.

In our view, an aspect that is not covered in this legislation is sponsorship. We have a ban on tobacco advertising, but that does not preclude anyone in society from sponsoring an event and putting up a large product sign. If indeed the commitment is strong on behalf of this government to really reduce access and to make people more aware of the difficulties with smoking and of how advertising permeates society, we should be taking a look at that.

Again, I would strongly suggest that this bill go to the committee in its entirety, once we have concluded second reading.

L. Fox: I rise to support the motion. Certainly the issues being brought forward are significant. But given the array of issues we presently see within the Ministry of Health, I would have much preferred to have seen a much larger job for the standing committee than just dealing with the categories put forward. I'm sure that

[ Page 3365 ]

we could have contributed through that process to the discussion and much of the disarray around the bill, which is presently before this House. However, I see this as a first step. Perhaps the minister and the government, in their wisdom, will see fit at a later stage to give a more substantial task to this standing committee.

D. Mitchell: I too would like to speak briefly to this motion that has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Health. I'd like to add to the words that have already been spoken on this to say that, while in principle we agree with the idea of sending this matter to a select standing committee, there is a small problem I see with the actual motion. The motion refers to the Tobacco Product Amendment Act, 1992. Of course, there is no such act yet. If the bill on the order paper is passed into law, of course it will become

an act of this Legislature, but there is a bill on the order paper right now to which this is referring. It's anticipating that it will become

an act.

The problem is that the member for Richmond East has outlined -- and I would support her on this -- that the subject matter of the bill would ideally be referred to a select standing committee before it becomes

an act of this House. So many times this session this government has got this wrong: they get consultation after the fact. It's a problem we've seen so many times. This government acts first, consults later. They've got it backwards again.

Here they are wanting to refer

an act of the Legislature to a committee for consultation, and presumably, I suppose what we're getting at here.... When the hon. minister closes debate on this motion, I would appreciate her comments on this. The government is saying that they want to pass this bill into

an act; they want the committee to study it and come back with amendments to the act. Is that what they're saying? It seems like a cumbersone process; the process could be smoother. It would be nice not to be so presumptuous of the Legislature itself, and to use the Legislative standing committees in a more constructive way rather than present them with a fait accompli.

The fact that the government plans to make this

an act, which is what is implied in the motion, does not preclude the opportunity for consultation to be meaningful and for amendments to come into that act. We can support the motion, but again, we think procedurally this government is confused.

Hon. G. Clark: I think the members opposite, and in particular the opposition House Leader, should read the motion instead of giving us a sanctimonious speech for which he knows nothing about. In this House it is quite proper to have a select standing committee review any item that the executive council chooses. If those members opposite want to play a role in those select standing committees, then they should be standing here praising the government for moving these kinds of substantive policy discussions to parliamentary committees.

Quite frankly, it's a lot easier for government to simply make the decisions themselves, but we want the input from the opposition, because we thought that they wanted to play a constuctive role in major policy debates. This motion is quite in order. The bill does not have to be passed. Even if this bill was not passed this session, this motion is in order. It is totally in order. It is not presumptuous in any way. The bill does not have to be passed. If you read the wording, it says that the members are to make recommendations with respect to regulations.

The bill will be passed this session; I can tell the members that. But it does not have to be passed for this committee to hear, nor for this motion to be in order.

Frankly, it's disappointing that the members of the opposition do not want to play a constructive role in an area of such importance, dealing with tobacco use and the controlled use of that drug, when so many people in this province are asking the government to take action. This is model legislation that we're inviting the opposition members to participate in a discussion of and to devise regulations. They do not have to participate if they choose not to do so.

G. Wilson: Once again, the Minister of Finance proves that when it comes to sanctimonious speeches, nobody in this House can top him. He has absolutely no equal; he has us all beat. There's no doubt about it.

If the minister had been listening to what we in the opposition were saying instead of simply trying to move forward on his agenda -- which I realize he's desperately trying to accomplish by Friday -- we were not saying that there is a point of order that needs to be reviewed here but that essentially the process by which this government is moving its legislation forward demonstrates once again that they're prepared to act first and consult later. That is the point.

The point is that we believe that in terms of the bill that is before us, which a portion of this in fact relates to, there ought to be a referral of the entire document for review. It is certainly going to be a problem if we start to look at the proposition of making access to tobacco more difficult but this government puts in place legislation that is totally unenforceable. And that is the point that we are trying to make -- not that we are trying to be in any way less than co-operative with a government that is becoming less and less directed toward the kind of consultative process that they promised.

In principle, we believe that this should go before a standing committee of the House. However, in looking at the entire document, we believe that much more should be before a standing committee. If the minister opposite had been listening to what we were saying instead of standing ready to get into what he does best -- and that is to speak first and think later -- he would have realized that we were saying something that would have provided the people of British Columbia a much broader purview for review, which is through the standing committee process.

D. Schreck: As Chair of the select standing committee to which this matter is being referred, it gives me great pleasure to support the motion and express some shock at the stance taken by the official opposition, although I must say that I applaud the

[ Page 3366 ]

unqualified support that the third party has given to this motion. I am shocked at the stance taken by the official opposition, because we've seen once already in this House how they have stood accused of sometimes confusing the public interest with special interest. As Chair of the select standing committee, I've already received a fax from those who benefit through tobacco sales urging precisely what the official opposition has encouraged in this debate: that is, delaying and stalling on the regulation of the drug tobacco.

I do not think that either industry or government should be profiting from tobacco addiction, which many of us have suffered. It is certainly an addiction which we must stop from harming our children. It is the intent of this motion of referral and of legislation before the House to stop the addiction. I support this legislation and call on the opposition to clearly distinguish between special interest and the public interest.

W. Hurd: It's always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale in debate. He is the Chairman of the select standing committee and has taken great pains in this House to advise all members as to what is and what isn't worthy of being considered by the committee. We certainly find it rather curious that this bill meets with his unqualified approval,

whereas Bill 71, which we'll be dealing with later in the day, was not worthy to be considered by the select standing committee that he chairs. This particular convener seems to be taking some rather interesting marching orders from the government of the day as to what type of health care legislation we should be dealing with in the province with a select standing committee. I must confess that I find it rather curious that a so-called independent Chair of a committee would be so outspoken in this House as to what should come before this committee. I can't help but think that his independence is drawn from the Minister of Finance, who has a....

The Speaker: Hon. member, I would urge you to address the motion before you.

W. Hurd: As I was saying, the Minister of Finance has always had a lot to say about health care bills in the province, and this appears to be another example of where the convener is arguing in favour of this motion, based on some rather interesting instructions from the Minister of Finance. It's somewhat troubling to the opposition that the convener of an all-party committee in this House continues to try to set the agenda from the government back benches.

I would again suggest that if the government is really serious about the role of legislative committees in dealing with health care issues, they should be willing to look at all aspects of health care, particularly onerous bills which have been compared to drive-by shootings of doctors. They should also be referred to select standing committees.

As I say, it's always interesting to hear the remarks from the convener of the Health and Social Services Committee on the floor of this House. We can always tell, via the pipeline from cabinet, what exact....

Speaker: Order, please. I will again remind the hon. member to address the motion before the House.

W. Hurd: Again, it was very interesting to listen to the remarks from the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale with respect to the motion before us in the chamber. It's unfortunate that there isn't a member of the opposition as co-convener of this particular committee.

An Hon. Member: Like there should be.

W. Hurd: Like there should be. Then we could have some reasoned debate in this House when the committee meets and have some sort of parameters when dealing with recommendations for legislation that it should be dealing with.

I'm always interested, as I say, to hear the member from North Vancouver-Lonsdale suggest that Bill 71 is a routine housekeeping matter not worthy of the committee's attention, that a motion on the order paper such as we're dealing with here is a matter of urgent priority in the health care field, and that he has no problem with taking his orders from the cabinet and recommends that we all support it.

I cannot, in listening to the debate on this matter, understand anyone speaking in opposition to this motion. The only thoughts I can conclude from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Liberal Party, is that perhaps they have letters in transit to a special interest group -- perhaps the tobacco people? -- soliciting funds for this battle, or perhaps selling memberships.

[3:00]

I certainly stand in support of the motion and applaud the government for this initiative. It's very important to reinforce that fact and also the educational aspect. If we're going to succeed in decreasing or mitigating the use of tobacco products or using them in a responsible manner, what is going to succeed in the end is a far better and enhanced educational program about the negative effects of smoking on our population.

The Speaker: You have the motion before you. All those in favour, say aye.

I regret, hon. member, that I didn't see you before I called for the vote. I regret that we are in the middle of taking the vote on this motion.

All those opposed.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 75.

[ Page 3367 ]

LEGAL PROFESSION AMENTMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 75; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

A. Warnke: Just a quick point on this. It is in

section 4 that there is a reference to "panels," which is in addition to benchers, executive committee and so on that we see in the previous bill. Therefore when we take a look at sections 17 and 18 of this particular bill, we'll want to elaborate on it. I just want to point out on this particular

section that "panels" is not a simple addition but is in fact used frequently and is a prominent feature of this bill. It does introduce a prominently new institution.

If the Attorney General wants to leave it sections 17 and 18 to elaborate on the introduction of the term, that would be quite all right.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

A. Warnke: Just a very quick question. What is the distinction between the law firm of a member and the law corporation? I suppose if I were to put it in the context of a question, the introduction of "a law corporation" -- is this a natural development in the legal community, or is this an innovation? The purpose needs to be clarified here a bit.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Okay.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

A. Warnke: Just a very quick question again to clarify the comparison and improvements of the credentials committee as it had existed with the definition of the credentials committee in the present bill.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member knows, because I think he's had a briefing on this legislation by members of the Law Society staff, that there was a recent court decision, a relatively high-profile case, which indicated that the committees lacked powers that they had used. This legislation is simply to ensure that the courts cannot suggest that the committees lack the power to do a variety of things which are in the bill and the act.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

A. Warnke: There are just a couple of minor points. I believe the term "articled student" is dropped and replaced by "applicant." The term "credentials committee" is dropped and replaced by "panel." The latter one we'll leave until a little later on, but it's just this one: "articled student" dropped and replaced by "applicant." Why?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At 11 a.m., anticipating that this was coming up at 11:30, I indicated to the staff people in Vancouver that they needn't be here for committee stage debate, and that if it got complicated I would ask to hold it over to another day when they could be here. Unless it's in these notes, and I don't think it is, I can't answer the question in respect of why that change. What we're talking about, in effect, is someone who is making application to join the society, so I think that's a more logical way, from a drafting perspective, of describing those people, previously described as articling students, who now will be applicants for membership.

A. Warnke: I do not see this is as a contentious point; therefore, I would find that answer by the Attorney General totally satisfactory. I think we should move on.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

A. Warnke: The point has been raised to me by some people.... The term "secretary" replaces the term "treasurer." I think I can follow it through, but an argument has been put forward. I'll elaborate this way: secretary seems appropriate to me as opposed to a treasurer, and yet there is the term "audit" here. Why a secretary is involved in audits as opposed to a treasurer has created some confusion. If that's possible.... It's certainly not a contentious point with me.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The society has a practice that most of us find unusual, and that is to name their chief elected person the treasurer -- in fact, the master treasurer. The treasurer is more like the president or the chair rather than the person who does the accounting for the organization. What we're looking at here is having a staff person, the secretary, enabled to order audits on a random basis should the secretary feel that it's appropriate.

Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

A. Warnke: A very quick question. It concerns the rationale for the increase of the maximum fine from $10,000 to $20,000.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I guess it's a fact of life that $10,000 isn't very much in these circles any more.

[ Page 3368 ]

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

section 17.

A. Warnke: It's this point that I flagged earlier. It is an innovation. I would appreciate at the outset an elaboration and the rationale from the Attorney General as to the introduction of essentially a new concept. Perhaps we could just pursue the term "panel." Have the implications of introducing a new institution been considered by the ministry?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The

section is designed to consolidate, as the notes indicate, the provisions dealing with panels. I think the important new feature is that it will now allow people who are not benchers, who are not members of the executive of the Law Society, to sit on panels. Members can imagine any number of circumstances where that may be seen as an appropriate avenue.

A. Warnke: Actually, I would agree with the Attorney General. That's how it struck me as well. In fact, that may be a very positive innovation. Has there been any consideration to any adverse effects of having non-benchers serve on this panel? To put it as simply as possible, the introduction of a panel is, as I understand it, an innovation to allow non-benchers to serve in a capacity here. When we are dealing with the problems that the panel is supposed to address, the argument has been put forward that perhaps some of the areas where the panel is involved should be addressed exclusively by benchers as opposed to non-benchers.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The bill would not change that. The legislation gives the benchers authority; benchers can establish panels. We're now ensuring that the panels do in fact have the authority that was intended. On occasion, should they choose, non-benchers can be appointed to sit on panels. That doesn't mean that it would happen all the time; it's an option that's now built in. I think it's as simple as that.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

C. Tanner: Just a minor consideration. Unless the Attorney General can assure me otherwise, it seems that a lawyer, by appealing to the Court of Appeal in this province, could find himself in the situation of talking to the same people he talked to in the first case. Is that not true?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it's not true. I just want to be sure about this. If I had somebody from the society here, I could be absolutely sure. I'm certain there would not be a situation where a judge of the Court of Appeal would sit on a panel and then subsequently be involved in an appeal. That situation would not occur.

[3:15]

C. Tanner: Could the Attorney General indicate how that system works in other provinces? Do they, by any chance, appeal out of the province?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't answer that question. I'm sorry. If it's important to the member, I can find an answer for him.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

C. Serwa: Perhaps the minister could inform me on the matter of personal law corporations and law corporations. I know that the Law Society has proposed the amendments. I'm just wondering why this particular amendment has gone through, eliminating personal law corporations.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Law Society proposed to government that there be many, many amendments to the Legal Profession Act this session. In response to them, we indicated that we had a heavy legislative agenda and asked them to limit the amendments this session to those that were essential in their view. Despite the size of this bill, there are effectively two issues. One is to deal with the court decision that I referred to earlier. The second is to deal with the issue raised by the member for Okanagan West.

The reference to personal law corporations, for reasons I can't explain, has proven to be very difficult for many lawyers in British Columbia from a business practice perspective, just in terms of doing business. Members will often notice on correspondence from lawyers the term "a personal law corporation" on the letterhead. There are implications that I can't explain now, and I'm prepared to stand this down and come at it tomorrow with representatives of the benchers here, if it's important enough to members.

Hon. G. Clark: I thought they were briefed on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We had arranged for briefings in order to make this unnecessary. I'm absolutely prepared to come back tomorrow. My understanding was that we wouldn't need to have staff with us today because both parties had been briefed on this issue. I therefore can't give you the kind of answer that I would feel comfortable giving, other than a general commentary. Members need to know this isn't a government bill; this is a bill that's generated by the society, as self-governing societies do. I am obviously carrying it for them.

If members feel it's really important that they get specific answers to this in the House before passage, I'm prepared to hold it until tomorrow. If not, I'm prepared to have members continue and to ensure that the Law Society responds in writing to members with a detailed briefing in response to these questions.

C. Serwa: I'm pleased with the minister's response on that particular question, and I will accept his offer to

[ Page 3369 ]

have the Law Society provide me with a detailed explanation of the issue. I was not aware if there were any tax implications or benefits. I do know that individuals can incorporate under a law corporation in any event, so the implications evade me. I will accept the minister's kind offer.

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

A. Warnke: A very quick comment. I think I understand to a sufficient degree, and I don't think this is a contentious problem. Nonetheless, it has been raised that in this particular

section we're talking about privileged information. Yet there was the concern raised whether freedom of information is compromised by this or whether freedom of information itself somehow compromises the concept of privileged information as it's used here. I'm just wondering if there is a comment on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As members know, the entire question of the application of conflict-of-interest legislation to societies and self-governing professions is yet to be determined. That legislation, should it come in and apply to groups like the Law Society, would undoubtedly supersede this legislation. It would be done in a way that would ensure that the confidential material that lawyers are often in possession of would remain confidential.

C. Serwa: This

section expands and broadens the range of materials relating to complaints and discipline that are protected by privilege. Is there a potential that it will be difficult for someone from the general public to get a fair hearing with the expanded confidentiality provisions?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't answer that question with any surety. I'm advised that the

section is not being amended with that purpose in mind. The member raises a question that merits an answer, and I'll ask the society to respond to that member and to the official opposition critic as well.

C. Tanner: Matters of privilege obviously are sacrosanct in many respects, but it seems to me that these are pretty far-reaching. Can the minister tell us where they came from? Are they brand-new, are they rewritten or are they from another jurisdiction?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: They came from the benchers. They came from the elected officers of the Law Society. Whether or not they borrowed them from another jurisdiction in the preparation of the wording, I don't know.

C. Tanner: I assume, since the minister brought the bill in, that he and people in his department have verified them. Could he give the House the assurance that the professional people in his department have reviewed these particular orders?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to that is yes.

Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 75, Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 81.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 81; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

section 1.

C. Serwa: On

section 1, why increase the cap, and why increase it specifically by the sum of $10 million?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's fairly simple. We have been in a recession. There have been a number of loans made by the previous administration. We want provision in case there are good projects that come along that are recommended by the Job Protection Commission or by my ministry, so that we can help save, preserve and enhance the number of jobs in the province. The $10 million is the projected amount that we might possibly need.

I can assure you that we don't have a project for $10 million at this point. It's the amount of provision that we feel we need to add, because we have used up quite a bit of the loan provision by the decisions of the previous government and by some decisions that we have made.

C. Serwa: The commitments by the previous government would have lapsed, I would understand, at the end of the fiscal year. Or is this a continuing obligation?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it is a continuing obligation. They are booked until they are repaid, and some of them have terms of ten years. They are there, and we can't loan any more. We think that it's possible, because there are substantial numbers booked against that, that we won't be able to have enough room to act -- that's all.

[3:30]

I don't have the exact figure, but I'm happy to provide you with how much is actually booked against this amount. The clear expectation is that over the next year, which is the second year in the term of the job

[ Page 3370 ]

protection commissioner, he may make recommendations for loans under this act. We don't want to be held up by not having adequate provision.

In fact, the total disbursement under the act is $174,637,000 right now, so that gives us some room. If you subtract the two, it tells you approximately what we have to loan out should some major projects come our way.

C. Serwa: With this request for more latitude in the amount of loans they can put out, and for job protection and job creation in the province -- which I applaud -- can the minister assure the members in this Legislature that there is absolutely no risk that the province will get back all of the new money that is put in? Will the minister assure this Legislature of that fact?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's pretty strong language. I'll answer your question in a minute. He wants an unequivocal statement, and I can't.... The nature of due diligence is that you assess the risks, and you try and protect the public purse. We will do that, of course.

I would like to correct what I said before. I read from the wrong line. Our total commitment now against this fund is $211 million, so the room under this act is really only $24 million. It wasn't great, and that's why we raised it. If we didn't raise it, we would only have $14 million.

C. Serwa: I appreciate the minister's remarks with respect to the reference to due diligence. That is clearly an intent of this government and the minister. I would like to suggest that it was clearly the intent of the previous administration. In reality there is always a certain risk associated with any venture. The end result of striving to provide jobs for the people of British Columbia and trying to give comfort or a little latitude or licence to those industries under pressure from a downturn in the economy is the right direction to take. I have no difficulty with this section, but I thank the minister for his clarification on it.

A. Warnke: Regrettably the member for Okanagan West is really on target these days. He pre-empted me.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

A. Warnke: I want to thank the member for Okanagan West for not pre-empting me.

One question has been raised. I'd like to add a bit of a

preamble, and perhaps the Attorney General could comment on this as well. What we're talking about here is a change in the Infants Act. The term "infant" is used here, which actually can be confusing to the untrained ear. When we think of infants, actually we're talking about human beings that are extremely young. On the surface, in commonsense terms, it's very hard to explain to an infant and have it reach a point where the infant fully understands the "nature, consequences and foreseeable benefits thereof." It's a very interesting way of using the term "infants." I don't know. Somewhere down the line, is it possible that there could be some clarification here?

However, when we take a look at the amendment that's being proposed, I have just one question. Could this possibly mean that someone between the ages of 16 and 19 -- certainly not an infant, but that's in commonsense terms -- will no longer need parental consent for medical procedures?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: To the first point first, I too find the use of the term "infant" in the Infant Act to describe citizens of our society 18 years of age and under a bit unusual. My personal view is that this is not the best use of plain language. I hope some day that we might have a title that actually says what it means.

Hon. G. Clark: That would be novel.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It might be novel, but it would be long overdue.

In respect of the substantive question, as members know, common law in matters of consent by medical practitioners applies to persons under the age of 15. There are certain situations where parental consent is not required under common law. The common law is clear and specific on that point. The anomaly comes about when that "infant" reaches the age of 16. Through and including age 18, the law has required that consent be required -- clearly an anomaly and clearly something that requires redressing.

The member hasn't asked why we have gone this way to redress rather than the other way. The answer, very simply, is a social answer as opposed to a legal answer. It is that youngsters of this age who may require medical intervention should not be spooked into not securing that medical intervention by a fear of, in some cases, having to receive parental approval. Members can use their imagination, and they won't need much of it, to imagine all kinds of situations where a youngster -- say a 17-year-old -- requires some support, assistance or therapy by a medical practitioner and would not receive that therapy or response should parental support or approval be required.

Some members in our society find that a difficult concept to deal with. Some people -- hopefully it's an increasing minority -- feel that a child, right through until the age of 18, should and must have parental support for whatever. I think we're beyond that in our society now. All of us know youngsters much younger than the age of 18 who no longer have a relationship with their parents, who no longer live at home and, in many cases, don't even talk to their parents any longer, as a result of the way society has evolved -- rightly or wrongly.

All of us feel uncomfortable about the fact that that has happened, but it's a reality. For a variety of reasons, we think it's important to ensure that the medical practitioner and an individual of this age who, in the view of the medical practitioner, is able to make an informed decision, be able to make that decision together.

[ Page 3371 ]

C. Serwa: Does subsection (3) create a situation where the health care provider could be held liable for decisions made respecting health care for the patient? There was some concern with respect to that, and I'd like clarification on it. Clearly the parents' approval is not sought. The individuals are in their minority. What is the situation there?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The medical practitioner must do what's said in (3)(b), and that is make reasonable efforts to determine "that the health care is in the infant's best interests." If they do that, they have met the test that this change would implement.

C. Serwa: What the minister is saying to me is that the health provider -- providing that they have met the test under subsection (3) by consulting with some other practitioner and getting support -- would not be held liable if subsequent investigation proved that perhaps the information was not quite as correct as it could have been. As long as they've met the test, they assume no other liability.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As long as they follow this test, there would be no liability.

C. Serwa: In the event of blood transfusions, for example, where some religious groups do not believe in that, if it's been indicated to the infant by the medical practitioner that this would be the appropriate, perhaps live-saving, measure to take, is there any subsequent liability of the medical health practitioner, knowing they may be in obvious contradiction to the wishes of the parents?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not at all. In that instance, if the decision was made between the doctor and the person under the age of 18, and clearly the person under the age of 18 knew what was happening, knew the consequences of what would happen with the intervention, then there would be no liability and the parents would have no comeback on the practitioner.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

A. Warnke: Perhaps I could just introduce the question that I have here in the context of an example. The owner of the land could agree to such an agreement, I suppose, on the condition that a fee be paid by the owner of the manufactured home prior to such an agreement. Since there is nothing within the amendment which stipulates that such an agreement must be made, could one say that the owner of the land has the final say as to the chattel status of the land, and accordingly, could this amendment possibly be abused?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: What we're saying with the amendment is that from this point on -- from the point of proclamation on -- the mobile home will not be part of the land as long as all parties agree. So the mobile-home park owner could choose not to agree to that, and therefore this wouldn't apply, as I understand it.

H. De Jong: I'm just wondering about this

section in terms of mobile homes that may be in a mobile-home park where they were exclusively sold to that park because the owner of the park has an interest in that particular make of mobile home; and furthermore, whether this registration purpose is also designed to collect taxes from people who have a mobile home within a park situated on native lands, you might say, where the land is not taxable, but perhaps the mobile home should be because it may be owned by people other than natives.

[3:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This amendment does not affect the taxability of the mobile home. What we're trying to do here is allow for, by agreement, a situation where the manufactured home is not a fixture, if all the parties agree. This is not a tax measure by the back door, I assure the members.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the Attorney General could offer an explanation as to why this

section appears in this particular form, rather than as a

section in Bill 78, which we debated previously today. Is there any reason he can offer as to why we are dealing with an amendment to the Ministry of Forests Act in this particular manner?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This amendment is in the Ministry of Forests Act, rather than the Forests Act, which is what Bill 78 amended. In order to put this forward as a separate bill, it would have reopened the Ministry of Forests Act, which doesn't make sense for one small provision of this kind. The bill that was being considered, Bill 78, which the House dealt with earlier, dealt simply with the Forests Act, which this does not do.

I have a sense that I haven't explained that very well. If you're opening

an act, but only in a small way, as we're doing here with the ministry act, then it's normal to do it through a miscellaneous bill.

W. Hurd: I have just a brief question with respect to

section 5(2). Perhaps the Attorney General can advise us what an interest in the land would constitute, if we're not dealing with fee simple or ownership. What type of interest would we necessarily be dealing with under this particular section?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Leases or easements are examples.

C. Serwa: Would there be any potential for the government to utilize this particular

section perhaps in satisfying native land claims, where large blocks may be transferred without further reference to the

Legisla-

[ Page 3372 ]

ture, for example, because of the allowances in this section?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no, because this deals with land that has been acquired for the ministry's own purposes prior to the events described taking place.

C. Serwa: Then this is alienated land we are talking about, and we're not talking about Crown land that the Ministry of Forests administers. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, we're not talking about Crown provincial forest land here. We're talking about land that's under the control of the ministry for nurseries, air tanker bases or other activities of that kind.

C. Serwa: Then is it already surveyed, alienated land that has been removed from the provincial forest with title that the Ministry of Forests in fact holds? Just for confirmation, hon. Chair.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not necessarily alienated land, but it's land that is under the control of the Ministry of Forests for those purposes.

C. Serwa: I'm a bit befuddled by the description, because it's my understanding that one can only clearly have title. The Ministry of Forests controls, to the best of my understanding, all Crown lands generally in the province, not simply the working forests but virtually all Crown lands. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks only has responsibility for alienated lands, so it's not clear to me what the definition of "control" is. If it is not alienated or surveyed and removed from the Crown land as a total, then I don't understand how one can dispose of it if in fact one has no title. I can only assume that disposing means the transfer of title.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The members need to look at 5(2)(b); we're talking about land that was acquired with the intention of locating improvements on it. As I said earlier, the improvements could be improvements such as an air tanker base or a nursery. We're talking about land that may be leased, may have been leased, or may have been acquired by the ministry. We're not talking about forest land. I think that really needs to be made clear. Improvements are not planting trees on land; the improvements are actually buildings, runways, landing pads, nursery facilities or the like.

C. Serwa: For my clarification, I'm using the term "alienated." It's my understanding that alienated identifies any land that has been specifically designated in land maps with a specific title number. It may have been alienated by mining claims, leases or fee simple title. Nevertheless, it is clearly identified in blocks, generally in sections in rural areas and perhaps in quarter- or half-sections in areas closer to population centres.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're talking about land that has been acquired by the minister in the past. The land could have been acquired in fee simple; it could be land that has been leased; it could be land that has a reserve put on it by order-in-council for a purpose that's described, which would be an improvement.

Section 101 transfers from B.C. Lands, as it's now called.... I can't tell you off the top of my head what 101 is, but obviously it has to do with Crown land that can then be made available to another ministry -- in this case, Forests -- for purposes that are required by the ministry or by the Forest Service.

C. Serwa: I fail to understand where this particular clause is required, because the Ministry of Forests already has that opportunity. Often, even in an area where a parcel is not in existence, it is surveyed and then transferred over to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, which handles any other transaction. The Ministry of Forests has always, to the best of my understanding, had this particular latitude and licence to dispose of lands other than in fee simple. Certainly there are long-term leases; there are special-use permits; there are a variety of existing ways. So it's not clear to me what the intent or the necessity of this particular

section is.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I asked for an example, because sometimes that's easier to deal with than trying to deal with it theoretically when neither of us know a great deal about what we're talking about, to be frank.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may; I don't.

An example would be if the Forest Service has a nursery and B.C. Gas wants to put a gas line through the nursery. This amendment is required in order to register that with the land titles branch. It's for that easement, which now cannot be registered, but with this amendment would be able to be registered.

W. Hurd: Just pursuing briefly that line of questioning, we're not talking about the title of the land being alienated from the Crown in any way. It's merely with respect to easements and other types of encumbrances.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's correct.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

A. Warnke: Just a very quick question. It is quite obvious that the amendment here will validate the decision by council, but I'm just curious why the provincial government is involved in an area that would seem to be within the jurisdiction of the corporation of the district of Maple Ridge.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I understand this, the municipality of Maple Ridge passed a bylaw in respect of parking, and it was discovered later that the passage of the bylaw was procedurally incorrect. What this does

[ Page 3373 ]

-- these are not uncommon in the Legislature, and we all refer to them as MEVAs -- is validate that particular bylaw, even though it was procedurally incorrect. With the passage of this, the bylaw would stand.

Sections 7 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

C. Serwa: Why is the coming into force of this act deferred?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The purpose for delay is to allow for consultation with the affected groups, and also for the fair amount of work required to establish the procedures that would apply. There is a lot of work to do, and it's not, in our view, doable by January 1, 1993.

Sections 15 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

C. Serwa: Perhaps the minister could indicate to me what the reason is for removing the references to the president and employees of the corporation.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's giving an ability to delegate responsibility for various activities to persons other than the president. It was narrowly based before in that.... What we're doing here, if I have this correct, is simply saying that the specific and narrow delegatory powers, which were to the president and the employees, are now broader so that in the future it can be to persons appointed under the act -- so it can be other persons in the management structure. Now if the member understands that, that's pretty good, because I don't. I'm going to try this again. Give me a minute.

C. Serwa: Perhaps, hon. Chair, the minister can consult, and make it clearer for me, because I have difficulty comprehending it. I appreciate his confidence in me, but I missed it.

[4:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm advised that the reference in the notes is incorrect. That is what confused me and perhaps confused the member. What we're doing, when you look at the legislation itself.... As members know, we have changed the structure of the Trade Corporation. The reference to president can now be expanded to include the CEO.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

J. Weisgerber:

Section 25, as I understand it, extends the one and a half years' pensionable service for every year calculated to the chairman of the Trade Development Corporation. I'm curious to know the rationale for that. It's something that we recognize is extended to deputy ministers, but it's the first time I'm aware of it extending beyond that.

Furthermore, I'm curious to know whether the pension for Mr. Parasiuk will be calculated on his salary or his salary and bonuses.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The second question first: salary only. And on the first question, hopefully the member will remember that on March 18 the Minister of Finance filed with the House a document which listed Crown corporation executives' remuneration and benefits. The pension component, which we're now dealing with legislatively, was included in that list. It has been in the public domain now for almost three and a half months.

J. Weisgerber: My question was whether or not this was an isolated agreement reached with the chairman of this Crown corporation or whether it would apply to all full-time chairpersons of Crown corporations, which is a reasonably new innovation for this province.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding that other Crown corporation heads are in receipt of a similar benefit or the same pension benefit. In those cases it comes as a result of them having been deputy ministers prior to their appointment. It was our decision that Mr. Parasiuk would be provided with the same benefit that those other Crown corporation heads have in place.

J. Weisgerber: Could the minister confirm for us that this benefit applies only to service in British Columbia and only to service with the Trade Development Corporation and that there is no opportunity for him to purchase service or in other ways take advantage of his years in government in Manitoba, for example?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is for his time in that position, for his service in British Columbia as the head of the Trade Development Corporation. I don't want to leave the wrong impression, however. As all members of the House know, any public servant has the ability to come to cabinet and make proposals in respect of pensionable service. There's no suggestion of that in this case at all, but that's an option that has existed, and as members know, over the years many public servants have taken advantage of it. This provision is designed for Mr. Parasiuk to receive one and a half times, in his time as head of the Trade Development Corporation.

J. Weisgerber: I was feeling rather comforted up until the last answer. Perhaps the minister could now advise me as to whether or not a change in the formula affecting Mr. Parasiuk's salary, or more particularly his pension, would come back in the form of an amendment to this act. Would it be done by regulation or by an order-in-council? What I'm trying to get at is: would the people of British Columbia be aware of a negotiated agreement with him that would extend his pension beyond these fairly narrow, if somewhat generous, guidelines?

[ Page 3374 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Public servants in positions such as that occupied by Mr. Parasiuk have on occasion come to government. The member knows that, because he was in cabinet when many of those applications came in. There's no agreement -- I need to say that. It's not part of a deal or any arrangement of that kind. Theoretically, a public servant in a position such as the one Mr. Parasiuk occupies has the right to come to cabinet and make that application, and the public would be made aware of that in the same way that it's made aware of all orders-in-council.

C. Serwa: How can the minister think that the public can accept that Mr. Parasiuk -- who is a political patronage appointment, not a career civil servant who has worked up through the civil service to the position of deputy minister.... How can the Attorney General justify this expansion of the pensionable benefits to one and half times the service? This is a most controversial statement in this particular instance.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think members know that in recruiting senior personnel for jobs at this level, a variety of arrangements have been made over the years in an effort to induce people to take those kinds of positions. Sometimes there are very rich salaries, as members know, for some very senior public sector employees. Sometimes there are bonus arrangements; sometimes there are pension arrangements; sometimes there are other fattenings of the package in order to attract qualified people. In this case, Mr. Parasiuk has an extensive history, one that all members of the House are aware of.

He was a cabinet minister in many of the senior portfolios in Manitoba. Prior to that, he had been a deputy minister in some of the senior portfolios. He comes to British Columbia with an excellent track record both as a cabinet member and as a public servant in Manitoba. Recently, he has had extensive senior experience, as members know, with VanCity Credit Union, dealing with some pretty high-level issues.

The package that Mr. Parasiuk has is very reasonable by comparative standards in the public sector -- very reasonable indeed, in my view. He could certainly command a far richer package in the private sector should he choose, but he has chosen to work in the public sector.

C. Serwa: I suppose I lament, as civil servants in the province do, when someone in that kind of position is brought in, because I think we have an excellent civil service, and they should rightfully aspire to become deputy ministers.

With respect to this section, the minister has in fact confirmed that in the agreement to induce Mr. Parasiuk to come from Manitoba to British Columbia, they certainly confirmed this settlement. Now this

section is only ratifying an established agreement.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to deal with two questions here. First of all, in answer to the member's question, the legislation that we're debating in effect ratifies that component or part of the agreement reached with Mr. Parasiuk. In order to clarify my earlier answer, I need to refer members to a letter to Mr. Parasiuk from the deputy minister in respect of pension arrangements, just so the members of the House are not under the wrong impression.

In his term as head of B.C. Trade Corporation, Mr. Parasiuk's pension would be calculated at one and a half times. On application, he is able to add to that, multiplying on the basis of one, not one and a half, his years as a public servant in Manitoba, under the same conditions that other public servants have applied. So he would have the opportunity to buy in with his Manitoba public service years. This provision to limit that time to a multiple of one is a new policy. The policy of the member's government, as I understand it, was to multiply that by one and a half.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much for that clarification. Does that mean that we can bring in a senior bureaucrat from Manitoba, employ him for a year or two, and then accept the full pension responsibility for his years in the civil service in Manitoba as well as for his one or two years here in British Columbia? It seems to be an undue burden to our particularly hard-pressed taxpayers.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Any public servant who transfers from another province and elects to receive the benefits of the B.C. plan has the payments made on their behalf in the other province transferred to our plan. So the taxpayers aren't having to pay for those years past.

A. Warnke: I'm not exactly sure what happened here, but I did get up at the same time as the member for Peace River South. It's very interesting how twice I got pre-empted. I was pursuing the same line of thought.

At this point, I would also emphasize that what I was seeking here was a rationale. Indeed, I think it's still worth pursuing why one and a half years, and throw some question onto this as well. The question is: how normal is this? Considering that it's a package that is offered to Mr. Parasiuk, is this some sort of generosity on the part of the government? Was there a compromise involved? Did Mr. Parasiuk put forward a point of view? Was there some bargaining involved, and is this a compromise position? Why one and a half years and not 1 and a quarter, or something else like that?

[4:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Frankly, given the market, I would say that the government bargained hard and bargained effectively, and we got a cheap deal for the taxpayers. Ontario has a multiple of two. Our one and a half is not an arbitrary number chosen for Mr. Parasiuk's benefit; it's a number that has been in place and is in place for deputy ministers. We're not doing anything different in this respect.

A. Warnke: Then I take it by the Attorney General's remark that the Attorney General would consider the increase from one to one and a half as a pensionable service as being normal?

[ Page 3375 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know what the word "normal" means. It is the same as deputy ministers, it is the same as several other Crown corporation heads, it is less than some other provinces and it is comparable to some other provinces.

J. Weisgerber: To wind this up, I'd just like to ask the minister to confirm that the pensionable service earned by Mr. Parasiuk as a politician is not available to be brought into this format.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It is not available.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 81, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 83.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT

(No. 2), 1992

The House in committee on Bill 83; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

A. Warnke: I have just a couple of quick questions on

section 2 and the rationale here as well. Perhaps the Attorney General could just elaborate on the necessity to add to the committee. I don't think that's a contentious point, but perhaps I could address that question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. A. Petter: Sorry, the member's words were so dulcet, they didn't make it all the way over here. Perhaps he could raise his voice just a little.

A. Warnke: Given that we're addressing

section 2 here, and that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is in the best position to provide us with an outline on this, could that minister elaborate on the necessity to add to the committee? I did mention in the previous question that this is non-contentious, but I would appreciate it if the minister could elaborate on that.

Hon. A. Petter: I would be happy to do so. This amendment comes from recommendations made by the council and the advisory committee, and it's there to ensure that there's a better representation of all the language groups in the province on the council. It's felt that, by expanding the council to this number, it will facilitate a more representative group. It's being proposed for that reason.

A. Warnke: I'm wondering if the minister could also comment on the extent to which the government is extending remuneration here. As mentioned by the government, there is always a financial bottom line. While I would suggest that financial bottom lines should not be confused with justice in extending justice wherever possible, nonetheless I would appreciate from the minister if there is a question as to whether the government can afford any additional remuneration.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the remuneration here is fairly modest. It will be the standard government per diem of $175. It's simply because, particularly looking at representation from the aboriginal community, we want to be absolutely sure that money is not a bar to getting representation. For that modest sum we can be assured of that and overcome some of the hardships that members have experienced in the past.

A. Warnke: I would add that the rationale is perfectly logical and certainly supported from this side.

J. Weisgerber: A question with regard to the expansion from six to nine members. It was the regulation in the previous act that the Lieutenant- Governor or the minister select the members from a list put forward by the committee. Does this apply to the expanded council? Does the list still have to be generated by the committee?

Hon. A. Petter: The short answer is yes. The full answer, just so it will be absolutely clear, is: three members remain who are appointed without reference to the committee, but the nine referred to here would be appointed by the same procedure as referred to by the member opposite.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

A. Warnke: Some remarks have already been made at second reading. I flagged some concerns. It's here that I really want to pick up some of these concerns through a few questions.

We are talking about the increase of members, but it's not altogether clear just how much of an increase is involved. There are rumours floating around about how many. There has been a precise number tossed about. I want the opportunity to put forward the question: how many new members do you anticipate being appointed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't give a precise answer to that question as to whether it's one or two or another number. I suspect that it's in that range. The minister responsible for B.C. Hydro is determined that the B.C. Hydro board be representative of British

[ Page 3376 ]

Columbians: that it be inclusive of people with talents and skills and knowledge in that particular area and also reflect some of the regional and ethnic and gender concerns that this government is most concerned about. At 15 the board is limited in the minister's ability to accomplish that goal. The amendment will remove the cap. That will be consistent with boards in other Crown corporations. As to the precise number, I cannot say, other than that I don't think you'll see a large number.

A. Warnke: I recognize that there has been a precedent for this. Still I think it raises the question: why is it left open? Why is it unlimited? It's not altogether theoretical or hypothetical that one could increase the board members by a substantial amount. Theoretically you could, I suppose, expand it to a number of 1,400. One could cynically suggest that that's one way to fill in the various patronage appointments.

To be realistic here for the moment, I have another kind of concern. If the number were doubled, I could see where.... One could take British Columbia's population and divide it into many different categories among the various different ethnicities that compose, I suppose, British Columbia society. Sometimes I have some problems with artificially creating a notion of what British Columbia society is all about.

Nonetheless, if one tries to expand the numbers to include so many categories of people, and then picks out a person that represents a category, one could easily come up with a figure of, let's say, 35 or 36. This injects another kind of problem: how do we know that 15 is adequate as a representation of British Columbia's cross-section? I could imagine a number of people saying: "We're not represented on the B.C. Hydro board, if that is the intention of the government." Pretty soon that number expands.

With the expansion of that number, anyone who is familiar with boards and the administration of policies generally knows that once you get in the neighbourhood of two dozen people, the directorship becomes very unmanageable. I would even agree with the Premier of this province when he considered that we needed to bring the number of cabinet ministers down to a size that was manageable. The Premier is bang on with the figure of 18. Public administrators and organizational analysts, from Herbert Simon through Northcote Parkinson himself, have come up with a magic number of 18 to 20 as an ideal size for managing or organizing.

By having an unlimited size introduced through this amendment, the problem is not altogether clear that it is desirable. If we had a more precise idea or number, it would have some advantage of, firstly, creating confidence that we will have something that is manageable and organizationally sound; and secondly, it would get us away from the idea that this is going to expand the number of appointments to cover every category of British Columbia's society. It does raise the question: why an unlimited number? Why leave it open? Why not let us go to a point of having a precise number of new appointees?

[4:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I said before, other statutes governing Crown corporations do not have a limit on the number. B.C. Hydro did -- the number of 15. I can assure members of this House that the executive council is not interested in appointing a number that would make the board unmanageable, unworkable or ineffective. That's not in anyone's interests, and that won't happen; I can assure members of that. I suppose we could have picked a number out of the air, and then the speculation would have been whatever that number was, who are those X number of people.

We're simply making the language consistent with other legislation, enabling cabinet to have some flexibility on this issue. I assure members of the House that there is no intention of making this board unmanageable.

A. Warnke: In bringing it forth, perhaps there should have been some thought given to this. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the government that some thought has been given to this to ensure that we have an organization here at the directorship level. Does the government have any idea of what that threshold is? I'm pleased. As a matter of fact, I would respond positively towards the assurance given to us by the Attorney General here that we're not going to have a huge number that is unmanageable and unworkable. Nonetheless, given some basic principles of organizational behaviour, has the government any notion of an acceptable threshold?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to play with numbers. I have in my own mind -- and I think most members would have in their own minds -- a number that is workable. I know, for example, that 19 members of the executive council is a number that works quite well for making decisions. Often 75 persons in a meeting is not a number that works very well. I think different boards and different governing bodies have different functions, different purposes and, as a result, require different sizes. There is an attempt with B.C.

Hydro to make it more responsive to the community to enable the public in this province to be more involved with Hydro's activities. That requires, in our view, an ability to appoint some additional members. I give the House the assurance again that we're not looking at creating a size that is unmanageable or unwieldy, because that is not in our best interests, as government, with this major Crown.

A. Warnke: Also, the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the appointments to British Columbia Hydro, appointed a full new board on May 19 and a new chair on June 25. Given that there is a new membership on the board.... Actually, I suppose, it's not really within the purview of the

section that we're talking about here to discuss whether that was wise or not, or whether it was wise maybe to keep some members of the board to have some sort of transition over a period of time, so that people on the new board know what has existed in the past. Nonetheless, that has been suggested.

[ Page 3377 ]

There is another aspect here that I would like to focus on which is relevant to this particular

section of the proposed bill. It has been suggested that confidence in the new board seems to be questioned, because the kinds of appointments that have been made appear, prima facie, to represent quite a wide variety of people in British Columbia. Indeed, there is gender balance on that particular board as it exists now. It's not an imbalance that exists as a result of maintaining some members of the former board -- that we need to appoint new members now to create some sort of gender balance. We have gender balance with the new board.

We have quite a representation from a variety of peoples, with certain ethnic backgrounds and so forth, on this new board. One of the members opposite, the Minister of Finance, asks: "What about Socreds?" Well, that's a political criterion. I'm not sure whether the Attorney General really wants to get into that. But when we do take a look at the other criteria, it seems that we should have enough confidence in the new board. It seems to be quite representative of the British Columbia public.

Therefore I'm wondering where the improvement on the board occurs, with the expansion of the board to include some additional members.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to that question will be clear to all members of the House if and when cabinet makes additional appointments.

A. Warnke: The question has been raised about the confidence in the new board as a result. Confidence in the new board seems to be in question. I'm sure the Attorney General will say that he has full confidence in the new board. Nonetheless, since that has been raised as a question and since a new board and chair have been appointed.... As it stands right now, does the Attorney General, the ministry or the cabinet as a whole have enough confidence in this particular board? There seems to be the view that this has been questioned.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Of course the cabinet has full confidence in the board that has been appointed to B.C. Hydro. We are bringing this legislation in so that we can have even more confidence than we have already, even though at the moment...

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: ...the glass is full.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

J. Weisgerber: I just want to confirm with

section 4.... First of all, I stand to support it; I think

section 4 is a good amendment. It's not without controversy, as I'm sure the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is aware. But what I want to get on the record, if I can, is that one of the driving motivations for this amendment is to make the fund accessible to aboriginal people, not necessarily status or treaty people who were born outside the province.

I know that in the northeast part of British Columbia the Metis population is somewhat mobile -- probably less so now than 20 or 30 years ago. I think it's important, in raising it today, to flag for Metis and other aboriginal people the fact that they qualify under the First Citizens' Fund. If that's the reason for the amendment, I'm pleased with it.

Hon. A. Petter: That is indeed the reason for the amendment, and I'm pleased to say the amendment is recommended to us by the Native Economic Development Advisory Board. It also takes care of a potential concern that might arise under the Charter about making differences about residence.

The other situation, in addition to the one mentioned by the member opposite, that I would like to flag is that many first nations boundaries don't observe the boundaries of the province. There may be people who are part of a first nation within the province who do not now qualify, because they happen to be born just on one side of the Yukon or Alberta border, for example, and have since come into the province and are now resident here. That's a further anomaly, in addition to the constituencies that he's referring to, that will be addressed by this amendment.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

Bill 83, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: Just before I call the next order of business, I'll inform the House that roughly between 6 and 8 o'clock we would like to try to complete a couple of bills from Municipal Affairs and one further bill, the Election Amendment Act. In addition, we may start for a half-hour or so on Bill 14 before we return to that debate. Assuming we can conclude this next item of business in an hour, then of course it would expedite business. But otherwise, this is just to give you a sense of what's left.

With that, I call committee on Bill 71.

MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE SERVICES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 71; H. Giesbrecht in chair.

section 1.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to

section 1 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[ Page 3378 ]

Section 1 defines the terms for the purposes of the act. The amendment I have introduced relates to the definition of the term "benefits." This term applies to services paid for under the Medical Services Plan which are delivered by medical practitioners, health care practitioners and diagnostic facilities. The British Columbia College of Chiropractors has pointed out that the modifying term "medically required," as used in the definition, was perhaps inappropriate in the context of non-medical practitioners.

The modifier has now been changed, so that it applies just to "required services." Essentially the chiropractors were pointing out to us that not all benefits covered under the act are medically required, according to the very strict definition. We have corrected that to encompass their services as well.

On the amendment.

D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, where the amendment refers to "protocols agreed to by the commission," could the minister give an example of the kinds of protocols she's referring to? Would there be such a protocol, for instance, with the B.C. Chiropractic Association? Would that be an example?

Hon. E. Cull: One example of a protocol is the one that we have between the Medical Association and the Medical Services Commission with respect to when and how one tests for lipids.

[4:45]

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that example. Are the protocols referred to in this amendment referring to protocols that exist today between the Medical Services Commission and associations such as the BCMA, the British Columbia Chiropractic Association or the naturopaths' association? Or is it simply anticipating that protocols will be established in the future and that they will be governed by this new act?

Hon. E. Cull: It covers both situations.

D. Mitchell: Is it an intention under this act that these kinds of protocol agreements with health care practitioners will be developed in new ways? I guess I'm trying to find out whether the protocols under the terms of this amendment -- and we're dealing with a fairly important definition with respect to this act -- are going to be a significant departure from past practice. Are we looking at major new agreements with health care practitioners in the province?

Hon. E. Cull: The protocols referred to here would be negotiated with the appropriate licensing body: in the case of medical protocols, with the BCMA and the College of Physicians and Surgeons; and in the case of other services, with the appropriate body, whether it's chiropractors, optometrists or whatever.

L. Reid: For something such as cholesterol testing, would the guideline that is currently under discussion fall under this area of protocol?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes.

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

L. Reid: I would move the amendment to

section 1 listed under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

If I might speak to that for a moment, it's to amend the residency requirement, which currently reads "six months," to "three months." Our feeling is that as it stands, without it including additional paperwork and additional bureaucracy if you will, we are precluding students who are taking educational programs out of province. If they are studying out of province, they would be precluded from being covered under our medical plan, especially if they were studying in a province that had the same six-month requirement. There would be very little flux in that, and we certainly don't want to be excluding our students from the province.

Hon. E. Cull: I am against the amendment. This proposed amendment would actually make it more onerous for students who are studying outside the province. As it is right now under our policy, and will be under the regulation which is referred to in the definition of resident, students can be out of the province for up to five years without coming home to maintain their residence, as long as they are in recognized studies. The proposed amendment would require them to come back for three months out of every year, which would make it difficult for some students who are in extensive studies in other countries.

What it would also do is bring us out of line with the rest of Canada, which in all cases has a longer residency period, of at least six months, although in some provinces it is longer than six months. And it would simply assist people who choose to live, in British Columbia's case, usually in the southern United States -- Arizona and wherever. They would no longer have to live here at least half of the year; they would only have to come here for three months out of the year. To our way of thinking, that would assist a group that doesn't particularly need assistance, while penalizing students.

Amendment negatived on division.

L. Fox: Just a clarification. I had trouble hearing what the minister said at the end, but she was making reference to residents of British Columbia who perhaps live in the U.S. for periods of the year. How exactly does this particular

section apply, for instance, to individuals who may live during the winter months in the U.S. and be out of the province for up to six months?

Hon. E. Cull: Provided that the individual lives in British Columbia for at least six months of the year, they qualify as a resident and for benefits under the plan, but they must be resident in British Columbia for at least six months.

[ Page 3379 ]

L. Fox: So if I am six months plus one day outside of the province I don't qualify under this definition. Is that correct?

Hon. E. Cull: That's correct.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 2.1.

L. Reid: I move amendments to

section 2 as they appear on the order paper, with a numbering correction to read "section 2.1" in each case. [See appendix.]

If I might speak to the first one as listed, "Section 2(3) is repealed and the following substituted: 'The chair of the commission shall be selected by a majority vote of the commission members, and shall be a member of the commission'."

On the amendment.

L. Reid: This is a crucial element for the members of the official opposition. We believe that the chair should not be appointed. We believe that the chair should be elected by the members of the tripartite commission, and we would certainly suggest that that is the healthiest route to pursue. We are hoping that if indeed this is legitimate co-management, if indeed it is something that people can recognize as having some legitimacy, it's not going to be an appointed chair; it is going to be the nine people within that framework who select the person who best represents them.

F. Randall: I'm having a very difficult time hearing and understanding what's going on up there. It's hard to hear exactly what the amendment is. I'd appreciate it if it could be clarified. Maybe the Chair could at least repeat the amendment so we can understand it. There's a meeting going on up at that end, and I can't hear a thing down here.

The Chair: It's on this afternoon's order paper on page 21.

Hon. E. Cull: If we're speaking on the amendment, I need some clarification. Is the amendment to

section 2.1 to be dealt with in its entirety? Are we talking about it all at once here? I know the opposition critic only spoke to the first clause, but I'm unclear and need some guidance as to whether or not we're dealing with the entire amendment to

section 2.1 that is on the order paper.

L. Reid: I would prefer to deal with them clause by clause.

Hon. E. Cull: Then on the first part of the amendment to

section 2.1, with respect to the election of the chair, the position of the government is that the chair of the commission shall be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as are the chair and deputy chair of other major bodies which are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- Hydro, ICBC and a number of other important boards. The chair will be selected from one of the nine members on the commission.

L. Reid: Speaking in response to the minister, I understand that is how your government has chosen to do a number of boards in this province. We on the opposition side of this House consider that completely undemocratic. All that does, in our view, is contribute to the cynicism in politics through having friends and insiders. We want bodies that are legitimately democratic in this province, and quite frankly, the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services elects its chair and deputy chair. We would like to see that route followed in terms of this new tripartite commission, which indeed is supposed to be representative of something other than a political appointment.

D. Mitchell: I would like to speak in favour of the amendment put forward by the member for Richmond East. It would seem to me that the government's ability to appoint the chair here is a very, very significant power, and I would think one that is open to some abuse. What I think is important for the minister to respond to is the role and power of the chair of this new commission. My reading of this bill is that the chair does hold very significant powers under this bill.

For instance, between meetings, if there is not a quorum, the chair may have delegated to itself all the authorities and powers of the commission -- very important powers. If that chair is simply to be appointed by the government, we wonder whether or not this commission in itself is a sham. The chair has very significant powers. It has all the powers of the commission itself in between meetings of the commission. If there is no quorum, as I said, I believe the chair has all the powers to make any decisions under this act. Could the minister clarify that with respect to the powers of the chair?

Would she not agree that there is possible room for unwieldy powers to be exercised by one individual appointee of the government? That's the concern that's being expressed by the amendment from the member for Richmond East.

Hon. E. Cull: The main concern we have is that the operation of the Medical Services Commission is not something that can be done on a voluntary basis. It is something that requires day-to-day work and the supervision of many employees. Therefore the chair's job is a full-time position. It would have to be an employee of the government, in any event, and is unlikely to be an appointee, then, of the BCMA or of the public.

P. Dueck: I would like to make a remark, and this time I'm going to be in favour of the Minister of Health. One should always look with this point of view: what if we were government? I would have to say that the chair they're choosing and the method by which they're choosing is correct. If I was on that side of the House I would be defending it.

[ Page 3380 ]

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the comments made by the member for Matsqui. My question to the minister, though, is simply one of clarification. Is my reading of the bill correct here, that under this bill the chair of the commission will have some rather extraordinary powers -- will have the power, between meetings of the commission...? The minister has indicated that of course the chair can't be based upon a voluntary position, that it is a full-time position and a very important one. Between meetings of the commission, the chair itself will have all the authority of the commission. Is my reading of the bill correct?

Hon. E. Cull: The member could think of the chair appointed under this

section as being not only the chair, but the chief executive officer as well. That individual will have all the powers that are conveyed in subsection (5) of this section, which are limited should the commission choose to limit the powers of the chair. In other words, the nine-member commission can limit the power of the chair.

D. Mitchell: I guess we'll be discussing in more detail the role of the commission, and that's really a key

section of this whole bill -- there's no question. But when it comes to role, the minister has now likened the chair to a chief executive officer, using a kind of corporate analogy. The chair of the commission is like a CEO of a corporation, perhaps. I'm not sure that that example has really been emphasized publicly in terms of discussion or debate in the short time it has been available on this bill. We were really led to believe that the chair of this commission was going to be moderating the interests of the public, the government and the physicians of the province of British Columbia.

[5:00]

If the chair is going to be performing that kind of mediating role as a chair -- a consensus-seeking role among those different groups, in a democratic fashion -- certainly that would be different than the role of a chief executive officer of a corporation, would it not?

Hon. E. Cull: There are those where the chair and the CEO are the same; some where they are two different individuals. But the moderating role is not entrusted to the chair; it's entrusted to the commission.

L. Reid: To continue the comment of my colleague, we would have no difficulty on the opposition side of the House to have the chair act as a member of the commission but have the chief executive officer report to that corporate body, if you will -- similar to a hospital board of directors, where the person who is the hospital administrator is not necessarily a member of the board but reports to the board. We would be comfortable with that. Having the chair as the same person as the CEO is not acceptable to this side of the House.

D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, the minister did not respond to the comments of the member for Richmond East. Is that, then, what we are agreeing to, that the chair of the commission -- if we are to use the analogy that the minister herself used -- effectively will not only be the chair of the commission but the CEO of our new health care system in British Columbia, at one and the same time fulfilling both roles? Is that what we're to believe?

Hon. E. Cull: That is possible. It's also possible to separate the functions under this act should the commission desire to do so.

D. Mitchell: Would the minister see any merit in separating those roles, and why would that not be contemplated in this bill if there might be some merit in separating them? In fact, in most corporate forms of organization you would have a chair and a CEO reporting to the chair of the board or the commission. It would seem to be an idea that might have some merit. In that sense, the chair truly could be elected rather than appointed by the government, and then perhaps the government would appoint the chief executive officer, but leave it up to the commission themselves as to who would serve in the capacity of chair. Would that not be a more appropriate form?

Hon. E. Cull: In the corporate world both models are out there in existence, and this act does not preclude the second model from coming into existence.

L. Reid: This is not the private sector, hon. minister; these are taxpayers' dollars we're dealing with in terms of how we're going to fund and allocate dollars under this system.

What I'm asking is for your support for the amendment. If, in fact, your comment means it doesn't preclude the direction we wish to go in, it seems to me that you'd be supporting this amendment -- that the chair would be elected, and the CEO, the administrator of the plan, would be the government appointment. Is that not a position that you would find acceptable?

Hon. E. Cull: No, I do not support the amendment, because I prefer the alternative -- having the options open to the commission as opposed to locking them into one model.

D. Mitchell: We understand what the minister's preference is. But what we're trying to avoid here is the problem that exists to some extent outside of this Legislature, which is a perception that perhaps the new commission that is going to be established, if this bill should become

an act of this Legislature, is not balanced in favour of all of the interests that seek to be represented in our health care system within the commission itself.

There is a general concern that this bill is not seeking to effect the kind of compromise that is needed in our health care system, that it is not going to be able to achieve the degree of cooperation that is required if our health care system is to move into the next stage of its development, which the minister has talked about and spoken eloquently about on many occasions. If we're going to achieve that, we're being asked to suspend our disbelief that the government is going to simply stack

[ Page 3381 ]

this commission, that they're going to appoint a CEO and chair in one and the same person who is going to dominate this commission, have very wide-sweeping discretionary powers, and that the commission itself is not simply going to be a sham in the face of a powerful government appointee.

Of course, we're simply seeking from this minister some commitment that this commission is, in fact, going to be a body that is going to represent in a very real sense the interests of all of the major stakeholders in the health care system. She certainly hasn't given us any comfort with respect to the comments that she's made. In fact, she's confirmed some of the worst suspicions that exist. I think it's important for her to allay some of those concerns. I wonder if she would comment any further on the role of the chair, in particular, and the government's intentions with respect to that chair.

Hon. E. Cull: A commission appointed with the BCMA selecting three individuals, the government selecting three individuals and another three individuals being selected from the public who are mutually agreeable to both the government and the BCMA is hardly stacked. It's a very fair and balanced commission.

The power of the chair is to vote as all of the other members can vote. That individual doesn't have any more votes than the other eight members on the commission and has equal authority with the other members in making decisions. The additional duties of the chair will be to carry out the responsibilities of the commission. As I have said now twice, the commission can limit the authority of the chair to act when the commission isn't meeting.

L. Reid: The comment you raised in terms of expanding.... We currently have a one-man commission. To add eight or nine people to that and somehow suggest that it's magically going to become democratic is highly suspect. I am not convinced that a