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)

FRIDAY, JULY 3, 1992

Morning Sitting

Volume 5, No. 14

[ Page 3435 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

B. Jones: Hon. Speaker, it's with some reluctance that I introduce an old friend and former colleague. I'm reluctant because I think he, while being a very wonderful gentleman and a vice-principal in the Coquitlam school district, is very, very misguided politically. I think he was one of the three or four campaign workers for the member for Delta South. And to show how misguided he is, he's beginning his summer holidays by coming here and viewing the proceedings. Would the House please welcome Doug Ebbett.

F. Jackson: In the gallery today is a young woman who is a very good friend of mine and is visiting from Kamloops, Miss Debbie MacAulay. She just finished a Bachelor of Business Administration at the University College of the Cariboo. Please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

BUDGET DEFICIT

F. Gingell: My question this morning is for the Minister of Finance. Given that the minister has acknowledged that his expense projections are now off the scale and his budget deficit is mounting, will he now agree that it is time to call in Peat Marwick Thorne for another independent review to determine if the taxpayers are getting value for this outpouring of money?

Hon. G. Clark: It's ironic, because every single day in this House that opposition has asked for spending more money on every single matter of government expenditure. In particular, they've asked us to spend more money on doctors, and on top of that they have opposed every single tax put in by this administration. They have no ground to stand on when it comes to trying to deal with this question. Everybody knows that if we followed their advice, we'd be significantly overbudget.

F. Gingell: Recognizing that this year's expenditure plan is $17.980 billion, and last year's revised forecast was $17.169 billion, which is a difference of $811 million, and that there is a car that sits outside between the Premier's office and the Minister of Finance's office that has a licence number that reads "TAX 811," would the minister please talk to the Attorney General and arrange for the owner of that car to get a licence plate that reads "TAX 000"

Hon. G. Clark: I know that it's the last day, but those are frivolous questions on a very serious topic. This opposition has not put forward one constructive suggestion this session on cutting spending or on dealing with revenues. We have heard spend, spend, spend with respect to every area of government, in particular when it comes to doctors.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister conclude his reply.

Hon. G. Clark: Every day of this session they have stood up and asked for millions and millions of dollars, and then they have the gall to come in here today and ask some frivolous questions dealing with a very tough fiscal situation that we inherited from the previous administration.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES'

UNION SETTLEMENT

L. Fox: Obviously the Finance minister wants to use this last day in order to gain some more exposure, so I will give him that opportunity. It has been reported that the government is already tens of millions of dollars over budget, partially because of the higher costs incurred as a result of the HEU settlement. Can the minister advise this House how much the HEU settlement was expected to cost the treasury and what the actual cost has been to date?

Hon. G. Clark: I will try to deal with that question seriously. I don't know the precise answers. Because it's an arm's-length relationship where we provide a block amount of funding to hospitals, mixed in with that is the wage question. As you know, we increased funding to hospitals by 5.5 percent -- the highest increase in the country. Within that budgeted increase we expect the hospitals to manage, and we expect the hospital labour relations association to negotiate a collective agreement.

All members on that side of the House have been asking us not to close hospital beds but to spend more money on hospitals, to make sure that they are fully funded and to ask for more money for the health care sector. It's obvious that when you provide a block amount to hospitals, they manage within that fund. We anticipate them doing that, but it's clear from their projections that the settlement they ultimately arrived at was slightly more than they had budgeted. That simply results in increased strain on the health care system.

L. Fox: For the record, I should suggest that the minister is incorrect. This particular Social Credit caucus has not once asked for more money to be spent. We've asked for a shift in priorities.

A supplementary. The compensation fairness commission's annual report devotes an inordinate amount of space to the numbers of employees earning in excess of $79,000 a year in our schools, colleges, municipalities and universities. However, the report fails to record the cost of reversing the commission's earlier rulings to hold the public sector wages to an average increase of the private sector. Can the minister tell us how much extra the decision to award a retroactive 7 to 9 percent

[ Page 3436 ]

wage hike will cost the taxpayer in the last fiscal year, and what the extra bill will be this year?

Hon. G. Clark: The answer is zero. It costs nothing, because in the negotiated settlements between the teachers and the school boards there was no funding from this administration for that, in spite of the fact that the Liberal opposition has demanded more and more money for education. In spite of that, there has been no funding, because we believe in local autonomy and local accountability. We give a budget, the school boards negotiate the wage with their employees, and they're accountable to people and voters in their constituency. We intend to make that system work.

L. Fox: Final supplemental. Once again the minister has, I believe, attempted to mislead me in the House. In fact, they allowed school districts....

The Speaker: Honourable member, would you like to withdraw those words and rephrase your comment?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure the hon. member did not intend to imply that the minister had deliberately.... Would the House come to order, please.

[10:15]

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, obviously, if it offends the House, I will withdraw that statement. However, I should point out to the House that school boards were allowed to go for the first time into deficit financing in order to allow for those wage impacts. Given the state of the provincial finances and the massive burden this government has already foisted upon the taxpayers, why won't the government take as tough and clear a stand with all public sector employees as it's doing with the doctors?

Why doesn't the Minister of Finance say right now that the taxpayers can't afford to pay one cent more for public sector wage increases than the rate of inflation? Why should the taxpayers in the private sector have to bite the bullet on their own wages, only to see their take-home pay being gobbled up for public sector wage increases?

Hon. G. Clark: As long as we're in power, public sector employees will not be the sole source of dealing with fiscal problems of any administration. Every time there was a fiscal problem, the previous government dealt with it by hammering their public sector employees. That is not a fair approach. We have been fair. I'll tell you, if we dealt with our public sector employees the same way we're dealing with the doctors, which is 4.7 percent in this fiscal year, we'd have serious problems. We have not been tough on doctors. We have been generous with doctors. It's only the members opposite who want us to be even more generous to doctors.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH

HOLDING SOCIETY

W. Hurd: This being one of the final question periods of the session, I'd like to thank the government for the forthright manner in which they've answered our questions in the past.

I have a series of questions which reflect the appreciation of the opposition. My first question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. It's about investment opportunities in the province. Can the minister advise me: if I invest my constituency allowance in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society instead of the Working Opportunity Fund, will I get a better return on my investment?

The Speaker: Order! Does the hon. member have another question? I recognize the hon. minister to address the part of the question that comes within his jurisdiction.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The part that comes within my jurisdiction is advising him to see a professional investment counsellor.

W. Hurd: I have a supplemental question for the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General assure this hon. member that if I drop into Nanaimo for a bingo game this summer, I will not be making a contribution to the New Democratic Party?

Interjections.

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS REVIEW

C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Minister of Finance tabled the final report of the compensation stabilization program. The outgoing commissioner was quite critical of a number of practices that were involved with school boards, municipalities and Crown corporations. Has the minister decided to review that report and take some appropriate action to protect taxpayers?

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good question. We are reviewing those questions under the Korbin commission right now. In addition, I'm hopeful that disclosure of that kind of information will provide pressure on elected school boards to review their practices, particularly in light of the fiscal situation. I would hope and expect that the public, upon reading some of the situations that exist, would apply appropriate pressure to those elected school boards who are responsible in their jurisdictions.

C. Serwa: I have a supplementary question. One area that he wrote quite extensively about was the apparent conflict of interest not only with the elected officials in many cases but actually with the wage settlement procedures involving senior administrators. Will the minister undertake a responsibility to assure

[ Page 3437 ]

this Legislature that he will endeavour to attend to those conflicts of interest?

Hon. G. Clark: As I said, we are reviewing that practice. The notion the commissioner suggested was that superintendents who negotiate with their employees then go to the boards and ask for similar or higher money for themselves and for their management personnel.

Again, there are several reviews underway. First, there is the Korbin commission looking generally at this question among others. There's also a review taking place right now with the B.C. School Trustees' Association, the Ministry of Education, the BCTF and other stakeholders. They are reviewing these practices because we have expressed concern about them. The information contained in the report of the commissioner heightens that concern. We believe in working with those stakeholders as best we can to try to deal with this situation, but obviously it's a concern -- the concern addressed by the commissioner -- and I share that concern.

POLYGAMY

D. Jarvis: My question is to the Minister of Women's Equality. It's been three weeks now, Madam Minister, since the Attorney General passed the Human Rights Amendment Act and stated at that time: "Any initiative against polygamy is unconstitutional." Has the minister taken any steps in her ministry to make polyandry acceptable as a family form?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I think it's appropriate for me to deal with the question, given the clear misunderstanding on the part of the member and, in fact, on the part of many members of the public.

Members need to know that while the view is that

section 293 of the Criminal Code respecting polygamy may not be able to withstand either a Charter challenge or a court challenge,

section 290 of the Criminal Code still remains in place, and that's the bigamy section. Bigamy makes it illegal -- and it still is illegal in this country -- for one or more marriages to exist at the same time. The member should understand that the bigamy

section is not at risk whatsoever as a result of the decision not to prosecute under the polygamy section. Therefore multiple marriages are not legal in this country, despite much press comment to the contrary.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to ask for leave to move a motion of substitution on one of our select standing committees.

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, by leave, I move that the names of Ms. Tyabji and Mr. Hurd be substituted for those of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Mitchell on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Charbonneau tabled a report from B.C. Railway under the Financial Information Act.

Motion without Notice

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER

Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave, I would like to move a motion, which I'll read because it's not on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The motion would read that pursuant to

section 15.1 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, the Legislative Assembly requests the following of Mr. Ted Hughes:

1. To review all constituency allowances received by current members of the House from the time of their first election until the present, to include (

a) dates and amounts received since first being elected; (

b) the source to whom each payment was made by government; (

c) a statement of disbursements showing when and to whom all moneys were disbursed and the nature of the goods, services or premises for which each payment was made; (

d) a statement of investment income earned on constituency allowance funds and the disposition of it; (

e) the status and location of any unexpended allowances.

2. To develop a statement of purpose of constituency allowances embodying permissible spending criteria, and to opine on the adequacy of the current level of these allowances to allow for a reasonable fulfilment of the requirement of that statement of purpose.

3. To determine appropriate methods of claiming from and payment by government.

4. To determine a method for accountability for all allowances received, including when and to whom and in what form accountability shall occur.

5. To determine ownership and disposition of investment income earned on allowances following receipt from government by the payee.

6. To decide on disposition of allowances not spent pursuant to criteria at year-end.

Hon. Speaker, if I may I'll make a couple of very brief comments. Members know this has been an issue of some concern, certainly recently, with several events of this year. Members should know that following the sentencing in the Jack Kempf trial, I wrote to the hon. Speaker expressing my concern about the inadequacy of guidelines in and around the question of constituency allowances and their use by members. Following that, there were other issues raised, as members know, concerning the procedures by which constituency expenditures were potentially being dealt with by members.

The Premier, following that, indicated that he would like Mr. Ted Hughes to review the entire question. We on this side of the House very much agree with that initiative. Following that, the House approved and passed amendments to the members' conflict-of-interest legislation, which include a new provision which will allow Mr. Hughes, in his capacity as conflict commissioner, to review questions such as this.

[ Page 3438 ]

Therefore we are, with the unanimous agreement, as I understand it, of all members of the House, referring the question of constituency allowances under this new statute to Mr. Hughes. He can do a wide-ranging review of how they have worked in the past, with his opinions as to what procedures should be used in the future. Mr. Hughes will also have the opportunity to make comments in more general terms about the appropriateness of the levels of constituency allowances.

We think that this initiative is long overdue. We're delighted that Mr. Hughes has agreed to do this for all members of the House. I'm certain that following this review we will have a system in place that will ensure that there are no questions of any kind about this particular allowance.

D. Mitchell: I am pleased to rise today in the House to support the motion moved by the hon. Attorney General to refer the review of constituency allowances to the conflict-of-interest commissioner.

The hon. Attorney General refers to the fact that there was all-party consultation on this matter, and indeed that's true. He referred to the fact that the hon. Premier wrote to the conflict-of-interest commissioner requesting an inquiry into this matter. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the conflict-of-interest commissioner on the very same matter at almost the same time -- if not before the Premier. I believe that the third party made representation as well. It is the consequence of all parties requesting the conflict-of-interest commissioner to look into the uses and possible abuses of constituency allowances.

We came to this new parliament as new members. While we're not quite as new as we were some three or four months ago, we are still concerned about what and how constituency allowances may have been used in the past. We do require some guidelines for this. We're concerned, as relatively new members, that constituency allowances may have been used in the past for reasons that were never intended.

We must remember, from the official opposition's point of view, that what presaged all of this was one of the big topics of this session, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal. That event caused some confusion in the public's mind and among the members as to how constituency allowances have been used or possibly abused in the past. We know that the hon. Attorney General's ministry has a special prosecutor who's looking into that matter. Simultaneous with that, we think it's important for the conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr.

Ted Hughes, to look specifically into the issue of constituency allowances and provide some guidelines, so that abuses which may have existed in the past will not occur in the future.

For those reasons, we support this motion. We would hope that the conflict-of-interest commissioner can do his work expeditiously, and we certainly support him in his efforts.

[10:30]

C. Serwa: I'll be fairly brief. I think the Attorney General has covered the matter quite comprehensively.

I've had the pleasure of representing our caucus at two meetings with Ted Hughes on this particular issue: once on the government side, attended by the Minister of Forests, and the second time by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. The meetings were very good. There was certainly a common wish for clarification of the rules and for guidelines for all hon. members, because we're recognizing that the public's perception of politicians and politics is at stake here. This is clearly the right direction to go, and I applaud the government for its willingness to proceed in this direction.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Committee on Bill 14, hon. Speaker.

PROFESSIONAL RETIREMENT SAVINGS

PLAN AGREEMENT EXTINGUISHMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 14; E. Barnes in the chair.

section 1.

L. Reid: It's my understanding that we're referring to

section 1 of Bill 14, Professional Retirement Savings Plan Agreement Extinguishment Act. I have a question for the minister. Under

section 1, the

interpretation section, it says that "agreement" means the professional retirement savings plan agreement. That statement suggests an understanding on this government's part that they do know what the term agreement means. British Columbians today need to know what happened to that level of understanding.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not quite sure what the question is. You will notice that this perpetual contract, dated October 10, 1991, was entered into seven days before the election. Clearly it was an attempt to sign the agreement before the election, in a perpetual way, in order to foreclose the option the government would have in any normal agreement to renegotiate this, as we intended to do, and as we announced we would do during and prior to the election campaign in the Legislature.

L. Reid: My comment to the minister is that that answer is absolutely unacceptable. This agreement was a culmination of 11 years of work -- not seven days, as you would have this House and British Columbians believe. How can any NDP government stand up and suggest that an agreement does not exist because you deem it not to exist?

The Chair: Before the minister responds, I would remind the committee that we are in committee and not in second reading, so it would be of great assistance if we could be specific in terms of our dialogue or questions.

[ Page 3439 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I want to make the point again that it was Premier Vander Zalm that cut this deal privately in his office. The original deal was not....

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I want members to know that this was not on the table; it was not contemplated; it was a sweetheart deal reached by the Premier; and after it was rejected by Revenue Canada, it was quickly cobbled together seven days before the election campaign.

I want to make the point that parliament has the power and has exercised that power on a variety of matters to deal with these kinds of contractual arrangements. Obviously this particular case is a difficult one. It is a power that was not exercised very lightly and is rarely exercised in parliaments, but from time to time it is exercised. We believe this is one of those times, particularly in light of the fact that we've enhanced the budget for medical services significantly.

The member asked when other parliaments.... A couple of months ago the Saskatchewan government brought in legislation to make illegal sweetheart contracts entered into by the Devine administration.

In this House there are lots of cases where governments have entered into legislation which interferes or fetters in some way contractual rights entered into by the parties. In fact, many laws we pass in this House retroactively change sections of contracts signed. I'm sure members know that. It is a routine matter when the House has to act in the public interest, and this is one of those occasions.

L. Reid: Again, if I might direct my comments to the minister. He discusses power. I would suggest that we have today an abuse of power. This is not justifiable by any government.

The Chair: Hon. member, as I pointed out earlier, we're dealing with committee and not second reading, so motives, intentions, etc. are not appropriate in committee. We should be addressing the wording and the specifics of the sections. So if the member could address her remarks in that regard, it would be most helpful.

L. Reid: I will speak directly to the term agreement, because it is my understanding that

section 1 of the Professional Retirement Savings Plan Agreement Extinguishment Act is critical. There has to be some understanding about what that word means for us to understand this entire section.

Again, in the words of the Premier of this province: "...British Columbians should know that the election of an NDP government in the next few months would not erase a legally binding contract." This is a contract, this is an agreement as set out in

section 1. My question to the minister: who is in charge? The Premier of this province said he would not erase a legally binding contract. Who is in charge?

L. Fox: I want to ask the minister to confirm that what really took place on October 10, 1991, was that the handshake agreement of December 20, 1990, was formalized. It took considerable time, almost two years, for that agreement to reach its formal stage with Revenue Canada and meet the tests of legalities and legislation that was required in order to put this act forward. I think the minister would have to agree that the actual agreement between the doctors and the government took place on December 20, 1990.

Hon. G. Clark: There was a handshake agreement in December between the Premier and the medical association for a pension plan, but that was subsequently nullified by the federal government.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, it was. The deal fell apart. In spite of that, I am advised that Minister Jansen -- my predecessor -- wrote a comfort letter to the BCMA saying: "If the deal falls apart, we'll give you the money anyway." They cobbled together a way to give them the $25 million in spite of the fact that the deal agreed to by the Premier and the BCMA was found to be unsatisfactory to Revenue Canada.

If I can be candid, I must say that the final deal is not as offensive as the original deal Premier Vander Zalm and the BCMA entered into, because the original deal would have given the doctors a deferred income plan tax free and an ability to pay into an RRSP up to the maximum. This was essentially a double-dip kind of approach.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, you Social Credit members know all about that, especially you car dealers over there.

The Chair: Order!

Hon. G. Clark: That was thrown out by Revenue Canada, so they cobbled together this second deal to give them the money that was agreed to.

I agree with you, there was an original deal, but that fell apart. The government had an opportunity to not pay that $25 million. They chose seven days before the election to figure out a way to give it to them in any event. Then they wrapped it up in a contract that never expired, which made it extremely difficult for government to negotiate.

K. Jones: This agreement that was entered into by the previous government over the last year is a true contract with the doctors. It was an agreement, as with an agreement with any labour union, to provide a benefit. In any other contract this benefit is required to be taken on by the next management organization in true faith and honesty under the labour practices of this province. It is the contractual requirement of the new government to take this on and carry it through to the extent of the term of that contract. This is how any other contract is ordered under the Industrial Relations Act.

It is a requirement for a company to continue when the management or the ownership of the company has

[ Page 3440 ]

changed -- that the workers' contract with that organization still continues. I believe the hon. minister fully supports that concept. It's one that is the basis of labour peace and agreement within the province of British Columbia and within North America.

D. Schreck: On a point of order, hon. Chair. We concluded second reading last night; we're now on

section 1. While the remarks of the member may be interesting, they are completely out of order.

The Chair: Your point of order is very well taken, and I would ask the member to address his remarks to the

section before us.

K. Jones: I appreciate the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale bringing forward a very important point of order. I will just ask the Minister of Finance to give us a reason why in one case he supports the concept of contractual continuity and in this case he feels it's one that can be broken.

Hon. G. Clark: It's not really on topic, but let me just.... So the member knows, there's a decision called the Paccar decision, which ended what's called the bridging clause between collective agreements. When collective agreements expire, they are no longer valid, and the employer has the right to make unilateral changes. This contract never expires, and that is what is fundamentally different between a labour contract and this contract.

K. Jones: The minister is absolutely right. This contract has not expired; it has been extinguished by this bill.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

D. Mitchell: Just a question to the minister on

section 2, which deals with the extinguishment of rights and obligations under the agreement. Could the minister describe what goes into this section, because we're talking about an agreement that was negotiated between the previous administration and the doctors through their association, the BCMA. Could the minister describe what kind of consultation took place with the BCMA prior to deciding to extinguish the rights and obligations under the agreement?

[10:45]

Hon. G. Clark: There was no consultation specifically on this question; that's correct. But as you know, I was travelling the province explaining to the people the financial situation of the government. In a place like Saskatchewan, the doctors voluntarily came forward and asked for minus 5 percent. Unfortunately, in British Columbia we have given them almost 5 percent, yet that doesn't seem to satisfy either them or the opposition.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I understand from what the minister has said that there was no consultation with the physicians with respect to the extinguishment of the rights and obligations under the terms of the agreement that this bill seeks to nullify. I find that surprising. Is the minister saying that this administration came into office, looked at an agreement that was made between the Crown and the physicians of our province through their professional association, the BCMA, and decided to unilaterally extinguish that agreement without any consultation whatsoever with the physicians involved?

Hon. G. Clark: No, originally our intent was to try to renegotiate this contract. We assumed that it was like any other labour contract that had a date and would then come up for negotiations, and we would do it that way. It was absolutely a shock when we found out just before the budget, to be candid, that it was not possible to renegotiate this contract, and that they had a perpetual contract. That's what spawned this kind of action in terms of trying to deal with it.

In addition, the doctors were concerned about the fact that they were $30 million over budget. As per the previous agreement, that had to be clawed back from them, so to speak. We assumed -- naively, I suppose -- that doctors would be happy that, while extinguishing this pension, which was terribly unpopular, we took that money and put it right into the base so they didn't have to pay back their debt to the government. We assumed that that was more than generous and that they would be very happy with it. On top of that, there was another lift for inflation.

So, given the pace of events and in trying to deal with the situation and the enormous financial debt left behind, I frankly -- and, to be candid with you, naively -- thought that doctors would, as they had in other provinces, realize how generous this offer was. Then we could have proceeded to discuss it with them and discuss how we would deal with the more fundamental changes we brought in in Bill 71.

D. Mitchell: I don't understand. I have to go back to the minister on this one again. The minister, then, is saying that his original intention was to renegotiate with the physicians, but that upon assuming office and taking a look at the agreement he concluded that the contract could not be renegotiated, because it went on forever. I find that hard to believe and hard to understand, because the minister must know -- surely he must be aware -- that any deal can be renegotiated, any deal can be reopened at any time. Certainly that's a basic principle in the business world, and it would apply in the public sector as well.

The minister says that it was the government's initial intention to renegotiate the deal. Is he saying, though, that they concluded they didn't want to, that no attempt was made to renegotiate, that there was no consultation whatsoever with the physicians? He said that there was an issue of time, that events moved quickly. I would remind him that this Bill 14 we're being asked to approve in committee today was put on the order paper of this Legislature some three months ago. It's been sitting there for three months. Has there been any attempt during that three-month intervening period to

[ Page 3441 ]

renegotiate the pension agreement with the physicians? Could he document for the benefit of members of this committee where those efforts went, why they failed and why we've come to this sad state today, where we have to deal with a despicable piece of legislation like this?

Hon. G. Clark: Any member in the House knows that there has been an endless series of discussions between the Minister of Health and the BCMA. We have agreed that we're prepared to negotiate a cost-shared pension arrangement with them. I would submit that it's probably because this bill and other bills are in the House that in fact we came to the table to even discuss the question. Unfortunately, to date -- and I say that with all sincerity -- no agreement has been reached.

I remain very hopeful that over the coming months, once these bills have been passed and they realize that Bill 71, in particular, is one which really makes doctors partners with government in this endeavour, we can come to some understanding.

I don't have any objection to then trying to renegotiate a pension plan the way other employees have pension plans -- which is a real pension plan that is cost-shared between the government and the doctors. Certainly we can do that. But in order to do that and in order to deal with the $30 million which they owed us and which we didn't collect, we were required to extinguish this agreement. We now will sit down and negotiate something more reasonable, within the taxpayers' ability to pay, and which is a real pension plan that's contributory. I think the public would then accept that. We on this side certainly have no problem with it.

D. Mitchell: What I hear the minister saying is that he would like to see some cooperation with physicians. Certainly that hasn't been demonstrated by this government in their belligerent approach to dealing with physicians. But the minister says that he would like to see a fair agreement negotiated. He'd like to see a pension plan that perhaps he could agree with. Then why not renegotiate the existing pension plan, rather than extinguishing this one and saying that it never existed, that there's no recourse to the courts and no right of appeal?

Why not take that kind of a consultative approach -- which the minister's party said they were going to take when they were in opposition -- rather than this heavy-handed approach with this very heavy-handed piece of legislation?

The minister says he still hopes it's possible to enter into an agreement with the physicians that would be a better agreement. I would ask him then: why did the government bring in Bill 14 early on in the session and put it on the order paper? Was it there as a threat? Was it there as a hammer to hold over the heads of the physicians, to say: "Come to an agreement with us on our terms or else we'll pass this bill"? It has now finally come to the government trying to ram this bill through in the dying hours of this session.

Hon. G. Clark: No. I thought I'd explained this. We assumed that by forgiving the $30 million debt that they owed.... Obviously this agreement is not acceptable to British Columbians or to the government. We have made that clear all the way through. They had this debt that they owed us. We were looking at dealing with cost containment and with some changes to work with doctors, so we extinguished this agreement, took the money and put it into fee-for-service. We're now prepared to negotiate, underneath the cap for next year, some kind of cost-shared and reasonable pension plan.

I honestly felt -- and I guess naively -- that we were being more than generous with doctors, given what we were doing with the total budget package. I know that other people feel we were too tough on them. I thought that when they saw the package and realized how generous we have been in terms of fee-for-service and when they realized that the public was clearly opposed to this.... I talked to many doctors who were opposed to it. I just assumed that if we did this and then got on with negotiating something more reasonable in the years to come, that would be an appropriate course of action.

Having said that, it's obviously important that we extinguish this agreement. This agreement is not acceptable. My understanding of the dealings with the doctors -- and I haven't dealt with them personally -- is that given that they had a perpetual contract which was not open to negotiations, it would have been extremely difficult to have them agree to open it. Unlike in Saskatchewan, the doctors didn't come to us and say: "We realize that you have a fiscal situation, so let's talk about how we can help each other." They had this $25 million in perpetuity, and they weren't about to renegotiate it, in our view.

So it was unacceptable, and we rolled it in. Now we're prepared to look to the future.

D. Mitchell: We had a good debate late last night on second reading of this bill. I don't think it's necessary to revive any of the elements of that debate. We're dealing here with

section 2, the extinguishment of the rights in the agreement and all obligations under the agreement. The minister is saying that he has had no personal contact with physicians of the province, yet the bill is in his name, and he's taking it through the House. I would assume that that's because of the financial implications of the bill -- the $25 million obligation that the government has under the terms of the bill.

It would have been preferable if the hon. Minister of Health had taken this bill through the House, because then she could have answered some of the questions as to why there have been no consultations with physicians or, if there have been consultations on renewing and amending this agreement and making it more acceptable, why they haven't been successful. The Minister of Finance clearly can't answer those questions, because he's admitted to the committee this morning that he has had no personal contact with the physicians.

The Minister of Finance seems to have admitted in his comments that the bill was brought in early in the session, in a threatening manner, as an attempt to bully and menace the doctors a little, to show that the government was very serious and that if they didn't toe the line, this bill would be passed. Now we've come to

[ Page 3442 ]

that sad day when the government is actually going through with their threat, their bullying and their menacing action, by bringing in Bill 14 and trying to have it made a statute, basically extinguishing an agreement. The minister has indicated that that was the intention of the government when they brought it in. They're now following through on that.

He hasn't addressed the crucial issue: why extinguish the agreement; why not renegotiate? Why not seek to make an agreement that was less than perfect -- in his words -- more acceptable? Surely a much more reasonable approach to take on the part of a government that represents all British Columbians would be to seek to amend the agreement and negotiate fairly and freely with the physicians of British Columbia and their association, the BCMA, to make the agreement more acceptable. If the minister could just answer that, we could move on to other sections of this bill. But I haven't had an answer to that question, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. G. Clark: A couple of things. First of all, I'm advised that the Minister of Health did meet to talk about renegotiating this agreement and did work on some options in that regard. Secondly, the reason it's in my name is that by March 31 we would have had to pay $25 million. So this bill saved us $25 million in this fiscal year. Although we rolled it into the base to cover what they owed us, we needed this bill now to deal with that specific $25 million. That's why it is a Finance bill and is brought in by me. And it does have a direct price tag.

The option of negotiating and talking to them nicely would have been possible had we paid that first instalment of $25 million which was due March 31.

D. Symons: I'm very pleased that the government member admits that they were naive in this -- I would agree with him wholeheartedly on that. It's one of the few things on which we can agree with the government. You are indeed naive if you think this is a fair bill. I think naivety covers very well many of the government's activities during this session.

I'm rather ambivalent about this bill, actually. On the one hand, what I see here is that the previous government has been very generous -- overly generous -- in giving this pension plan to the doctors. In that, I would agree with you. However, on the other hand, the fact is that we had a signed legal, binding contract. This is an agreement. Our responsible, democratic governments are founded on the idea that an agreement is an agreement; you honour agreements. It's banana republics where you can't believe, when an agreement is signed, that tomorrow it may not be an agreement, because the government has changed.

That's precisely the problem we have here. We had an agreement by the previous government, but the current government is simply going to negate it.

What I find particularly offensive are the words in

section 2(3): "The professional retirement savings plan referred to in

article 2.1 of the agreement shall be deemed not to have been established." That sounds to me exactly like the 1984 Ministry of Truth. You can simply erase the past. I don't think this is the way we handle a disagreement or renegotiate a contract. We must enter into agreements and negotiate with them, not go about holding a club over their heads, beating them to death and then saying we've somehow negotiated an agreement.

Resource industries are not likely to come into B.C. if you're going to give them resource exploration rights and then take them away without any compensation. You're not going to have the forestry industry feeling too comfortable if you give them timber rights to Crown lands and then take them away.

[11:00]

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The line of debate you are engaging in was quite appropriate last evening when we were in second reading, but we are in committee, and we should be precise in addressing the questions. Deal with the wording and not the philosophy or the principle. We're concerned now about dealing with the effect, the text, of the sections before us.

D. Symons: I thank the hon. Chair for that caution, but I am talking about agreements and their being extinguished. I was simply trying to give a couple of examples in other areas in the province, where it would certainly be inappropriate for the government to negate agreements that had previously been made and not give appropriate compensation. It seems that is the case in this particular bill. The minister says he gave compensation, but what you're really saying is: "We took away your pension plan over here, but we put it in over here." But not with their agreement.

You simply arbitrarily said that you were going to take it out of one hand and give it over here. That is not an agreement, and that is not the way one negotiates. I certainly hope it's not the way that we're going to see the rest of the term of this government, short as it may be, where they're going to react and handle people. It's not the way to behave. I don't think you gave it to the doctors in quite that sense. You simply put it in the pot over there, which isn't quite the same thing as what you're taking away.

As I said when I began, I don't necessarily agree with that plan that was given to them. It was, as I said, quite generous. Nevertheless, it was an agreement, and I believe that it's incumbent upon the government that they must renegotiate that agreement, because our whole democratic system really evolves around the idea that agreements should hold. A gentleman's agreement, whether it be a handshake or a written document, is a document that must be abided by until the parties relative to that agree.... I think you could have negotiated with the doctors.

Indeed, you said they didn't want to, but I think if you approached them long enough and took time at it, rather than at the beginning of this very session, telling them you were going to do that in the budget address -- actually, I think it was even in the throne speech -- letting them know months ago that this was coming down the tube, and they'd better kowtow.... That's not the way you enter into agreements. It's just a wrong bill. It's the wrong way to go about it, and I'm against it.

[ Page 3443 ]

C. Serwa: On

section 2, the minister indicated that it was in the public interest to extinguish or cancel an existing contract between government and a group of individuals, in this case medical doctors. Perhaps the minister could briefly explain to me why it's in the public interest to cancel an agreement.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I want to remind the member that the government that he was part of brought in Bill 19, which retroactively changed thousands of contracts, literally made illegal whole sections of contracts -- just to make it clear that elected governments act in what they perceive to be the public interest. We know that the public was opposed to this pension deal. We campaigned against the pension deal. Doctors told me they were opposed to this pension deal. We took the money saved from that and put it into the base.

In fact, they're better off as a result of this bill because we put the money back into the base. I understand this is not done very often. It's not the kind of measure which governments should do lightly. We don't take it lightly. It's not something which would be repeated routinely in the House, but parliaments do have that power and we've chosen to exercise it because we perceive this to be in the public interest.

C. Serwa: I don't for one instant think that the minister or the government takes this issue very lightly. I think it's contrary to all that they have traditionally stood for and believe in, so I'm quite confident that they haven't taken this matter lightly. But in the matter of attending to the extinguishment in

section 2, and the public interest, fundamentally we're talking dollars. It appears, from the conversation with the minister, that he has a great deal of difficulty with the term "in perpetuity." I believe the minister referred to that context. Perhaps in the extinguishing of this, the minister and the government are jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Let's look at the cost -- and bear with me briefly -- where purchasing power decreases as the percentage of gross billings decreases. Look, in contrast, to the generally established principle. The minister clearly stated that a normal arrangement is where the employer and beneficiary contribute equally. If we look at that and at the $25 million, we see that it represents approximately 2.25 percent of gross doctor billings to the Medical Services Plan.

If we look at the government commitment to public sector employees, we find that for the first $32,000 of income, the commitment on the part of the government is 8 percent. If a public sector employee makes over $32,000, the commitment on that part above the $32,000 is at 9.7 percent. The net result if you split that is that you're probably looking at 8.75percent of gross earnings as the government's contribution to the pension plan. I would suggest that no matter how a pension plan is funded, it will cost the taxpayers substantially more than the $25 million of deferred income.

Perhaps the minister will advise me on that.

Hon. G. Clark: I think those are fair comments. One wonders why doctors are so upset.

There are two things. First of all, rolling it into the base means that they're actually better off. In some respects it's more expensive to do what we've done than leave the pension. Secondly, any alternative arrangement that gave them a genuine pension plan might cost more down the road. I agree with those two comments.

My view is that this was an unconscionable deal that everybody was opposed to, so we had to get rid of it. If we were to move into a cost-shared -- albeit a likely more expensive -- pension arrangement, as long as it's under the global cap, and they essentially have to buy it the way other employees have to buy theirs, then I don't mind. In the construction industry they say: "We'll give you a buck an hour." They say to the union: "You decide how to spend it." The union could decide to put it all into pensions or to put half of it into pensions. That's their call. That's the kind of approach I'd prefer.

We're going to raise the medical services budget next year by inflation, say 2 percent. I hope 2 percent is a reasonable settlement next year for doctors. If they said, "We'd rather put that all into a pension fund and take no fee increase," then we'd say fine. If they did that every year for a while, it may end up costing a lot of money, but they'd have a real, sound, substantial pension. That would be their choice in negotiations with the government.

I agree with your general premise that if we just left this and did nothing else, at the end of the day it may have been cheaper. With the provisos that any negotiated agreement comes out of their arrangement, and that it's a real pension plan, I think the public would be more accepting of this sort of gift, which was given to them last time in the dying days of negotiations and by the Premier intervening directly.

C. Serwa: I appreciate the remarks from the minister. Perhaps it would be more acceptable to the general public because it would follow established criteria. The justification for the

section 2 extinguishment of the contract is one that is primarily perception rather than reality. In fact, the public interest over the long term will not be well served by the extinguishment of this contract. Over the long term the cost to the taxpayer will be substantially greater.

I do know that doctors have tried for many years to establish some form of pension. I would suggest that they will and must continue to strive to establish some sort of pension arrangement. I am confident that they will be successful, either with this government or a subsequent government.

I really believe that the net result of this -- and the minister has basically confirmed this -- is that if you fit it into the generally accepted parameters, while the extinguishment may be publicly acceptable, it will ultimately result in much higher costs to the taxpayers of the province.

L. Reid: My comment is to the Minister of Finance. This individual sponsored this bill, and yet he admitted today in this House that he did not speak to doctors. Does anyone in your caucus or cabinet understand the word "consultation"

[ Page 3444 ]

The Chair: Shall

section 2 pass?

L. Reid: I am speaking specifically to

section 2(2), "Extinguishment of rights and obligations under this agreement." This is the obligation of the government. I am interested to know if any of this obligation has been paid.

Hon. G. Clark: No.

L. Reid: It would be my understanding, then, that this government is in default at this time, because the date of March 31 has come and gone. Are you able to somehow deem something not to have existed, then also deem retroactively that something did not exist?

Hon. G. Clark: You're right, and this bill is retroactive.

L. Reid: Every member in this New Democratic government should find this bill repugnant. To suggest somehow that it didn't exist months ago is unacceptable. I need to hear from this minister why he believes that this bill has any credence at all.

The Chair: Hon. member, with the greatest respect, that is not part of the section. It is part of second reading.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

[11:15]

YEAS -- 32

Marzari

Priddy

Cashore

Charbonneau

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

MacPhail

Giesbrecht

Evans

Farnworth

Hammell

Lovick

B. Jones

Pullinger

Blencoe

Zirnhelt

Cull

Clark

Gabelmann

Smallwood

Miller

O'Neill

Hartley

Streifel

Krog

Randall

Kasper

Simpson

Brewin

NAYS -- 17

Tyabji

Reid

Mitchell

Cowie

Gingell

Warnke

Stephens

Weisgerber

Serwa

Neufeld

Fox

Dalton

Symons

K. Jones

Jarvis

Hurd

Tanner

section 3.

L. Reid: I would speak to

section 3 in some detail. "The plan is terminated" is the actual wording in

section 3(1). I would commit to the record, hon. Chair, the words of the Premier of British Columbia: "I referred to it as a

'done deal' because British Columbians should know that the election of an NDP government in the next few months would not erase a legally binding contract."

Again, hon. Chair, to the minister: who is in charge?

Hon. G. Clark: Just so the members will know,

section 2, 3, 4 and 5 really are the same thing. I'm advised it is legislative counsel's way of ensuring certainty in the matter. That is why this section, which is really identical to the previous section, is saying that the plan is extinguished, and in this

section says: "The plan is terminated." It does seem to be overkill, but that's the legislative counsel's way of ensuring that the wishes of parliament are undertaken.

I also just want to advise the members that until after the election, no one realized that a plan had been entered into which had no termination date -- and that, I think, is a fundamental difference.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

L. Reid: On

section 5: "No damages arise. No action for damages or compensation against the government, the commission or any person arises by reason of this act."

Hon. Chair, I would submit to you today that this government cannot play with people's lives and then somehow say: "You can't sue us." How can this government render invalid a court challenge?

Hon. G. Clark: That's the way the law works. It's quite common. We're extinguishing a plan; deeming the plan to never have existed; deeming that no other contracts existed which impact on that plan, which didn't exist; and then saying that there's no right to recourse in the courts. This is legislative counsel's way of ensuring that the wishes of the government and the public are accepted. It would be ridiculous to be extinguishing the act without ensuring that they could not then sue for damages. Parliament is supreme, and this is the legislative counsel's way of ensuring that no court action is possible.

L. Reid: I cannot accept the notion, hon. Chair, that somehow this government can deem rights and obligations not to have existed. I need some explanation for that. I think the arrogance today has gone well beyond anything we've seen previously. Hon. Chair, to the minister, tell this House and assure British Columbians that somehow you believe you have every right to play with their lives and then deem something not to have existed.

Hon. G. Clark: I just want to make sure members of the House realize that this is a fairly standard provision.

L. Reid: No, it's not.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, it is.

L. Reid: This provision is not standard.

[ Page 3445 ]

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: The provision that no damages arise, or that the Crown cannot be sued in the event, is fairly standard in all kinds of laws in the House. When you extinguish

an act, this is like a consequential amendment. This is a consequence....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: No, this is housekeeping. It is housekeeping when it comes.... Once you've made the decision and passed the

section saying that the act is terminated, or that those rights or laws don't exist, this is essentially a consequential amendment ensuring that the Crown is protected.

J. Tyabji: This minister has been constantly referring in this House to the mess the previous administration left him with, yet he is proceeding with the same kinds of actions that made the previous administration so unpopular, which is why their numbers have been so dramatically reduced. I put to the minister that this clause is a typical example of the kind of activities that the people of B.C. cannot support. With this clause you're trying to negate something that's already in effect, and you're trying to rewrite history, which you cannot possibly do.

By taking away people's rights in court to follow an action that should duly proceed from a legal contract and by breaking a legal contract, you're taking away the rights to even have any kind of recourse on that. That kind of activity is shameful, and it put the previous administration out of government. I put to this minister that this is the kind of activity that he should not be participating in, and that he should repeal this clause.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I know the members opposite are opposed to this; I know they support the pension plan for doctors as it was constructed. I know that members of the opposition have voted against previous sections. I understand that. But once you have terminated the plan, then it would be silly not.... This is what's required to terminate the plan. Otherwise we will sue and they will sue, and we'll pay the $25 million in any event. That would defeat the purpose, would it not?

So I understand the concern of the members opposite, but please don't overstate the case. You're right; you've made the case. I understand the point you've made, but this

section is simply a way of ensuring the Crown's interests are protected in light of the previous sections: the decision to eliminate this agreement.

K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister how many persons would have been affected or would have been eligible for retirement under this act up until now.

The Chair: Hon. member, the question does not fall under

section 5.

K. Jones: It's in order to find out the effect of this decision that I'm trying to find out this information. This is a pretty serious impact.

Hon. G. Clark: This

section is really out of an abundance of caution. It's hard to sue when a plan has been terminated and has been extinguished by legislation. So the legislative counsel has asked us to include this, out of an abundance of caution, to forestall any possible suit, even though a suit would be extremely unlikely to succeed, given that we've extinguished the plan by legislation.

Nobody has received any money. The plan never got off the ground. No money has been paid, so nobody is eligible.

K. Jones: The minister does make a point that it's extinguishing, but we're trying to find out how many doctors' pensions would have been eligible if this had been proceeded with rather than eliminated retroactively.

Hon. G. Clark: It's not a pension, as you know. It was some kind of RRSP plan at the end of the day. There are 6,000 doctors, and I assume all 6,000 were eligible.

F. Gingell: I appreciate, Mr. Minister, that Bill 1 did say, "An Act to Ensure the Supremacy of Parliament," and you mentioned that. But isn't the real supreme factor that we should recognize the rule of law? Without the rule of law, the whole of civilization collapses. Contracts are made to be kept, not to be broken.

Is it not true, Mr. Minister, that

section 5 just recognizes that the action you have taken in Bill 14 is illegal and improper?

Hon. G. Clark: It is not illegal. You've made the point that parliament is supreme. We're now bringing in legislation, and this makes it legal. This recognizes the fact that we have extinguished the plan. In order to ensure that there aren't any attempts to seek recourse in the courts -- even though they would not succeed, by and large, because the act was deemed never to have existed -- legislative counsel have suggested that this is a safety precaution to ensure that the interests of the government are protected. That's all it is.

D. Symons: I have concerns about the last few words that the hon. member said. He said he was quite sure that in most cases court challenges wouldn't succeed. But it would seem that by putting this particular

section in here, the minister does not believe his own words. He's saying that court challenges wouldn't succeed, but we're going to make damned sure they don't by putting this phrase in here saying that you can't go to the courts. Let's have it one way or the other. If you say that they're not going to succeed, then you don't need this; if you think they are going to succeed, then you are obliterating their right to go to courts. You can't have it both ways.

[ Page 3446 ]

Hon. G. Clark: This would save any legal fees that might be required. Given what we've heard, I wouldn't be surprised if they would have tried to sue, even though they have no chance of success. That would have been expensive for all concerned. Again, this was on the advice of the legislative counsel to ensure that the wishes of parliament prevail.

[11:30]

J. Tyabji: The minister's comments about parliament being supreme over the rights of individuals to sue for damages that result from legislation passed in this House.... To me this

section indicates a dangerous move toward a form of dictatorship, where the parliament can arbitrarily legislate away people's rights for damages incurred as a result of legislation brought forward in this House. Obviously this minister recognized that there will be damages from this contract and that this contract is going to injure a large portion of the population. They have had their rights taken away by this section. Preceding this section, we have

an act that broke a legal contract which was duly negotiated.

As we mentioned repeatedly last night, we feel that the number one thing that has to be supreme in this House is the rights of individuals through the entire democratic process, and the democratic process does not allow for legislating away the rights of people who have injuries incurred through the actions of this House. We recognize that we have to be fiscally responsible. But in the first place, it would have been fiscally responsible to renegotiate this deal so that we didn't end up here at the eleventh hour debating these bills in the committee stage. They shouldn't have been brought forward in the first place.

The Chair: Before recognizing the minister, I would remind the committee that we are, unfortunately, moving back to second reading of the bill. We are in committee stage, and I would remind members to keep that in mind.

Hon. G. Clark: I would just like to briefly respond to the previous member, with your indulgence, Mr. Chair. When city councils rezone property and it affects someone's property rights, they don't have the right to sue. The Crown takes action. When the Crown wants to build a road through someone's property, the Crown has the prerogative. That's what parliament does. I agree that it's done very carefully. It's not done routinely. Thousands upon thousands of contracts are entered into yearly by government. This is an extraordinary act to deal with something which we feel must be dealt with -- this particular pension plan -- because we think it's unacceptable.

J. Tyabji: Since this minister feels that this

section is only in extreme and extraordinary circumstances, did this minister approach the people who would be injured by this bill prior to bringing the bill through the House to try not to bring this bill before the House and to not have to take this extreme and extraordinary action?

The Chair: Hon. member, we're dealing with

section 5. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought you were referring to the bill. I thought I heard you referring to the people who would be affected and whether or not the bill should be brought forward. In that case, that would be out of order. If you're speaking of

section 5, then that this in order.

Hon. G. Clark: No, we did not.

L. Reid: My comment to the House is that this

section cannot pass in all good conscience. This section, as my colleague from Okanagan East has stated, invalidates the rights of British Columbians. No consultation. No process. No understanding that even the minister had an obligation to sit down with the parties in question. He cannot shift responsibility at this stage to somehow suggest his bill was left in the hands of the Minister of Health. That is passing the buck, somehow suggesting that obviously he didn't have time. He was too busy to consult with British Columbians in terms of removing their rights. That is unacceptable to the members of the Liberal opposition. We want a government that is going to bargain in good faith. This

section and this bill constitute bargaining in bad faith by the New Democratic government in the province of British Columbia.

Section 5 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 31

Marzari

Priddy

Cashore

Charbonneau

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

MacPhail

Giesbrecht

Evans

Farnworth

Hammell

Ramsey

B. Jones

Pullinger

Blencoe

Cull

Clark

Gabelmann

Smallwood

Miller

O'Neill

Hartley

Streifel

Krog

Randall

Kasper

Simpson

Brewin

NAYS -- 15

Tyabji

Reid

Cowie

Gingell

Warnke

Stephens

Serwa

Neufeld

Fox

Dalton

Symons

K. Jones

Jarvis

Hurd

Tanner

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Professional Retirement Savings Plan Agreement Extinguishment Act, reported complete without

[ Page 3447 ]

amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS -- 32

Marzari

Priddy

Cashore

Charbonneau

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

MacPhail

Giesbrecht

Evans

Farnworth

Hammell

Ramsey

B. Jones

Pullinger

Blencoe

Zirnhelt

Cull

Clark

Gabelmann

Smallwood

Miller

O'Neill

Hartley

Streifel

Krog

Randall

Kasper

Simpson

Brewin

NAYS -- 16

Tyabji

Reid

Mitchell

Cowie

Gingell

Warnke

Stephens

Serwa

Neufeld

Fox

Dalton

Symons

K. Jones

Jarvis

Hurd

Tanner

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave of the House to table the annual report of the auditor general.

[11:45]

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave, I would move a motion in respect of the appointment of an ombudsman.

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that this House recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor the appointment of Ms. S. Dulcie McCallum as ombudsman for the province of British Columbia pursuant to

section 2(1) of the Ombudsman Act, effective August 4, 1992.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 72.

TOBACCO PRODUCT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 72; D. Streifel in the chair.

section 1.

L. Fox: I was just going to suggest to the Chair and to the minister that I really have no wish to comment on all sections of this bill. The process has been outlined by the minister and by the House with respect to the development of regulations that this bill will cover. I support the process, and I look forward to being part of that.

L. Reid: Hon. Chair, I would propose an amendment to the

interpretation section. I believe we need a definition there that pertains....

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Reid: I would propose that we need a definition of the term "vendor" to fall in subsection (1) for this bill to be clearly understood by all the parties in this province that it may affect. I would move that

section 1 is amended by adding the following: "vendor means any business that sells tobacco products directly to members of the public."

On the amendment.

Hon. E. Cull: Mr. Chair, I'm going to be making this comment on all of the amendments the member is tabling today. The intent of the act is to provide enabling legislation; the details of the act are to be worked out in the regulations. For us to start now with putting in a definition before the regulations are fully fleshed out is going to be imprudent. We may find out afterward that the definition of vendor is not what we need, once we've got into the details of the regulations. Then, of course, we would have our hands tied, and we'd have to come back and amend the bill, as opposed to simply dealing with it through the regulations.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the amendment for a second and recognizing what the hon. minister has just said, we understand that the regulations pursuant to this bill when it becomes

an act are going to be dealt with by a select standing committee of the Legislature. Surely that committee needs to have some parameters in terms of basic definition. I think the amendment is actually worth considering, simply because the term "vendor" itself is a key part of this bill.

We had a good debate last night, and I don't intend to revive any of that debate. But who is a vendor? Clearly "vendors" could apply to wholesalers, retailers, exporters, importers and people who run vending machines. It would be useful to have some parameters and guidelines as to what is implied by "a vendor of tobacco products" under this act. For precision's sake that would be useful. Could the minister, in her comments at least, enlighten us as to what the intention is of the bill? No comments whatsoever?

Amendment negatived.

section 2.

L. Reid: I would speak specifically to

section 2, where it suggests

section 2.2. I would propose the following amendment. Actually, let me speak to the amendment first. What I'm going to refer to is the age. The minister's response is going to be that we will allow that to go to the committee that is going to structure regulations.

[ Page 3448 ]

To my view, age at which a person may purchase tobacco is the most significant aspect of this bill. If this is truly about access and restricting access, it is important to have something as weighty as an age limit incorporated in the bill. I would not be comfortable with allowing that to be formed by the committee in terms of regulation. If it's that important to the basic intent of this bill, it needs to be covererd in the bill as opposed to the regulation.

I would move that we amend

section 2.2 by deleting the words "if a regulation under

section 4 forbids" and replacing them with the word "the" and deleting the words "specified in the regulations" and replacing them with the words "of 18 years is forbidden and...."

On the amendment.

Hon. E. Cull: Again, contrary to the amendment, there are a number of considerations around the age. We could tie the age to the age of majority, which has just been changed in this province in terms of voting. We now have a different age for buying alcohol. Right now cigarettes are purchasable at the age of 16. There are a number of considerations with respect to age. We need to have a look at how age has been handled elsewhere in Canada. The select standing committee is well qualified to handle this matter.

L. Reid: I'm not quibbling over the competence of the select standing committee, but if we are going to put some weight behind this legislation.... I understand that you believe this to be really important legislation, as do members of the official opposition. If it's important, and if we suggest that somehow minors having access to tobacco is a problem -- and this bill suggests that we need to reduce access -- then the age of 18 is a prudent time to allow young people to make choices as to whether or not they purchase tobacco. We in this House just decided that 18 will be the voting age.

I have no difficulty with the age of 18. I would suggest that to make this bill credible at all, it has to have some power, some weight behind it. To suggest that regulations can replace the power of this Legislature is not acceptable. Please comment.

Hon. E. Cull: I think the select standing committee is well qualified to deal with this matter. It's quite conceivable that the age of voting could change in the future too. Rather than tying it to a particular age, we should have the ability -- and regulations -- to have a closer look at this.

D. Mitchell: I notice that some members of the government wish to support the amendment. Before we take the vote on it, I just have a question.

The minister suggested that we should leave this up the select standing committee. We support the process and the subject matter of this bill going to the select standing committee, but as was raised last night, there's a question of procedure. The hon. member for Richmond East suggested that perhaps some guidelines should be put into the bill. If the government wants to pass this bill before we bring it to the select standing committee, perhaps there should be some guidelines in there. Perhaps 18 would be a reasonable age. Could the minister just comment on whether or not she would support that?

Is that the direction that she would like to see us head? If we're going to be setting an age restriction, would 18 be the appropriate age?

Hon. E. Cull: I think it might be useful to look at the age of majority so that there's a common age for a number of things. Again, the select standing committee will have to consider this in the context of all of the considerations around access to tobacco and what's happening elsewhere in Canada.

D. Symons: On the amendment, it would appear that if we are moving the age of majority, which we have done to age 18, then all of these decisions.... Even if you want to change the liquor laws, it seems that if you're giving the person the right to vote, at that stage you're saying that this person has the right to make a decision. That seems to be the age at which they should make decisions for their lives. To shilly-shally around and not decide, as seems to be the case here.... "We're going to leave it open, and we'll sort of decide later on.

We'll test the ground and see what the results are." It seems that they don't have a handle on where they want this bill to go and who they want to affect by it. The people of this province have the right to know exactly who you are targeting by this particular bill. Rather than avoid that question, let's hear it now.

[12:00]

L. Reid: Further to the point of my colleague for Richmond Centre, British Columbians are looking for some leadership in this. We are asking the minister to come forward today and suggest that it is absolutely important enough to incorporate into the body of the bill the age at which someone may purchase tobacco in this province, rather than leave it in the form of a regulation to be constructed by the committee. We are looking for leadership. I would ask the minister to rise and give her reasons why she is not prepared to demonstrate some leadership on this vastly important issue today.

Hon. E. Cull: Mr. Chair, I won't take up the time of the House by reading the many, many letters we've received commending this government on the leadership it has shown in bringing in this bill. Again, there are many matters of detail which I think can be well handled by the select standing committee.

Amendment negatived.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I have a question about

section 2(1)(c). Maybe the minister could help me with this one. It states: "A person must not deal in, sell, offer for sale, distribute, advertise or promote the use of tobacco...in a manner that interferes with initiatives by government...." I have a hard time understanding exactly what is meant by this section. For instance, it refers to: "...in a manner that interferes with initiatives by government...." How does a person "deal in, sell,

[ Page 3449 ]

offer for sale, distribute, advertise or promote" a product in a manner that interferes with initiatives by government? Could the minister offer some examples of what she is contemplating there?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes. This particular

section is designed to clarify the existing legislation. As the member is aware, this is an amendment to

an act that already exists and so improves upon it. An example I can give is false advertising -- advertising that fails to note the toxicity of the product being sold.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I have another question on

section 2 of the bill. It deals with

section 2(3), which says: "A person must not sell or offer for sale cigarettes from an opened package." I wonder if the minister realizes that this

section is essentially a direct duplication of

section 240(3) of the federal Excise Act. In that case, is it really necessary to have it in this statute as well?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I am aware that it is also contained in federal legislation, but by having it in this act, we are able to enforce it through our licensing procedures. The difficulty with the federal legislation is that the enforcement procedures are extremely weak. I believe they carry fines of a very small amount -- $10 -- so they are essentially ineffective. By putting this into our legislation, we can then use the force of this act to enforce the provision.

D. Mitchell: Does the minister then contemplate that matters dealing with federal legislation, such as the federal Excise Act, would also be reviewed by the select standing committee of the House which is going to be reviewing this bill when it becomes

an act?

Hon. E. Cull: Mr. Chair, the motion passed by the House is quite explicit in terms of the terms of reference. I don't believe that that matter is included in the terms of reference.

D. Symons: I must say at the outset that neither I nor anybody in my family smokes. I have to agree with the bill's intent because of that. I don't believe young people -- or old people, for that matter -- should smoke. It's not good for their health, and it's not good for our Health budget that we were discussing earlier. But I really think that a bill of this sort misses the mark. It's covered in

section 2(2) and I guess part of (3) as well, if you want me to stick to the bill. If you hit these things by almost making them illegal, like narcotics in that sense, it's going to be very restricted, and that's counterproductive to what you're trying to achieve with the bill. I think what we really want to do.... What has been happening gradually over the last decade or so is that cigarette smoking has become an unsociable act. More and more places restrict smoking. The health hazards have become better known.

When we investigate the smoking habits of young people, we find a reduction in the number of boys, young men, who smoke. Unfortunately, the girls have not caught up to the young men yet. They are staying the same or increasing slightly. If we keep that up rather than trying to pass legislation, we'll win more in the long run. In this sense, I do believe that the bill, although well intentioned, is going to miss the mark. We should be looking more at the education side of it. Chuck this, and deal with the education side. It has been effective, and it is working. It just takes time.

This isn't really going to accomplish anything.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm surprised that this member is speaking contrary to the position his colleagues took last night, when we were in second reading debate. I have to assume that the member wasn't here yesterday evening when we talked about the impact of education versus legislation. The decline in smoking has been a direct result of legislative measures, not educational measures. As much as we would like to believe that education is effective -- and it certainly has its role and has to complement legislation -- the evidence shows otherwise.

The one that I will cite again is from Woodridge, Illinois. They introduced vendor licensing. The number of children who were regular smokers decreased by two-thirds, and the proportion of children who experimented with smoking decreased by one-half. Education did not have that impact until legislation was brought in.

L. Reid: I would speak to

section 2(2)(b): "Tobacco is not sold or offered for sale from a vending machine if access to the vending machine is not controlled and supervised to prevent persons who have not attained this specified age from using the vending machines." Hon. minister, you spoke about legislated access having a far greater impact on the reduction of smoking in this province. I have to understand, before we leave today, how it is that you plan to monitor or supervise vending machines to ensure that we restrict access. I would like a plan to suggest that this is somehow reasonable legislation to enforce. Is this just an absolute mockery that we will never be able to enforce?

Hon. E. Cull: Experience in other places shows us that this is not a difficult thing to enforce at all. It's a question of determining where vending machines can be located so that there is restricted access. Young people would not have access to the machines in a bar. It is conceivable that there are other places where vending machines could be located where they could be supervised or where young people would have limited or no access.

Rather than doing what was suggested last night, which was an absolute ban on vending machines, we should first look at how to regulate them and deal with

[ Page 3450 ]

the objective of this bill, which is young people and tobacco.

L. Reid: This is indeed serious legislation. You must rise today and assure us that vending machines will be located on adult-only premises. I need to understand how you're going to handle the hotel lobby situation, where it's possible in thousands of places in this province to find vending machines which have random access. It is not an age-restricted situation as it currently stands. I need a response to that.

Hon. E. Cull: The member is a member of the select standing committee, and I'm sure that her contributions in developing this regulation will be very valuable there. Clearly in a hotel lobby.... If vending machines are in an open place that is accessible to people of all ages, those vendors will lose their licence.

Hon. E. Cull: The comments last night were made in response to the member for Prince George-Omineca, I think -- somewhere in that vicinity of the province, in any event. He was commenting on the fact that even though there are laws against selling alcohol to minors -- and, in fact, different from this, there's a law against possessing alcohol as a minor -- minors have access to alcohol, and so prohibition has the effect of creating a black market, if you like. So I was responding to those concerns. This is not parallel to the laws that restrict access to alcohol.

The prohibition here is not on having tobacco under age or smoking it under age; it's on selling it to children and young people under a certain age.

D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. So what this bill is seeking to do is deal with the selling of tobacco products to people under a specified age -- or an unspecified age at this point, because the bill doesn't really deal with what age we're talking about. That's going to be decided later.

Does the minister contemplate that the work of the select standing committee, which is going to be looking at this matter, might possibly go beyond the ambit of that and take a look at the issues relating to possession of tobacco by persons under a certain age?

Hon. E. Cull: The terms of reference of the select standing committee are to look at the regulations under this act and develop those to make recommendations.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

[12:15]

L. Reid: I would speak (d.1) under

section 3: "...specifying the content, form and manner of presentation of a warning that must be displayed with tobacco at the time the tobacco is offered for sale or is sold to a purchaser...." I believe it's not clear in terms of what the act suggested. Does this warning only pertain to the warning currently found on cigarette packages, or will vendors in this province be required to post large signs over and above those currently found on packages to suggest that smoking is somehow unfavourable to your health? I would move to amend

section 3 by deleting in the proposed

section 4(d.1) the words "a warning," and replacing them with the words "any additional warnings," and adding after the words "must be displayed" the words "other than packaging at point of purchase."

On the amendment.

L. Reid: To speak to the amendment, my personal commitment and my suggestion would be that the larger the warning the better. We have not dramatically reduced the number of smokers in this province by ensuring that each package carries the warning. I would suggest that we need to broaden the mandate and ensure that any place that currently offers tobacco for sale in British Columbia find a large poster of some description that will educate the public as to the downsides of this particular habit.

Hon. E. Cull: Either I don't understand the member's amendment or the member doesn't understand the

section of the act, because that is precisely what this

section of the act will do. It will require, in addition to anything that might be on the package itself, the posting of a sign at the point of sale because the packages are small -- unless we get into some of the suggestions which have come from other places of generic packaging. The manufacturers have been very skillful at designing their warning labels into the design on the package. What this

section will require is that there must be a sign at the counter that would clearly indicate to the purchaser that the product they're buying is harmful to their health.

D. Symons: In deference to the minister, I believe it really doesn't say that. I think that may be the problem that my hon. member was having here. It just says: "...specifying the content, form and manner of presentation of a warning that must be displayed...." If you have a warning hidden on a package, that's a warning

[ Page 3451 ]

displayed. I think you want to be more specific. I agree entirely with intent of what you're saying, but I think somebody can interpret this wording as simply meaning: "I've given warning. The warning is there" -- invisible as it may be.

Hon. E. Cull: It's always a difficulty when you're looking at amendments to existing legislation. It helps if you have the existing act beside you when you're looking at it. This

section is amending

section 4 of the existing act, which is the power to make regulations. There will be regulations that can be made under the act that would do exactly what we're talking about doing here.

L. Reid: That is exactly my concern. I believe we are allowing regulations to determine something that should be found in the act. My amendment speaks directly to the act.

Section 3: "allows regulations to be made requiring warnings with a specified form and content...." I have no difficulty with the fact that you would like to see it in a regulation. I'm saying it needs to be a weightier proposal and needs to be found in legislation. I would urge support of this amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

D. Mitchell:

Section 3 deals with some details of packaging of tobacco products and their sale by vendors. Could the minister indicate what consultation has taken place by the government, and by her ministry in particular, with manufacturers, retailers and other vendors of tobacco products prior to this bill being formulated and this

section in particular being brought forward?

Hon. E. Cull: Mr. Chair, contact has been established with some of the retailers, but it is my understanding that the select standing committee would be carrying out this responsibility as they develop the regulations.

D. Mitchell: The minister's answer is a further indication to me that we've got the process here backwards. The bill shouldn't have been drafted prior to consultation, but should have been after the fact. The subject matter, perhaps by way of a government motion -- I think it would be appropriate -- should have been referred to the select standing committee, rather than a bill being drafted without any consultation whatsoever.

Having said that, while we're on

section 3, I'd like to ask a question about (d.2), which deals with specifying the minimum number of cigarettes that should be in a package if it is offered to be sold to a purchaser. I understand that what's being driven at here is the whole issue of so-called kiddie packs, which are packages of 15 cigarettes that are sometimes sold. I believe that we're trying to restrict that, so only packages of 20 -- larger-size packages -- are available for sale. I wonder what the ultimate effect is here.

We talked about this last night during second reading debate, but I think it's important for the minister, on the record in this committee, to address this issue. She did talk about it briefly in her closing remarks in second reading last night. But is the ultimate effect of this going to be that the so-called kiddie packs or packages of 15 cigarettes will not be available? So underage young people will now be buying larger packages of cigarettes or having access through direct or indirect means to larger packages of cigarettes?

Is it going to encourage people to buy larger packages, and what is the effect of that going to be? Has the minister really thought this one through, or should this have been a matter left up to the select standing committee as well?

Hon. E. Cull: I cited some studies last night that show that with this kind of legislation the number of children smoking drops. Therefore the number of children purchasing cigarettes is dropping as well, as a result of them having to find more money to buy cigarettes. They are less attractive to children. The smaller the packaging and the cheaper the purchase price for a limited number of cigarettes, the easier it is for very young children with limited amounts of money to buy cigarettes. That's why the concern about the selling of single cigarettes from open packages is included in here.

Presumably there will be some youngsters, particularly teenagers, where money may not be one of their problems, who will have no difficulty finding the money to purchase a pack of 20. As I mentioned last night, the average age of initiation is 12. I think, particularly at that age, it will have an effective impact, and evidence in other states has shown that it does.

D. Mitchell: If what the minister says is correct, then I think we can be encouraged, because what we are getting at here is that the purpose of this bill is to discourage young people from having access to tobacco products, because we recognize that this is a powerful drug. It's a serious drug that has addictive qualities, and we want to discourage young people from having free access to this drug.

What concerns me is whether or not we are underestimating the resourcefulness of some young people who have access directly -- or indirectly is perhaps the greater concern here. I wonder if the minister would be able to provide the members of the opposition some of the studies to which she refers. I'd be most interested in seeing copies of these.

Hon. E. Cull: I'd be most happy to have my staff put together a package of studies and materials that the opposition could have a look at.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

D. Mitchell: I have a question on

section 4, on the commencement of this act. It relates to the debate that we've been having about the usage of the select standing committee. Could the minister indicate whether or not it's the government's intention to give royal assent to this bill after third reading, or will they

[ Page 3452 ]

wait until after the select standing committee completes its work?

Hon. E. Cull: I just had a quick chat with staff on this, and part of this bill is to clean up some things in the existing legislation, so I'm not certain of the answer to that. Certainly the act will have no force or effect until the regulations are there to put the teeth into it.

D. Mitchell: Given that answer, I understand the commencement clause. We are dealing with a bill that comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Would the minister then agree or be willing to make the commitment to this committee today that the bill will not be given royal assent until the work of the select standing committee is completed?

Hon. E. Cull: Certainly I understand the intent of what the member is suggesting. What I'd like to do is have another look at some of the specifics, such as the banning of, say, single cigarettes, which we could do right away. I'll take that suggestion from the member opposite under advisement, and we'll have a close look at whether there is any need to enact it prior to the regulations coming into force.

Certainly we need the regulations to be able to make the act work, but there may be some provisions in here that we may want to have right away. The committee is going to have a job ahead of it, and I assume that July and August are not going to be the most productive months for committee members to get on with the task at hand.

D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for that commitment. I would encourage her to take a look at this, because there is a principle here that goes beyond the subject matter of the bill. It's a parliamentary principle of not presuming to anticipate the work of a select standing committee of this Legislature, which in effect is a creature of this Legislature, and is the Legislature in miniature form. Rather than to prejudge that work or anticipate it, if the bill could be left at third reading approval stage, but not be given royal assent prior to the regulations being brought in, which are going to be recommended by the select standing committee, I think an important principle will be upheld.

I would hope that the government in future, when referring matters to select standing committees, would not take this approach of bringing forward a bill. It's an awkward process. When dealing with a policy issue, if the opinions of the Members of the Legislative Assembly are truly being sought, if consultation through the Legislative Assembly standing committee process with the general public is truly being sought, then I think we should not put the cart before the horse, and we should have the consultative process first and draft the legislation afterwards.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. E. Cull: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 72, Tobacco Product Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. E. Cull: I call committee on Bill 71.

MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE

SERVICES ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 71; D. Streifel in the chair.

section 2.1.

L. Reid: I believe we inadvertently did not pass

section 2 in its entirety yesterday evening when we were debating this bill. I would be prepared at this stage to return to the original discussion.

[12:30]

Section 2.1 approved.

section 2 as amended.

L. Reid: The comment I wish to make was in reference to the earlier discussion. On the opposition side of the House, we truly believe that the new tripartite commission should have an administrator. That person was separate and distinct from the chairman of the tripartite commission, i.e., that the nine members of the committee selected someone to chair that particular body from one of their own.

Section 2 has not been carried forward in its entirety. The amendment would read: "The commission may employ at least one person to administer this act, and whose duties and responsibilities will be determined by the commission. This person shall report directly to the commission." This amendment is standing today because it's the heartfelt belief that for this to proceed as a democratic co-management model that it requires an administrator, but it also requires a chairman who is selected from the nine. We do not feel that the position can be carried forward by one person.

We believe that those entities must be separate and distinct; that the chairman of the commission cannot be the administrator of the plan. Believing that, we have put forward this amendment to suggest that they need to be different people and that now the commission, under this amendment, will have the ability to hire someone to report directly to the commission.

Hon. E. Cull: The intent of this particular

section is to have the doctors and the public share in the decision-making of the Medical Services Commission, not to appeal the Medical Services Commission out of

[ Page 3453 ]

government and remove it from the public service. The employees of the Medical Services Commission will continue to be employees of the public service.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

L. Reid: We have some concerns regarding the subcommittee structure that will be in place under this section. In fact, we would amend

section 3(1) by adding "and shall include representation appointed by the appropriate licensing body and from the public" after the word "exercise."

We believe the mandate must be of a democratic nature. We believe the mandate must be expanded to include and almost, if you will, diminish the powers of the subcommittee in that the licensing bodies should be well represented. This does not, in my view, give us the assurance that we will be able to trust in the work of these subcommittees as currently carried forward under this document.

Hon. E. Cull: The purpose of the subcommittees is quite broad, I guess. The first subcommittees that I expect to be created under this act will be the tripartite committees that the member refers to, with respect to the complementary practitioners -- the other health care practitioners who are not doctors. But it is conceivable that there will be other subcommittees that will not be tripartite and could be composed in different fashions. The purpose of this

section is to give the Medical Services Commission and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council a broad scope. We have discussed with the complementary practitioners how this

section will work for them, and my advice is that they are satisfied with it.

L. Reid: The act currently reads: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, after consultation..." -- again, we do not seem to have agreement on what consultation truly means to every single member of this House, so that is a concern to us -- "...with the appropriate licensing body, establish one or more subcommittees of the commission composed of such members of the commission and other people as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council specifies to exercise." We need to see "and shall include representation appointed by the appropriate licensing body and from the public."

On the amendment.

L. Reid: This is not diminishing your act, hon. minister; it is in fact expanding its mandate and ensuring that none of the reasonable contributions made by licensing bodies can be excluded. This is an incredibly permissive clause -- you may do it, but again, you may not -- and as it stands, we would like some assurance that the licensing bodies will be recognized for their contributions under

section 3(1) of this act.

I would ask the minister the number of subcommittees she would propose under this section, and indeed, what the cost will be to the taxpayers of each of these subcommittees.

Hon. E. Cull: The cost to the taxpayers of the subcommittees will be quite minimal, because there is no salary or remuneration considered for serving on the committees.

L. Reid: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that remuneration will be limited, in your eyes. However, could you please comment on the number of subcommittees you would anticipate striking? If those decisions have already been reached, would you be so kind as to share those with the House?

Hon. E. Cull: It's six, should all complementary practitioners choose to go this route. There could be an equal number for appeals and hearings. There is nothing in here that would preclude the Medical Services Commission from recommending to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the creation of other subcommittees to carry out specific duties.

L. Reid: Again, to speak to the amendment, it is vastly important that as well as justice being done in terms of representation, that it be seen to be done. My comment is that this is incredibly permissive. The minister may indeed do as she has suggested, but she is not required to under this section. The subcommittee creation is fundamental to the intent of this bill and to the behaviour that will be allowed under this act. We believe that this is a cornerstone document, and if we continually not articulate the exact powers under these subcommittees, we believe we are doing the entire medical system harm. Again, I would urge your support of this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

L. Reid: I would speak directly to

section 3(1)(a). It says: "the powers, duties and functions of the commission under sections 10, 14, 28 and 32," etc. The issue I am taking here is with "the powers." It is my view that, if it is not possible to delete this entire section, there has to be some recognition on behalf of the minister as to exactly what those powers are. We need them cited specifically this afternoon, hon. minister. To say "the powers" is broad-based; it is a permissive section. We need some examples and specific citations as to what that would include.

Hon. E. Cull: The powers of the commission under sections 10, 14, 28 and 32 are explicitly set out in those sections.

Amendment negatived.

L. Reid: Again, in terms of where we're headed, this does not allow sections 10, 14, 22 and 32 to be all-inclusive. It certainly recognizes those, but it doesn't

[ Page 3454 ]

preclude the powers of this committee extending into other areas. That is an extreme difficulty for us.

However, I would move on and speak directly to

section 3(3): "A power, duty or function given under subsection (1) to one subcommittee may also be given under subsection (1) to another subcommittee." Again, the motion today to delete

section 3(3) stands firmly behind the argument I made with the previous section. We are not doing any better job of defining a power at this time. I need the minister to give me some specific examples, where I can be reassured that this power, as it stands undefined, is not going to be abused.

On the amendment.

Hon. E. Cull:

Section 3(3) has to stand. I will be opposing the amendment, because it's quite conceivable, and in fact intended, that various health practitioner subcommittees will exercise the same power, albeit it will be the power pertinent to their particular profession. But the powers of

part 4 of the act would be implemented by all subcommittees representing a particular health care practitioner category.

L. Reid: Hon. minister, I appreciate the representation of power, but I need you to address the extent of the power in existence under this act.

Hon. E. Cull: The only power that anyone can implement under this act is the power that is given in particular sections. It is not necessary to cite the powers when another

section is being referenced or when the act is being referenced. These sections are clear from a legal point of view, and it can be easily determined what power can be exercised by any given subcommittee because of the referencing and the legal words in this act.

Amendment negatived.

D. Mitchell: Did we have a proper vote on that? Did I have a chance to vote? It sounded like it was agreed to.

J. Tyabji: It sounded like there were "ayes" across this House.

D. Mitchell: On a point of order, for clarification here, some of the amendments have been going through very quickly. As a member of this committee, I have not had a chance to express a voice vote on them. I wonder if we could just move a little more slowly on the amendments to give every member of this committee a chance to express their support or lack of support for the amendments.

The Chair: Thank you for your words, hon. member. The votes were properly and duly constituted. The question was called, and the votes have been recorded.

L. Reid: I would speak directly to

section 3(4). Allow me to read

section 3(4) as it stands: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council must designate the chair of each subcommittee and may designate a deputy chair of each subcommittee." I would propose that

section 3(4) be deleted. The amendment I would propose this afternoon is: "The members of each respective subcommittee shall, by majority vote, designate one member to act as the chair of each subcommittee and the deputy chair of each subcommittee."

On the amendment.

L. Reid: This is fundamental to where we're going as a parliament, and it is fundamental to our understanding of what it is to be in a democracy. We are not comfortable with this minister's continual abuse of power -- potentially. We would like to see these committees as effective working groups. They should be regarded with enough respect that they can choose their chair. If we're going to return to discussions on earlier sections and suggest that it's important and prudent to have licensing body representation on these committees, surely we can understand that it makes sense to have each of those respective committees select their own chair.

The language as it stands -- "The Lieutenant Governor in Council must designate the chair of each subcommittee..." -- is not the direction we wish to go in. This entire

section is speaking to co-management. It is speaking to some tripartite arrangement whereby we believe that all stakeholder groups, all shareholders in care, are going to be directly involved in the delivery of this care. If that is truly the intent and if that is truly what this minister believes, she must allow some decisions to be reached by the committee. I believe that the most fundamental of those decisions is who chairs that committee.

We put a lot of respect in the chair of a committee, because we believe that they have been entrusted to do the work of this parliament. If the minister is going to refer any items to committee, surely the people who will come forward to sit on that committee will have enough ability to select a chair who will serve them well -- in the eyes of this minister. I would appreciate her comments.

[12:45]

Hon. E. Cull: We had a full discussion on a similar matter to this yesterday when we discussed the chair and deputy chair of the Medical Services Commission -- if you want to think of this as being the larger committee that would deal with the physicians. We went around that quite a bit. The other side expressed their opinion; we expressed ours. The amendment of a similar nature was defeated. And of course, for the same reasons, I'll be opposing this amendment, particularly considering the fact that the other amendment was defeated. Not only would all the arguments that I made yesterday still stand, but now I would also bring in the argument of inconsistency with the rest of the act.

L. Reid: This is not good legislation. If you were to be inconsistent with your actions of yesterday, we would finally believe that you had seen the light and

[ Page 3455 ]

that you believe in democracy in British Columbia. We are not in favour of powers such as this having the potential to be abused. We can see that these committees can somehow impact on the role of the tripartite commission and, in fact, divert its work and direction. You have not addressed the question of how many of these subcommittees there will be. Certainly we can see some incredible machinations going on. The potential for abuse in this is rampant, and I would suggest that, given your comment of a moment ago, that you be inconsistent, see the light and support this amendment.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to lend a few words in support of this amendment and make a plea for inconsistency on the part of this minister. If she thinks it's going to be inconsistent to support an amendment that will improve this bill, then let's hear it for inconsistency, I say. This

section allows cabinet to essentially designate the chair of any subcommittees of this new supercommission that is going to be established. It is a tremendous power that's centralized in cabinet, unfortunately. It allows for political interference in the operation of the new Medical Services Commission which is going to be governing our health care system.

We've talked a lot, both at second reading and also in committee, about the independence of the commission. The minister has said that the intention of the government is for the commission to be independent; yet these subcommittees that can be struck under this

section of the bill will have tremendous power. The chairs of the subcommittees are not going to be elected from among the other members of the commission; they are going to be chosen by cabinet. It leaves room for political interference in the health care system of the province. The minister says that she believes in the independence of the commission. She could prove that by agreeing to the amendment and allowing the members of the commission to appoint subcommittee chairs. It's a very simple amendment; it should be non-controversial.

We look forward to the minister's comments on this with respect to the independence of the commission, which is so crucial.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

L. Reid: I have a number of questions relating to this very extensive

section with its many parts. I will start with

section 4(1)(a): "...administer this Act on a non-profit basis." I would need some clarification for that. Does this preclude payment for service beyond primary care?

Hon. E. Cull: It means that the commission cannot operate or administer the act in such a way that creates a profit.

L. Reid: I would speak directly to

section 4(1)(c): "...determine the services rendered by an enrolled medical practitioner, or performed in an approved diagnostic facility, that are not benefits under this Act." I would appreciate some examples of what would not constitute a benefit under this act?

Hon. E. Cull: The ability of the commission to determine the services rendered by an enrolled medical practitioner or in a diagnostic facility that are not benefits under the act is currently by regulation under the existing act. At the recommendation of the practitioners we have brought it into the act.

D. Mitchell: I can understand why someone needs to determine whether the services rendered should be approved.

Going back to

section 4(1)(a), which says that the act should be administered on a non-profit basis, I heard the minister's response to that. Why would that

section be in this bill? Why would that be necessary in this bill? Is the minister anticipating something in particular?

Hon. E. Cull:

Section 4(1)(

a) is there because the Canada Health Act says that provincial plans be operated in this manner.

L. Reid: It's an interesting question. I'm amazed that the minister would reference the Canada Health Act, because so much of what has been done in this House has absolutely disregarded the Canada Health Act.

However, if we look at how businesses operate in the province, profit is often tied directly to efficiencies. So what are we saying here -- that we are going to continue to operate on a non-profit basis and continue to have inefficiencies in the system? Or should it be our goal to operate this system as efficiently as possible and at some point turn a profit?

Hon. E. Cull: The Canada Health Act, under which this plan operates -- it's

section 8(1)(a) -- requires that plans be operated on a non-profit basis. We would get ourselves into serious trouble with respect to federal transfer payments should we not be operating the plan in this fashion.

L. Reid: I would turn to 4(1)(h): "...determine whether a person is a medical practitioner or a health care practitioner...." Is this a useful clause, hon. minister?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, it is.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's answer to that question. Could she tell us the distinction between the two categories, medical practitioner and health care practitioner. I'm not sure I understand it all that clearly.

Hon. E. Cull: The

definitions are in

section 1 of the act, but the easy definition is that a medical practitioner is a doctor, and health care practitioners are other practitioners, such as a physios, chiropractor, optometrist, etc., that are covered under this act.

[ Page 3456 ]

D. Mitchell: If the definition is there in the act, why would the commission need to have the power to determine whether a person is a medical practitioner or a health care practitioner?

Hon. E. Cull: Because some might be both, and for the purposes of the act they have to determine which they are -- to apply the various provisions of the act.

D. Mitchell: Is the minister then saying that should this bill become

an act of this Legislature, no single practitioner in the province could be both a medical practitioner and a health care practitioner simultaneously?

Hon. E. Cull: No, I'm not saying that. It's just saying that if you are looking at a provision of the act which, say, applies only to a health care practitioner, and someone is both a doctor and a health practitioner of some sort, the commission then determines which category that individual is in for the purposes of the act.

D. Mitchell: Can the minister tell the committee whether or not this particular subsection has been inserted in the bill as a result of consultation with medical practitioners and health care practitioners in the province?

Hon. E. Cull: No, it hasn't, but, as the member knows full well, the provisions of the act have been discussed with both the doctors and the health care practitioners, and I'm not aware of an amendment that either has brought forward with respect to this particular section.

L. Reid: I would speak this afternoon to 4(1)(o), which currently reads:

"...establish advisory committees, including pattern of practice committees, to advise and assist the commission in exercising its powers, functions and duties under this Act, and may remunerate members of a committee at a rate fixed by the commission and pay reasonable and necessary traveling and living expenses incurred by members of a committee in the performance of their duties...."

My understanding is that these advisory committees currently exist. We have one which has representation by the B.C. Medical Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the public and the government. The pattern-of-practice committee, I believe, is in existence, and I'm wondering why this

section suggests the establishment of such a committee. Perhaps it would be more prudent to suggest recognition of such a committee. I would be interested in the minister's response in terms of allowing the word "establish" to be carried forward in this amendment. Are you indeed removing the existing committees and replacing them with something new? Should we not be recognizing the fact that these committees are in existence and, to my knowledge, performing just fine?

Hon. E. Cull: This

section of the act recognizes the existing patterns-of-practice committees by doing it in law now, as opposed to having them operate informally. I've had some discussions with the chair of the BCMA patterns-of-practice committee about the problems that committee has in operating effectively.

L. Reid: I appreciate that comment, but if you could elaborate on the problems, perhaps I would be able to see the usefulness of this particular section. My recognition is that these committees are established. I need you to either recognize that they're working or suggest why the conversation you had suggested there are problems. How is this going to be different from the one that's currently in existence, if there are problems?

Hon. E. Cull: Mr. Chair, I was simply making a comment on the comment the member made with respect to the functioning of the patterns-of-practice committees, because she said that they were functioning just fine. I just wanted to point out to her that, while I have no personal knowledge of how they function, Dr.Hardwicke has told me of a number of problems with the functioning of their committee.

In any event, we think they are valuable committees, and they can certainly be very useful and no doubt improved. At the request of the B.C. Medical Association, we have put in this clause "including pattern of practice committees," so that we specifically and legally recognize their existing committees in addition to any other advisory committee that might be struck.

L. Fox:

Section 4(1)(

o) appears to give the committee the opportunity to appoint advisory committees that would include travel and several other cost items. Can the minister inform me as to what the control mechanism will be to control costs with respect to this section? Perhaps she could tell me how that might control how many advisory committees might be struck and how many individuals would be on the respective advisory committees.

Hon. E. Cull: There are two primary financial controls that I can point to for the member. One is the budget of the Medical Services Commission, which will continue to be established through this Legislature as it has always been established. You will appreciate that the commission manages a budget, but that there is also an operating portion paying for staff, pens, paper clips, travel and other things that would be required. It will still be the purview of the Legislature to determine that.

In addition to that, there is the Financial Administration Act, which has controls over these kinds of financial arrangements. There are many cases where reasonable expenses and a remuneration, particularly to avoid the loss of income, are part and parcel of how committees operate. With those kinds of safeguards we would have the same kinds of financial control over committees under this legislation as we do over committees that are established through other acts of this Legislature.

L. Reid: I will refer directly to

section 4(1)(s), which says: "...establish guidelines setting the number of practitioners that a beneficiary may consult respecting the same medical condition within the period specified

[ Page 3457 ]

in the guidelines...." The reason I'm raising this is that a number of constituents have come forward and asked if this precludes them seeing a different physician. Does this preclude a second opinion on the same condition? What if you choose to change a physician for some other reason? At some point will the government come back to them and suggest that they are not allowed under this act to see a different physician or to consult with a second physician for the purpose of receiving a second opinion?

[1:00]

Hon. E. Cull: The Medical Services Commission has the power to do this, not the government -- just to correct the member. The intention here is that we may want to limit beneficiaries to seeing no more than ten physicians -- ten second opinions, if you like -- on the same subject. While it is a very small number of beneficiaries who behave in this way, there are some who go from doctor to doctor to doctor for exactly the same condition. It has nothing to do with second opinions or wanting to change doctors or to seek treatment; often it has to do with other problems the beneficiary may have which have a financial impact on the system.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

L. Reid: I would like to commit the following statement to the record: I appreciate the clarification, but what I'm hearing is that this will not aff