1995 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 21, Number 2

[ Page 15401 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like members of the House to join with me in welcoming an old friend and former colleague of mine and of the Speaker's. Rosemary Brown was a member of this Legislature between 1972 and 1986 and is currently -- at least, she was in the last day or two -- chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and has an extensive history in many national and international organizations. I'm sure that all members of the House would be delighted to join with me in welcoming Rosemary Brown here today.

L. Reid: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming today two very, very special guests -- first to British Columbia and second to this chamber. They're visiting from Atlanta, Georgia. I would ask the House to please make welcome Helen and Bill Brickell.

K. Jones: Seated in the gallery today are two businessmen: John Kelly from my riding, and the other visiting us from Hamilton, Ontario, Bill Laidlaw. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

G. Brewin: It's a pleasure today to welcome some members of my family to the gallery. Seated upstairs are Malcolm Campbell and his wife, Elizabeth. They are visiting Victoria from Toronto. Would the House please make them welcome.

F. Gingell: In the gallery today are Peter Guichon and Jack Bates, both members of longtime Delta farm families, whose family farms were expropriated from them by a previous administration in the late 1960s. They are here today to make a presentation to the Minister of Agriculture, and I trust the minister gave them a warm welcome. I ask all members of the House to join me in making them welcome.

F. Jackson: Visiting in the gallery today is a resident of Victoria, Jennifer Dyck. Jennifer told me it's been a number of years since she came to this chamber, so I advised her to visit during question period so that she could see the best and the worst in action. I would ask the best and the worst to make her welcome.

J. Weisgerber: On behalf of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I'd like to recognize and welcome a constituent of his, Mr. Tim Chizik. In the absence of the member, I have special pleasure in welcoming this constituent, as he is a member of our B.C. Reform Party, and he attended a very successful event in Kamloops last week. I know that if the member were here, he would join with other members in extending a very warm welcome to that particular constituent. To Mr. Chizik, welcome to the gallery.

B. Jones: Beaming down on this afternoon's session is a group from Burnaby North Secondary School, in pursuit of knowledge of history and government. Would the House please welcome an old friend, Jane Turner, and some 50 grade 10 students.

Introduction of Bills

HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Human Rights Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

The Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights commissioned a complete review of British Columbia's human rights system in February 1994, led by Prof. Bill Black of the University of British Columbia. Following extensive consultation, Prof. Bill Black published his report on human rights in British Columbia in December 1994.

Today I'm proud to introduce legislation promised in this government's election platform in 1991. This legislation implements Professor Black's structural and procedural recommendations, which were based on his considerable expertise and his consultations with business, labour, advocacy groups and the general public. These amendments are long overdue to bring British Columbia's human rights system in line with the rest of Canada. British Columbia cannot adequately deal with emerging human rights issues under the present system.

The Human Rights Amendment Act, 1995, changes the title of the Human Rights Act to the Human Rights Code. It replaces the current structure of the B.C. Council of Human Rights with a more effective structure that separates the roles of investigation, mediation, education and research from the adjudication of complaints, and it adds a public advisory body. It mandates a program of public education and research to actively address systemic discrimination and persistent patterns of inequality in the province, it revises procedures to reduce delays and the overall time required for the resolution of complaints, and it creates a fairer, more effective system for both parties.

Hon. Speaker, I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its passage. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION PLAN STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled International Registration Plan Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. E. Cull: Bill 39 proposes amendments to the Commercial Transport Act and the Social Service Tax Act to accommodate British Columbia's membership in the International Registration Plan, the IRP. The IRP is a multijurisdictional licensing agreement that establishes a single, uniform system for administering and collecting licence fees and other recurring fees or taxes from interjurisdictional carriers.

B.C.'s participation in the IRP has a number of benefits. In fact, the B.C. Trucking Association has identified membership

[ Page 15402 ]

in this agreement as a top priority, because it will contribute to the reduction of administration and operational costs.

Membership also benefits the province by simplifying administrative processes and by increasing the efficiency of revenue collection under both the licensing program and the social service tax collection program. To accommodate IRP membership, this bill makes a minor amendment to the Commercial Transport Act to exempt trailers licensed extraprovincially from the requirement to obtain a licence for travel in B.C. This parallels the exemption provided to extraprovincial trailers by other IRP jurisdictions.

More substantial amendments are made to the Social Service Tax Act. The program model for the IRP cannot accommodate the collection of onetime fees or taxes. To ensure the province and the trucking industry obtain full benefits from IRP membership, Bill 39 replaces the existing onetime 7 percent tax imposed on carriers with an annual tax payable each year the carrier is licensed for travel in B.C. The annual tax rates have been established so that they are revenue-neutral to the province, and they do not impose an increased tax burden on the trucking industry, which is the reason the B.C. trucking industry supports this bill.

[2:15]

Membership in the IRP benefits both the province and the trucking industry. It contributes to the development of a strong and a sustainable economy by encouraging increased use of our highway systems. It improves the national and international competitive position of the B.C. trucking industry. Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Miller tabled the 1993-94 annual report of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.

Oral Questions

THREATENED RESUMPTION OF ADAMS LAKE BLOCKADE

G. Campbell: In 1982 the B.C. government struck a deal with the Adams Lake band: a public access road through their property in exchange for some government land. The band has lived up to their side of the deal. But after 13 years the government has still not come through with their part of the bargain, and now there is trouble brewing. While the band's frustration is understandable, as a result of this government's sorry performance at Douglas Lake, the Adams Lake band have now resorted to threats. A bridge has been burned, and in two days the band intends to cut off public access.

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs: what does the government intend to do to ensure that public access is maintained at Adams Lake?

Hon. J. Cashore: Once again, the Leader of the Opposition has faulty research. The band had agreed on the process that would result in the road right-of-way being transferred to the province. The federal government never acted on that. That was pointed out in the House by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Among all the things that can be said about him, at least in his leadership, he does recognize the importance of doing good research.

I would just point out that, again, as I have respectfully requested of the Leader of the Opposition on many occasions, the role of a statesman is not to exacerbate the situation but to bring calm and order and to support the appropriate approaches that have been taken. The fact is that a couple of weeks ago we managed to get the blockade taken down. We are working diligently to resolve any outstanding issues through that appropriate process.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has not answered the question about how we intend to maintain access to Adams Lake, so let me direct this question to the Attorney General. The confusion that was created by the NDP in Adams Lake has obviously led to a whole new set of strategies elsewhere in the province. A bridge over the Adams River has been burned. A blockade is now threatened in two days. Cattle guards are being threatened to be removed, which will prohibit people with private property to get access to their land.

When will this government and the Attorney General live up to their obligations and make it clear that there's only one law for all British Columbians -- that illegal acts will not be tolerated and are not the way to any long-term resolution of grievances?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It matters not from where the civil disobedience comes, there is one law for all British Columbians.

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The Adams Lake band has waited 13 years for the Ministry of Transportation in successive governments to live up to their part of the agreement. Now, according to the RCMP, the Adams Lake band has reclaimed the road that runs through its reserve. I want to know why this government has failed to live up to an agreement made by the Ministry of Transportation, denied the Adams Lake band their entitlement and jeopardized private land holders' access.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's very, very interesting that this hon. member would repeat the error his leader just made, and that he would persist in repeating an error. He knows, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- who, unlike the Liberal opposition, does his research -- that it is the federal government that has failed to transfer that land into the province of British Columbia.

The Speaker: Does the member have a further question?

A. Warnke: I would remind the minister that it is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways of successive provincial governments that has failed to deal with this issue, and to deal with the Adams Lake band. And therefore....

Interjections.

A. Warnke: In terms of research, there are so many leaks on that side of the House that you could grow grass on a cue ball -- which, of course, should be of some concern to the Premier.

[ Page 15403 ]

My question is: what has the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs done to ensure that private land holders' rights will not be abandoned by the NDP government?

Interjections.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, but given the noise coming out of the Liberal benches, I couldn't hear the question.

FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Attorney General. The federal gun control bill is widely rejected by responsible gun owners and by most rural residents in British Columbia. Indeed, the responsible use of firearms is part of the culture and recreational activities of many British Columbians in most parts of this province. Is it the intent of the Attorney General and his government to facilitate the implementation of registration of long guns, or will the Attorney General work cooperatively with the western provinces and the territories to frustrate the implementation of this law within the legal bounds available to the minister?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order, please.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have expressed to the federal government over the last number of months our concern about the reach that this legislation extends into law-abiding citizens' lives. That expression of concern has been forwarded to the federal government on a number of occasions. We support those provisions in the legislation which deal effectively with serious crimes and the criminal use of weapons. In respect to the administration of justice, the province is required, under the federal-provincial system, to administer the federal gun control legislation the same way it is required to administer the Criminal Code, and we will do our job within the law.

The Speaker: Supplemental, member.

J. Weisgerber: Most British Columbians, I believe, support the law as it is today with respect to the registration of handguns and restricted weapons. What most British Columbians don't accept and don't believe is that there is a rationale for the enormous increase in costs and bureaucracy in expanding registration. Will the Attorney General facilitate today a debate in the Legislature on this important issue to allow all members of this House to stand and be counted on this important issue?

Will the Attorney General call forward resolution 63 standing in the name of my colleague from Prince George-Omineca and allow today for a debate on this issue, given the fact that it will most likely pass today?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Before the Attorney General responds, I would point out to members that when you refer to matters before the House for consideration, they are not proper subjects for question period.

THREAT TO TOURISM OF RENEWED ADAMS LAKE BLOCKADE

M. de Jong: The Minister of Environment is now aware that the Adams Lake band has destroyed a bridge used to watch the popular Adams River sockeye run. My question to the Minister of Environment is: what action has she taken to ensure that that popular viewing bridge, which is located in Roderick Haig-Brown Park, is rebuilt and protected in preparation for the upcoming run, which has serious implications for tourism in the area?

Hon. E. Cull: My staff are reviewing the matter and will be bringing forward the appropriate action.

The Speaker: The member has a different question?

M. de Jong: The run, as the Minister of Tourism understands, is in the Shuswap area and is very important to the tourism trade there. The ineffectiveness on the part of this government in properly guarding against the type of thing that has just happened this week is going to lead to checkpoints and potentially to other destroyed bridges and blockades. Has the Minister of Tourism at least made his colleagues aware of this? What action does he intend to take to ensure that this important aspect of tourism in the Shuswap Lake area is protected?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'm rather looking forward to the question for several reasons. You were talking about destinations for tourism. I just read a magazine in the United States; it's the biggest singles magazine in the United States. You know, we've risen from about thirty-sixth in the world to third in the world. That's not bad. Now, mind you, I quite realize that third in the world is not good enough. We only made $475 million more in tourism last year. This year our very fine tracking system from all 79 people in Tourism indicates that we will have a $600 million increase.

Certainly I am very familiar with that area, including the Adams River, the South Thompson and Scotch Creek.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I ask the minister if he would please conclude his remarks.

Hon. B. Barlee: Well, certainly, hon. Speaker, I'll be delighted to do that.

Please bring any other bright, brilliant ideas you have to my ministry. We'll look at everything very analytically.

[ Page 15404 ]

FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Attorney General. Rural residents view Alan Rock's gun control bill as a direct assault on them, and as primarily aimed at winning votes for Liberals in urban areas. It's a political ploy to play on urban voters' worst fears about hidden handguns and American-style gun violence, which is simply not valid in British Columbia. Why hasn't the Attorney General done anything to educate urban British Columbians about the tough restrictions and registration rules that already apply to firearms?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member knows that this is a federal issue, which has been debated rigorously in the House of Commons and has had the attention of a parliamentary committee that has travelled across the country. Canadians have had a full opportunity to be involved in debate. It's clear that, with the exception of the Conservatives, every party in the House of Commons is actually split on the issue.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

R. Neufeld: A supplemental to the Attorney General. Every province and territory in western Canada is opposed to Bill C-68. Why hasn't British Columbia stood with those other provinces against this onerous bill instead of supporting it? Why haven't we heard a peep from rural government MLAs on this issue or had a special debate on gun control in this Legislature?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I said in answer to the first question, from the Leader of the Third Party, that we made very clear to the federal government our concern about some of the onerous, bureaucratic and expensive provisions of the bill. But unlike the member, and unlike some other western Attorneys General, we're concerned about crime in this country; there are provisions within the bill that can and will deal effectively with crime -- with imported crime in this country -- and we support those provisions.

[2:30]

AMENDMENTS TO VSE ACT

G. Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In the debate in this House on the matter of amendments to the VSE Act, the Minister of Finance informed this House on June 5 -- it's in the Blues -- that Mr. Matkin joined her in the announcement, and that Mr. Matkin was in support of 98 percent of what was recommended. We learn now that Mr. Matkin did not in fact support most of those amendments that came forward.

As part of the process that came into the drafting of this legislation, the minister informed this House, it was his recommendations that spurred this government to make the recommendations that came forward. Can the minister tell us, on two counts.... Why would she have informed the House that Mr. Matkin supported the amendments to the VSE Act when he clearly did not? Secondly, if it wasn't Mr. Matkin's recommendations that moved them to have these rather futile amendments put into place, what did motivate the minister to make those changes?

Hon. E. Cull: The member will recall that the debate on Bill 45, the VSE Act, was a very broad, free-ranging discussion which also covered the other bill before the House: the amendments to the B.C. Securities Act. Those two acts taken together form the legislative response to the Matkin commission. The majority of the concerns Mr. Matkin raised in his report were addressed when we released our response to it in October of last year. He used the percentage, not I. I'd be glad to share the press clippings with the member, because he'll see what Mr. Matkin said at the time.

With respect to what was before us in the VSE Act, the discussion was very broad-ranging. We were talking about both acts. I will be quite frank with respect to the amendments to the stock exchange: he supported the public governors; he did not make any recommendations on the chair; and the other two matters of the report to the Legislature and the change to their purpose were not discussed by Mr. Matkin.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

Before I recognize the Government House Leader, I would like to table the annual report of the conflict-of-interest commissioner for 1994-95.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in

Section A for the purpose of continuing debate on the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In the House, I call committee stage on Bill 42.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 42; D. Lovick in the chair.

section 1.

W. Hurd: This is an important

section of Bill 42, the Forest Amendment Act, which extends the time lines for the review of timber supply areas in the province by the chief forester. Some three sessions ago the previous minister was quite adamant and quite strident about the need to have these reviews completed within a five-year time frame, and at the time, obviously felt that there was a realistic notion that that could be completed. The minister has suggested that we now have information from the chief forester that requires the deadline to be extended.

I wonder if the minister could take a minute to explain to the committee exactly what information was received by the ministry from the chief forester that would result in this delay in completing the inventory of the timber supply areas in the province.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the member's own comment and own misstatement is deeply revealing, because the member said that the previous minister had set a five-year time frame for timber supply analyses, and indeed, that is the norm under the act. It is expected that these analyses will be done every five years. However, because of the urgent need to get on with the job as quickly as possible, the minister set a much more ambitious time line of only three years for the initial round.

While the minister and the Legislature accepted that five years should be the normal time frame in which subsequent calculations and decisions would be made, for the first three years that time period was shortened because of the

[ Page 15405 ]

necessity of getting information. As I said during second reading, I think that three-year time frame was ambitious and challenging. It was designed to be so, but as the member himself has acknowledged by his own misstatement, it was a shorter time frame than would be expected under normal circumstances, once an adequate body of information was in place.

In response to the member's question about the chief forester's communication, the chief forester communicated to me some months ago, and to the public through a press release, his view that while there was substantial progress being made on the timber supply review process and the AAC calculations, he did not feel comfortable that he could complete that process within that three-year time frame. He was comfortable that he could do so within an additional year, and he therefore asked for a year's extension.

I can provide a sense of the progress that has been made, which is substantial. The percentage of the terminations complete to date are about 30 percent of all the timber supply analyses. The percentage of timber supply analyses completed for timber supply areas is 95 percent, and for tree farm licences is 53 percent.

Because of the need to provide for adequate public consultation -- which was recognized and supported in recent court decisions -- the chief forester has asked for additional time so that the public can be fully involved, input can be received, and he can make the best decisions in as short a time frame as possible.

Even with this extension of one year, the overall time frame of four years is one year less than the norm in the future, and I think attests to the considerable talents and capabilities of the chief forester and his staff and the previous chief forester, in having moved this process along as quickly as it has been.

W. Hurd: As I indicated earlier, this is an important

section of the bill. Under the act, the chief forester occupies an independent or arm's-length position from the Ministry of Forests. Three years ago the government saw sufficient need to require that the chief forester complete these timber supply reviews within the three-year time frame the minister has mentioned, and we are now dealing with an amendment to the Forest Act -- not an insignificant amendment -- which extends the time frame.

I think that the types of communications that go on between the chief forester and the ministry on this important issue are really critical to the overall achievement of a sound forest policy in British Columbia. I wonder whether this is the type of thing under

section 1 that the minister predicts we're going to see in the future; whether or not the chief forester will be required to come before, or make his submission to, the minister with respect to the time frames on these issues; whether or not he will be communicating with the minister first on the time frames; or whether he'll be dealing with the public through a press release.

I wonder if he could just clarify what the specific requirement is under

section 1 for the chief forester when he determines, for example, that the three-year time frame was not realistic and there needed to be an extension. Does the act suggest the chief forester should take that information to the public first? Should he report it to the ministry first, which then bears the responsibility to take it to the public?

I wonder if the minister can just elaborate on the reporting relationship here, because, clearly, whenever we deal with sections of the Forest Act, which cover the relationship between the chief forester and the ministry, it's important for us to elaborate a little bit on who takes orders from whom or who reports to whom first. Does the chief forester under this

section now have an ability to go to the public first with respect to any suggested changes in the Forest Act that reflect his mandate to set annual allowable harvest in the province?

Hon. A. Petter: The chief forester's role with respect to the establishment of the annual allowable cut and the conduct of the timber supply review is one that has a degree of independence, as the member has alluded to. That certainly has been respected by this government, unlike previous governments, and the way in which the chief forester therefore chooses to communicate his concerns is, I would suggest, his choice.

However, given that this legislation is contained within the Forest Act and government is responsible for bringing forward amendments, I think it was logical that the chief forester communicated his concerns initially to me and then did so to the public. Certainly I wouldn't second-guess him in that choice.

W. Hurd: One brief question, then, with respect to

section 1(b), which talks about tree farm licence areas. During his initial remarks, I believe the minister made reference to 53 percent of the tree farm licence inventories being completed. I wonder if he could just confirm whether or not that is indeed the number that have been completed. If so, why is that behind

schedule in terms of the overall work on inventory? Is there a difficulty here with respect to the flow of information coming from tree farm licence holders? I wonder if he could just elaborate on his figure of 53 percent, which he alluded to earlier in the debate.

Hon. A. Petter: I want to be careful in answering this, because the member's question sort of contained a non sequitur. The procedure for timber supply analyses with respect to tree farm licences is one in which the chief forester, as a matter of practice, tends to proceed in conjunction with the management working plan process. The figure I gave was 53 percent, which is the number for which analyses have been accepted. But remember this is a different procedure, one that is instigated by the licence holders who have the information, so it is slightly different in the way it evolves.

The reason I said there's a slight non sequitur in the member's question, as I detected it, is that

section 1(

b) deals with a different issue. It deals with the issue of the right of the chief forester to not have to calculate an AAC under circumstances where a tree farm licence holder has not provided adequate information for him to do so. We made some changes last year in the act, the member may recall, to give the chief forester some remedies where that situation applied. But we did not at the same time relieve the chief forester of the obligation of calculating a cut. Yet, clearly, if he doesn't have adequate information and if he engages those remedies, he is not in a good position to determine a cut.

This provision helps to clarify that position and relieves him of that responsibility until the information is provided.

[2:45]

W. Hurd: Just following up on the minister's comments, clearly that implies that there's a problem with respect to the flow of information. Otherwise, one would assume there would be no reason to bring forth this amendment to the Forest Act, which -- as the minister has correctly stated --

[ Page 15406 ]

relieves the chief forester of the statutory requirement to set an AAC level in the absence of the information that he may need. That seems to me to suggest that there might be a difficulty here -- that the flow of information may not be sufficient for the chief forester to make that determination.

So I'm just seeking clarification here. Perhaps the minister can just briefly explain to the committee the overall rationalization for this change. It appears to us on this side of the House to be more than a housekeeping amendment to the bill. It suggests that there may be a problem that the government feels needs to be rectified in this area. I wonder if he'd just clarify that.

Hon. A. Petter: The problem to which the member alludes is one that was fully debated last year. It dates back to some of the concerns on Vancouver Island with respect to tree farm licence 44 and some of the difficulties that were encountered by the Ministry of Forests in securing what the chief forester of that day determined was adequate information. Last year we debated this very issue and, as a result of that debate, made amendments that gave to the chief forester additional powers to seek information and to take action to reduce annual allowable cuts on an interim basis, where that information was not forthcoming.

What we didn't do was relieve the chief forester of the obligation to set an annual allowable cut. Yet it's an obvious corollary to the notion that if the chief forester doesn't have adequate information, he cannot be required to determine an annual allowable cut. So, far from this being something new and startling, it is the completion of the process put in place in last year's amendments to give to the chief forester the adequate levers he requires to secure the information and the recognition that he can't make determinations until he does secure that information.

W. Hurd: Then, I have just one brief question with respect to the appeal process of an AAC determination. Clearly the intent of the past change to the act, and I suppose this one, is the concern that was expressed by the ministry with respect to TFL 44 -- that the licensee possessed information with respect to the AAC that the government didn't have. I wonder whether there's an anticipation here that all information germane to an appeal by the licensee would now have to be in the possession of the ministry as well. Or would there be a possibility for the company or the licensee to make an appeal of an AAC determination with additional new information? Are we attempting here under

section 1(

b) to level the playing field, to ensure that the same level of information is possessed by all parties?

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just asking leave to do an introduction, hon. Chair.

Leave granted.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you to the Minister of Forests; I see he is busy, anyway.

I want to ask the House to welcome some students who are in the House today. There are 29 grade 7 students from County Line Elementary in Langley. I'd just like to ask the House to make them welcome. I advise them that, contrary to the document that came out of the protocol people, I'm a Liberal MLA and not an NDP one.

The Chair: I'd like to thank the member for that statement about truth in advertising.

Hon. A. Petter: In respect of tree farm licence holders, the requirements regarding provision of information are the requirements that were put in last year. Those now provide to the chief forester adequate opportunity to seek the information that is required to make his determinations on AAC. The only appeal from the determination that he would ultimately make on AAC is by means of judicial review, and in that case the information would pertain to the information that was relevant to the date at which that determination was made, not to subsequent information.

What I would say, however, is that should a tree farm licence holder have new information which would radically alter the chief forester's conclusion, that tree farm licence holder could, even within the five-year time frame, come forward and request a recalculation and redetermination of the timber supply and the AAC that flows from it. The discretion would then be with the chief forester whether or not to facilitate that redetermination within that five-year time frame.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

W. Hurd: I understand that there's an amendment standing in the name of the Minister of Forests, hon. Chair.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 3 that will shortly be in the possession of the Clerk, if it isn't already. It says:

[SECTION 3, by deleting "'under

Part 7;'." and substituting " 'under

Part 7; and'.".]

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Chair, this amendment is of a purely technical nature in response to some input received from those in industry, who noted that we had omitted a word that should have been retained, and that's the word "and." That has been reinserted through this amendment, and it's of a purely technical nature.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

W. Hurd: This is a matter that was mentioned briefly in second reading, but I think it invites a more detailed discussion from the minister. As I understand this particular change, it provides more flexibility for the holder of a woodlot licence to deal with boundary changes or reductions in harvest levels. Is that the thrust or intent of this

section we're dealing with here? I just wonder if the minister could briefly clarify that.

Hon. A. Petter: In 1993, amendments to the Forest Act were adopted which allowed increases in the size of woodlot licences to give those licence holders the opportunity to make

[ Page 15407 ]

their operations more viable. Licensees were supposed to take advantage of these changes when their woodlot licences came up for replacement -- which is once every five years, as the member will know. For administrative reasons, those provisions of Bill 30 were not brought into force until October 1994. There were some licences that came up for replacement in the intervening period, and those licence holders felt somewhat aggrieved, I think, because the opportunity they would have been afforded had the bill been brought into force was not available to them.

This amendment, then, corrects that anomaly and gives those particular woodlot licence holders the opportunity to take advantage of those changes, as had originally been intended through the legislative amendment that was made in 1993.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

W. Hurd:

Section 8, I think, is an important

section of this particular amendment act as well, changing, as it does, the whole notion of royalty on forest licences. I wonder if, generally, the minister can tell us whether his ministry has received any representation with respect to potential expropriation action with respect to converting royalties on forest licences that have been converted into tree farm licence management units, and whether or not there is any concern here about this being, in fact, an expropriation and that there might be some legal remedies or impact from the decision to convert forest licences into what we know is a stumpage situation, which is the intention of this particular

section of the bill. I understand that, from a historical standpoint, when tree farm licences were first set up in the province in the early to mid-1950s, there was an agreement in which the old forest licences were rolled into management units, even though they stayed under the old royalty concept as opposed to stumpage, which applied to the rest of the cut on the TFL. I wonder whether the ministry investigated the possibilities or the concerns or the potential liabilities of any litigation dealing with expropriation of this type of forest licence.

Hon. A. Petter: In response to the member, I and staff have not received any explicit representations regarding the issue of expropriation; but the general suggestion that some licence holders may consider legal action has certainly been raised by some licence holders. These issues were well canvassed in Dr. Scarfe's report. This is not an expropriation, and the advice received by government from legal counsel certainly confirms that view. Government has always reserved the right to set the price for timber harvested from timber licences, and that view goes back as far as 1912. In fact, I can quote to the member from Premier McBride, who stated in 1912:

"Under the special licence plan, parliament retains the power to increase both rental and royalty charges, so that as the timber values grow, so does the interest in the timber retained by the province increase. The people are guaranteed a fair share of the rise in values -- the unearned increment."

Similar sentiments have been expressed in the past. From a policy point of view, these points were well covered in Dr. Scarfe's report. These kinds of representations were certainly considered by Dr. Scarfe, and from a legal point of view, we feel very confident that the changes being made are consistent with the right of the Crown to ensure that the public, through government, receives an adequate return from those holders of timber licences. W.

Hurd: I want to inquire whether the ministry has, as a matter of due diligence, gone back and looked at some of the early agreements by which forest licences were rolled into TFLs in the province, to examine what types of agreements they were and what was stipulated with respect to the rights of the Crown and the rights of the licence holder.

I would settle for an assurance by the minister that that kind of research and analysis has been done, and that the ministry is totally satisfied that the licensees of the day were not agreeing to this transaction on the basis of sacrificing any abilities they would have in the future not to have the royalties on those old licences converted to stumpage, as the minister has alluded to. If there is any possibility of legal ramifications from this, then I would hope that those agreements would have been examined. I would settle for an assurance from the minister that that has been done.

Hon. A. Petter: Both Dr. Scarfe and the ministry have extensively reviewed the history on this issue. It's our view that the right to adjust royalty rates has always been a clear understanding of those who have held timber licences, and that research has certainly been at the base of all the actions we've taken.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

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

section 9. It's more curiosity than anything else. It relates to subsection 9(c), which makes reference to stumpage not being payable on timber cut on land granted by Canada by letters patent and situated within the railway belt or Peace River block. I wonder if the minister could explain exactly what type of anomaly that is, and where we are dealing with that issue in the province.

Hon. A. Petter: This issue concerns a very small portion of private lands in the province which has been administratively costly to deal with, and which I think has taken a number of landowners by surprise. It deals in particular with Dominion patent lands. That's a term that identifies lands that were given by the province to Canada as part of the arrangement to build the national railroad. Canada sold some of the land, and the rest was returned to the province. The deeds to the lands that were sold included a provision that the owner must pay a royalty when the timber is harvested. Those provisions remain in the deeds today.

Today the timber harvested from those patent lands is negligible -- probably 10,000 cubic metres per year. Charging stumpage and royalty on those small harvests from private land is administratively costly, and it has caused some real problems for owners, who, as I say, may not even be aware, in many cases, that those provisions exist. Indeed, I recall, during my term in office as Minister of Forests, having had a representation from a landowner who didn't know.

[3:00]

In the course of his review, Dr. Scarfe felt that to continue with this provision was administratively unjustifiable and caused an unnecessary burden on those few landowners who

[ Page 15408 ]

were impacted. He recommended, therefore, that there be no charge on Dominion patent lands. It has an insignificant consequence to revenues, but it will remove an administrative burden from the Crown and a burden from landowners who may not even be aware that this constraint exists. Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister can just take a minute with respect to

section 12 to elaborate for the committee the nature of the additional authority that's being conferred to the regional manager with respect to what appears to be setting a single rate of stumpage for some types of timber harvested in the province. I'd just welcome, under

section 12, some sort of explanation from the minister with respect to the rationale for this change in the Forest Act.

Hon. A. Petter: All this

section does, I'm informed by staff, is delete a reference to the word "royalty." It's purely consequential. We're removing references to royalties, because royalties are now being supplanted by stumpage.

W. Hurd: Then the reference in the act itself,

section 86, to where more than one stumpage rate applies to timber.... Is that just the difference between stumpage and royalties? Is that the definition that we're dealing with there? I'm just curious as to the wording of

section 12, which, under the bill, repeals

section 86 of the Forest Act and substitutes a rather detailed explanation of the duties of the regional manager. That's the explanation I was looking for: the authority that the district manager appears to be having conferred upon him or her, based on this new

section of the Forest Act.

Hon. A. Petter: When we have converted, through this legislation, royalty rates to stumpage rates, the new stumpage rate that's applying to timber licences will gradually increase to come into line with current stumpage rates. In the meantime there will be some differential in stumpage rates between those areas that are timber licence areas and those that are held in some other form of tenure, and this provision allows for some averaging to take place as a result of that. That averaging has taken place in the past between royalties and stumpage.

Now it will take place between stumpage and stumpage, because the royalty is being replaced by a graduated stumpage rate that will increase over time.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move an amendment that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 15.1, by adding the following

section immediately before

section 16:

15.1

Section 257 (

c) is repealed.]

section 15.1.

W. Hurd: Since we are struggling with these amendments which have been introduced today, I wonder if the minister could advise the committee about

section 257(

c) being repealed. What type of rationale would the minister offer for the need to introduce this amendment to the Forest Act?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm told that this is part of a shakedown between this legislation and the Forest Practices Code. The amendment to

section 3 of Bill 42 now takes care of the same issue that was provided for in the provision that is now being deleted through the addition of this section. So

section 257(

c) is no longer required, because that issue is now covered within

section 3 of this act.

Section 15.1 approved.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

section 18.

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I move the amendment to

section 18 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 18, in the proposed

section 18 (1), by adding "Before April 1, 1996," before "A Rate,".]

Amendment approved.

section 18 as amended.

W. Hurd: Just a brief question with respect to the transitional provisions in the act. I'm just wondering about the retroactivity clause under subsection (1). I wonder if the minister could just explain the transitional issue identified here with respect to the phase-in of the changeover from royalties to stumpage, which was identified under the Scarfe report and which the minister talked about earlier in the debate on second reading. Under subsection (1) are we dealing with some sort of retroactivity clause with respect to the conversion of royalties to stumpage? Or are we just dealing with this particular forest licence that has now been essentially rescinded under the Forest Act?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, through regulation, changes were implemented effective April 1, 1995. What this legislation really does is confirm those changes and ensure that there is legislative foundation for them. But no one is prejudiced by this decision. The rate that applies here retroactive to April 1, 1995, is the same rate that was provided through regulation. Out of an abundance of caution, what we have done is ensure that the legal foundation here for that transition is carried back to the date on which the change was made, so there can be no question as to the legal foundation in the interim period.

Section 18 as amended approved.

section 19.

W. Hurd: This is another important

section of Bill 42, which relates to the exchange of timber in the Strathcona timber supply area, and which will, I suppose, enable the towns of Zeballos, Tahsis and Gold River to survive and, hopefully, prosper. I have a series of questions with respect to this section, but I was particularly interested in the reasons that there would necessarily be a change required in the Forest Act to deal with this issue. Is it because we are taking a portion of the timber out of one licence -- is that the reason or rationale we're dealing with here that requires a change in the act? Are we introducing a new type of timber reallocation with this section?

[ Page 15409 ]

These are important issues from a general standpoint that I would like to get some comment on from the minister. Clearly the reallocation of timber within the Strathcona timber supply area could not be achieved without this amendment to the Forest Act, and I wonder if the minster could just take a minute to explain why that should be so.

Hon. A. Petter: The reason that there is a legislative provision here to deal with this situation is to ensure that the licence holder in the Strathcona timber supply area could essentially relocate their cut into another administrative unit -- namely, within tree farm licence No. 6. There is no legislative provision that allows one to add to a tree farm licence while reducing from a timber supply area.

Yet that was clearly a transfer that was very important to ensure that the communities within the Strathcona timber supply area were assured that there would be adequate timber within those areas to meet their needs. It was also a solution that was agreeable to the tree farm licence holders. Because there was no legislative provision that allowed that, we have to ensure that there is a legislative foundation for a solution that I think is supported by all interests in northern Vancouver Island. That is why this provision is here.

W. Hurd: Since we are talking about three communities and the many hundreds of British Columbians, I guess, or even thousands who live in them, I wonder if the minister could describe exactly what will be achieved under this

section in terms of enhancing community stability in these three communities. The bill makes reference to scenario 2 contained in the report of the chair of the protected areas boundary advisory team, which the minister will know was one that caused considerable concern and anxiety in the communities about the loss of harvest and the impacts of that reduced harvest on the pulp mill at Gold River, the sawmill operations at Tahsis and the logging operations at Zeballos. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee what has been accomplished here in terms of achieving community stability and ensuring that these manufacturing facilities continue to operate.

Hon. A. Petter: I could go into a long and tortured history of all this, but I'll try to refrain from doing so. The fact is that the timber supply situation at the Gold River pulp mill, which is owned by Avenor, and the sawmills in Tahsis, which are owned by Pacific Forest Products.... The timber supply situation is a fairly positive one. Indeed, there's a very good relationship between the amount of timber that's held and the capacity of those processing facilities, to the point that Pacific Forest Products and Avenor are probably among the more secure timber and pulp operations in the province.

Having said that, some of the material which was made public and which the opposition chose to try to build upon and create public hysteria around raised some serious concern within those communities about their future security. In addition, the member will be aware that there were two reports on Vancouver Island -- or one report with two options. One entailed a larger degree of protected area within the Strathcona, which went beyond the original contemplation of the Vancouver Island land use plan, but which overall would have freed up more timber for the Island as a whole.

While it would have freed up more timber overall, it had the consequence of causing a reduction in timber available to the Strathcona. There was a perception of unfairness within the Strathcona that it should take this additional reduction of timber, albeit the overall result might be better for everyone else on Vancouver Island.

What has been achieved here is that by facilitating a transfer of timber-harvesting opportunities for Doman's Western Forest Products, we are able to free up about 115,000 cubic metres of timber within the Strathcona timber supply area. That more than makes up for the difference between the two options that were being considered and leaves those in the Strathcona in essentially the same or a better position than they would have been under the other option.

It also provides an opportunity to create a couple of community tenures within the Strathcona to respond to some of the very legitimate concerns of those in the area that they have some direct access to timber at the community level for management purposes. At the same time, it enables Doman -- or Western -- to relocate and achieve a smaller volume of timber in an area that's more administratively convenient to it within its existing TFL 6 -- an area that the Ministry of Forests has not been able to develop because it hasn't been proximate to other operations.

Therefore this ends up being a win-win situation in which Doman ends up with less timber but timber that is more valuable to it in its proximity and location, and the Strathcona ends up with more timber available, to more than offset the difference between the two options which had caused some controversy and contention and -- with the assistance of the opposition -- initially some hysteria within those areas.

[3:15]

W. Hurd: I don't know if this is the place to get into the discussion or not, but I will throw it out there. I wonder whether the minister is assuming that any other of these types of negotiations will be necessary with respect to the Vancouver Island land use plan, and whether they will require additional amendments to the Forest Act. Or is the situation in the North Island an anomaly that existed because of the initial review and the initial report being presented?

It seems a shame that this issue could not have been identified early on in the process somehow and the communities and the people in the North Island made aware of the considerable challenges that existed with respect to implementation of the Vancouver Island land use plan. Had the entire issue been the subject of public discussion early on, would that have been a preferable methodology to what we've had here, with the controversy the minister alluded to earlier, the need to amend the Forest Act and bring the licensees on board?

I wonder if the minister could tell us whether he agrees that that might have been done in a more public and more open way during the course of the entire debate about the Vancouver Island land use plan?

Hon. A. Petter: The goal of the Vancouver Island land use plan was to produce a stable plan that would not only maximize the environmental values on Vancouver Island but do so in a way that minimized the impacts on timber production. I think the plan, notwithstanding the opposition's ongoing opposition to it and renewed commitments to reopen issues under it, has been very successful in that regard.

The problem here arose because, in implementing that plan, it became clear that the preferred option, when overlaid

[ Page 15410 ]

on administrative units, produced an impact in one particular administrative unit that was beyond the impact that those in that administrative unit had been led to believe would occur. In all other administrative units, the impact was either neutral or positive. But in this one administrative unit, the Strathcona supply area, it was an impact that was negative in terms of timber supply.

In answer to the member's question, I don't foresee the need to deal similarly with other areas, because the whole purpose of the preferred option was to increase timber supply while better protecting certain crucial areas, and the only area that was significantly negatively affected was the Strathcona.

In terms of the member's crocodile tears about public processes, had the member not seized upon a leaked document from a communications memo, which did not represent the real situation with respect to the Strathcona, these issues were in the process of being discussed and worked out through a consultation process with licence holders and with the communities and their representatives, and would have found their way to a solution. As it was, that solution was made much more difficult as the member and his party sought to make political hay off the fears and livelihoods and futures of those in the Strathcona.

I'm happy to report that notwithstanding his and his leader's interventions and attempts to milk those fears, we stayed the course and saw this through, and, as is so often the case, while the member and his leader were happy to visit the area when there were no solutions on the table, they were marked by their absence when I was happily able to visit those three communities with the solution that is now found in this bill.

I think the member might want to consider just how publicly he now screams or complains about this bill in light of his own conduct through the course of this rather difficult issue -- an issue which needn't have been difficult but was made difficult because of his determination to seek political gain off the backs of those in the Strathcona timber supply area.

W. Hurd: I thank the minister for that detailed explanation and remind him that the memo went to the media first, as many leaked memos from the government do. They arrive in the opposition benches via members of the fourth estate. It seems obvious that somebody out there is desperate to get the information out by whatever means might be available to them.

With respect to this particular issue, I think the reason I was bringing it forward as a measure of what can go wrong.... Clearly, whenever a government is experiencing the leaks in the ships of state that this one is, you would think that internal memos of that nature, which do have the potential to create the kind of uncertainty that the minister has described, should, in fact, be dealt with in an open and public way before they do get leaked to the media and become a focal point of public debate.

I know that the people who live in those communities don't necessarily accept the version of events that the minister has offered to the House today. They're utterly convinced that, had that leak not occurred, scenario 2 may have been proceeded with, probably after the next election when it wouldn't have been an election issue on the North Island. Certainly that was the concern expressed to the official opposition. People were actually quite grateful that, in fact, the information had been made public, albeit in a way that was not entirely without impact on the community and those people involved.

Again with respect to

section 19, I just had one other brief question with respect to subsection (2) particularly. It reduces the term of the licence, makes the licence non-replaceable and, I guess, reduces the annual allowable harvest specified by the licence. I assume we're addressing the licence that will be held by Doman Industries, because reference is made to the consent of the holders of the licences being a requirement. With respect to subsection (2), I wonder if the minister could tell us exactly what licence we're dealing with. Is it the one held by Doman, the one held by Pacific, or is it in fact referencing both?

Hon. A. Petter: The forest licence No. A19237 is the licence held by Doman in the Strathcona. That is the licence that is being phased out, and then a substitute amount of volume, albeit a lesser amount, is being provided to Western Forest Products -- which obviously is a company related to Doman -- within TFL

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to

section 20 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 20(2), by deleting "Sections 15 to 17" and substituting "Sections 15, 15.1, 16 and 17".]

On the amendment.

W. Hurd: Could I just get a brief explanation of this amendment from the minister? It does enter committee stage at a late date. I wonder if we could get an explanation, under

section 20(2), for the deletions of sections 15 to 17 and the substitutions. Is this just a consequential amendment to those that have already preceded? Is that what we're dealing with here?

Hon. A. Petter: All this really does is clarify for the benefit of the Clerks and the House that when we said -- as we did in sections 15 to 17 -- that we intended to include the new

section 15.1.... It substitutes the terms of sections 15 to 17 with the more specific terminology of sections 15, 15.1, 16 and 17, just in case there is any ambiguity that somehow we had not intended to include the new

section which was added through earlier amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 42, Forest Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete with amendments.

[ Page 15411 ]

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

Hon. A. Petter: With leave now, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: The question, then, is third reading. All those in favour, please say aye.

L. Fox: For the record, hon. Speaker, the minister asked "with leave now," but leave was not asked by the Chair.

Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry. I will repeat the process in that case; I assumed that I had done so. My apologies.

Shall leave be granted, then, on third reading?

Leave granted.

Bill 42, Forest Amendment Act, 1995, read a third time and passed.

Deputy Speaker: The member will have to excuse me; I haven't been in this chair for at least three or four days.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 27.

PHARMACISTS, PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND DRUG SCHEDULING AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 27; A. Hagen in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Reid: I just wish to ask a number of general questions in terms of framing this debate. Certainly the establishment of PharmaNet,

section 2's new 36.1(1)(a), "the practice of pharmacy...." It seems to me we need to be very clear about whose role it is to regulate the practice of pharmacy in the province of British Columbia. This minister and I have often had discussions in terms of the role of the College of Pharmacists and the role of the B.C. Pharmacy Association. I'm wondering if either of those roles will be diminished under this new direction, this new PharmaNet program. Could the minister kindly respond?

Hon. P. Ramsey: May I suggest to the member opposite that we proceed through this by the subsections -- 36.1, 36.2 and 36.3 -- to facilitate discussion?

Section 36.1(1)(a), to facilitate the practice of pharmacy.... One of the important parts of the PharmaNet program is that it operates under the supervision of the PharmaNet committee. This is a committee that is appointed by the council of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia.

The pharmacists of the province, through their college, have said they believe that access to the data, the appropriate data, through this network will enhance both the practice of pharmacy for individual pharmacists -- because they'll have better information available to them at the point of dispensing -- and the practice of pharmacy generally in the province because of the data available for analysis through this database.

L. Reid: Speaking to

section 36.1(1)(e), "a review, by the minister or a person designated by the minister, of the use and prescription of drugs and devices," I want very strongly to make the case for some kind of consideration being given to the funding of devices. The minister will know -- and he and I have covered this ground many times in debate -- that these are the individuals currently trying to access service from the Medical Services Commission and from the Medical Services Plan who simply fall through the cracks. They are not able to secure funding for what is termed medically necessary.

If indeed this PharmaNet program allows those individuals to be isolated in the system, so we can discover how many individuals require a device in terms of what is medically required, it certainly makes sense that once we've compiled that information we would actually do something with it and, hopefully, meet the needs of British Columbians around this delivery system. If the minister could kindly comment.

[3:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Clearly, having the data that PharmaNet provides available to the ministry will enable better analysis both of use of current benefits under Pharmacare and of conditions that people who are receiving drugs more broadly in the province have. To that extent I agree with the member that the network should facilitate the investigation by the ministry of the use of devices and the analysis of the need for devices and decision-making about which devices should be funded.

As far as the second question is concerned, about the actual expansion of devices that are funded, I'd suggest that that's a question more appropriate for estimates.

L. Reid: I would simply remind the minister that he did not answer that question in estimates, either, but I thank him for that reiteration.

In terms of

section 36.1(1)(h), "scientific or drug utilization research conducted at a university or hospital or as approved by the college," I'm simply standing in support of that particular section, because I do not wish to see any dilution of the responsibility of colleges and universities to continue to advance the cause of research around drug therapies.

Certainly the minister heard many times during the estimates debate about what I perceive to be a very important need in British Columbia: a pharmaco-economics institute, a risk institute, some expansion -- some clearer mandate -- for the therapeutics initiative in this province and, hopefully, an ability to see those three entities merge their resources and provide some kind of outcome-based measurement. I think that's fundamentally important to this particular section. If the minister would kindly confirm his support for research, I would be delighted.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I confirm this government's and this minister's interest in research that can improve effectiveness in the use of therapeutic drugs.

L. Reid:

Section 36.1(2) states: "Subject to

section 36.2(1), the minister is responsible for managing PharmaNet." That is an issue that I brought forward many times to this minister in terms of the public's apprehension around their personal information being contained within a government database. The minister and I have had this discussion around whether

[ Page 15412 ]

or not it would have been more appropriate to see this information managed and handled by the B.C. Pharmacy Association or by the College of Pharmacists directly. People tend to have a greater regard, if you will, for professional pharmacists handling their information, and from what is happening in the public domain, they have less regard for politicians handling their personal information. Whether or not that's valid is irrelevant; it's simply a reality today.

This minister is aware that I, as critic, have often questioned the necessity for this particular aspect of this program to be managed directly by the minister. It concerns me to see this

section included in this bill, because I do believe that we were moving to some kind of joint management practice around this particular service.

Not to take away from the previous points, I do believe that there are some avenues that we can pursue in terms of cost savings around PharmaNet. Indeed, there are aspects of that program that will be incredibly useful. In terms of who has the final say as to how that program is run, I have some difficulties with this section. I would simply ask the minister to respond.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The

section that we're referring to -- "Subject to

section 36.2(1), the minister is responsible for managing PharmaNet" -- speaks to the technical management of the system. This is a function that must reside someplace, since this system is replacing a variety of computer databases run by individual pharmacies and chains of pharmacies. We need to make very sure that there's a comprehensive and uniform management of this system. That duty lies with the minister and the ministry. But note, and note very clearly, that this is subject to 36.2, which specifies very clearly "a committee" that has broad responsibilities as far as who serves on the PharmaNet committee and what their duties are.

L. Fox: I have a couple of questions. It was my understanding, in talking to the Pharmacy Association, that indeed there was an approach made to the ministry for the association to bring forth a program similar to PharmaNet that would have been funded by the private sector. The ministry chose to go its own route, with subsequently this

section of the bill. Can the minister tell me what kind of consideration was given to the offer from the pharmacists? My understanding is that there could have been up to a $20 million savings to the provincial government.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: There was indeed such a proposal brought forward, as I understand it. It was a proposal brought forward to the previous government. The member was a member of the party that formed that government at the time.

We believe that publicly running PharmaNet is appropriate, I would say, for the list of reasons specified in

section 36.1(1). These go far beyond the interests of a private entrepreneur in database provision to retailers and in facilitation of payment to pharmacists. We see a variety of uses for the information, and we believe that the proposal is.... The subject agreement with the College of Pharmacists and the Pharmacy Association implemented by this legislation is the appropriate way to go in managing very sensitive information about individuals' medication and prescription records.

L. Fox: I'm very surprised by the minister's answer. I guess the minister's answer was one that.... Even though there was going to be a cost savings to the province of somewhere in the vicinity of $20 million, the fact that some poor, small business person might still make a profit was something that the minister couldn't support. That was the number one item that he brought forward.

Number two, it seems to me that any network accessed by the public and operated by independent business people is going to be susceptible to all the concerns, whether that equipment is owned by the government or by that particular group of pharmacists. It would be very easy to establish guidelines and a structure through which they could have operated, at a cost savings to the government of something like $20 million a year. I have grave concerns that the ideology of this government is preventing good, commonsense decisions on the expenditure of tax dollars. That's very unfortunate for British Columbia.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have been asking staff whether any such proposal in such concrete terms as this member indicates was brought forward to the ministry during our time in government, and we have no information that would suggest that it was -- surely nothing with the sort of detailed specifications of cost that this member adduces with savings of $20 million. That's simply not on -- nothing that, I would suggest, is really an appropriate subject matter for debate on the PharmaNet scheme that is proposed rather than the PharmaNet scheme that the Pharmacy Association might wish to see.

The other thing I would note is that the proposal for PharmaNet -- which is being test-piloted right now, and which will be implemented in the province this fall -- has the cooperation and endorsement of two very important bodies: first, the Pharmacy Association, which represents the retailers that do the dispensing and manage the system at the counter; and second, the College of Pharmacists, which has the broad protection of the public in its interests.

This is an approach which met both the professional needs of accountability to the public protection of the College of Pharmacists of B.C. and the needs of the retailers. In addition, we wanted to make sure that the network we are installing meets the needs of the broad public for protection of confidentiality and for efficiency of operation of the Pharmacare program, which provides assistance in the purchase of therapeutic drugs and protects British Columbians from catastrophic drug costs.

I see no good purpose to be served by turning the pyramid upside down and making the interests of the Pharmacy Association of the province the primary concern and all others the subsidiary concerns. The PharmaNet system has been drafted with the cooperation of pharmacists, their professional association and their retail association, and we believe that that partnership will work well for the people of British Columbia.

L. Fox: Perhaps it's because this minister has only been the minister for approximately a year and a half, but the fact is that the offer was made, and was thrown out by the previous minister of this administration. In fact, it was discouraged. Who knows? Had this government been a little more business-minded and more concerned about the tax dollar expenditures, perhaps they would have let it develop to the point where we could have been discussing that initiative today instead of this government initiative, which is going to cost the taxpayers at least $20 million more than the other alternative. It still could have met the same goals; it still could

[ Page 15413 ]

have had the support of all the agencies; and it would have been a better partnership than what is going to be created under this legislation.

Hon. P. Ramsey: A fascinating debate about the bill that is not before us, rather than the bill that is before us. Any proposal that staff has seen did not meet the needs for claims adjudication -- among other things -- for the Pharmacare system in this province. There was a variety of proposals for feasibility studies. Let me state again that I'm unaware of any proposal that would specify, in concrete terms, any savings of the magnitude that this member suggests and meet the objectives of protection of privacy, research into effectiveness of drug therapy, review of claims, integration with the pharmacy network, protection of the public and other objectives, which PharmaNet will.

Section 2,

section 36.1 approved.

section 2,

section 36.2.

L. Reid: I have a couple of questions around the composition of the PharmaNet committee. It allows for not more than ten persons appointed by the council to manage access. With reference to the minister's comments about it, he indeed will have responsibility for the technical management of the program. I can assume from this

section that we're talking about professional management of the PharmaNet program. Could the minister kindly confirm?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the simplest way to describe the split in responsibility here, hon. member, is to say that there are really two sets of data, or almost two different data systems, within the PharmaNet system. One is the PharmaNet central information system, which manages claims information and is of primary concern to managing the Pharmacare program and to British Columbians who want to receive a prompt recognition of their right to subsidy for drug cost under Pharmacare. That is the part that's managed and controlled by the ministry.

The second set of data, or data system, is the drug information system, which includes patient profile information. That is not available to Pharmacare or the ministry. That is the system that is managed by the PharmaNet committee.

[3:45]

L. Reid: If we are going to differentiate the PharmaNet committee from this particular committee, my questions are relevant to this section. It is the group that has access to patient information that causes the greatest concern in the public domain. I know that the minister has heard these same claims, because I certainly have in my offices.

In terms of someone being able to piece together someone's drug history from claim information, that seems to be a contention that is borne out by the probability that it's likely that that can happen. The drug information system itself, which contains patient profile information, also allows for that same conclusion to be reached: that someone accessing the system will be able to piece together what your drug history is. That is the most contentious theme for this particular piece of legislation before us today. That is the concern the public brings to the table.

In terms of detailing the PharmaNet committee and the actual structure, to quote directly from the act: "...the PharmaNet database that contains patient record information and general drug information...." I would make the case that from both of those separate data banks that the minister has commented on, you could discover someone's drug history, which indeed puts into jeopardy someone's confidentiality. Could the minister assure the patient that there is some security around both of those separate databases? I am not accepting the minister's notion that it's possible to keep those separate. I believe that information will be merged and that there will be inappropriate access.

Hon. P. Ramsey: During second reading discussion of this bill the member and I and, I think, the member for Prince George-Omineca shared the view that there are really three issues around establishment of the PharmaNet system. One was around costs, and we've had some debate in our committee on costs. The second, which we've already had some debate on, is on improved health and health outcomes for British Columbians. The third, very important issue is around patient confidentiality.

I think it's important as we move through this

section and discuss confidentiality -- a concern which I share with the member -- that we recognize that we are dealing not with a theoretically ideal system that might exist, but a system which I believe represents the state of the art in protection of privacy and security issues -- a system which is far better than current systems that are in place. As we compare protection of privacy and security issues, it is important that we compare it at times to what is in place now as well as to ideals that we might wish to see.

During second reading debate, I think I shared with the member opposite my view that ultimately any system could be subject to security breaches at some point. I think that's probably safe to say in the age of some breaches of computer security. But I would like to specify for the committee a few of the measures that we have put in place with PharmaNet to ensure confidentiality.

First, personal information at the pharmacist is accessible with a personal health care number. If you don't have the health care number, you don't get the information. All personal information linked to that number that's transmitted across the system is encrypted and then decrypted at the other end. So it's not like an open sending of information that you or I might do when we are participating on an Internet chat board or something. This is a....

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: If we were, we would not. Occasionally, hon. member, I have so indulged myself, and it is an interesting experience.

Second, every time a PharmaNet system receives a transmission, it checks to see if it's coming from a valid source. Therefore, if it's coming from a pharmacy with the pharmacy codes that must be attached, it will be accepted. If not -- if somebody is trying to "hack" the system and doesn't have a recognizable code -- it will be rejected. So that's one measure. PharmaNet does not allow dial-up access, simply to prevent hackers from attempting to get into the system. You can't dial up PharmaNet. It's not on; it's not designed to allow that.

There is another set of initiatives. There are unique identifiers for each store location, each pharmacist, each pharmacy technician, each member of the PharmaNet committee and all

[ Page 15414 ]

College of Pharmacists audit staff. Every time somebody who is authorized -- and those are the groups that are authorized -- looks up a patient profile, the system tracks and records who did the looking up. So the idea that somebody can peek anonymously and then sneak away and use that information is one of the concerns of those who designed the system. Measures have been put in place to block that sort of surreptitious access to PharmaNet information. The data on who has "looked up" a patient record, then, is available to auditors who are checking on security of the system and on patient profile confidentiality.

It's also available to customers. You or I, hon. member, could request at the front desk of a pharmacy in the province a record of who has accessed our information in the preceding 14 months. That information would be available to us. So we as individual British Columbians have a check on who has accessed this information, and are able to verify that nobody is on that list that we haven't had a prescription filled with or that someone hasn't been involved in illegitimate use of the system.

The system not only has mechanisms that frustrate breaking into the system but also subsystems that record any such attempt to do so. So anytime somebody tries to get in and is rejected, that attempt and rejection will itself be recorded so that those responsible for security can attempt to trace the attempt to breach security. There are others, perhaps, but I may have at least satisfied some of the member's concerns that this system has been designed as some sort of openly available Internet chat board type of system that anybody can dial up. I said at the start of my remarks on this

section that protection of privacy and security in PharmaNet is, I believe, state-of-the-art. I hope that my comments have provided the member some assurance that we take these responsibilities very seriously.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification, and I would simply make three additional comments on this section.

The minister in his remarks mentioned a pilot project. I would simply ask if the results from that pilot project will be incorporated into the implementation of these sections of this act. It certainly seems to be the feeling in the field that the pilot project is operating separate and distinct from this legislation. But, in fact, if you are going to put in place a pilot project, it makes good prudent sense to actually hear the results of that pilot project. So it seems to me that that clarification is required around whether or not the pilot project information will impact, hopefully positively, on this piece of legislation.

In terms of

section 36.2(2) -- "The PharmaNet committee must include (a) 3 persons nominated by the minister" -- I'd be interested in the qualifications of those three individuals.

Hon. P. Ramsey: To the member's two questions that I heard -- she said she had three; I heard two.... The first one: will the results of the pilot project be used in further implementation of PharmaNet? Absolutely. I would mention to the member that I think PharmaNet has already proved its worth during the pilot phase. There were about 8,500 prescriptions processed during the trial period to date for some 4,500 customers, so many people had more than one interaction with the system.

Indeed, the system was effective in catching the sort of drug interactions that the member opposite and I have both been concerned about. On a severity index of zero to three, which is a scale pharmacists use, there were 19 level-three drug interactions that were prevented. Level three means that if it had actually gone on, it could have threatened life. An additional 162 level-two drug interactions were avoided. Those could have caused severe illness, possibly hospitalization.

So even in the limited trial period, as far as the health of British Columbians is concerned, the evidence so far is that PharmaNet is performing some of the functions of improving British Columbians' health that we expected it to do, and avoiding the catastrophic situation where a drug that somebody is taking to make them better, instead makes them worse -- and may indeed kill them.

Second, the member asked what qualifications I would be looking for in my nominees to the PharmaNet committee. My answers are several. First, I want somebody with knowledge of the Pharmacare program; we'll probably be nominating somebody from the senior members of the Pharmacare staff to sit on it. Second, I want somebody who has a broad knowledge of drug issues; perhaps a researcher or, again, somebody who works with the ministry on drug issues. Third, I want somebody who has very detailed knowledge of protection-of-privacy issues.

I have actually approached the Civil Liberties Association to see if they would be interested in recommending some nominees that we might place on this committee.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification around that first issue. In terms of the qualifications of these individuals, does the minister also have an intention to nominate lay individuals to this committee?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. members, they are all lay members. Remember, this is a committee established under the College of Pharmacists of B.C., but all of them would be non-pharmacists. Indeed, all five of the members under

section 36.2(2) are non-pharmacists and therefore lay members. So we have here a committee, the PharmaNet committee, which is composed half of pharmacists registered under the college in the province, and half of people who have other expertise which they will bring to the management of the PharmaNet system.

L. Reid: Will there be remuneration in place for these committee members?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Remuneration for members of the PharmaNet committee will be the responsibility of the College of Pharmacists of B.C. They will be reimbursing them as they reimburse other members of committees that serve the council.

L. Reid: Under this

section the minister made reference to confidentiality in terms of not allowing folks to access the system anonymously. I'm wondering if the minister could spend a moment just relating whether or not the authorized users of this system will have a very distinctive keyword or password that allows them to access the system, but ensures that the information is secure.

[4:00]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me just revisit a couple of the comments I made earlier in that perhaps rather lengthy statement on some of the confidentiality provisions. Everyone authorized to access the data will have a distinct identifier, which will be attached to each use of the system by that

[ Page 15415 ]

person. As I said earlier, the ability of somebody to anonymously look up information is prevented by the design of the system. I think that is the issue that the member was addressing. If there are other confidentiality issues, I'd be pleased to respond.

L. Hanson: The minister mentioned earlier that in some test cases it had avoided serious injury to people. I'm not sure I understood that. Is the system not a system to monitor dispensing prescription drugs as prescribed by the medical profession? Can you tell me where the issue of safety came in in the one that you were talking about?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're now running a pilot project, testing elements of the PharmaNet system in the Fraser Valley -- the Chilliwack-Sumas area. During the period of the trial, we filled some 8,500 prescriptions. In 19 cases a prescription was not filled that would have resulted in serious illness and possibly the death of the individual presenting the prescription at the pharmacy. In such circumstances, the pharmacist has access to data on the last 14 months of the patient's use of therapeutic drugs, and he or she can then assess whether the new prescription will have unintended, unfortunate or possibly disastrous consequences if filled and ingested by the patient.

This is one of the primary strengths of the PharmaNet system: when you or I go to a pharmacy to have a prescription filled, the professional pharmacist filling it will have access through the system to the last 14 months of our drug use history. He or she can then assess, as a professional, whether the prescription being presented could cause unintended and possibly disastrous health consequences. Obviously, a pharmacist has a professional responsibility not to fill it if, in their opinion, there are unintended health consequences. They refer the patient back to the physician with information on potential drug-drug interactions.

L. Hanson: I appreciate that. I guess I'm a little confused. In order to enter into the system, first of all you need a doctor to prescribe a certain kind of medicine. Is there something that the pharmacist would know that the doctor wouldn't know in the system that isn't protected now?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, there is indeed additional information that the dispensing pharmacist will have available. It will be a comprehensive record of prescriptions filled in the province. Very often drug-drug interactions result from more than one physician prescribing drugs for a patient, each of them unaware of what the other has prescribed, or a patient who has taken prescriptions to more than one pharmacy to fill. Therefore pharmacy A won't know what drugs have been dispensed by pharmacy B. You might have multiple prescribers or multiple dispensers, each of them unknown to each other under the current system.

PharmaNet integrates all that and provides for a comprehensive database of prescription drugs prescribed and obtained by people in British Columbia using dispensing pharmacists. This allows a pharmacist to exercise the full range of their professional discretion in assessing the potential impacts of a prescription on the patient who is seeking to have it filled.

L. Hanson: I get from the minister's remarks, then, that it would catch a patient who attempted to use a prescription in an unusual manner, which I understood in the first place. What I was getting at, though.... That's protecting the patient from herself or himself, I suppose you might say. But what I got from the minister's remarks was that there could be a prescription issued by a doctor that the patient takes to a legitimate pharmacy, and that pharmacy has some information about the prescription....

That surprises me, because I would have thought that the offering of medicine to patients would have been researched quite thoroughly by the doctor in the first place, before it was prescribed.

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted to introduce to the House today a delightful group of grade 7 students from St. Joseph's School in my constituency. St. Joseph's does a wonderful job, and has attended with a class every year since I've been elected to this chamber some eight and a half long years ago. Accompanying them as well are four adults: Jim Brown, who I think drove the bus; Maria Pires, a parent; Irma Perrault, one of the teachers; and Mike Boreham, the principal. I'd ask all members of the House to make them most welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are a number of potential health hazards in the filling of prescriptions for therapeutic drugs that this system will enable a pharmacist of the province to catch, and thus avoid health consequences for people having a prescription filled. It may be that the dosage range is wrong -- it's too strong -- and the pharmacist may well have information that the prescribing physician does not. Knowledge of therapeutic drugs and their impact is something that physicians have, but I think that many pharmacists would say that they have equivalent or perhaps greater expertise in that area.

The other point that I would make to the member is that we do find, particularly with people who may be heavy users of therapeutic drugs, that they are obtaining prescriptions from more than one medical practitioner. Those records held by the two practitioners are not shared. If you go to doctor A, he will have one set of records for you and doctor B may well have another. In all sincerity in attempting to treat your conditions well, they may prescribe medications that will have unintended and potentially disastrous impacts if you ingested both of them.

PharmaNet is designed to capture such situations at the point of dispensing, enable pharmacists to work with physicians to avoid those disastrous health consequences, and serve the people of the province better. Last year, the estimate is that something like 10,000 hospitalizations occurred because of drug-drug interactions which were entirely avoidable. That's the sort of situation we want to catch and improve.

L. Hanson: I can certainly appreciate that. I think that the minister is telling us that in some circumstances there may be deliberate attempts to use different medical advisers to prescribe the same thing, which is deliberately cheating the system, if you will. I can appreciate that putting it in place has those benefits, but it does surprise me that there will be more information on the PharmaNet system than is available to the medical doctor before the first prescription is issued. I think the minister is suggesting that there will be a second opinion given if a doctor prescribes a medicine that goes through the Pharmacare system if, in the opinion of the pharmacist, the

[ Page 15416 ]

characteristics of the drug.... He may second-guess the doctor. It seems that might be a little contentious when it is actually applied.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to distinguish two sorts of situations that this PharmaNet database can deal with. The one that I've been speaking of is where everybody has been working with all good intentions to serve the health needs of British Columbians -- okay? Physician A may not know what physician B is prescribing and vice versa. At the counter, if the pharmacist captures one of these situations, what he or she would do is contact the prescribing physician and explain why it would be not wise to fill it.

It is clearly the physician's responsibility to prescribe; the pharmacist doesn't interfere in that or subsume that. But not only are we asking pharmacists to do that monitoring, we're actually paying them for it, by saying that if you don't dispense a drug and you do that sort of contacting and consultation with the physician, we'll pay you twice your normal dispensing fee, because the health outcomes will be far better for British Columbians.

The other situation I think the member is alluding to is where an individual sets out quite deliberately to obtain multiple prescriptions and defraud the system. That too is a concern of ours. We believe it is a cost to the Pharmacare system that can be reduced dramatically by catching such instances of fraud and refusing to fill prescriptions.

L. Hanson: I'm not going to pursue this subject, but I just would like to make the observation to the minister that it seems by the way he is describing the effect of this act that they are putting some responsibility on the pharmacist to analyze the effect on the patient of a drug that is prescribed by the doctor. I suspect that may cause a little bit of tension between the two professional groups. What you're saying is that when the doctor prescribes ABC drug, and the patient takes it to the pharmacist, the pharmacist says: "What did he prescribe that for you for? I don't think..." -- for whatever reason.

So I just suggest to the minister that that may be creating a little tension between two professional groups.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't disagree with the member that there is some potential professional rivalry between these groups. One of the goals of PharmaNet is to actually provide all with data, which will enable decisions to be made on the basis of best evidence, not professional status. PharmaNet incorporates information on some 15,000 different drug products, and among the information it incorporates are contraindications or interactions that may occur if they're ingested. Therefore the pharmacist may well encounter information at the terminal on the network that he or she was unaware of, as well as the physician.

So it is a way of making sure that there is front-line, best possible data available to dispensing pharmacists on the therapeutic prescriptions that they're filling.

[4:15]

L. Reid: Again to the minister, in that we began this....

Actually, allow me to make a comment just for the record in terms of the professional-rivalry comment. I suggest to all British Columbians that they could certainly take as much care in the selection of their pharmacist as they currently do in the selection of their physician, because those two individuals need to work very closely together. They will, indeed, need to sort out some of those issues that may arise in terms of confidentiality around this section.

The only other comment I have on the confidentiality question -- and again the minister and I have.... I believe we actually agree on this particular point: I would very much like to see British Columbians have the ability to provide their password, their keyword, to the pharmacist in privacy. Right now there isn't any mechanism in place that allows them to do that. It's my understanding that they must provide that word, that term verbally to the pharmacist, and if indeed they're able to convey it in written form....

I trust at some point we'll allow them to actually punch it into the system with some kind of keypad. Can the minister comment on whether or not any progress has been made with the ability of a customer to provide the password in private?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Patients presenting a prescription to a pharmacist can simply note their password on the prescription -- provide it in written form. Pharmacists have, as part of their code under the college, the professional obligation to keep that password confidential.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments, but I'm hoping that his ministry and this committee can give some thought to how to best structure that. The concerns that were raised directly to me -- and I know, as well, to the minister -- were that these individuals don't wish to pass it along in writing where it may be passed on to the wrong individual. They are looking for a banking-type system where they press in their four- or six-letter code and only they know what that code is.

Once they pass it in writing to the pharmacist, they have worries about other people in the drugstore; they have worries about the clerks. There's a whole range of access questions that we cannot respond to adequately if it's written on a piece of paper and filed in some way.

I think the minister and I agree, but I think that asking them to put it on a piece of paper and slip it across the counter will not satisfy their concerns around confidentiality.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Two things. First, in my opening remarks in debate on committee stage of this bill, I said: "Let's look very hard at comparing what we're proposing with PharmaNet -- what's going to be implemented -- with what actually exists, as well as comparing it with an ideal." The reality, hon. member, as you know, is that no such password protection exists right now for any British Columbian. No monitoring of who's accessing the profile that an individual pharmacy may have on you or me is available to the individual at all.

So there are great advantages and great progress, I believe, in the current provisions of the PharmaNet system to increase confidentiality and privacy of information.

Having said that, clearly the PharmaNet committee will be seeking all ways to improve the system. It is their job, obviously, to say: "There's the ideal. How close can we get to it?"

L. Reid: I'm sure the minister will agree.... What my constituents are saying is that they simply want this minister and this ministry to respect their health information as much as we currently respect people's personal banking information -- i.e., you use a bank card, punch in an anonymous code that's known only to yourself, and access your personal information. I can only hope that this ministry moves in that direction, because one of the most contentious issues around this particular legislation is confidentiality. If we're moving

[ Page 15417 ]

along that continuum, and we can come back and ask for a report card at some future point where we will have arrived at that point, I would welcome that.

Section 2, sections 36.2 and 36.3 approved.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

L. Reid:

Section 4 permits the council of the College of Pharmacists to make bylaws in respect of the collection, retention, maintenance, correction, protection, use and disclosure of information. The question that has been raised to me pertains to retention. How long will that information be on file? Are we talking about the lifetime of the customer, or are we talking about a certain number of years before that information is removed from the system?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The retention of patient records is clearly a requirement of the pharmacist profession. Staff advise me that current bylaws of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia require retention of records for ten years.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 27, Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 30.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 30; M. Farnworth in the chair.

section 1.

L. Reid: With your indulgence, I'll certainly seek clarification of a number of sections as we move through this bill.

"The director may establish one or more panels composed of (

a) the director alone...." I'm wondering what kind of scenario would allow a single individual to comprise a panel.

Hon. P. Ramsey: At second reading I may have said that this may be one of the ultimate in legislative maintenance amendments. We found that the variance committee, which has the ability to vary regulations around community care facilities, was structured in such a way that it required all members of a panel to unanimously agree to such a variance and to be actually in attendance at a meeting. This created some huge delays at times, dealing with issues of some urgency in making sure that appropriate community care was received by individuals.

The circumstance I can foresee in which the director would wish to exercise the authority, under

section 5.1(2)(a), of establishing a variance committee of himself or herself alone would be in an emergency situation, where time is of the essence for action, and bringing together a committee composed of many members to deal with it would delay needed action.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

L. Reid: In terms of establishing a "maximum fine that the discipline committee may impose under

section 38(1)(e.1)," there seems to be a real need on behalf of the public to know what that maximum fine might look like. Could the minister kindly comment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I just want to speak very briefly to both sections 5 and 6, if I may. The problem here is that while discipline committees under the Health Professions Act have the ability to suspend or revoke a licence, the current legislation actually doesn't allow them to impose a fine. Therefore the range of penalties that they can impose on a member of a profession who is violating ethical norms or is practising incompetently is limited.

This enables a college -- whether it be of massage therapists or physiotherapists or denturists -- to establish a maximum fine by bylaw and to impose fines on a member up to that limit. The maximum fine will, I submit, vary from college to college. These bylaws are subject to cabinet approval. Cabinet will want to ensure that the amount established is of sufficient gravity that it is a penalty to be avoided. The highest that I'm aware of now is the one that is available to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, where fines of up to $35,000 may be imposed by the college.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

L. Reid: This reads: "Section 42 is amended by adding the following subsection:

(3) Despite subsection (1), voting or non-voting shares of a health profession corporation may be vested in...." Needing some redefinition around health profession corporation.... I understood from the minister's remarks during the estimates debate that we were not leading to separate health corporations within the province. Indeed, based on his earlier remarks, this

section does demand some ongoing clarification.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Often members of a health profession will establish a corporation, either as individuals or as a joint practice, as a means of dealing with income and expenditures and reporting under the Income Tax Act. This is a common vehicle for physicians and dentists and other health professionals. They use this. What we found in reviewing the provisions of the Health Professions Act is that we had a few dead ends and problems when a deceased registrant's executor or a bankrupt registrant of the college was attempting to have his or her affairs wound up. This proposed amendment allows an

[ Page 15418 ]

executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee to carry on and discharge their duties in respect of a corporation.

[4:30]

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

L. Reid:

Section 10 refers to "supply management and optimum distribution of medical care, health care and diagnostic services throughout British Columbia." The mechanism for physician supply should enhance stability in our health care system. I believe that the minister and I both agree. The question before us is whether or not this particular clause will allow optimum distribution to be achieved. My question will relate specifically to how much power is vested in this

section in terms of the information available to us from the BCMA committee and from the joint committee. Is it the intention of this minister to simply take the report of that committee and allow it to be enacted as a result of this particular clause?

Hon. P. Ramsey:

Section 10 allows the Medical Services Commission to seek supply management and distribution measures that allow for variation in fees by the type of service performed, the geographic area performed in and the like. It is one of the two or three options available for physician supply. It has been the one, as the member notes, that has been the subject of ongoing work between the BCMA and the government. Before the Medical Services Commission enacts any such scheme, clearly I would wish to be assured that it was a step forward in achieving more appropriate distribution of physicians in the province.

Having said that, I can think of more ideal schemes. But I think this one does do some of the work that is needed in tilting the marketplace -- if I can phrase it that way -- to make sure that the rewards are greater in some areas of practice than others. Therefore, if mankind is an economic animal.... It's based on the assumption that he or she will seek those rewards where they are available in the province.

L. Reid: If the minister is indeed suggesting that my earlier contention that

section 10 will allow the report of the BCMA and the Medical Services Commission to be enacted is accurate, certainly I would agree with the minister's point. I too hope it is not the final word on this issue. I can see it as a temporary measure, but I cannot see it as a measure that has ongoing life in British Columbia. I trust that a mechanism around physician supply will evolve that actually meets the needs of British Columbians regarding the issues of psychiatry. Frankly, we spent an hour and a half in Public Accounts this morning on the need for psychiatric services across this province.

We haven't satisfactorily addressed the need for obstetrical services across this province, nor, frankly, have we in terms of general surgery, where -- and in his own riding, the minister will be abundantly aware -- the services are simply not there for British Columbians.

However, this shortlist of the current needs in British Columbia today may indeed change. If the mechanism can change to reflect the changing needs of the province, I would welcome that. I think there are aspects of this mechanism that are somewhat shortsighted and that disenfranchise British Columbians -- individuals who grew up in this province, went to medical school in this province and then took some additional training in another province or in another country, and who are finding it almost impossible, if not impossible, to return to practice their craft in their home province.

It seems to me -- and I know the minister and I have had this discussion on many occasions -- that if we are going to invest in their public education at the elementary, secondary and, particularly, post-secondary levels all the way to the completion of medical school, and then not allow them to come back to practice, we are not doing ourselves any favours. We are simply incurring additional cost without reaping any benefit from our graduates.

Again, I think there are sections of this particular proposal that the minister intends to implant into

section 10 that leave a great deal to be desired. My contention has always been that we need to attract the finest minds in this province. I would submit that the British Columbia medical school does graduate some of the finest minds. We are sharing that tremendous resource, but not necessarily with our own voters, taxpayers and people who reside in this province. The number of individuals leaving is far greater than those we will retain, and that is further hampered by this particular mechanism, if you will.

Again, I will say that I trust that this is not the final word, and that I hope there will be some ongoing discussion around inserting this mechanism into this particular piece of legislation. I would ask the minister to comment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't believe that the amendment we're debating today will be the last word in discussion about mechanisms for physician supply in British Columbia. As the member is aware, I think, the council of Ministers of Health across the country recently received a very interesting paper on capitation models for general practitioners. Back in the spring, the Ontario Minister of Health held a conference for physicians which looked at more appropriate remuneration for specialists who work for medical schools and tertiary facilities helping train the next generation of physicians. Again, there's some work to be done to make sure we get the right mix between qualifications and duties.

I would not wish to have members of the Legislature or the public think that this is the last word on physician supply measures. It enables us to more forward. There are clearly longer-term measures that need to be addressed.

L. Reid: In response, would the minister agree that one of their priorities has to be to bring British Columbia medical school graduates home to practise? I would certainly welcome that confirmation.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am always delighted when somebody from the British Columbia medical school sets up practice in this province, and even more delighted when he or she chooses to practise where they are needed.

L. Fox: The first question I have to ask the minister is: what authority does this amendment give the minister that he doesn't already have under

section 21(2) of the existing act?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member raises an excellent point, one that I raised when the proposal for this amendment was first brought to my attention. In discussions with the BCMA around physician supply, there was some concern expressed

[ Page 15419 ]

that the authority to do this under existing provisions of the act might be challenged by an individual practitioner who was not satisfied with the results of the supply measures. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, we brought this amendment forward to the Legislature to ensure that as the Medical Services Commission instituted supply measures, it had the legal authority to do so.

L. Fox: From that answer I would ascertain that as it's presently written, the act allows the minister -- and has allowed the ministry -- to do the kinds of things that he's attempting to do and has outlined that he wants to do. This is just a clause which holds the ministry harmless should there be an approach to it. So we're not really seeing any new initiatives here; we're just seeing something that can protect the ministry from any doctor taking an action based on a constitutional challenge.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member may recall that around this time last spring we first brought into force what we called interim supply measures, where we said to physicians who were new to the province and seeking a billing number that if they wished to practise where their services were needed, we would pay them 100 percent of fees. If they wished to work in an over-serviced area, we'd pay them 50 percent of fees.

Those were explicitly flagged as interim measures in place while ongoing negotiations took place with the BCMA, with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and with others around more permanent supply measures, based on a variable fee structure. So the member is right. We are now looking at moving ahead with more permanent supply measures, and we want to ensure that we have legal authority in the act to do so without being challenged.

L. Fox: In some of those supply measures, would they be considering salaried doctors?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The measures contemplated under this amendment speak more to variations in a fee-for-service model of payment rather than alternative schemes of payment. In my comments to the member for Richmond East, I think I indicated that I share her view that we need to do further work in looking at how physicians are paid, whether it be fee-for-service, which is what the majority of physicians in British Columbia do now, whether we move toward increased salary arrangements, or whether it's on a capitation scheme or some sort of salary base plus fees above it.

There are a variety of next steps that need to be taken in how physicians are paid. Some of those schemes may indeed have implications for distribution of physicians in the province, but the amendment we have before us now seeks primarily to focus on using variations within the fee-for-service structure to effect more equitable distribution of physicians around the province.

L. Fox: Let me rephrase that, because I recognize the way in which I asked the question could have ventured into future policy. Hypothetically, if the ministry decided to place some doctors in the rural parts of the province on a fixed salary, would this clause prevent them from being challenged by other physicians?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have the ability under legislation to offer a salaried position now; we do not have the ability to impose that structure upon somebody who is practising in an area.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

L. Reid: Again, the minister and I have had numerous conversations regarding the possibility of an appeal process, with reference to sexual misconduct, on behalf of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. What I'm trusting is that somewhere in these subsections it actually commits to some kind of appeal process. I will refer the minister to

section 11,

section 25.1(2)(d)(v), bottom of page 3: "appoint an inquiry committee to act...." Is an inquiry committee going to have the mandate to act as an appeal committee, an appeal process, for women who do not believe that the committee has acted in their best interests and who would like the opportunity to appeal any decision?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member opposite is correct. We surely have had extensive debates on this issue in the past. I will present what we are doing this year. I'm not sure we will satisfy 100 percent of the member's concerns, but I think we're getting some way there.

The legal avenue for formal appeal of a decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding an allegation of sexual misconduct still lies with the courts or, in the case of maladministration of justice, with the ombudsman. It is an external appeal -- courts or ombudsman. And I continue to submit that this is appropriate. You can only do so much with internal additional mechanisms.

[4:45]

What we have added is a provision that the sexual misconduct review committee now has a mandatory obligation to reconsider a matter if a complainant makes a written request for review within 30 days of it being issued. So an individual who has brought an allegation of sexual misconduct before the college, who has had an inquiry committee, who has had the full process concluded and who finds the outcome unsatisfactory, can request a further review and reconsideration of the matter within the college.

That individual can bring forward grounds for that review if he or she feels that particular matters have not been considered adequately or that there has been a misunderstanding of evidence brought forward. They clearly have the right to have the matter reconsidered. Beyond that, I think it is still appropriate to ask that individuals bringing a charge of sexual misconduct, who are not satisfied with the college, seek external avenues for appeal.

L. Reid: Perhaps just one further clarification on this section. I was interested in the mandate of the inquiry committee, which is listed at the bottom of page 3. Perhaps the minister's remarks better fit under

section 11,

section 25.1(5), which states that the person who was the complainant makes a further request. If the minister is thinking that the terminology "further request" can be used synonymously with "appeal," I have no issue with that at all.

Could the minister simply clarify the role of the inquiry committee, because perhaps they are working in two separate arenas.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me explain the way it functions, because I think the member and I may be talking at

cross-

[ Page 15420 ]

purposes. The sexual misconduct review committee that receives a complaint now has the ability to say: "This is a serious enough complaint that we should have a formal inquiry committee struck to hear evidence, reach conclusions and recommend discipline." That is what

section 25.1(2)(d)(

v) refers to.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification. So indeed, a woman who was interested in appealing a decision would have the ability to make a further request. I will suggest to the minister that the concern individuals have shared with me is that they believe the process shuts down. If they take their concern to the college and the college renders a decision that is not to the individual's liking, what I am reading from

section 25.1(5), subsections (3) and (4), is that there now is some possibility that the individual can make a further request and that this may allow them to reopen the discussion.

I can assure the minister that that is all the women in this province are interested in. They do not appreciate the fact that the door closes. They want the ability to go back and at least discuss the decision in terms of how it may have been reached. What I'm hoping -- and if I'm being optimistic about this section, I trust the minister will bring that information to the table immediately -- is that this particular

section allows a woman to come forward with a concern about the decision that was reached. I trust the minister will confirm that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm going to try again. I think that what the member is saying are points that I agree with and that have been captured by the amendments we're putting in place. But let me just confirm that, because I wouldn't want to mislead the member.