1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2653 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Privatization of health care. Mr. Harcourt –– 2654

Health care costs. Mrs. Boone –– 2654

Appointment of regional development liaison officer. Mr. Kempf –– 2654

Milk producers' quotas. Mr. Rose –– 2655

Investment of pension funds. Mr. Clark –– 2655

Mineral Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 51). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2656

Mr. Guno –– 2656

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2657

Ms. Smallwood –– 2657

Ms. Edwards –– 2658

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2659

Insurance Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 48). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 2659

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Clark

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 34). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dueck) –– 2667

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Rose

Ms. Campbell

Mr. Gabelmann, Mrs. Boone

Appendix–– 2678

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery today is a very great British Columbian, Mr. Henry Justensen. I

would ask you to bid him welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: As all members know, from

time to time the Whips in this House can have very serious

disagreements, but I want to assure the House that I claim no

responsibility for the condition of my colleague at the end of the

table today.

MR. REE: It reminds me of the saying that

in the world of the blind the one-eyed man shall be king.

MS. CAMPBELL: As many members of the House

know, participating in municipal government gives you the opportunity

to meet very fine people from the province outside of your own area. In

my own days as a school trustee, I had the great pleasure of watching a

man named Charles Hingston perform as a school trustee in British

Columbia. My confidence in him was certainly justified when the B.C.

School Trustees' Association elected him their president, which he now

is. Charles and his family are in the House today with guests from New

Zealand. Would the House please make welcome Charles and Gail Hingston,

their children Leanna, Adrian and Melissa, and the family Ricketts

visiting from New Zealand.

MR. WEISGERBER: It's my pleasure today to

introduce, in the members' gallery, the newly appointed regional

development officer for region 8, Peace River, Eric Gunderson.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I just noticed up

in the gallery a very good friend of mine, who's here today watching

the proceedings in the House. I would like to ask members of this House

to join me in welcoming Ralph Morris.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague

from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, I've also recognized a friend, colleague

and hard worker in Victoria, Mr. Jim Jaarsma. Welcome, Jim, to the

House today,

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Tuesday,

November 24, the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose under the

provisions of standing order 35 to ask leave to move adjournment of the

House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public

importance relating to government proposals for privatization schemes

within the province. I wish to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition

for providing the Chair with notice of his intention, in accordance

with practice recommendation No. 8.

British Columbia's standing order 35 was substantially amended

when the rules were revised in 1985, and while the order has been

simplified and abbreviated, the Speaker is still required to decide

whether or not the statement conforms to the rules applicable to such

motions. The authorities have been consistent over the years, stating

that it is not the urgency of the matter which the Chair must consider,

but the urgency of debate at this particular time. There are numerous

precedents, both in our House and in the United Kingdom, where matters

raised might well be considered urgent, but no case could be

established to persuade the Chair that the debate should be proceeded

with at that particular time.

The basic rules applicable to motions under standing order 35

have been stated as follows: the matter must be definite; the matter

must be urgent: the matter must be of public importance; the matter

must involve more than the ordinary administration of the law: the

matter must conform to general rules applicable to all motions for the

adjournment; the matter must conform to general rules of order. I quote

from May's sixteenth edition, page 370. The Chair adopts these general

rules as still applicable to motions under standing order 35.

I have examined the statement provided by the hon. Leader of

the Opposition, and while the

preambles deal with two distinct matters,

decentralization and privatization, it would appear from the last

paragraph of the material presented that the motion is directed at a

single specific matter — that is, privatization — and accordingly

qualifies generally under the rule that the matter must be definite and

involve a single specific matter.

[2:15]

A close examination of the material filed reveals a technical

error, which may well in other circumstances disqualify an application.

In the particular circumstances of this case, bearing in mind the

spirit implicit in the substantial revisions to standing order 35

adopted by this House in 1985, it is the Chair's decision in this

particular case that the statement will be allowed to qualify under

standing order 35. Accordingly, I propose to ask the House whether or

not the member has leave to move a motion for adjournment of the House

under the provisions of standing order 35 for the purpose of discussing

a definite matter of urgent public importance, to wit, privatization in

British Columbia. In this instance, I am declining to read the

statement as presented by the Leader of the Opposition because, as

stated earlier in my reasons, it is my view the statement is

technically flawed.

Hon. members will appreciate that once I put the proposed

motion to the House, if objection is taken, the question of leave to

proceed will be decided on a division without debate. Should leave be

granted to move the motion, I will then call upon the House Leaders to

present their representation as to when the debate might proceed,

bearing in mind standing order 35(6) and 35(7).

Does the member have leave to move a motion for the

adjournment of the House under the provisions of standing order 35 for

the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public

importance, to wit, privatization in British Columbia?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A very interesting

ruling pursuant to standing order 35 –– I would suggest, Mr. Speaker,

to you and to the hon. members opposite, after reviewing the motion of

the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that there is a definite reference

to the Premier. As we all know, the Premier is in Toronto at a first

ministers' conference, and I think it would be important and essential

to this debate that he be present. Therefore, with respect to standing

order 35(6), it would be my suggestion that we defer this debate until

4:30 on Monday next.

[ Page 2654 ]

MR. ROSE: Thank you for your ruling, Mr.

Speaker. This is indeed a historic day. As you and the House well know,

there have been conversations about this. I think we've reached an

agreement that since the Premier is one of the prime players in the

whole matter of privatization, it would be inappropriate for the debate

to proceed without his presence. As a matter of fact, our arguments

without his rejoinder might well be perhaps even insignificant. So it's

very important to us on this side of the House, as we welcome this

debate, to have the Premier present, and we feel that the appointed

time would be eminently suitable.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF HEALTH CARE

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has

publicly stated that he supports private hospitals being established so

that the rich can queue-jump for their operations and not have to wait.

The Premier's massive privatization scheme includes radical plans to

allow special care for a wealthy few. That would leave average British

Columbians and their families to suffer through long waiting-lists and

a lower standard of care.

My question to the Minister of Health is: does the minister

support the Premier's privatization of British Columbia's health care?

HON. MR. DUECK: The Premier has stated in

the past that nothing is sacred and that every area of government will

be looked at as far as privatization is concerned. There has never been

any mention made that the health care system is going to be privatized.

If it were and if it is, it is future policy. I would not comment on

that at this time.

MR. HARCOURT: That is a non-answer, and it

doesn't do anything for the fears of British Columbians. What about the

700 families with children who need an operation and the 400 families

who are waiting for open-heart surgery? That's a non-answer to the

question, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health another question

involving health care. I hope he will answer this one. It involves the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), who has stated publicly that

the emergency wards in some British Columbia hospitals should be

closed. I'd like to know if the minister supports the Minister of

Finance's quest to close down these emergency wards in British Columbia

hospitals and these hospital services.

HON. MR. DUECK: The Minister of Finance has

never stated that emergency departments should be closed. I think he

said that not all hospitals can do everything for all people. There are

certain areas of hospital procedure, in the emergency ward or in any

other part of the hospital, that may require looking at the whole

catchment area and at whether one hospital specializes in one area and

another hospital in another. As far as emergency departments are

concerned, we have some emergency departments that handle certain

procedures that other emergency departments do not. Therefore to have

the same types of emergency department close together may not be the

best route to go. For example, you may have an emergency in Chilliwack

and an emergency in Hope. They both have emergency departments, but

they fly them to VGH. So there is a difference. What we're saying is

that we don't want to duplicate the same type of service in every

hospital. That does not say that we're going to close the service

departments in any hospital. That's the statement the Finance minister

and the Premier were trying to make, but you weren't listening.

MR. HARCOURT: We were listening and we're

still listening, and we're still waiting to see if the minister is

supporting the Minister of Finance's quest. And we're asking you which

emergency wards you're going to close down, so the people of British

Columbia don't have to put up with that uncertainty. Which emergency

wards are you closing down?

HON. MR. DUECK: Do I support the Finance

minister? I sure as heck do. I need him. I support the Finance minister

and I support the Premier. That was a silly question to begin with.

Secondly, whether we're closing emergency departments.... Our

emergency departments, since we had to discontinue the user charges and

fees, have gone up dramatically. I understand that your side of the

House still supports no user fees, and I can tell you that's where some

of the problems lie.

HEALTH CARE COSTS

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of

Health. The Premier announced at the Social Credit convention that he

would be capping health care costs at the current levels, and then he

said later that he was going to be controlling health care costs. Could

the minister advise us, please, what he's going to do? Are you going to

cap them or are you going to control health care costs?

HON. MR. DUECK: I suppose the answer could

be both. We're controlling health care costs every day. We're trying to

find ways to control them better. As far as capping is concerned, we've

capped the MSP for some time already — the doctors are well aware of

that — and we'll continue to do so.

MRS. BOONE: The capping of health care

costs leaves a lot of fear within the province. You're talking in terms

of capping hospital funds, capping all these things. How can the

hospitals, the health care people out there, make any plans when they

don't know whether health care costs are going to be controlled or

capped, or whether they're going to have any money to fund any extra

priorities that they have?

HON. MR. DUECK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess

this is my day. I would like to tell you this much: controlling health

care costs takes much of my time, of course, because we are now

spending, if you include the MSP payments which are part of the gross

figure, $3.7 billion.

As far as hospitals are concerned, I have very good rapport

with them, and I can tell you that their planning is moving very

efficiently and very well. I don't see any problem there. They know

where we're headed and they're cooperating with us in the most amiable

way.

APPOINTMENT OF REGIONAL

DEVELOPMENT LIAISON OFFICER

MR. KEMPF: I have a question to the

Minister of Transportation and Highways in his capacity as Minister of

State

[ Page 2655 ]

for the state of Nechako, if that's what Mr. Poole is calling

it today.

Recently Mr. Barrie Carter of Smithers, former president of

the Skeena Social Credit Constituency Association and campaign manager

for the present Minister of Forests and Lands, was appointed to the

position of regional development liaison officer for Nechako.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a barrel.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, political pork-barrelling

of the worst kind, Mr. Speaker.

My question: what are Mr. Carter's qualifications for this

position? How was he chosen?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm not sure that question

period affords enough time to detail Mr. Carter's credentials for this

particular matter, so I will table the copies of his curriculum vitae

and the member for Omineca can view it at his pleasure. I think that

will answer the question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KEMPF: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. At

the same time, could we have the minister table what Mr. Carter's

salary will be and the size of his expense account?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I think the member for

Omineca knows full well that Public Accounts will afford him every

opportunity to examine it.

MILK PRODUCERS' QUOTAS

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I might address a

quiet question to the Minister of Agriculture. I want to inquire

whether the minister has offered or has any knowledge of an offer to

five rogue suppliers to give or sell these suppliers milk quotas.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, thank you to

the opposition member. I presume you mean five producers. The five

producers have been dealt with in the past few days. They are to be

dealt with on the same basis as every other producer who enters the

industry, the only exception being that they are to buy the minimum

amount of qualifying quota, which is 100 litres. They have until April 1 to be fully in the system.

MR. ROSE: Can the minister assure the House

that these five producers, as he calls them — who have already been to

court and lost their cases — will not be jumped ahead on the building

program over the 540 people already on that program?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There's no problem with

that. The only thing those five producers will get, as did all other

producers when we opted out in 1984, upon re-entry and paying $1.3

million in penalty.... We will give each producer 300 kilograms of

butterfat. They will be treated on the same basis; they will not have

any preference on the building program.

MR. ROSE: Can the minister confirm that

most of those non-quota producers that he wants to welcome back to the

fold — perhaps over the heads of 540 who were in the line ahead of them

— once each had quotas, or most of them had quotas, which they sold for

approximately $3 million? And now they want to get back in the system

with the help of this government.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, they may have

wanted to, I can assure you. But they are coming back in on the same

basis as anybody else entering the system. They must repurchase the

right for the licence and the marketing of that milk.

INVESTMENT OF PENSION FUNDS

MR. CLARK: A question for the Minister of

Finance. I have here a government document that documents a radical

change in the way pension funds will be invested in British Columbia.

For example, it says that money should be invested in the Toronto Stock

Exchange, of all things, and that up to 5 percent of public sector

union pension funds should be invested in high-risk venture capital.

Will the minister confirm that the government is considering

using public sector pension funds to finance high-risk projects in the

eight economic development regions?

[2:30]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I am

delighted to have the opportunity brought forward by the second member

for Vancouver East to illustrate how open and democratic this

government's approach to governance of this province is. The hon.

member refers to a discussion document which was developed as a

consequence of an initiative of this government to determine whether

there was merit in investing a portion of our pension and trusteed

funds in equities. As it is the belief of this government that such an

initiative should be discussed by those affected by the decision, we

have been discussing for the last four or five months, with the various

pension advisory groups whose funds we manage, whether the suggestion

has merit and, if it does, how such a scheme might be developed. The

discussion paper referred to by the member is the final consequence of

those discussions that have been going on over a period of months with

all the employee groups who would be affected by any proposal.

The member seems to conclude that because we issued a

discussion paper, this government intends to proceed in one area or the

other. I can categorically assure the House and the hon. member that it

is what it says it is: a discussion paper. There will be no decision

about what we may implement out of that discussion paper until there

has been a full, frank dialogue with all of those groups who are so

affected.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, insofar as that document relates to

a long-term investment strategy, it is grossly improper to suggest that

there is any particular relevance to the occurrences in the last 30

days in the international stock market area that should impact this

decision. What we're asking the employee groups to keep in mind is not

whether they would have made such a decision and acted on it in the

last 30 days, but rather over the last 25 years: do you believe this

would have been a positive thing to do, and do you agree with the

authors of the report that such an initiative would have considerably

expanded their asset base and improved the earnings from those pension

and trusteed funds? In answer to the specific question....

Interjections.

[ Page 2656 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the

Minister of Finance has well canvassed the question.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of

Finance. This is the workers' money, not your money to play with.

Public sector workers have to worry about their jobs, and now they have

to worry about their pensions as well.

In keeping with his remarks, then, will the minister confirm

in legislation that workers affected will have a say in how their money

is invested, and that it won't be up to the political whims of this

government or the czars in the economic development regions?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: There was a response

given to an earlier question during this question period to the effect

that the questioner should listen. Had the questioner listened to my

response, which I hope you will agree was full and thorough, it would

have answered his queries. There is no need for me to respond to his

second irrelevant question.

MR. SPEAKER: I might remind both sides to

read standing order 47A (b), which says: "Questions and answers shall

be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion."

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on

second reading of Bill 51.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

HON. MR. DAVIS: This legislation will amend

the Mineral Act in respect to claims and mineral properties in

recreation areas. It applies more particularly to areas which

conceivably could become class A parks in the future. The Wilderness

Advisory Committee reported on these matters last year and recommended

that mineral exploration and development be allowed for a limited

period on lands which could be designated class A parks.

The cabinet has endorsed the Wilderness Advisory Committee's

recommendation and is doing so more formally in this legislation. This

short amendment in Bill 51 will put the recommendation of the advisory

committee into effect by allowing new mineral claims to be located in

newly designated recreation areas.

It also limits the Crown's liability for such titles should

the areas in question be designated class A parks. In other words, to

permit a claim in the first instance doesn't carry the obligation to

continue to recognize it as a valid claim for the indefinite future.

This amendment will not affect old or existing recreation areas — i.e.,

Strathcona Park, etc. It certainly won't affect existing class A parks,

but it will apply to future recreation areas and certainly to future

class A park designations.

In the past, parks and recreation areas have been established

without an evaluation of the mineral resources in those lands. Mineral

titles that had been issued in those areas could be owned in

perpetuity. Under the new legislation they can only be valid for a

limited period of time. In the past they were valid indefinitely, as

long as the title holder conformed with the mining tenure legislation.

That will now be changed.

Furthermore, the question of compensation to mineral title

holders has never been addressed. The government's exposure, the

people's exposure, to those claims will be limited by this legislation.

The past system resulted in the issuance of a number of

mineral titles in recreation areas — indeed, in areas which

subsequently became parks. That opportunity, resulting in problems,

will be discontinued by this new law.

This amendment to the Mineral Act provides for mineral

potential evaluations to be undertaken in recreation areas by the

government's survey crews, and allows the mining industry a minimum of

ten years to conduct explorations of its own. As a result of these

evaluations — public and private — mineral resources information will

be available prior to making decisions to create class A parks.

Government then has an opportunity to decide, having this information,

whether or not to include the lands so evaluated in future parks. In

other words, we'll know whether there is mineral potential. We can, if

the mineral potential is substantial and recreation or parks value

minimal, exclude those areas. Alternatively, if we are assured that

there is no ongoing or at least substantial mineral potential, those

lands can forever be proclaimed parklands; and there isn't a problem of

compensation to those who might otherwise have established claims in

those territories.

Mineral titles issued after a recreation area is created can

be cancelled ten years after notice is given to the owners that the

area is a candidate park. Compensation will be paid to owners of

mineral properties with proven reserves if the government of the day

decides to include these properties in a park. The act states that

compensation will not be paid on the basis of costs incurred for

exploration, development, etc. by the private person, firm or whatever.

The compensation formula will be specific. It will be related to the

values well established at the time, and will be specified in

regulations under the Mineral Act.

This mineral resource management approach has been developed

as a result of consultations with the mining industry, recreational

interests, wildlife people and, of course, government representatives

provincial and federal. It has certainly involved the Ministry of

Environment and Parks — its expertise and its concern and interest in

recreation areas and parks.

Three objectives have been accomplished: lands can be added to

the parks system; mineral resources will be evaluated beforehand and

explored prior to designation; and the Crown's liability in instances

where lands which have been evaluated are transferred for park purposes

will be limited.

I've said that this does not apply retroactively; it will

apply to recreation areas established in the future. Again, it follows

the recommendations of the Wilderness Advisory Committee. The

recreation areas now being considered, the first to be treated this way

under this new legislation, are Kakwa in the North Thompson area,

Akamina-Kishinena in southeastern B.C., the Brooks Peninsula, and the

Gitnadoix and Fiordland in northern and northwestern British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this legislation.

MR. GUNO: Because this amendment impacts

more on the integrity of the parks system, my colleague will be

presenting a more comprehensive response to the minister's comments. By

way of general remarks, I want to say that, as he describes it, this

bill does set up the mechanism for mineral

[ Page 2657 ]

exploration and extraction within the designated recreation

areas of the provincial park. More specifically, this bill will allow

cabinet to establish recreation areas that are going to fall under this

act. The cabinet also, upon the recommendation of both the Minister of

Energy and the Minister of Environment, may regulate exploration,

prospecting and mining in these recreational areas. In the third

reading debate I will have a more specific question as to how this kind

of assessment of the mineral potential will be carried out.

The one area that I would like to make a few comments on is

the expropriation rights allowed within the recreation areas after, as

the minister has described, not less than ten years. The rights held

previous to this coming into force are not affected by this provision.

Actually, this amendment merely streamlines what is already possible

under the Park Act. As I said before, it enables the Minister of Energy

to regulate mining within the parks. I'm concerned about the lengthy

time that is going to be required before expropriation can take place.

If the recreation area is to be put back into the park, it will take at

least ten years before that can happen.

By way of general statement, I want to point out the folly of

resource extraction within our parks system. I think that it

demonstrates poor planning in that it is going to provide very little

incentive for the mining industry. It's a poor use of our resources.

But I want to express a deeper concern about putting these recreation

areas right beside, or sometimes right inside, provincial class A parks.

[2:45]

An even deeper concern is that this government is apparently

trying to foist this idea on the public as somehow enhancing the class

A park value; that is, enhancing the scenery, the pristine quality of

the parks, the quietness — in other words, somehow retaining the

wilderness areas for the enjoyment of the public. I don't think that it

does. There isn't any way that the effects of industrial activity can

be contained. Mining, for instance, has such side effects as noise,

tailings, and irreversible changes to the ecosystem. It's a very grave

concern about the impact it will have on our present class A park

system.

We have to understand also why these parks are being set up.

By way of definition, parks are for the use and enjoyment of people of

today and are to be preserved as heritage for our children tomorrow. A

question I would have to pose to the minister is whether by

establishing this process — that is, setting up these recreation areas

where these mining activities can be undertaken — we are presenting an

invitation to indiscriminate logging and mining in our wilderness.

The other matter that I want to touch on very briefly is that

the act contemplates the expropriation rights not being allowed within

recreation areas after ten years. It seems that this is rather

inconsistent for this government, which last year introduced an

expropriation act which emphasized quickness, while in this case the

government seems far more constrained — that is in having to wait ten

years before such an expropriation can take place.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, it's the folly of allowing such a

resource extraction to take place in our valuable parks system, and the

fact that it's going to impact so drastically on the continuing

enjoyment of these wilderness areas, that I want to point out by way of

general remarks.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I appreciate the

comments made by the member opposite in his role as mining critic. I

think we have to put on the record, though, that in the last year the

Ministry of Environment and Parks has added over a million hectares to

their portfolio, so our record for wilderness preservation and trying

to establish the direction of the government is clear. We clearly

endorse wilderness and recreation areas and the value of that resource

for the people of and visitors to the province.

We are putting in place a regime, a program, that's clear to

everybody, both to those who have an interest in recreation areas for

recreation purposes and those people who may have mineral interests. It

puts a plan in place for them. The act before you does not contemplate

any logging, and I can assure you that that will not take place in

parks — unless there is a special need such as bug kill or wildlife

enhancement. In that case we occasionally take trees out of parks,

certainly not for commercial purposes but for other purposes. There

will be no mining in parks; this legislation refers only to recreation

areas. As I believe my colleague has said, there is no impact on

Strathcona.

We think it important, though, in terms of having an

appropriate park regime and development program, that we have this

legislation and further regulations in place. I would draw to

everyone's attention the first section. where it clearly says that any

decision to be made in a current recreation area will be made jointly

by the Minister of Environment and Parks, Without his opinion the

resource use permit will not proceed.

I clearly see the public as being protected. I clearly see

this as a positive move in identifying to all and sundry that we have

well in place the preservation of recreation areas and their final

movement into parks, and all industry will be aware of how we are going

to do this in an orderly fashion.

In terms of the expropriation comment the member made, it is

correct that under a mineral title we will expropriate after ten years.

I think it is logical to allow the industry to have that title

particularly in a newly created recreation area, to set their geology

in place and to see what value is there. We have to face the economic

reality of the province and allow that time-limited period to be in

place to allow for exploration. But I also think it is appropriate that

after ten years we will be able to expropriate those rights.

As Minister of Environment and Parks I have no problem with

this Mineral Amendment Act. I think it is clear; I support it. I

recognize that there may be further questions, but we will be quite

prepared to answer specific questions about the act when we debate it

in committee stage.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I don't intend to use this

time to address the Minister of Environment's comments on his

industrial park policy and his record in this province. It's

unfortunate that we find ourselves dealing with a Mineral Amendment Act

at this time which indeed facilitates the mining of our parks. The

government has chosen to exclude any further legislative restrictions

on mining in parks or to include any environmental protections in that

legislation. I think those are two very revealing omissions in this

legislation.

The government has chosen to put forward a piece of

legislation that helps initially to promote and facilitate the mineral

development of recreational areas in our class A parks. They have

chosen not to curtail mining in our parks. I stress again that they

have chosen to enhance and promote mining in our parks.

If I can again remind the House about some of the history

involved in the claims issue in our parks and the erosion of

[ Page 2658 ]

our parks system by the putting in place of recreational

areas, when this first came up last spring, the minister and his

assistant in the parks division said they were really in a difficult

situation that had to do with the Tener case and that they were bound

to deal with these claims. Because of this particular case, the

government was forced to recognize the claims that existed in parks and

to either compensate for or facilitate the mining of those claims.

There have been decisions since that time which indicate that that is a

false reading: that the Tener case does not pertain to all claims in

our parks system, and that indeed the government could have chosen a

different tack if — and I say if — the government's priority was to

ensure that our parks system and the integrity of that system was

guaranteed to future generations. Instead, we have before us a Mineral

Amendment Act that not only deals with the existing claims in the park

but allows additional claims, additional prospecting, and does nothing

to limit the actual activity in those recreational areas. That is sad,

and I think it reflects clearly who this government represents.

Again, I think it is sad that the Minister of Mines,

recognizing that mines legislation does not empower the ministry to

deal with some of the environmental impacts of any mine in our parks,

never mind the actual mining in areas that are of environmental

sensitivity — i.e. our class A parks — has chosen not to put into

legislation further power for access to information that has some teeth

in it, that allows the Ministry of Mines, in conjunction with the

Ministry of Environment, to know what's actually going on on that site.

The legislation currently in place does not give the Ministry of Mines

the power to get information about the possibility of pollutants. The

Ministry of Environment deals with this situation once those pollutants

have left the mines' property. That is not satisfactory in mining

throughout the province, and it most certainly is not satisfactory

when we're talking about mining on property that is included in our

class A parks system. I think it's again a reflection of this

government's desire to facilitate mining corporations and help them

erode the heritage of our parks system.

Clearly, industrial activity is not compatible with our parks.

No matter which way you say it, no matter how much doubletalk there is,

industrial activity of this magnitude is not compatible with our parks

system. It is not compatible with wilderness areas in this province; it

does not preserve the integrity of wilderness or the environment in any

way. I think it's sad that the government has chosen this route. I'll

look forward to some of the minister's comments when we deal with the

clause by clause. In particular I'll be interested in the minister's

comments as to why he chose not to put restrictions in this legislation

to guarantee the people of this province that there would be some

recognition of the environmental sensitivity of recreational areas.

[3:00]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, this particular

act addresses a recreational area, and the last phase of recreational

areas declared in the province includes the Akamina-Kishinena area in

my riding, which has been a sore spot as far as parks and mining are

concerned. There has been longtime pressure for a park to be

established in this area. It sits right in the corner between the

southern boundary of a national park in the United States and Waterton

Lakes National Park on the Alberta boundary. This is the unfinished

corner of that particular area, which is being considered by many people

to be a natural area for a park. It's an absolutely magnificent area,

except, of course, for the deplorable logging that has been allowed to

go on. It wasn't brought into the parks system until now, and even now

only as a recreational area.

There are some international complications to the fact that it

does not have the kind of protection that a designation as a park would

have given this Akamina-Kishinena area. In fact, I am sure the minister

is well aware of the Sage Creek hearings and the international

objection that was made by the United States — and, in fact, the

international joint commission meetings that were held in the area and

the major concern that was going on with the proposed mining

development that would impact on that area.

There has been another major concern that I think is of

considerable importance. It's a grizzly bear study that has been done

over a number of years in a very extensive way. It is probably the area

with the most dense grizzly population on the North American continent.

That comparison includes the Khutzeymateen, which is generally

considered to be a fairly dense area.

There has been an actual count of the grizzly population

there. The only thing in there that bothers grizzly, as far as the

scholar who has been doing the work is concerned, is the exploration

for oil and gas in that area. This process of allowing exploration and

other mining work to continue and then having it subject only to the

current Mineral Act is, it seems to me — because of the experience of

others of my constituents — a fairly dangerous thing to do.

I connect it with the response of the Mines ministry to the

proposed drilling well in Sparwood, which has not yet been concluded,

as the minister knows. I suggest that that could, and may, yet be

concluded satisfactorily; we don't know. It took a lot of energy and

pressure by the people who had some concerns about the drilling of a

well that could or could not produce some kind of gas very near to a

settlement.

It seems to me that if that kind of drilling was being

proposed — and certainly there has been a lot of exploration, and this

kind of thing has gone on in the past in this area — it would be a lot

harder to push, under the current legislation, for the kind of hearing

that the people in that area would want to have in the face of the

perceived health effects that the discovery and production and

transportation of, for example, sour gas would have.

It seems to me that it has not yet addressed the very need

that we have for public input into these decisions. Right now the

decision will be made by the Mines ministry and the Environment

ministry in conjunction, but there is no need yet to allow the citizens

of the area to have some input into the process of deciding whether or

not to allow drilling.

There is some major concern in our area about input by the

public. It's not only related to parks; it relates to the possible

drilling, and it has also been related to forestry recreation areas,

because there is considerable concern right now whether the public is

going to have the kind of input that it requires into the management

plan for the Height of the Rockies.

Put all these things together, Mr. Minister, and I think I

would like to see something in these amendments to assure the public

that they would have some input into what is going on. That is the

least that one should demand. It seems to me that there is not yet a

clear way that any of these ministries has shown that they can get

public input in a way that the public agrees to.

[ Page 2659 ]

I think this issue has to be addressed, and I see this as

another place where it has not yet been addressed, and it should be

addressed.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Firstly, I'd like to repeat

that this legislation does not impact on existing parks in any way,

We're not talking about mineral development in parks — or, indeed, in

future parks. We are talking about the ground rules for mineral

exploration development in areas other than parks, areas which might

become parks.

The hon. Member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) referred to the

Akamina-Kishinena area, and that is a candidate to be a park someday.

It adjoins Glacier National Park. It's an incredibly beautiful area. It

has been damaged to a degree already; I'd say primarily by forestry

operations. At least, flying over the heights of lands and valleys

there, the main impression one has is that damage by man has been

almost entirely caused by forestry companies. But those lands will

recover, as they have over the ages from forest fires in the area, and

so on.

We're talking instead of parks. We're talking about recreation

areas, some of which one day may become parks, and we're talking about

the process whereby we can put all and sundry — certainly all and

sundry in the mining industry — on reasonable notice for the transition

from recreation areas to parks. For those who have mineral rights in

the Akamina-Kishinena area presently, when the government of the day

decides that this will or is likely to become a park, they can now put

them on ten years' notice. They then have ten years in which to carry

out exploration and so on to attempt to establish a value for the

mineral resource, and that value may or may not be bought out by the

government of the day when that area becomes a park. So we're

establishing a process whereby everyone is treated fairly, but also a

process in which — in one direction, anyway — the movement is from

recreation area to park.

This is not stating when any particular area will become a

park, but it is setting up a mechanism whereby those who have valid

mineral claims have a certain time in which to put their affairs in

order and at the end of that time have a limited claim on the Crown.

The situation presently is that they have an unlimited claim over time.

Their claims are good for all time.

So we're setting up a mechanism which was advocated by the

Wilderness Advisory Committee. It contained representatives of all

interests — certainly the recreational side, the environmental side —

and they thought this was a fair process, a fair sequence to follow in

establishing future parks. That's basically what is involved.

Mine development nowadays has to go through several stages of

investigation by our Environment ministry and others relative to

pollution and other possible damage, and this would apply, of course,

to any mining or recreation area, were one to develop. Whether or not

there is public input would depend on the general public concern in the

area and whether people locally were likely to be affected in any way

by the mine development.

I would think that if we were to be seriously considering

establishing a park in any one of these recreation areas or any part of

them, the public should be involved. But again, specifically, this

deals with recreation areas, with mineral claims and recreation areas,

and with the way in which those claims can be limited and the way in

which they can be extinguished if the government of the day decides to

convert that area from a recreation area designation to a provincial

park designation.

Motion approved on the following division:

[3:15]

YEAS — 38

Brummet

Savage

Rogers

L. Hanson

Dueck

Richmond

Parker

Michael

Pelton

Loenen

Crandall

De Jong

Rabbitt

Dirks

Mercier

Long

Veitch

Strachan

S.D. Smith

Couvelier

Davis

Johnston

R. Fraser

Weisgerber

Jansen

Hewitt

Gran

Chalmers

Mowat

Ree

Bruce

Serwa

Vant

Campbell

Peterson

Messmer

Jacobsen

B.R. Smith

NAYS — 19

G. Hanson

Rose

Harcourt

Stupich

Skelly

Boone

D'Arcy

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Sihota

Miller

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

Edwards

Bill 51, Mineral Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. STUPICH: Yesterday there were the

opening remarks by the minister in moving second reading, and then some

comments from the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). In

closing, the minister said: "I choose to respond to those remarks

during the committee discussion." I wonder whether the minister wants

to comment now on the general remarks that were made by the first

member for Vancouver East, or whether he would rather wait and try to

have me sort it out

section by section.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm pleased, for the

benefit of a full and frank debate, to respond to those general

comments now, if that's your pleasure. While I don't have the verbatim

in front of me, my notes indicate that there was a comment made about

the record of the regulatory agencies employed by government and some

question as to whether they might be relied upon to perform adequate

service as it relates to this amended act. I'm very pleased to respond

to that general comment with the assertion that the changes made by this

[ Page 2660 ]

government, in terms of its regulations and by virtue of its

staffing changes, quite clearly have indicated to the affected

industries our very serious attitude and our determination to ensure

that to the best of our ability there will be consistent, determined

regulatory actions taken when abuse is properly and legally identified,

or at least identified in a way that can be legally substantiated if

such is necessary. So I claim, Mr. Chairman, in response to the general

statement, that this government's performance as it relates to

regulatory functions is clear, and I am very happy to stand defending

it.

A second comment was made dealing with the possible difficulty

given the fact that the four pillars of financial institutions are

breaking down internationally, that the federal legislation and the

various provincial legislations across the country are facilitating a

broader range of responsibilities for financial institutions generally,

and that we are embarked in a similar direction. To the comment, then,

that this breaking down of the four pillars may present some

difficulties, as it relates to insurance companies, I have to note with

some amusement that the speaker is himself directly involved with a

firm — a commercial undertaking — which is in the process of attempting

to broaden its interests in the insurance field. So I found it somewhat

ironic that he would drag this red herring out and express some feigned

alarm. I think that's probably the best response to that point.

The allegation had been made that we have not consulted with

industry. There are a number of points there. First of all, you should

know, Mr. Chairman, that the staff and myself have met with the

Insurance Bureau of Canada on this legislation; we have met with the

independent insurance agents' association and the Canadian Life and

Health Insurance Association. Those are the major organizations extant

in the province with an interest in the subject. Furthermore, by

introducing this bill at the last sitting, it has, in effect, been in

the public domain since July 16, and to any suggestion that we have

been insensitive to the need for public input, I can think of no better

defence than to say it has been out there and we have been inviting

comment since July 16.

Lastly, as proof of my claim that this is a government that

listens and learns, we will be introducing some House amendments during

the discussion of this bill which will recognize some of the points

made during those very lengthy, in-depth discussions with the industry.

MR. STUPICH: If I may comment on some of

the comments that the minister made: first, with respect to his

assurance that everything is going to be well now that there have been

staff changes, I think that up to now nobody has really noticed any

difference, either in the credit union movement or in the trust

organizations that have had problems. Newport Mortgage that had

difficulty.... There were all kinds of examples where there didn't seem

to be the capability within the office of the superintendent of

insurance to look after the interests of consumers in the province of

British Columbia. When the minister said staff changes, is he talking

about changes in personnel or is he talking about beefing up the whole

office? Are there more people there? That's what I'm wondering.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I just

want to remind the hon. member that my phrase, I believe, was

alterations and changes to the regulations themselves and staffing

changes. I wouldn't want to mislead you to think that merely by virtue

of changing personalities we've remade the world. To the question of

whether we have increased staffing levels in the superintendent of

insurance office, the answer is no, although that may be a possibility.

We are in the process of reorganizing a number of our sections in the

corporate relations division, and I haven't yet received the

recommendations of staff in that respect. But I'm aware of the fact

that it is openly being examined and there may well be some suggested

staffing changes as a consequence, but I wouldn't want to predict them,

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I can't help but

be concerned about that, because it would seem to me that the

difficulties we've had in the past with respect to financial

institutions in the province is that there just hasn't been the

capability within that office — a capability deficiency, I think, not

because of the quality of the personnel, but rather because there just

haven't been enough of them to look after the problems, particularly

problems that have developed over recent years. However, I think a lot

more will be said about that later on.

The minister commented on the red herring raised by the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). He said that that member is

associated with the financial institution that is trying to broaden its

scope. That's true, Mr. Chairman, but that's one organization that

hasn't been in trouble. I think it's one of the few credit unions that

haven't been in trouble, one of the few that have done extremely well

when others have been running into a great deal of difficulty. Perhaps

it's all right for that one to expand its scope, but I'm concerned

about others that may come up. There will be further discussion about

that later in this bill. In picking on that member and the organization

of which he is a director — I'm not sure if he still is a director — I

think the minister has picked a poor target.

On the third point that the minister raised in response to the

comments from the first member for Vancouver East, that the bill, which

was introduced quite some time ago — July 16 — was introduced for

discussion purposes only, as he said at the time, proving that it's now

a government that listens, or that he's a minister who listens.... I'm

not sure which he said. He corrected me a little earlier.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Both.

That may prove it to the Socred caucus. It doesn't seem to

have proven it to people like the Insurance Agents' Association or to

the Insurance Bureau, because as recently as before lunch my office was

told by both of those organizations that they have tried to have

meetings. The Insurance Bureau has not yet met with the minister,

although it tried to meet with the minister. The agents' association

did have one what they called "brief" meeting with the minister which

was quite unsatisfactory from the point of view of discussion; they

felt they didn't get anywhere in it, and they were hoping it was going

to be just the first — a sort of introductory meeting.

It would seem that both the bureau and the agents' association

expected consultation. They were reassured by the minister's opening

remarks, when he introduced this bill on July 16, that there would be

discussion, that there would be listening. The minister tells us he

listened to somebody and will be reacting to what he heard by bringing

in further amendments. But there seems to be a breakdown in

communication between the minister and these organizations.

[ Page 2661 ]

The minister tells us there has been full, frank, free

discussion, consultation, opportunity for people to speak and be heard,

and that there was listening; yet the organizations to whom he was

supposed to be listening don't seem to have known about those meetings.

It's not the first time this kind of thing has happened. In the

previous Legislature a minister assured me that he and his ministry

were meeting with a certain organization in our community. When I

contacted that organization, they didn't know what meetings were being

held, because certainly they weren't a party to them.

So maybe the minister is mixed up. Maybe it's somebody else he

met with on that one occasion.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The group that I met

with personally, so I'm advised, was the independent insurance agents'

association.

To the suggestion that the bill and the amendments therein may

not have the universal support of the constituency it addresses, I'm

not satisfied that that is a true allegation. It is likely true that on

some particular aspects of the proposed bill the impact on one segment

of the industry would be resisted by that particular segment, but

that's no different from any other piece of legislation that we deal

with in this House. It is seldom that we deal with a piece of

legislation that does not impact adversely on one sector or another.

So I can say — with some confidence, I believe — that the

general thrust of the bill, its intent, its degree of discussion, has

had, and does continue to receive, the general support of the trade.

[3:30]

MR. STUPICH: This time I'm going to try to

correct the minister, or perhaps correct myself. He said I advanced a

suggestion that there was not universal support for the legislation. I

hope I didn't do that, Mr. Chairman. I didn't mean to say that there

was a lack of universal support or that there was not such a lack. I

don't think I commented either way. I don't know whether there's any

degree of disagreement at all.

My whole point was that the minister had said there was the

consultation, the cooperation, the open government that he promised

when he introduced the bill; yet the people with whom he was supposed

to be discussing this legislation said that try as they did, the

council was never able to meet with the minister, and the agents'

association had one brief meeting, which they felt was just an

introductory meeting to more such meetings. That's all I was saying. I

wasn't saying that they don't like what they got. What I'm saying is

that they don't like the process. They felt there would be

consultation, an opportunity for them to make their input, and they

feel they didn't have the opportunity that was promised them. That's

all I was saying, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 3, hon. members,

there are quite a number of parts, so I think we'll deal with them one

at a time, if that's agreeable with everyone. There are some amendments

to be offered.

section 3 (28.1).

MR. STUPICH: Actually, Mr. Chairman, it's

not 28.1 so much as

section 3 in general. I wonder if it would be all

right to deal with it in general first.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's all right with the

Chair, if the Minister of Finance has no objection. I think we will

have to deal with the individual parts, but a general comment would be

in order.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister

said yesterday or previously or both, I don't know, that it was a very

complicated and time-consuming matter for an insurance company to be

incorporated. It meant introducing a public bill by a private member.

But there was a safeguard in that the private bills committee could

call witnesses and listen to people who wanted to make representations

about an application to establish an insurance company by any group for

any purpose. There was that opportunity to listen and to comment, and

the committee could then report to the Legislature, of course.

Now it would appear as though not even the minister is going

to get involved in any of this — when I say the minister I mean his

office really. The superintendent is the only one — and I'm not

suggesting he's just one person, but I'm saying the superintendent's

office — who takes sole, total responsibility for dealing with any

application for an insurance company. Even insurance companies run

into trouble and, certainly from the point of view of liability, people

are more and more concerned about the way insurance companies operate.

While I don't suggest that it should go back to what it was, that there

should be a committee of the Legislature, that there should be this

long process — I think we're well away from that — I wonder if the

minister is getting out of being responsible for this and turning it

over. Maybe he's ultimately responsible for the superintendent — that

might be his answer. I don't know. But as I read this, the

superintendent makes the decision. Is that really what it means?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the

intention of simplifying the incorporation procedure for insurance

companies is merely another indication of this government's desire to

do what we might to help build up an infrastructure or a network, if

you like, among the financial community for British Columbia. It

develops that, by virtue of the parochial interests of some of our

other provincial colleagues across the country, some of our existing

financial institutions are at risk. Therefore it's more and more

important that a province with a population base as relatively small as

that of B.C. retain the maximum degree of flexibility it can to carve

out market niches for ourselves as they may arise.

There's no better illustration of that than with the captive

insurance legislation we passed earlier this year. It is the continued

determination of this government to seek out those niches as they

arise, and in order to do that, it's imperative that we be able to deal

expeditiously with proposals that come forward. As a consequence of

these proposed changes before us, we have an expression of interest

from the trade, which otherwise might not have arisen were it not for

the fact that we are attempting to simplify the process and at the same

time ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in the approval

process so that the interests of British Columbians are protected.

That's our intention, Mr. Chairman, and we do believe that this act and

these amendments will realize that objective.

[ Page 2662 ]

MR. STUPICH: We'll get to the safeguards a

little later. I'm sure you heard my question, Mr. Chairman, and maybe

the minister didn't. I was asking about the ultimate responsibility. Is

it in the hands of the superintendent? Is he the one who's totally

responsible? Does he not even talk to the minister about it or to

someone in the minister's office? Is it totally within the office of

the superintendent of insurance, this question of deciding whether or

not an insurance company is going to be incorporated under this

legislation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I'm

trying to give as full and complete answers as I can so that the

members of the opposition might better understand the philosophical

thrust of the legislation. If I err in appearing not to deal with a

specific question, I apologize.

I suppose the best answer about any decision of the

superintendent would be that it could be appealed to the Commercial

Appeals Commission and could receive a full and fair hearing if there

is any suspicion that an abuse might occur.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think now I

have my answer. The minister is washing his hands of the approval

process and saying that, really, it is the superintendent of insurance

who is responsible for deciding whether or not an insurance company is

going to be incorporated. He reports to no one on this issue.

The minister just washed his hands of the whole process and

said: "You decide whether or not an insurance company should be

incorporated. I don't want to even hear about it." That's what I heard,

and I have voiced what I heard in much the same language as the

minister, and I do appreciate his full and complete answers. I would

rather they answered the question, but nevertheless it's all

information, so that's useful.

MR. CLARK: Just to follow along the lines

of the first member for Nanaimo, it seems to me that what this does is

put a great deal of onus on the superintendent — much more than was the

case in the past. Maybe the minister could inform the House whether he

thinks the expertise exists currently in the superintendent's office,

whether there will be a requirement as a result of the great activity

this act will spawn and whether he envisions that there will need to be

more expertise and a larger staff to provide the kind of safeguards the

minister talks about.

There is a great fear on our side that there is a reason for

the regulations in the first place and by removing the strict and

onerous provisions and making it easier, it puts more pressure on the

regulator to actually regulate. The same can be said for a number of

other areas that the government is moving on.

But in this case, it seems pertinent for the minister to give

us some thoughts on whether he sees the superintendent's office capable

enough today, whether he thinks it needs more staffing, whether the

expertise is there now or whether there needs to be more expertise

recruited for that office, in light of the changes he's making here.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the

second member for Vancouver East should know that the position of

superintendent of insurance is presently held by a temporary

appointment and that it is my personal hope that such appointment does

not endure for much longer.

The fact of the matter is I've got additional work that I need

performed, and this individual has many talents; only one of them

happens to be some expertise in the insurance business. I'm referring

to the acting deputy rather than to the superintendent, by the way,

just so you are not confused.

As I said, we are going through a reorganization process or

examination. Until I receive the recommendations, as they relate to all

sections of the corporate relations division, I am unable to respond to

your specific question about staffing needs. It might well be that we

can combine some functions and in the process realize some economies.

Certainly, because I have to reduce expenditures as a mandate from the

Premier, I will be doing everything I can to wring every cent of value

out of the corporate relations division.

So my intent would be that we not add to the staffing levels,

but as you pointed out quite intelligently, it might well be that this

legislation, being so imaginative and creative, will result in us

receiving many more applications for incorporation of insurance

companies than we currently envisage. I don't imagine at the moment we

are going to get swamped. However, I do anticipate that there will be

some early firms in the lineup to take advantage of this legislation.

MR. CLARK: It's really not acceptable to

say that we're in the middle of reorganization. We have a temporary

superintendent — an acting superintendent. We're going through all

kinds of changes, the minister says, in the corporate relations

section

of his ministry. And yet you're bringing in legislation — legislation

that, more importantly, requires the kind of tough scrutiny and

expertise to ensure that safeguards do in fact take place.

So removing the legislative safeguards and placing the burden

on someone who is not yet appointed I think is a serious mistake. It's

indicative of this government's headlong drive to do things without

proper planning or presentation. I'm surprised that even in an area as

relatively minor as this they haven't done their homework and haven't

got the people in place.

Maybe the minister could answer briefly a different kind of

question, and it's a general one on this legislation. Would this

essentially enable a credit union in Victoria to establish, in effect,

an insurance company?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I really

have to object. I never put any constraint on the questioners that they

had to be brief. What's this? Are we all of a sudden having some

artificial imposition of time limits on the third reading discussion? I

never said you had to be brief when you put the queries to me. I don't

think you should be making the same request of me. I want to be frank,

full and complete.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: He said "would he

briefly respond."

The question is a theoretical one. I suppose in the fullness

of time there may well be an application from a credit union that

deserves serious consideration for it forming an insurance subsidiary.

You made specific reference to Victoria firms, and I have to say that

at the moment I would guess that that is not a likely possibility.

MR. CLARK: Just so I understand the bill a

little more, maybe the minister could explain why that is not a likely

[ Page 2663 ]

possibility, and whether in fact the intent of this

legislation is to encourage this sort of one-stop shopping that we are

getting rhetoric on from the other side and to actually encourage

financial institutions — locally based, say, like credit unions — to

set up in-house insurance companies to provide insurance services. Is

that a goal of the legislation? Whether or not it is, could the

minister explain why a credit union — for example, Westcoast Savings,

or the one here — would likely be constrained from establishing an

insurance corporation?

[3:45]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, unlike

some arrogant centralized planners, this government happens to believe

the marketplace is the best one to determine where the opportunities

might lie. I think the question exhibits a bias in terms of what

energizes the economy and what role government should play in helping

economic activity. It is not the intention of this bill to enable any

one sector to do any one thing. It is rather the intention of this bill

to make quite clear our government's willingness to consider proposals

from well- structured, soundly financed financial institutions to

develop an insurance subsidiary, if that is their wish.

We do not target a sector with this piece of legislation,

because we do not have the arrogance to think that we can accurately

predict which part of the private sector might have an interest in a

particular subject or the other.

MR. CLARK: Just to clarify the point, I was

not trying to suggest that you were targeting credit unions; I was

merely asking for an example for my own edification — whether or not

this would be a likely candidate or whether this is the kind of thing

the minister envisions. We have had self-insurance legislation allowing

people to insure themselves, and we've had debate about that.

I wondered whether the purpose was really to try to encourage

financial institutions like credit unions to form insurance

corporations in order that the service provided might well be a

one-stop service by financial institutions. I am not trying to pick on

credit unions or anything; I am just asking for my own information

whether that is a likely result of this legislation, or whether it is

something the minister desires and that is the purpose of the

legislation.

Section 3 (28.1) to 3 (28.3) inclusive approved.

section 3 (28.4).

MR. STUPICH: As I read this section, it

occurs to me that the minister is hoping that there will be a flood of

applications for such insurance companies at a $25,000-a-crack

non-refundable deposit.

Section 3 (28.4) approved.

section 3 (28.5).

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment

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

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: I just wonder if the minister

could explain the purpose of the amendment.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the

original

section 28.5 allowed a special act insurance company to

convert only to an insurance company under the Company Act. This was an

oversight, as it is a basic principle of the administrative corporation

procedure introduced in this bill that any form of incorporation or

conversion be facilitated. The House amendment will permit a special

act insurance company to convert to a company, or an insurance company,

by following the established procedures.

MR. CLARK: Really, I am not asking you to

tell us what the amendment is but to give us an explanation as to why

the amendment was put forward. Rather than simply reading his notes,

maybe the minister could just give us a sort of layman's

interpretation

of the amendment.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I indicated earlier

in my general answers, Mr. Chairman, the process has received much

dialogue with the trade. This particular amendment, I believe, arose as

a consequence of those discussions.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 (28.5) as amended approved.

Section 3 (28.6) approved.

section 3 (28.61).

MR. CLARK: I want to ask for a brief

explanation again about the particular relevance of that section.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This

section allows for

an extraprovincial company to be continued into the province as an

insurance company. As well, it allows a B.C. insurance company to

continue outside of the province. The superintendent must approve the

continuation or transfer of incorporation of any such company.

MR. CLARK: So this

section allows a new

insurance company incorporated for the purposes of this act to operate

in another province, subject to the rules and regulations of that

province.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, it deals with

existing companies.

Sections 3 (28.61) to 3 (28.71) inclusive approved.

Section 3 (28.8).

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move

the amendment to this

section standing in my name on the order paper.

[See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: Once again, just a brief

explanation, please, from the minister. It doesn't have to be brief.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The original provision

required a pre-licensed, provincially incorporated insurance company to

have in its legal name the term "unlicensed." Upon licensing, the

insurer would have to legally change its

[ Page 2664 ]

name to delete the term "unlicensed." After introduction of

the bill, public comment was received, and it was determined that such

a procedure was cumbersome. So here again is another illustration of

response by this open government to suggestions made by the trade.

MR. CLARK: Okay, we realize that it was

cumbersome. What does the amendment do, then? I'm sorry, I haven't got

it before me, so I am partly guilty. The words "unlicensed insurer":

does that no longer become public knowledge, then? It seems to me that

the original wording of the

section had some merit in ensuring that

"unlicensed insurer" was incorporated in the act. It made it somewhat

more difficult to remove, I agree, but it seemed to me that there was

some validity in having "unlicensed insurer" incorporated.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The printed material

and any material used by.... The firm so affected will have that

qualification put in its publications. So in terms of consumer

knowledge and protection it will remain in place. This merely deals

with the question of the term in the act.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 (28.8) as amended approved.

section 3 (28.81).

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move an amendment to

this

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

Amendment approved.

Section 3 (28.81) as amended approved.

Sections 3 (28.9) and 3 (28.91) approved.

section 4.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment

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

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is one of

the areas in which the people who met with the minister, and the people

who wanted to meet with the minister and are still waiting, were quite

concerned, I think. It deals with the question of a capital base.

The

section before us leaves it up to the superintendent to

determine whether or not a prospective insurer has an adequate capital

base. It is left solely up to the superintendent. I almost said "him."

That might be a sexist remark; it need not be a "him." In any case, it

leaves it solely up to the superintendent.

The industry wanted there to be a minimum of $5 million. I'm

wondering why the minister chose not to have some minimum figure there

at least. I can appreciate that different insurance companies should

have different minimums, but I also wonder why the minister didn't buy

the argument that there should be some basic minimum written into the

legislation to give some guidance to the superintendent.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The approach we are

taking here is, once again, related to my earlier comment that we

believe there are a number of smaller market niches that can be filled

if we have the wit to seize the opportunity. We think that it's

important that there be the flexibility in the act to allow discretion

about what kind of a capital base may be required. As the questioner

pointed out, even in those jurisdictions which state the sums needed,

there is some difference between the various types of insurance

companies. That merely proves my point that when you're trying to

provide flexibility to engender more activity in the financial

community, it's very important that there be the opportunity for the

regulators to judge the merits of each individual case as it might come

forward.

MR. STUPICH: I have no quarrel with

anything that the minister has said. I agree that there could well be

different requirements for different companies. He's talking about

niche situations. I think that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams), speaking yesterday, said that such situations are where the

higher risks could be.

It would seem to me that we also have to have some concern for

the consumers. We want the consumers to be relatively confident that

the insurer is stable and solid and is going to be able to stand behind

the policies. Sure, it's up to the marketplace, and they can pick

people in whom they have confidence. But if the superintendent of

insurance is saying that this organization is qualified — "I'm going to

approve a licence for them" — then I think the superintendent has some

responsibility to satisfy the prospective consumer that it is a sound

organization.

If an insurer is unable or unwilling to put up a minimum

capital based on $5 million — or whatever, but some minimum figure —

then I would think that that organization should not be licensed to do

insurance business in British Columbia. We're not talking about large

amounts when it comes to insurance. We've all heard of single claims

that are much higher than $5 million, so we're not talking about a

large figure. It would seem to me that even for such specialty

situations as the minister is talking about, having a $5 million base

is a reasonable request coming from people who have been in the

business as long as the members of the council and the Insurance

Agents' Association. Those people are in the business. They've been

working at it, as far as their organization is concerned, for years.

They've argued with the minister, with his staff or with whoever would

listen to them that there should be a minimum figure. I agree, and I

think the minister's answer doesn't really deal with the question as to

why he was not willing to at least include a minimum figure.

Flexibility, yes. But a bottom, yes.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Obviously the

regulators would not approve any proposal that exceeded the financial

ability of the company making application.

To illustrate the point here, the hon. member suggests a $5

million figure, if I understand him properly. The figure of $3 million

is used by the federal government for general insurers. So even the

hon. member is indicating the problem. Which figure is right?

Furthermore, the captive insurance

[ Page 2665 ]

legislation this government introduced and enacted, and which

has as a consequence recruited some firms for entering the private

insurance field, only had a $200,000 figure attached to it. So you

really have to be flexible if you're going to be able to meet the

varied requests that come forward. We would anticipate that the average

capital required by firms applying for this licensing would likely

exceed $5 million on average. But that doesn't mean to say that every

one will, and we want to make very sure that those that have a good

business plan and can protect the interests of the consumers are not

denied the right to offer a service.

MR. STUPICH: The captive insurance

companies are dealing in a private business: they're not dealing with

the public at all. We're talking here about insurance companies that

are going to be dealing with the public. I have no idea when the

federal base of $3 million was established, but I would suspect it was

many, many years ago. Or else, why put it in if it's only $3 million?

How did I arrive at $5 million? That's the experience from the

industry. That's the figure they suggested. The minister, instead of

saying,"You asked for 5, I'll give you 4 or 10," has said: "I don't

think there should be any minimum at all."

[4:00]

I have heard nothing from the minister to convince me that

there shouldn't be a minimum of some base figure that would inspire

some confidence in the minds of the general public with whom these

companies will be dealing. I don't think the minister has made a good

case for turning down the request of the people in the business, the

people who have had the experience and have been working at it. They

made the request, and I think the minister should have responded in

some way other than to simply ignore it.

Section 7 approved on division.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. CLARK: I have a question for the

minister. There's a disturbing trend, it seems to me, in this

government to replace the legislative requirement for

Lieutenant-Governor in-Council approval with ministerial approval. One

may argue that it's a small matter, but I think it can be quite

significant. Once again we have a situation where the intent of this,

according to the explanatory notes, is to replace the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the minister after receiving a

report from the superintendent.

It seems to me that Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is a

modest safeguard at best. Of course, it's not really at all, but it

seems to me appropriate that there be Lieutenant-Governor approval, and

that we all — this side of the House as well — are informed of

suspensions or revocations of licences with respect to what is going on

in the insurance field. It ought not to be simply transferred, to the

superintendent essentially, which this legislation does. Maybe the

minister could explain for us why it is necessary to change the

provision which allows the Lieutenant-Governor for one which allows the

minister.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: There is no better

illustration of the need for regulatory authorities to act quickly and

expeditiously than merely to read the history over the last three years

of financial institutions in Canada, and indeed in the whole world. It

is imperative that those individuals charged with ensuring that the

laws are followed have the ability to act quickly when they see the

need. Therefore, in the interests of the consumers of British Columbia,

Mr. Chairman, it's very important in our view that this change be made.

Section 10 approved.

Sections 11 to 29 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move

the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Section 29.1 approved.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

MR. STUPICH: I'm concerned about this one,

Mr. Chairman, and perhaps the minister can relieve my concern. "No

action for damages lies or shall be instituted against (

a) the

minister...." As I recall, reading through the bill, this is the first

time there is any possibility of the minister being involved in

anything that has come into this, other than that he introduced the

bill. "No action for damages lies or shall be instituted against (

a) the minister, the superintendent or a person acting under the authority

of either of them, (

b) a member. servant or agent of the council, or

(

c) a member of a committee of the council.... " It would seem, from

reading that, that you can't have any action against anyone who has had

anything at all to do with licensing or supervising one of these

insurance companies.

It goes on to say: "...for anything done in good faith in

the performance or intended performance of a duty or in the exercise or

intended exercise of a power under this Act or the regulations, or for

any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of

that duty or power." Any neglect or default. It doesn't seem to matter

how wrong a servant of the Crown or a servant of the office...how

badly they have handled a situation; there is no opportunity for anyone

hurt by this to sue anyone. Is that really what we're saying here? That

there's no possibility of any action against any person working for the

Crown or for the office of the superintendent, regardless of what

they've done?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the key

phrase there is good faith. In other words, what we're saying is that

if these individuals charged with a specific public responsibility act

in good faith, they would have this protection. This is not unusual or

different. It is, I understand, not uniformly applied in our various

pieces of legislation and that's something we will be working on as the

opportunities present themselves. Nevertheless, the key phrase is "good

faith." In the absence of such good faith, they are not given this

protection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, at a time like

this I would like to have the member from Esquimalt, or whatever it's

called now — Port Renfrew — in the House. The minister says that the

key phrase is "good faith," but I read also

[ Page 2666 ]

"neglect." How can you be neglectful in good faith? I suppose

it's possible, but it seems to me that neglect is going a bit beyond

the kind of .... What protection is there for anyone who has been hurt

by what's gone on if the Crown can simply say: "Well, this person acted

in good faith; they weren't trying to cheat you"? The fact that they

didn't supervise what was going on was done in good faith. The fact

that maybe they were short-handed, and the minister is responsible for

that: well, they did it in good faith. So it doesn't matter how much a

consumer has been hurt and how much the government is to blame for

whatever reason. Because the person who was doing the work did it

without any intention of hurting anybody, then everybody's off the

hook. How could anyone ever go after anybody, unless they proved that

that person was stealing from them or deliberately out to go after them?

It seems to me it's not just good faith; it's that the absence

of bad faith is interpreted as good faith, the way this reads. If a

person hadn't gone out deliberately to do something wrong, then it

would be interpreted that that person acted in good faith. What you are

doing is denying any access, it would seem to me. I'm not a lawyer; I

would suggest maybe the minister isn't, but he has one handy. I don't

have one right now. I wish I had. But it seems to me that this can be

used to stop any action at all against anyone.

I can see why it should be, maybe, when we're talking about

credit unions, trust companies and all those people where there has

been so much go wrong because of the inadequacy, I believe, of the

staff — I don't mean the quality; I mean the quantity. There haven't

been the policemen there to do the job. It's the government's fault

that they haven't been able to do the job. We're going to load more

work on them, and the minister has not said that he's going to increase

the staff by one person. He hasn't said he wouldn't, but neither has he

given us any assurance that he's going to beef up that office. With all

this throwing a lot more work on to them, to then say: "We can't be

wrong because we operated in good faith whatever we did...." There's

precious little protection there, Mr. Chairman, for the consumers in

the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I mentioned earlier,

this

section follows the example that I understand is in other pieces

of legislation, although not uniformly across all pieces of

legislation. There's nothing new or different here. But even to that

section dealing with neglect or default, I must point out to the hon.

member that the phrase following that is: "in the performance or

exercise in good faith of that duty or power."

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister

falls back on "in good faith," and all that means is the absence of bad

faith; it doesn't mean good faith, as I read this. There just isn't any

protection there for anyone. What it's doing is deliberately denying.

The minister has said that this is used not in all other legislation,

but in some. I could be nasty and challenge the minister to produce one

other piece of legislation and show me that wording. I'm sure with time

he'd be able to do it. I'm not going to ask him to do that; there's no

point. I'm sure it could be found somewhere; I accept that. There may

be some cases where it's justified. Here it isn't. I'm sorry to see it

in here, and I'm going to vote against this

section on that basis. I

think there's no protection.

MR. CLARK: Well, I think the first member

for Nanaimo made some very good points, and maybe the minister could

clarify. If I had an allegation that they were acting in bad faith, I

would presumably still be allowed to sue, but in my case I would have

to make the argument that it wasn't negligence or incompetence but that

in fact they were deliberately attempting to do something.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the act

is written in a way that in the absence of good faith, then anyone can

lodge a suit.

MR. CLARK: I know that if the minister

continues to repeat the same answer, we may go away. Sometimes that

works in this House. But I continue to be perplexed — as I think the

first member for Nanaimo is — by the last little

section after the

comma, that says: "whether or not negligence is alleged." It seems to

me that I can understand the arguments that the minister makes about

good faith. But if the superintendent makes a gross error, a simply

incompetent error, why would the minister object to a lawsuit that

proves that there is incompetence or that negligence has taken place?

Why would an individual who can prove that through

an act of

incompetence or negligence he has been damaged not be allowed a remedy

in the courts?

I can understand the arguments that the minister has with

respect to good faith, because they don't want frivolous actions, but

where there is negligence or incompetence, I don't understand the

hesitation on the part of the government to allow a suit to proceed. If

it's proven to be a simple act or something that couldn't be avoided,

then nothing would happen. Why does there need to be legislative

prohibition against lawsuits where negligence is involved? We simply

have not got any explanation from the minister in that matter.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I always am surprised —

and I will continue to learn, I suppose, Mr. Speaker — at the issues

around which the hon. members of the opposition get excited.

This is merely a rewrite of an existing

section in the

Insurance Act — nothing new or different. There's only one word that

has been changed, and the principle that you have been discussing here

with great vigour and social morality and conscience is one that is

already ingrained in provincial legislation — with the exception of one

word. So the issue you speak to has already been settled, and evidently

worked successfully, historically. There has been no great public

outrage about how this has been acted and administered.

For the red herring that you're dragging across, trying to

make much of this.... I am continually surprised. But it is a learning

process, Mr. Chairman, and I'm grateful to the opposition for the

opportunity they give me daily and hourly to expand my level of

knowledge.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this time I will

ask the minister to give me specifics — if he would tell me of anyone

involved with the Principal Group companies who has been totally

satisfied with the operations in his office, or anyone involved with

the teachers' co-op who has been totally satisfied. Those two in

particular. I haven't heard of any of them saying they've been

satisfied.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The subject at hand,

Mr. Speaker, is insurance companies and not investment contract

[ Page 2667 ]

companies. But I just have to tell the hon. member that we are

receiving and have received editorial comments and news comments across

the nation about the way this government has dealt with the very

challenging and difficult question of how best to protect the interests

of the Principal Group investors. If the hon. member would like me to

bring that documentation to him, I am happy to do so, although I

suspect he's read it with some chagrin, as it's been printed across the

nation.

[4:15]

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

section 33.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment to

this

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

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

section 37.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment

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

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

section 38.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. [see appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 38 as amended approved.

Sections 39 to 41 inclusive approved.

section 42.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. [see appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 42 as amended approved.

Sections 43 and 44 negatived.

Sections 45 to 50 inclusive approved.

section 51.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment

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

Amendment approved.

Section 51 as amended approved.

Sections 52 to 71 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the committee

rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 48, Insurance Amendment Act, reported complete with

amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call

committee on Bill 34.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall sections 2 through 5

pass? On

section 2.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, you have

encompassed sections 2 through 5. If it has the agreement of the House,

sections 2 through 4 have to do with the Community Care Facility Act.

Some of my remarks might move between specifically

section 2 and

section 4. If I have some latitude in that regard....

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no problem there,

hon. member.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like then to make

some comments. I'd like to go back to the minister's comments in second

reading yesterday, when he was giving us some explanation of the

meanings of sections 2 and 4 particularly. He noted in his remarks that

by adding "or a particular class of preschool supervisor," this was

intended to cover such facilities as babysitting services in shopping

malls and ski resorts, and then he noted in

section 4 that the

licensing board, in accordance with regulations, would be able to issue

a letter of permission to a person to act as a preschool supervisor,

without full qualifications.

The issue of child care is particularly important right now. I

have some concerns about changes in the Community Care Facility Act

that could have the effect of diminishing the qualifications and the

supervision of those facilities. I note that the minister has taken two

examples: one, the kinds of facilities set up in commercial enterprises

for short-term stays with students or with young people with little

children. He also has noted what I presume to be a situation that has

developed,"a lack of fully qualified persons," to quote his words from

yesterday's Hansard , in northern and remote areas to act as preschool

or child care supervisors.

We're coming into a massive privatization of facilities, and

at this time we are awaiting the direction from the federal

[ Page 2668 ]

government on its child care program, the national objectives

that will be encompassed in those programs and the kinds of funding

that will accrue to the province. At this particular time I feel

concern about any suggestion that standards in terms of facilities

would be by class rather than by individual facility, and that

qualifications of people working in the field would in any way be

diminished. It seems to me that no matter where we have child care

facilities, we need to be looking to those standards being at the

highest level, under the Community Care Facility Act. And we need to be

looking not at ways of licensing people who have less than the

qualifications that are now required under the act. but rather at

providing the opportunities wherever they need to be available in the

province for people to become fully qualified and trained to provide

the supervision and staffing of such facilities.

Therefore I find myself disappointed in these amendments to

the Community Care Facility Act. They seem to be consistent with a

pattern that I'm seeing in government of deprofessionalizing and

lowering standards that exist for essential social programs. Nowhere is

this more significant than in the care of young children. I know we

might say that for the short period of time children are in care in

some classes of facilities, we really don't need to worry as much about

standards. I think we make a statement to commercial enterprises or

for-profit care facilities when we look to those standards being at the

highest level. We make a statement too when we say we will not

compromise the standards of training, experience and skills that will

be required for people working with children.

If there are deficiencies in this regard, then I think we

should be addressing those deficiencies, rather than diluting what I

think are fairly good standards in licensing facilities and in

authorizing staff people in those facilities. My concern is that this

is a dilution and an undermining of some of those standards, even

though the intent is, I think, to provide service where it's not

available and to make it easier for commercial enterprises to have some

lesser standards than we might anticipate in a full-fledged child care

or day care centre which children are attending on a regular basis

several times a week or on a full-time basis as their parents are

working. I'd appreciate the minister's comments on this, and perhaps we

can have a little dialogue in our debate across the floor of the House.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, if we're

speaking of the short term, such as babysitting services in shopping

malls and ski resorts, that was never controlled or licensed by us.

We're just clarifying that we're continuing not to. We're putting in

legislation because it would be absolutely impossible in all these

areas that have little functions of looking after children on a

short-term basis. I think the ministry just doesn't want to get

involved in that, has not in the past and continues not to do so by

making that very clear in legislation.

As far as the other one is concerned, where they may have a

letter of permission, there has been a need for services of this kind

especially in some areas as the member for Prince George North (Mrs.

Boone) would perhaps speak to. We're saying that it still must be

approved by the board — in other words, a child care facilities

licensing board. They would check the qualifications and make sure that

someone from the street could not come in and say,"I want to start a

facility," and that would be it. They're completely under control of

that licensing board, as in the past.

What we're saying is that it may relieve some pressure from

these areas that have a very difficult time providing the services for

children that is not available at all. I suppose the question is: would

we rather have no facility or a facility that perhaps in qualifications

— when you talk about theory and other qualifications — may not be

completely up to par. But the Child Care Facilities Licensing Board,

after checking this out, say: "Yes, these people are qualified in this

way; they may not have that standard, but we will license them." I

think that's a step in the right direction. I don't think we're

considering less quality of care, but we haven't got quite the

qualifications as they require under the act.

I think when we talk about not looking after children, you'll

find that all the news media.... And I agree with you, I certainly

don't think we should put children at risk at any time. I don't think

that's what we're doing here. When you listen to the news items about

people who got into trouble and perhaps abused kids, they were fully

qualified and licensed and had been for a long time. That's no

protection when you consider looking after kids. What we're saying here

is that the board would still look into every individual case, and this

is the Child Care Facilities Licensing Board. They're doing that now.

We're just saying that they may want to let someone open a child care

centre that hasn't got the same qualifications.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for

your explanation regarding the

section 5 amendment in clause 2 of this

statute.

In respect to the letters of permission, I will simply

maintain my position of disagreement with the minister in that regard,

and say that I think this is the wrong way to go at the problem. The

way to go at the problem, in my view, is very clearly to ensure that

that training is provided. We have all kinds of means through the Open

Learning Institute and the Knowledge Network and college facilities to

provide that training. As the critic in the job training area, it

upsets me when we look at diluting the standards rather than providing

the necessary training to workers for essential aspects of social

programs that we need to have right across the province.

[4:30]

I note that the letter of permission can be withdrawn, but in

clause (n)(

i) there's no suggestion that there will be any term on

this letter of permission. Has the minister given any consideration to

this being an interim kind of licence with some expectations and some

requirements of a person who is so licensed to provide care to continue

with his upgrading? I must state that I don't know in detail the kind

of upgrading programs that child care workers in day centres must

undertake, but I do know from practice that a number of people are

often in the process of enhancing their standards and that these are to

conform to the Community Care Facility Act. Has the minister given any

consideration to putting a term on the letter of permission, and would

such consideration be given by the minister so that it's not a licence

that continues to be available in perpetuity?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. DUECK: It is under the discretion

of the licensing board at the present time if this is approved.

[ Page 2669 ]

However, I should also point out that the facility is not what

we're speaking of. We're speaking about the individual that will be the

one looking after the children. Also, although this comes under my

ministry as far as licensing is concerned, Human Resources are the

people that it comes under as to funding.

MS. A. HAGEN: I gather by the minister's

comment that it's not his intent to consider any term to this in

legislation. I come back to my original concern that this is a dilution

of the standards of the qualifications of people who are providing

care, and there is a message in allowing a letter of permission without

there also being some term placed on it that would require the

individual to upgrade his or her standards to, if you like, the

industry standard or to the Community Care Facility Act standard. I can

acknowledge and recognize in distant areas the difficulty of having

qualified people, but I do truly believe that anything in the act that

allows for a lesser standard to stand without it having a term is a

retrogressive step. I would hope that the minister might at some future

time, if it's not available at this time, give some consideration to

grandfathering or putting some term on those interim or

letter-of-permission licences.

HON. MR. DUECK: Actually, it's not a bad

idea. I think it should be considered. It's something I hadn't thought

of.

MR. CASHORE: I think I heard the minister

say a few moments ago in response to a question from the member for New

Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) that the standards that we have haven't

really been any protection because there have been problems where that

has been the case. Is that correct? Am I interpreting what the minister

said correctly?

HON. MR. DUECK: What I said is that in the

past we did not have any provision for people who were not qualified to

a certain standard, and that did not protect us against abuse, which is

a fact.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask the

minister what he feels the purpose of having standards and

qualifications is. Why would we have that in legislation in the first

place?

HON. MR. DUECK: I think now we're getting

into an area of trying to be using words. Of course we have legislation

and standards to go by. What I'm saying is that just because we're

taking someone with less qualifications in areas where we have no

facility or no licensed people, it is better than having none. That's

the point I was trying to make. You have to agree. Should we have none

or should we have some that haven't got quite that standard? I think

the remark made here just earlier about perhaps a term — when we're

talking about less qualifications, so they can come up to par — is a

darned good idea.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to submit to the

minister that if the minister can cite cases where there have been

severe problems and where, in fact, standards in qualifications have

applied, then that indicates a need for some careful attention to the

way in which those situations are monitored, the way in which workers

in those facilities are supported and their training upgraded, and the

ways in which that whole part of the system is nurtured.

I would like to suggest to the minister that perhaps this begs

the question, and that that is where the effort should be going, rather

than into a process that's actually going to dilute the present

services that are available. I can't imagine that what is being

proposed here is a step toward improving the situation. It seems to me

it is a step that is being brought about by a number of factors that

probably we need to be addressing in order to change a situation that

would have a government diluting its standards in order to find the

personnel needed to fill those positions.

HON. MR. DUECK: No, I think we're going in

the wrong direction, because, you know, standards assist in determining

qualifications, but qualifications in themselves do not determine

conduct. We're talking about conduct now; at least, you are talking

about conduct. We are saying that we want to provide a service in

areas where it is not available today, and therefore we or the board

may accept a lesser standard in qualifications. What I am trying to say

is that you can have all the qualifications in the world; that's not

going to determine conduct. Some of these day care centres have had all

the qualifications, but the conduct has not necessarily followed.

That's the point I was trying to make.

We're going in circles. We know darned well what you mean; I

know what you mean. And exactly what I mean I think I have made clear.

We're only providing day care facilities in an area where they are not

available today, and this may assist that particular need.

MR. CASHORE: Who knows, with this

government, but I don't think we're about to see letters of permission

allowing, for instance, the member for Vancouver South to advise the

minister on engineers because there may be a shortage of engineers, or

letters of permission with regard to medical work and standards and

conduct because there might be a shortage of people in that field.

I would like to submit to the minister that our children are

the most important people, deserving of the highest qualifications, the

highest standards, the best conduct and the best training. It's high

time that we recognized that that's every bit as important, if not more

important, than the kinds of expectations we would have with regard to

the standards for medical doctors or engineers or any other

professionals in our society.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. CASHORE: We have here, Madam Chair, the

issue of a number of

definitions that will now become the

responsibility of the cabinet to define. I think we're into a difficult

time when, at the start of deciding legislation, the

definitions of

terms can change that quickly.

This is one of the reasons I was making a point yesterday.

It's a point that needs to be made now. and we need to ask the minister

to respond to it. In particular, with regard to victims of AIDS and

people working closely in the field with AIDS people, how does the

minister respond to their concern that this type of power instills a

great deal of fear and will in fact contribute to driving them

underground and will limit the likelihood of people willingly coming

forward and participating in programs? How would the minister respond

to that fear that we hear being expressed?

[ Page 2670 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: The regulations actually

are all in legislation now — the

definitions....

MR. CASHORE: My understanding, Madam

Chairman, is that

section 5 gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

the power to define the meanings of these terms: communicable disease,

health hazard, isolation, modified isolation, quarantine — which I

would underline as driving deep fear into the hearts of many people —

and reportable communicable disease. All of these, by this act, will

have the meaning prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So

I'm not sure I understand the answer that was given to my question.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the regulations

before,"isolation," for example, was there, and we're just putting it

back in — modified isolation. We're not changing anything in that at

all; it's there in the old regulations. I don't know what you're

driving at.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chair, I don't have the

old regulations in front of me, but I do understand that I have in

front of me an amendment act. There must be some reason for making this

amendment, so perhaps the minister would explain to me why this

section

of the act exists.

HON. MR. DUECK: This is to make it clear

that we have the authority. It was legislative counsel which asked to

bring that into the amendment so that we had the authority to do so.

[4:45]

MR. CASHORE: Let me see if I can feed back

and understand what you're saying. It sounds like what is being

explained here is that this power to make

definitions on the run

already existed in the regulations governing the Health Act, and that

it was felt necessary to move it from the regulations into the act

itself. Is that correct?

HON. MR. DUECK: The way I understand it, it

was to provide the certainty in the authority.

MR. CASHORE: I think that my point is still

valid. There seems to be a need here to enact a power that enables the

cabinet — I would say it's entrenched in this legislation — to change

definitions according to emerging circumstances. I admit circumstances

are emerging and changing rapidly; nobody argues with that. But I

submit that there have been times in world history when health

legislation has been used inappropriately. I would like the minister to

comment on this. I'm not suggesting that there was any intent to do

this in the legislation, but I would like to suggest to the minister

that, in view of the point I made yesterday that there are some people

in our community that we do not want to see go underground with regard

to coming forward in terms of their illness, and in view of the fact

that there are better ways of going about this, he consider a different

approach.

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, the way I

understand it, all the terms referred to in

section 5, except for

"health hazard," which was changed, are presently defined in

regulations.

MR. ROSE: Madam Chairman, I think what is

causing the problem here is the apparent openness of the lack of

definition. We've had a chance here, a moment or two, to compare the

original act with the amending section. On the bottom of the first page

it appears that you're going to strike out the definition of

"communicable disease." It's gone from the act. Right? It's fairly

well-defined. It names a lot of diseases. But it also gives the

ministry or the government, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the

power to add. But it does far more than that. The whole

section then

goes on to list a number of other things —

definitions of "health

hazard," this, that and the other thing, and all down the line. That's

pretty explicit in terms of definition. But "communicable disease,"

which was once explicit, becomes implicit — in other words, anything

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council decides is communicable. They

already had the power to add, but they had a fairly tight definition

with a power to add. Now it's wide open, and that's what is concerning

my colleague, in my opinion. That is what is concerning a lot of other

people who perhaps are sufferers from some communicable disease.

They're concerned about the fact that the definition is not explicit.

We don't know where it is. It hasn't been defined. The definition that

existed is now gone. If it's going to be published in the regulations,

if somehow we're going to have this definition before us at some

particular time, I think it will relieve a great number of fears.

Our main fear, and I think other people have said this, is

that the AIDS disease especially — the AIDS plague, if you want to call

it; I don't want to be unduly alarmist, but it has been called that by

others — could be driven underground by the fear created by such things

as quarantine, hazards and the lack of definition in this act. We've

taken a definition that we had, thrown it out, and said, in effect,

that a communicable disease could be bad breath. It could be anything

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council says it is. When are we going to

know what it is?

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, in the

regulations it states that "' communicable disease' means an illness

due to a specific infectious agent or its toxic products which arises

through the transmission of that agent or its products." Communicable

disease is defined in the regulations. So really it has gone into

regulations, I suppose, rather than into the act itself.

MR. CASHORE: Now I'm getting even more

confused than I was before. I have a copy of the regulations now. I

thought the minister said a few moments ago that the cabinet, through

order-in-council and through the regulations, had the power to change

the

definitions. But in looking at the regulations governing this

section of the act, we find, as the minister has already given witness

to, that there are hard and fast

definitions of, for instance,

communicable disease or quarantine. As my colleague the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) has pointed out, there is real concern about

the cabinet having the power to make

definitions on the go. I don't

appropriate, and I don't think the answer that I heard earlier about

the regulations governing the act is really appropriate.

I think what we've got here is an agreement to disagree. I'm

saying that it's a highly inappropriate process that's causing a lot of

people uncertainty and fear. I would say that there's evidence of

uncertainty right here in this House about this issue at this time.

[ Page 2671 ]

MR. ROSE: Would it be fair to ask the

minister if our

interpretation is accurate? The minister has taken the

definition out of the act and put it in the regulations. Is that what

has happened?

HON. MR. DUECK: The term "communicable

disease" was always in the regulations, but it was also in the act, and

we are taking it out of the act.

MR. ROSE: That is precisely the concern,

because where it is explicit, open and available under legislation,

regulations are not nearly as well publicized. I think that before

we're through this stage the minister might consider whether the

definitions that.... We agree that the power to add communicable

diseases was in the former act, but I think it was reassuring that it

seemed to have some boundaries, and now it doesn't. The only boundaries

exist in the regulations.

Maybe we're quibbling, but if I were likely to be put away in

some colony or quarantined in some way, I wouldn't call it quibbling. I

would treat it more seriously than that. What may appear to be a

quibble really isn't; it's really a basic concern.

MR. CASHORE: It seems to me in this

section

that the government is planning to make a gigantic change in our way of

understanding an important process with regard to medical treatment and

health care. This is not an insignificant piece of legislation. I think

we understand the dilemma the government finds itself in. It's a

dilemma that all of us in this House share. We would like to help you

with it, but we would like to help you with it in a select standing

committee so that we can do the job properly.

What we have happening here is frightening. Think of the term

"quarantine," for instance.

MR. R. FRASER: What's so bad about that?

MR. CASHORE: The member for Vancouver South

has his definition of quarantine, and I think that if all of us were to

write down on a piece of paper right now our definition of

quarantine....

MR. BLENCOE: Do you think it should apply

to him?

MR. CASHORE: Well, I'm not going to go that

far at this point. I had breakfast with him on the ferry the other day,

and we got along quite well. I don't think that's necessary at this

point.

Through you, Madam Chairman, to the Minister of Health: do you

really want to do this? Do you really want to allow the kind of concern

to take effect that will result from the non-definition in this act of

these most important terms? If you do, I submit that it is going to

cause a great deal of fear among the members of a community that we

desperately want to come forward and participate in testing through

trust.

HON. MR. DUECK: The last part about

testing.... This really has nothing to do with testing, and we can get

to that a little later.

This is not a significant change at all, since the definition

is removed from the act to lend consistency to the operation of this

act and the communicable disease regulations which have been in place

for a long, long time — for years.

MS. CAMPBELL: I would just add with respect

to the comments of the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Cashore) that the question is whether it is required to have any

definition in the statute at all, given the fact that clearly the power

of cabinet as it exists now in the act can override and create new

definitions. What is being done now is making the act more consistent.

I would point out that the problem with having the definition as set

out in the act and not having that power available to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is that there would be a delay in adding

new

definitions or responding to new medical conditions.

So clearly the situation is now that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the power to define what is a

communicable disease, and that is where the power ought rightly to lie,

in my view, by virtue of the power of regulation. It's still an

accountable power. But it seems that this amendment is simply removing

the redundancy of having some

definitions set out in the act but still

having an open-ended power in cabinet to define what a communicable

disease is.

It may give the hon. member some comfort to be able to look

into the act and see words that he understands — like leprosy and

smallpox, tuberculosis and typhoid fever — but that is not of much

assistance to the Ministry of Health in responding to communicable

diseases. So I am inclined to accept the hon. opposition House Leader's

self-definition that he is, in fact, quibbling in that particular

criticism.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think the minister noted

earlier that all of the terms in this amendment, including

"isolation,", "modified isolation," "quarantine" and "reportable

communicable disease," are now in the regulations, and that they are

defined and available. They have been in the regulations all the time,

and those

definitions, then, are available for us to see. I am seeing a

nod from the assistant to the minister, so all of those terms, then,

presently have

definitions as they are interpreted by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Section 5 approved on division.

[5:00]

Section 6.

MS. A. HAGEN: In

section (

c) of this

clause, there is a substitution of an existing paragraph that deals

with isolation and modified isolation, and I would like to read it into

the record so my comments can perhaps be in the context of the actual

words of the amendment: "...the isolation or modified isolation or

placing in any hospital or building provided for quarantine or

isolation of a person having a reportable communicable disease...." In

my looking at the act, that language already exists, and this is what

is being added: