1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 13

[ Page 10951 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have the pleasure of introducing 15 students who are visiting today from Lansdowne Junior Secondary School, from which I graduated, believe it or not. I had a brush cut at that time.

An Hon. Member: That was a long time ago.

Hon. M. Harcourt: You should talk.

They are on what is called an opportunity day. They're out looking at a variety of community activities. They are here with their teachers Rob Chapple and Karin Carlson. I understand Rob's brother is in the Legislature on occasion and happens to be Clem Chapple. The students are here to watch how Clem does his job. Let's not embarrass Clem in front of his brother and all of these students by telling them what we think of how he does his job.

They're also going to see what sort of job we're doing. I'm sure they're curious. I see the House Leader of the opposition pointing thumbs-down on the performance of his own caucus, but I wouldn't say that about the rest of the Legislature. Anyway, would you give a very warm to the visiting students from Lansdowne.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Today is a very significant day to give recognition to many people joining us in the gallery who have devoted their lives to services for the community, children and families. We have with us today members of the adoption review panel, Larry Gilbert and Lizabeth Hall, and members of a community panel that served this province in consultation for nine months: Patricia Chauncey, Patsy George, Iain Cunningham, Jane Cowell, Joyce Preston and Freda MacLellan. Also joining them are dedicated and long-serving staff of the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Attorney General. Today is the day to recognize them, and I ask the rest of the House to join with me in that.

S. O'Neill: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce to the House Mr. Gordon Mackie, the mayor of Sicamous. He's here in Victoria accompanied by his administrator, Mr. Randall Rose. Would the House please make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the precinct today are a group of 70 grade 6 students from Burnaby-Edmonds. They're attending Clinton Elementary School, and they're accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. E. Maillie, along with some other adults. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the gallery this afternoon is a group of high school students from North Island Secondary in Port McNeill. Not this group but these grades make a trip every year to visit us here in the Legislature. Pat Parker, one of their teachers, is here, as he is every year with the group from Port McNeill. I see Nancy and Rod Bain -- if my eyes are good enough -- sitting up there as well. I'm delighted to have the House welcome all of these people from Port McNeill -- and the surrounding country.

Introduction of Bills

MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Medical and Health Care Services Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This bill makes administrative adjustments to the way our Medical Services Plan operates in British Columbia. In 1992 our government brought in legislation to implement a new tripartite structure for the Medical Services Commission. Our experience since then has highlighted the need to make some relatively modest refinements to the operating structure, to maintain the smooth functioning of the system.

The most notable changes in Bill 26 are that it clarifies the authority of the commission to delegate its powers and duties; subcommittees -- which are currently responsible for issues related to health care practitioner groups like optometrists, chiropractors and physiotherapists -- are renamed special committees, and their activities are more clearly distinguished from those of the broad Medical Services Commission; and the commission is being given the authority to settle claims for money owed it expeditiously, without the prior approval of Treasury Board. There are a number of other technical amendments, which I'll describe in more detail at second reading of the bill.

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In 1992 the most public and comprehensive review of social services ever undertaken in British Columbia was delivered to Premier Harcourt and my predecessor, the current Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services. Two community panel reports called for sweeping changes in the way social services are delivered to children, to families and to communities. Today I am introducing the Child, Family and Community Service Act to address the urgent public demand for change in this area. A child's greatest resource is a strong, secure family, and a family's greatest resource is a strong community.

[2:15]

This act provides a set of guiding principles for the delivery of family and child services. It sets out criteria for ensuring that the best interests of the child prevails. There are voluntary supportive services established to encourage families to identify problems and to get help before a crisis occurs. There is protection of children by specifically defining physical, sexual and emotional abuse.

There will be increased flexibility in the court process, and there are entrenched rights for children in the care of the ministry, including the right to be consulted about decisions affecting them, as well as enforcement mechanisms for these rights. Aboriginal communities will have greater control of and participation in the delivery of child welfare services for their children. There will be support services for street youth in crisis, and for the first time the act will provide for an external review process.

Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 10952 ]

CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY ADVOCACY ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act establishes an independent advocate for children, youth and families who are receiving services pursuant to the Child, Family and Community Service Act that was previously tabled. The advocate will provide individual advocacy services to children, youth and families in British Columbia. The advocate will provide advice to government and communities about the services provided under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. The advocate will promote the development of advocacy services in communities. The advocate will be an officer of the Legislature and will report annually to the Legislature through the Speaker.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC OFFICERS RECALL ACT

J. Tyabji presented a bill intituled Public Officers Recall Act.

J. Tyabji: It is necessary that the public institutions of the people of British Columbia function to serve the best interests of the people, and that these institutions must have some degree of accountability to the people whom they serve and who pay for them. As we recognize political interference in these institutions would be an abrogation of public trust, this private member's bill addresses the public's best interests through direct action. It is a detailed bill with safeguards against a frivolous petition and with the ability for the public to remove appointed public officers if they are acting contrary to the public interest.

Bill M216 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

EVASION OF B.C. TRANSIT FARES

D. Symons: The Liberal opposition has obtained a confidential B.C. Transit report resulting from a major investigation into fare evasion. In over 2,000 trips taken by 16 undercover officers, they were only required to pay full fare 3 percent of the time and got away without paying full fare 97 percent of the time. My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit: has the minister determined how much B.C. Transit is losing through fare evasions?

Hon. G. Clark: I know my estimates are coming up soon, hon. Speaker, but I'm delighted, of course, to answer any of these questions.

I think it's public knowledge that B.C. Transit, as a result of requests from the minister and from the Crown corporations secretariat, has done a series of studies on fare evasion. This particular study simply proved that if people want to cheat, they have a fairly high chance of success. Fortunately, in British Columbia most individuals don't choose to attempt to cheat. We do have fare checkers, at SkyTrain stations in particular, who do a significant amount of testing. Their estimates are, in fact, that roughly 3 percent of the passengers using SkyTrain do show some fare evasion.

That amounts to a loss in the farebox of about $600,000 a year. It's clearly unacceptable; clearly action has to be taken. We have explored options like turnstiles and hiring more security and more fare checkers at SkyTrain stations, and we are continuing to explore all of the options available to B.C. Transit to reduce fare evasion.

The Speaker: A supplemental question, hon. member?

D. Symons: In spite of the minister's answer -- and these tests weren't done that long ago -- it seems that evasion is so simple that one undercover agent actually gave a Vancouver transfer to a Victoria bus driver and rode for free. Why is fare evasion still a major source of lost revenue to B.C. Transit two and a half years after this government took office?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not sure that 3 percent is a very high ratio. In fact, by transit standards around North America, we measure up quite well in terms of fare evasion. The Leader of the Opposition would know this, having been on the board of B.C. Transit for some years. With a lot of investment of public money, we may be able to reduce fare evasion to about 1.5 percent, even with turnstiles.

The answer is that for the $300,000 savings, the capital costs of turnstiles are fairly significant, so we have to weigh that. An alternative would be to significantly enhance the number of fare checkers. We have made some progress in that; we have hired more fare checkers. I'm delighted to tell the member that we are investigating further action to deal with fare evasion.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

D. Symons: The 3 percent figure he comes up with is something I think they've drawn out of the hat. They found that SeaBus fare evasion sailed in at 85.7 percent and SkyTrain was riding high on the rails at 98 percent -- and these are people who were able to do it, if they wanted to. So what we've got here is that it's obviously easy for those who want to cheat the system. The system almost encourages it. When is the minister going to do something about fare evasion on B.C. Transit?

Hon. G. Clark: It was this government that commissioned that study the member refers to, it was this government that commissioned the Toronto Transit Commission to review the work on fare evasion, and it was this government that increased fare checkers on SkyTrain. When that member's leader was on the board of B.C. Transit, fare evasion was higher than it is today. We are taking action, and we'll take more action.

G. Farrell-Collins: That minister knows full well that despite seven....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. With the greatest of respect, hon. member, are you rising on a question?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes. I only got three words out of my mouth, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 10953 ]

This minister knows full well that after seven reports commissioned by his ministry, it has yet to determine the level of fare evasion in any accurate way whatsoever. Can the minister tell us why, after doing seven reports, he has yet to do anything to affect fare evasion on B.C. Transit?

Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted to answer this question yet again. The government is taking action and has taken action. We established a flying squad of people to check fares on Transit. We hired another 20 SkyTrain attendants just in the last few months to deal with this question. Obviously we're exploring all kinds of ways.

It doesn't make sense to hire hundreds more police officers to police the SkyTrain stations when we have a very good record with respect to fare evasion. It stacks up against any transit system in North America. We don't want to use a sledgehammer to deal with what is a problem.... We are taking action. Yes, we will be taking more action. We'd be delighted to answer the question further when canvassing my estimates.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would encourage the minister to go back and read the seventh report, because the seventh report says that the government still doesn't have any idea how large fare evasion is. They have no way of knowing. The Toronto Transit Commission report into B.C. Transit says: "As a result of unclear lines of authority, reporting to senior management has ceased." Under this NDP government and under this minister, B.C. Transit has had three different presidents and is now leaderless as they look for a fourth president. This minister changes Crown corporation heads as often as he changes his socks.

When will the minister admit that the chaos caused at B.C. Transit as a result of his lack of leadership is resulting in massive fare evasion and a cost to taxpayers?

Hon. G. Clark: I guess this is one of the curses of freedom of information. All of the information that the member is referring to is the result of work undertaken by this government.

We are taking long-overdue action when it comes to transit in British Columbia. This morning the Premier, myself and members from the Coquitlam area announced the introduction of commuter rail in British Columbia, to be opened in 18 months.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The fact is -- and this minister knows it -- that after commissioning seven different reports under his leadership, B.C. Transit still doesn't know how many people are going through the turnstiles without paying. Can the minister tell us how much he spent on those seven reports to find out absolutely nothing?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't have those numbers at my fingertips, but I'd be delighted to answer that question. Maybe the member opposite has already received that information under FOI, but I'd be delighted to find it for him. I can tell you that we make no apologies for trying to clean up the mess that we inherited from the previous government -- the mess that the Leader of the Opposition took no opportunity to clean up when he sat on the board of B.C. Transit.

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

D. Mitchell: I have a question to the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro on an issue of a serious nature affecting British Columbians. Tomorrow in Portland, Oregon, the negotiating team for the next phase of the benefits under the Columbia River Treaty returns to the negotiating table. In response to a question by me the other day in the House, the minister said that there would be benefits to the provincial treasury, whether we exported power to the United States or whether B.C. Hydro was to use it.

My question is: could he clarify that if Hydro wants the power for its use in British Columbia, it will be a fair and open negotiation between the B.C. taxpayer and this Crown corporation on the value of that power?

Hon. A. Edwards: I would be pleased to answer your question. The negotiation that is going on over the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits entitlement will be a negotiation as to process -- what we can do with the entitlement, and different ways of having that entitlement returned. When we talk about that, that is a negotiation about how things are done. Any negotiations that we do otherwise will be negotiations that we do as government.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair wishes to apologize to the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. Under our standing orders, the third party should have been recognized. Regrettably, hon. member, I recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.

DEFAULTED STUDENT LOANS

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is for the minister responsible for student loans. In response to the 1992 Peat Marwick questionnaire, the government reported that the balance of all defaulted B.C. student loans was $23 million. For obvious political reasons, the government made a big issue of that fact. Can the minister explain why the total defaulted student loan portfolio has soared by 174 percent since 1991, and why the value of defaulted student loans has soared from $23 million to $63 million in only three years?

Hon. D. Miller: I would happy to try to get some detailed answers to those questions, but with all due respect, I would suggest that it's more appropriate for estimates. I will endeavour to return with the information.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplementary?

L. Fox: In 1991-92 there were 2,180 defaulted student loans. In 1992-93 the figure rose to 2,854. Last year there were 3,600 defaulted student loans. Can the minister explain the 65 percent increase in defaulted student loans in the last two years?

Hon. D. Miller: The member is partially correct in the sense that when we came into office, we did take some measures to improve the collection of student loans. In fact, for those students outside the province, we even used professionals in terms of collection.

I think part of the increase may be relative to the position of students. It is very difficult to finance education these days. We have made some increases to the amount of money that is available for student financial assistance. Hopefully we can continue to provide that kind of support. We have also pledged to create 8,100 new spaces in our colleges and

[ Page 10954 ]

universities in the coming fiscal year. As I indicated earlier, these are detailed questions that are perhaps more appropriate to the estimates debate, but I will endeavour to come back to answer the member's questions.

The Speaker: The member has a final supplemental.

L. Fox: This government roundly lambasted the former government for its supposed bad track record with respect to student loans, yet in two years the annual value of bad loans went from $12 million to $18.5 million. Can the minister tell us how many more collection officers he has assigned to collect those bad loans, and why he has lost control of the student loan portfolio?

Hon. D. Miller: First, I would advise the member not to be too sensitive. He wasn't part of the last government, so he can start with a clean slate.

I really do suggest that, with respect to the level of detail, my estimates will be coming up very shortly. I will look forward to some detailed discussion with that member on these estimates-type questions.

POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR EDUCATION MINISTRY SUPPLIER

L. Stephens: The Ministry of Education has been negotiating with Magic Lantern Communications of Toronto to be the government's exclusive duplicator and distributor of educational videos for B.C. school boards. The problem is that Magic Lantern would be pushing their own products, while at the same time having responsibility for distributing their competitors' products. Does the Minister of Education agree that this constitutes a conflict of interest on the part of Magic Lantern Communications?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I could not say what might or might not be a conflict of interest for the corporation involved, but if the member's question is whether it is a proper deal from the viewpoint of the public and the public education system, I'll be pleased to take the question on notice.

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

Hon. G. Clark: This is just to answer a question from the Leader of the Opposition taken on notice by the Premier yesterday.

The Speaker: Proceed.

TENDERING PROCESS FOR OGDEN POINT PROJECT

Hon. G. Clark: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked about a contract with respect to the tendering system contracted to Victoria Line Ltd. The tenders for this contract were opened at the Victoria Line office on February 22, 1994, at 2 p.m. The results ranged from $431,984 to $612,143. On February 28, 1994, the project was cancelled as tendered because the tender prices significantly exceeded the budget allocated. As a result, the corporation management chose to do some redesign and, in fact, to manage the contract itself. There was one subcontracted amount.

As a result of the actions taken by Victoria Line, the contract price paid was about 50 percent of the previous low bid in the tendered document. Over $200,000 of the taxpayers' money was saved as a result of action by Victoria Line.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD CLAIMS

Hon. D. Miller: I wish to respond to a question from the member for Richmond-Steveston, which was taken on notice in my absence from the House on May 12. The question concerned the process of Workers' Compensation Board claims under

section 39(1)(

e) of the act and the member's understanding that this

section of the act is not being enforced.

Section 39(1)(

e) of the Workers Compensation Act requires that the WCB levy sufficient funds to maintain a reserve for claims costs for that portion of a disability suffered by a worker which is the result of a pre-existing disease, condition or disability of a worker. By board policy, costs relieved from individual employers under this

section are allocated to all employers proportionate to assessments levied in each subclass.

Section 39(1) is applied to all current claims. However, since relief of costs may favourably affect a firm's assessment, in recent years an increasing number of employers are requesting a review of past claims.

Extension of WCB coverage under Bill 63 has raised the question of whether it is equitable to reallocate past

section 39(1)(

e) costs to newly covered employers. The board is undertaking a full review of its

section 39 policies to ensure that these are fair to all employers. Until the board's policy review is completed, processing of requests for review of closed files is being held in abeyance. This has displeased some employers -- and an army of consultants, I might add. These people are not concerned about payments for injured workers; they want to use a shell game to shift costs from one employer to another.

So in answer to the question, I want to make four points: the WCB will circulate any proposed changes in policies and procedures under

section 39(1)(

e) for full community comment; no injured worker is going without benefits as a result of the review of

section 39(1)(e); the board is continuing to meet its statutory requirements of carrying out

section 39(1)(e); and finally, the member for Richmond-Steveston has either been duped by those trying to avoid costs, or he fundamentally disagrees with fairness as a basic principle for assessments.

The Speaker: The matter will be taken under consideration, and a decision brought back later.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair has the honour of tabling the opinion of the conflict-of-interest commissioner, pursuant to

section 15(1) of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, with respect to alleged contravention

[ Page 10955 ]

of provisions of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act by the hon. member for Cariboo South, copies of which will be made available to members if they wish to go to the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, the Ministry of Government Services estimates. In the main House, I call committee stage of Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act.

BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 32; D. Lovick in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 11 (continued).

W. Hurd: I have a brief question with respect to the minister's amendment.

The Chair: Excuse me, member. I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm just going to ask other members to give you an opportunity to be heard and to please leave if they are not participating in this debate.

W. Hurd: With respect to the minister's amendment to

section 11(3), since this bill was tabled in the House the opposition has had some representation from those practising forest management on leased Crown land. It's my understanding that the ministry issues a letter of agreement every three months for the stumpage rates for that three-month period. That covers the expected stumpage rate for the period of harvesting -- in this case, over the second quarter of the year.

I'm just wondering whether the elimination of the time frame of May 31 changes the instructions from the ministry. Basically, in one case the holder of the leased land had received a notice of stumpage appraisal for a three-month period and then received a follow-up notice notifying him of the change to the stumpage rate under the terms of this particular act. I'm questioning whether the ministry now will be stuck with the initial letter of stumpage assessment, given the fact that it now appears to have taken out that second date of May 31, 1994. It is an issue that has been raised.

Hon. A. Petter: The amendment does not in any way change the way in which stumpage is calculated, assessed and communicated. It simply makes it clear that, as those quarterly variations occur, those variations will be taken into account through the formula in determining the flow of funds to Forest Renewal B.C.

[2:45]

W. Hurd: I'm still a little confused as to why there was originally a date after April 30 but before May 31. If the minister could explain why there was a one-month window that's now been removed.... It's not clear to me exactly why there wouldn't just be a date set for the assessment of the higher stumpage rate under the terms of this act. This is another question that came up: why is there this one-month window with this particular section?

Hon. A. Petter: The intent was to capture the change that occurred on May 1 and to signal that. There was both a commencement and a capping date to indicate that that was the period of change. What inadvertently was done by doing that, or may have been done by doing that, was failing to take into account that the new calculation itself would change over time as prices changed in the quarterly calculations. So it was really an oversight. It was an attempt to try to specify that the increase and the change that took place on May 1 would in fact be taken account of.

Initially it was thought that that could be done by specifying that period of time. That was subsequently revisited, and now it's the feeling that that could have the inadvertent effect of not capturing the ups and downs that will occur as the stumpage formula shifts to take account of the variability in prices.

W. Hurd: I have just one further question on this. Given the fact that the letter of quarterly stumpage appraisal goes out, I would assume, at the start of each quarter -- which in this case would be April 1 -- is the minister saying that if the timber were harvested in that one-month period it would be subject to stumpage at the old rate, but if it were harvested and scaled after the 30th it would become eligible for the different rate under the stumpage increases contained in this legislation?

Hon. A. Petter: The amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the way that the stumpage is assessed and calculated. I'd be happy to give a more detailed explanation or arrange for a briefing, but as I understand it, it's done each quarter, based on the previous quarter's prices. That has been and will remain the case. Those changes will happen on a quarterly basis; nothing changes about that. This assures that an inadvertent inclusion of an end date that might have prevented those variations that happen quarterly from being taken account of in determining the flow of funds through to the agency....

By removing that end date, those variations will now be taken account of. But the variations themselves -- the way the stumpage is calculated, the formula, all of that -- is not affected by this change.

W. Hurd: That was going to be my last question, but I have one further question. The timber harvester in question received a letter from the ministry advising him that as a result of Forest Renewal B.C., stumpage rates were going up. I believe that the date used was May 31. So the ministry is sending out letters with respect....

The minister is shaking his head. I will be happy to provide the minister with a letter I have in my office which makes reference to Forest Renewal B.C. and the increase in stumpage rates. This particular individual was concerned that he had received one notice at the start of April, had planned his harvesting activities after May 31, and was going to be captured by a much higher stumpage rate. In this case it had gone from $23 a cubic metre to $38 a cubic metre. I have the documentation from the ministry -- signed by the ministry staff -- that indicates that the new rate would be $38 a cubic metre. This is in an area around Prince George.

I welcome the clarification as to why the ministry is sending out those notices, what the rationale is, and whether the date of April 30 is now the date at which the higher stumpage rates in fact go into effect -- in this case from $23 a cubic metre to $38. A couple of calls have rolled in to the opposition, and I'd certainly welcome clarification from the minister.

Hon. A. Petter: I would invite the member to check the letter and bring it here. It's my understanding that the effective date in the letter would be May 1. The increase would have been effective May 1, not May 31. There may well have been advanced notice of that change, as is the

[ Page 10956 ]

practice. That change is unaffected by this. All this is about is making sure that when another rate is set in another quarter because of the variations in price, that that variation is captured and built into the formula that governs the flow of funds to the agency.

W. Hurd: What I need to do is bring the information to the attention of the ministry, because the letter that I have seen makes specific reference to the higher stumpage rates under Forest Renewal B.C. and does contain a significant provision for an increase from $23 to $38. I've seen the letter; it does exist; it is from the Ministry of Forests. But I won't belabour the point, Mr. Chairman. I'll write one of my letters that I often write to the ministry, seeking information.

I have one further question before dealing with a series of amendments that I have on the order paper. Under

section 11(4)....

The Chair: Excuse me, member, we're still on the amendment. Do you want to deal with the amendment first?

W. Hurd: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I had no further questions on the amendment.

G. Wilson: To the minister, a question of clarification on the amendment. I'm reading from yesterday's Hansard, when the minister introduced the amendment. It says:

"The intent is to manage the revenue and expenditure flows so there is a level of investment that can be sustained over a full price cycle -- as I just indicated to the member. However, in trying to define 'incremental,' the current wording may have inadvertently fixed prices at current levels for the purpose of the estimate of agency revenues."

My understanding from our discussion of the question yesterday is that that would include both the top of the cycle and the bottom of the cycle, to allow for adjustments. But I'm not clear, from the way the debate has gone, as to whether or not the effective date of April 30, 1994, provides a base upon which the revenues, stumpage as well as royalty, would be fixed. In other words, it allows prices to go up; you can increase stumpage and royalties above those of the April date. But in the event that industry argues an inability to pay, there's no way that this corporation would allow prices to fall below those of April 30, 1994. Am I incorrect on that, and if so, could the minister explain?

Hon. A. Petter: The change in the stumpage formula that came about on May 1 takes account of fluctuations in price; it's a price-sensitive formula. Each quarter, that results in changes to the particular rates charged to particular licensees, based on the change in the past quarter's prices. So the formula will stay the same, and it is price-sensitive. The additional formula, for example, will generate no additional revenue should the price fall below $250 (U.S.). That takes account of the ups and downs.

What is feared may have happened is that by putting the end date of May 31 in here, we inadvertently prevented the formula from being taken account of in the flow of revenue through to the agency. So as a result of removing that end date, if as a result of higher prices in this quarter the rate goes up in the next quarter, the full benefit of that, after being netted down, will go to the agency. If in the next quarter the prices go down and the revenue flow goes down, that change will flow through the formula to the agency.

What we wanted to make sure did not happen was that inadvertently, by putting an end date of May 31, we prevented those regular price-sensitive adjustments from being determinant of what flowed through to the agency. In other words, it could have been misinterpreted that we intended the formula, as determined by the previous quarterly price prior to May 1, to be fixed forevermore -- and that was not the intention.

G. Wilson: I understand that. And if I understand that correctly, then we could support this amendment, because I think it does improve what's intended -- provided that in the event there is a downturn and revenues decline.... I've just heard the minister say that this doesn't somehow fix a basement beyond which the companies could not expect some relief with respect to the royalty provision. If it allows you to take more in good times, presumably it also has to allow some relief to the corporations at a time when the price may drop below the $250 level. If the minister can confirm that that's what that means, then we can certainly support this.

Hon. A. Petter: Indeed, the formula is very price-sensitive, particularly on the downside. At $250 (U.S.) per thousand board feet, there is no increase in stumpage, and there is a very steep drop-off from $300 (U.S.) per thousand board feet to $250. So if the price were to go below $300, there would be a very steep reduction in stumpage revenues, because we are sensitive to the need to maintain the profitability of the industry. Were the price to go below $250 (U.S.), which I don't anticipate, then there would be no additional revenue generated, and no revenue would flow through to the agency as a result.

The formula itself is price-sensitive in exactly the way I think the member is concerned that it ought to be.

G. Wilson: Does that tie both stumpage and royalties to the figure we're talking about?

Hon. A. Petter: The question of royalties is a little more tricky. Without going into a huge dissertation about it, it's for this reason. When the royalty rate was last set in 1987, it was not made price-sensitive. Stumpage was price-sensitive. The royalty rate, therefore, has not had an appraisal system that allows it to go up and down. It is our intention -- and we made it clear at the time of the announcement -- that the royalty system should also become price-sensitive within a year's time. In the meantime, the rate established for royalties is a fixed rate.

I may say to the member that that is one of the areas of concern that has been brought to the government's attention, and it has been examined technically. Because it is a fixed rate and doesn't have the same flexibility, there is concern that it may not take sufficient account of fluctuations in the market or of the variability in the value of timber in timber licences during the first year. That's an issue that staff have been reviewing. Part of our review of this change is to make sure that we haven't imposed a rate that does not take sufficient account of some of those concerns in the first year.

G. Wilson: It was actually to that very point that my questions were leading. I have heard from industry that there is some significant concern, especially with respect to particular licence areas. Can the minister confirm, or just give assurance at this point, that the amendment is not going to preclude the opportunity for that review to allow an adjustment on royalties that may bring levels below the April 30, 1994, level?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm aware of those concerns. In fact, I'm aware of some from Pemberton, which the member may

[ Page 10957 ]

have been directly involved in reviewing. Some of those who hold timber licences -- particularly timber licences in which the quality of wood is inferior and who therefore have concerns about paying a uniform rate -- have asked us if there is a possibility that we could move to an appraisal system, a price-sensitive structure, before the year is out with respect to their particular areas. I may say that I, personally, have some sympathy with that argument. I've asked staff to review it. I believe it's an issue well worth reviewing. I hope we can have a response in due course that will be satisfactory to those particular licence holders.

[3:00]

Amendment approved.

section 11 as amended.

W. Hurd: I had intended to address a question to

section 11(4), which governs the amount payable to Forest Renewal B.C. out of the consolidated revenue fund, "calculated for that quarter by deducting, from the amount estimated under subsection (3), 20 percent of that amount." I'm aware that a portion of that 20 percent is as a result of increased tax deductions that are available with the higher stumpage rates. I'm just asking the minister where the 20 percent figure came from, which is clearly not altogether explainable by the income tax implications. Are we dealing with administration costs?

My first question would be: can the minister tell us what percentage of that 20 percent is related to the tax implications for the higher stumpage rates?

Hon. A. Petter: The 20 percent figure was generated after consultations with the Ministry of Finance in order to come up with a formula that would generate to consolidated revenue an approximation of the revenue that would be lost to general revenue as a result of reductions in corporate and logging income tax. In fact, the 20 percent figure may be a little generous; it may undercompensate slightly, but it is a close approximation through a simple formula of the revenue that would otherwise be lost as a result of the reduction in those two taxes.

W. Hurd: I'm glad the minister has acknowledged that that's a generous amount. Forest Renewal B.C., as the minister knows, will be raising $600 million in additional revenues, and $400 million of it will be invested per annum. Is there any thought that, if the tax implications are not as onerous as the ministry is led to believe, additional revenues may find their way into Forest Renewal B.C. beyond the $400 million figure? In other words, I think there's a principle with respect to this

section that if there are excess funds, beyond allowing for the tax implications, surely the principle exists that those funds should also be invested in long-term forest management projects in the province.

Hon. A. Petter: This provision is designed to simply achieve the principle of keeping the treasury whole. If the member or others have some evidence that the 20 percent that is reclaimed is excessive, then certainly I'd be prepared to review and reconsider that. But as I've said, in our estimation, it's generous in the sense that it may, if anything, fall a little short of leaving the treasury whole. To the extent that there is any room for error, we have been conservative to ensure that the dollars that flow through this do flow to Forest Renewal B.C.

We believe the 20 percent is a fairly accurate proxy for the amount that will be lost as a result of the reductions in the two taxes I mentioned. If the member is suggesting that that could and should be reviewed if evidence was produced at some future time, I'd certainly be open to that at that time.

[J. Pullinger in the chair.]

W. Hurd: We don't want to stray too far into accounting issues here, but if the market price for wood were to decline, as it has been known to do, one would assume that the tax implications for the companies and licensees paying the stumpage rates would also be impacted. Would that, in itself, enable general revenues to provide more funding to Forest Renewal B.C.? In other words, would a reduction in the market price for 2-by-4s, for example, or in the wood products market generally, mean that the 20 percent figure would in fact be on the generous side?

The reason I ask the question is that we're sort of developing an assumption of a level tax commitment on the part of the licensees; and if the price were to go down, obviously the tax burden would go down, reflecting stumpage rates, and that would enable the 20 percent figure to be reduced. Is that something the ministry intends to pursue with respect to this 20 percent figure, or is this figure just what we're dealing with today, with the current tax implications and current market prices for wood products?

Hon. A. Petter: The 20 percent figure is an attempt to estimate the loss to general revenue. As I said to the member, if market conditions were to change in a way that would impact on that calculation, we'd certainly be prepared to review it. We don't anticipate that. I'll try to seek some additional information about possible scenarios of high prices or low prices, but this calculation is based upon the assumption that there will be cycles -- high and low. But on average, the prices that will be achieved over the next number of years will generate revenue that will result in a reduction of tax, which is approximately 20 percent of the flow to the fund.

If the member wants me to go back and look at what might happen if we saw a fundamental difference in price structures or if there was a downturn or an upturn for three or four years, I can certainly provide that information to him, and I would be pleased to do so. But this has been worked out very carefully to ensure that according to current market conditions, taking account of the fluctuations, the return to the treasury is no greater than the loss to the treasury.

W. Hurd: Certainly we were aware that the government is raising $600 million per annum from increased stumpage rates that will be received by the Crown, and that $400 million of that is destined for Forest Renewal B.C. Although there is nothing in the act or the bill that would indicate it, we do have a loose commitment from the government in its forest plan document that half of that $400 million will actually be invested in intensive forest management projects in the province.

The minister will be aware that there certainly is a suspicion out there that the 20 percent figure is rather generous in terms of the tax implications. From an original $600 million receipt of revenues by the Crown, as little as $200 million of it could actually go into investments in the land base in terms of intensive forest management projects that would increase the long-term sustainable harvest and growth yields in the province.

For that reason, I would try moving an amendment that stands in my name on the order paper that attempts to address this rather significant problem. We're raising all this revenue, but as little as $200 million of it may actually go into intensive forest management projects. Hon. Chair, at

[ Page 10958 ]

your guidance, I could read the amendment into the record or simply make the motion now:

[Section 11(2), After the words "against money payable to Forest Renewal B.C. under subsection (4)," add the following: "Forest Renewal B.C. must invest an amount annually in planting and intensive silvicultural projects that will maintain a fixed percentage an annual allowable harvest as set by the Chief Forester, and further that expenditures to maintain this harvest level on a long-run sustained yield basis, be verified by an independent growth-yield analysis. Further, that percentage must be part of the business plan submitted to the Legislative Assembly."]

The Chair: I'd like to advise the member that under standing order 67 the motion is not acceptable, because it involves expenditure.

W. Hurd: I appreciate that direction. I was really looking forward to a vote on this amendment, but I think the principle behind it stands.

Interjection.

W. Hurd: I was asked why I'm looking forward to the vote. I continue to operate under the illusion that a fair and reasonable amendment would be supported by members opposite. It's illusionary, I agree, after three years in the House, but we do try on this side of the House to introduce constructive amendments.

I think the rationale for this is that we are dealing with potentially as little $200 million of the $600 million actually being invested in intensive forest management projects. I think it's a bit unfortunate that we couldn't establish that investment in relation to a fixed percentage of the annual allowable harvest in the province. The minister, during a previous

section of this bill, assured us that that information would be available to the select standing committee. I remain a little skeptical -- which is expected of the opposition, I suppose. I hope it is, under the previous section. Really, the only way we can assess the success of the overall program is by how much of an annual allowable harvest we can sustain in the province and what percentage of that might be attributable to investments under this particular plan.

The opposition has one further constructive suggestion with respect to

section 11(4):

[Section 11(4), After the words "estimated under subsection (3), 20% of that amount" add the words: "Forest Renewal B.C. must establish within the first fiscal year, the number of hectares in British Columbia which will be available to the corporation for investment in silvicultural projects and intensive forest management."]

I might add that, to my knowledge, that doesn't entail any additional expenditures on behalf of the corporation. Given the fact that as little as $200 million may actually be spent for long-term growth yields in the province, we feel that that's a reasonable and constructive amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: On a point of order, this amendment from the member, while I'm sure it's well-intentioned, goes well beyond the scope of the section. The

section is dealing with matters relating to the investment and flow of revenues. This goes to the identification of a land base, which I would argue is really a matter beyond the scope of the act entirely -- certainly beyond the scope of this section.

The Chair: The Chair agrees with the minister. The amendment is out of order, as it doesn't deal with the items raised under

section 11.

W. Hurd: As I say, the number of hectares for investment -- while maybe not specifically pertaining to

section 11(4) -- would eventually have an impact on long-term revenues, one would assume, not only for Forest Renewal B.C. but also for the Crown. Therefore it's somewhat disappointing that some sort of recognition of the need to invest to sustain a percentage of the annual allowable harvest is nowhere in this bill and would need to be moved by the opposition in the form of an amendment.

I have one additional question with respect to

section 11(6). I wonder if the minister could explain the reduction of $50 million "...if the sum of the quarterly amounts calculated under subsection (4) for that fiscal year is $50 million or more, or (

b) reduced to zero if the sum of those amounts is less than $50 million." This subsection causes me some confusion, and I'd welcome an explanation from the minister as to its intent under this section.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Ministerial Statement

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER REPORT ON AGRICULTURE MINISTER

Hon. M. Harcourt: I know that the last few weeks have been difficult, very trying, for the Minister of Agriculture. He has watched while members of this House have attacked his character, his judgment and his honesty. In effect, they judged him guilty before the independent conflicts commissioner had even talked to the first witness. I also know that the minister, despite the personal attacks on him, fully supported the scrutiny of himself by the conflicts commissioner and supported our new system of dealing with allegations of conflict in British Columbia.

With the tabling of this report, the minister can now continue, as he has in the past few weeks, to proudly serve the people of British Columbia.

[3:15]

It's important to note that the system of dealing with allegations of conflict of interest has changed. Our government has toughened up the conflict laws and changed the way allegations of conflict against members of cabinet and this House are handled. Previously, as we know, before our government changed the laws, it was the Premier alone who was not only the judge but also the jury. Although that was part of the British parliamentary tradition for many centuries, experiences with the previous government showed inevitably that it could not fully serve the public interest.

In a modern democracy like ours, it's important that we adapt to changing and higher public expectations. Through the tough new conflict-of-interest laws and the independent office of the conflicts commissioner, the public can now be assured that every allegation of conflict of interest will be dealt with in a fair, independent and consistent manner.

Hon. Speaker, I want to recognize the work of the conflicts commissioner, who has, in a sometimes highly charged political environment, carried out his duties with integrity and evenhandedness. Our system of handling

[ Page 10959 ]

allegations of conflict works. As we know, this system is new to British Columbia, and it has been enhanced and strengthened by this government. It should continue to provide the people of British Columbia with some confidence that the highest standard of conduct has been established and will be enforced for all members of this House.

G. Campbell: I want to start by saying that I too appreciate the work that has been done by the conflict-of-interest commissioner. I know that the Minister of Agriculture will feel relieved at the results of the investigation. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to wish him well as he carries out his responsibilities to the people of British Columbia.

However, having said that, we do have to recognize that there are a number of areas that remain of concern to people in British Columbia. As we read the conflict-of-interest commissioner's report, it's important for us to understand that often the public is not as well versed in the intricacies of legislation as we in this House might wish.

The important thing that we have to understand is that the process, I believe, was shown to have some flaws in it, because the public would have been much better served had the minister stepped aside and stepped down while the investigation was taking place. That is not a decision or a deliberation with regard to whether someone is in a conflict or not. In terms of the public feeling a sense of confidence with the process, I think it would have been much better for the minister to have stepped aside. Many people would have felt much better with regard to that.

Secondly, it's important for us to recognize that when the government talks about apparent conflicts all the time and flies that flag of apparent conflict before the public, the public says: "Yes, and what becomes apparent..." Even the conflict-of-interest commissioner has pointed out that there were some benefits that accrued to the minister that the minister did not know about; that's correct. Indeed, the goal and the guideline of apparent conflict was not applied to the

section of the act to which he was referring in his judgment. That leads to confusion in the public's mind, and it's important that we try to rectify that for the future.

In the end -- and I agree with what the Premier said earlier -- the best protocol would be one where the decisions are removed from the Premier's office. The best protocol would be for a minister who is under investigation to step aside until that investigation is complete. It would have simply been a three-week period in which the minister did step aside, and it would have done much more to reinforce the public's confidence in this act had that taken place.

With that said, I believe that it was important that this matter was brought before the conflict commissioner. I believe that he has carried out his duties completely and thoroughly. We have received this report, and we wish the minister the best as he carries out his duties in the months ahead.

The Speaker: Responding for the third party, the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.

L. Fox: I too would like to join in congratulating and supporting the commissioner on dealing with this issue. One thing that I learned very early in my political career -- something that is taught at the municipal level -- is that if you believe that there may be a conflict, then there probably is one. In most cases it's the perception created that is damaging, and it creates a lack of confidence in the electorate. For those reasons it is incumbent upon all members that when they perceive that they could be in conflict, for their own purposes and for the sake of serving their office, they should consider that they are in conflict.

As well, in order for the electorate to have confidence in him and the government, I understand and respect the need for a minister to stand aside so that there is a perceived safeguard, and that he is beyond suspicion of any involvement in the process of clearing his name.

C. Serwa: I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave not granted.

G. Wilson: I rise to request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave not granted.

Hon. G. Clark: In light of the conflict-of-interest commissioner's ruling today, and in light of clearly inaccurate and misleading comments made by members of the opposition -- comments which clearly now deserve a retraction and apology -- I would like to reserve my right to move a privilege motion upon examination of Hansard records for members of the opposition.

G. Brewin: Committee A rises, reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

The Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?

Hon. G. Clark: Later today.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, the Ministry of Government Services estimates; and in the House I call committee stage of Bill 32.

BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 32; J. Pullinger in the chair.

section 11 as amended (continued).

Hon. A. Petter: As I recollect the member's question, I think it dealt with subsection (6) and the $50 million. As I explained the last day, it was intended that when the stumpage and royalty increase took place, a portion of it would go to fund some of the incremental expenses that government is undertaking with respect to forestry-related initiatives. This $50 million was targeted for that purpose. However, we wanted to make it clear that if the revenues diminished, that would result in a diminishment to consolidated revenue as well as to the agency.

That's why there is this provision that the amount would be reduced to zero if the sum of those amounts is less than $50 million. In other words, if $50 million is not available, no one else is going to have to make that up. Industry is not going to have to make that up. The price sensitivity on the downward side

[ Page 10960 ]

applies to the $50 million as much as it applies to other components of that revenue.

W. Hurd: I just have one other point with respect to

section 11(4). I have located the correspondence with respect to the increase in stumpage rates. I quote from a letter dated April 18, 1994, signed by Mr. Howard, the director of the valuation branch, which is about an enclosed stumpage adjustment notice:

"The government has decided to increase stumpage rates to provide additional revenue to fund British Columbia's forest renewal plan. The forest renewal plan announced by [the Premier] is a significant program for the forest sector in British Columbia. The plan will fund new initiatives.... If you have questions about the changes to stumpage rates, please feel free to contact me or your regional manager."

I would table these letters, hon. Chair -- and welcome a response from the minister at a later date.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll just clarify this, because I think the member has not understood. Certainly the letters were sent; that's how licensees and others were informed about the rate increase. The two points the member seems not to have appreciated -- maybe he does now -- are, first of all, that the letters referred to May 1, not to May 31, and second, that the change we discussed earlier did not affect the substance of those letters. That was during the amendment. I don't want to belabour it; I just want to clarify that everything I said previously still stands. Yes, the letters exist; we all know that they exist.

L. Fox: Earlier in committee stage on this bill -- I believe it was in the purpose

section -- I asked some questions with respect to the impact on specific areas: one, agricultural lease land; and two, small parcels of privately held land, where individuals may have to pay a royalty. Would both of these sorts of lands now be affected by this increased stumpage or royalty rate to fund Forest Renewal B.C.?

Hon. A. Petter: The question of agricultural leases that the member raised is one that I'm happy to respond to. Agricultural leases are a tenure issue by the lands branch. They are awarded to people who start or expand an agricultural business on Crown land. If the agricultural lease contains Crown timber, a stumpage price is set for the timber in the normal way. No special advantages are given, and therefore the increases that were created on May 1 apply to agricultural lease timber as much as they do to other timber.

[3:30]

I might just say that the whole question of stumpage rates and agricultural leases was reviewed under the previous government in 1989 by an independent consultant, Mr. Gillespie. Mr. Gillespie advocated not only tying agricultural lease rates to stumpages but even going beyond that, I think, and including bonus bids, which has not been done. The reason is that his report indicated that he was concerned that setting too low a stumpage rate could encourage speculation, which would be undesirable. Therefore he recommended no special pricing advantage be given to agricultural leases. That has been the case since, and it is the case with respect to this increase in stumpage.

L. Fox: I'm concerned somewhat, because obviously at the beginning of the discussions the minister was not sure that it was impacted by the rate. In the discussions and the process of examining whether that should be included, did the minister go through and look at the development pattern of lease lands and how many dollars were being raised through logging versus the development costs of agricultural land?

Was he satisfied that there is still an opportunity to log off properties, pay for the logging and all the rest of it with the increased stumpage and still have enough left over to put the land into production? Did the minister examine whether it was still viable under this new increase to continue offering agricultural leases?

Hon. A. Petter: There is as much room for profitability with respect to the standing timber on agricultural lease land. We don't want to create an uneven playing field, but rather an even playing field. Perhaps I can reassure the member by reading the response of the previous government to the Gillespie report on this issue. The conclusion reached by the previous government ran as follows: "The province should ensure that all merchantable timber that is removed from agricultural leases is priced at current market value levels." It went on to tie those rates to the existing stumpage system and the price sensitivities in that system, and that's exactly what we have done in these changes.

L. Fox: I hope the minister is correct, because the farmers I deal with in my constituency are developing marginal farmland, and the development costs are perhaps higher than normal, based on the amount of agricultural product that they can produce on that land.

I have one further question with respect to privately held lands. They could be in small 20-hectare parcels, and they may have been held for quite some time. The individual may want to log small parts of it in order to provide a regional subdivision or that kind of thing. Are those private royalties going to be increased by the same percentages as the agricultural lease land?

Hon. A. Petter: If it's private land, no stumpage or royalties would be collected, and therefore there would be no impact as a result of these changes. I should say as well, in response to the member, that if there are concerns about the marginality of agricultural lands, then that certainly is an issue that may deserve attention.

I hope the member isn't suggesting that one addresses that through a subsidy of the timber values in those lands. That would only benefit those who have more standing timber as opposed to less and could be highly inequitable. What you want to do is address the problem of the capability of those lands for agricultural production in terms of agricultural values and the costs of that, and you also want to ensure that the timber values are charged according to an equitable formula that applies to all landowners. That's exactly what the Gillespie report recommended, what the previous government did and what this government has continued to do.

J. Tyabji: I wasn't in yesterday's debate, so I may have missed this question if it came up. But I believe that I start with my quota all over again, so I have lots of questions available.

I notice that

section 11(3) talks about the changes made to the rates of royalty. This may have been canvassed at some length. I'm assuming what we're talking about there is the difference between the revenue that would be coming in now, before this act goes into effect, and the increased or in some cases decreased revenue that would be brought in as a result of this act. Or are we talking about all revenue brought in?

[ Page 10961 ]

Hon. A. Petter: It is the increase resulting from the changes.

J. Tyabji: So then we're to understand that if we want to use.... Let's say $8 was being brought in prior to this, and there's a $2 increase. Then we're just talking about that $2, not the whole $10 and not the $8. If it is just the $2, then when we go to the rest of the

section and we're talking about 20 percent of that amount, we're talking about 20 percent of the $2 figure. Then the other $8 would go into general revenue? The minister is nodding, so the minister is agreeing that that's what would happen. The other 80 percent of the $2 would also go into general revenue, is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: The amount that was previously collected will continue to be collected and flow to general revenue. The additional amount that's collected, be it $2 or $10, is the amount that's referred to here. Twenty percent would be deducted to offset the corporate income tax and the logging tax. There is the additional deduction for the $50 million. All of the remainder flows into consolidated revenue, out of consolidated revenue and into the fund. That is the amount that is dedicated to the fund, which is expected to generate in the neighbourhood of something slightly less than $400 million a year.

J. Tyabji: As I read this -- if the minister would indulge me here -- subsection (4) talks about 20 percent of that amount. That amount is the amount calculated under subsection (3), and subsection (3) talks about changes to the rates, which is the $2 figure we're talking about. So if it's 20 percent, it's 20 percent of the $2. So the 80 percent then goes into general revenue and.... It doesn't. The minister says...

Hon. A. Petter: It goes in and out.

J. Tyabji: ...it goes in and then it goes out again. So why are we...? This is a very complicated formula. It took several readings to understand that we're talking about just the changes. So the revenue that's coming in at the rate right now continues to go into the general revenue fund.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me see if I can make this as simple as I can. We did deal with it before, at least conceptually, so I don't want to tread over too much of this. In fact, the other member of her caucus raised similar questions. I know we have communication problems in our caucus, but I thought her caucus might have been a little closer on some of these issues.

Nevertheless, the way it works is that the increment or increase being generated as of May 1 -- whatever it is at a given time -- will flow through consolidated revenue, because it is money coming out of a government initiative. It flows through consolidated revenue in accordance with general accounting practices. Twenty percent of that increase, whatever the increase is -- you called it $2 in your example -- is retained in consolidated revenue. That is to keep consolidated revenue whole, because of the reduction consolidated revenue will experience because of the write-off of corporate and logging income taxes.

Then there's a further deduction of $50 million to deal with the incremental forestry initiatives in the budget.

The remainder flows out of consolidated revenue and is allocated to the fund. So after that 20 percent is taken off, plus the amount to account for the $50 million, all of the remainder -- which has flowed through consolidated revenue -- flows out of consolidated revenue and becomes the fund over which the agency has responsibility to invest and carry out its programs.

J. Tyabji: With regard to the minister's earlier comment about my caucus mate, one might say, we usually have better things to talk about in our after-hours. It doesn't surprise me that the line of questioning would be similar.

I think there's a light bulb going on over my head now. I'm starting to understand. Where there's some confusion is that it says that: "as soon as practicable after each quarter...the Minister of Finance...must pay to Forest Renewal BC" that 20 percent. But that 20 percent then becomes the amount of money levied for the reduction that is accrued through the Income Tax Act and the Logging Tax Act. So in effect, although it goes into general revenue and the Minister of Finance pays 20 percent to the Crown corporation....

Hon. A. Petter: No, read the section.

J. Tyabji: I've read this several times. The minister has said that the 20 percent increment is paid to the Minister of Finance in lieu of the reduction in funds from the Income Tax Act and the Logging Tax Act. That's what he was saying. And then there's a $50 million deduction from the increments -- whatever that is -- and the remainder goes into the Crown corporation. But in subsection (4) it's worded the reverse way. That's where I think there's some confusion.

Hon. A. Petter: I admit that the

section gets a little tedious, but I think it is clear. If you look at subsection (4) of

section 11....

Hon. G. Clark: You're a lawyer. It makes it easier.

Hon. A. Petter: I won't admit to being a lawyer for the purpose of understanding this section. I think it's clear even to those of us who aren't lawyers -- and who sometimes are better at understanding things.

If you read the end of the section, it says: "...the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations must pay to Forest Renewal BC out of the consolidated revenue fund an amount calculated for that quarter by deducting, from the amount estimated under subsection (3), 20% of that amount." Take out the parenthetical thought in the middle, and let's reread it: "out of the consolidated revenue fund an amount calculated by deducting...20% of that amount." In other words, it is the remainder after deducting 20 percent -- 80 percent -- that flows through to the agency's fund. And 20 percent is retained for the consolidated revenue fund, not the other way around.

J. Tyabji: The next question that comes out of that -- because we're talking about a quarterly report of the changes or the increment -- is: will there somewhere be a quarterly report that will take in the global stumpage revenue and break that down as to the status quo, and then the increments, and then do it by quarter?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, that will be available. In the information that's made available we will disclose the estimate, the actual amount -- all of that will be made available when the information is released.

Section 11 as amended approved.

section 12.

[ Page 10962 ]

W. Hurd: I have one brief question with respect to subsection (1), where it says Forest Renewal B.C. must place with the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations investment money it receives. This may sound like an illogical question, but it was my impression that Forest Renewal B.C. was not actually receiving any money directly and that it was flowing out of consolidated general revenue. I would welcome an explanation. Would that be money that the corporation doesn't spend during a fiscal year? I would welcome an explanation of what money Forest Renewal B.C. would be placing with the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm surprised by the member's comment that Forest Renewal B.C. doesn't receive money, because the whole function of

section 11 is to define the money that it receives. But I suppose if you're opposed in principle to an initiative, it gets in the way of understanding some of the details.

[3:45]

The answer is that Forest Renewal B.C., as I have been at great pains to try to explain, is charged with theresponsibility of maintaining a consistent flow of investment over time. That means that when market conditions are good or when the agency is in a developmental stage, as it will be initially, there are opportunities to accumulate revenues; then, when market conditions may be less good, we'll spend those revenues down. This is in order to maintain a steady flow of investment and, indeed, to stabilize the economy.

So the question is: how does Forest Renewal B.C. invest those accumulated revenues in order to ensure that they are well invested and therefore can contribute to the steady flow of investment? The answer provided here is that Forest Renewal B.C. will do that by placing the funds with the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations so that investment can take place under the aegis of the minister for the benefit of Forest Renewal B.C. and the ongoing programs that it has and investments that it is responsible for implementing.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 32, BC Forest Renewal Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call committee stage on Bill 27.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

The House in committee on Bill 27; J. Pullinger in the chair.

section 1.

L. Reid: I would speak to this section, because I believe that if the bill does not include a definition of what sexual misconduct is, it is somewhat meaningless for women in this province. I can appreciate that the college and the minister will probably respond that that information will be contained in regulations and bylaws.

But I would submit today that if this is going to be a meaningful document, if it is going to be more than just optics around this issue, it has to include something that is useful for families and women in this province; so that when they pick up the document, it actually says what sexual misconduct encompasses, and it allows some understanding of what this bill is trying to get at.

Certainly we all recognize that there's a problem around the issue of sexual misconduct by physicians. During first reading and second reading, the minister and I discussed the trust relationship between a physician and a patient, and we agree that that relationship should never be violated. However, without some definition, I don't think this bill will be particularly enforceable. Rather than just a perception that this is an attempt to make the physician-client relationship sacrosanct in the province and to have us all stand behind the public accountability question....

If we don't move on encouraging and including some aspects of definition, I'm not convinced that we will have made any great strides.

We have talked about having a high regard for the profession. I think it's only fair for the profession, in that we have agreed that only a very few physicians in the province actually do engage in misconduct.... To leave the bill completely open-ended, without definition, does not aid physicians' ability to provide a service. Both parties, the patient and the physician, must be very clear as to what sexual misconduct is under the act. If indeed this is passed this afternoon....

In terms of my comments to the minister, I have included a definition in my amendment. I would move, hon. Chairman, to amend

section 1, to include: "'sexual misconduct' means exploitation of the physician-patient relationship, in a sexual way, by the physician's words or actions and for the physician's selfish purposes." To include that, which has been the accepted definition in this province and was included in the "Crossing the Boundaries" report, makes sense. It adds to the understanding of this act and adds to whether or not this is a meaningful exercise.

On the amendment.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I would rise to speak in favour of the amendment. As the member for Richmond East has correctly pointed out, where there is reference to a sexual misconduct review committee, it is important that there be some parameters within which that committee would operate, through the definition

section of the bill that creates it. Therefore I would argue, with respect to the definition as presented, that the concept of exploitation is really key here, because of the power that a physician has over the patient in that trust relationship.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. Chair, as you will recall from comments I made on second reading, there can be absolutely no provision in statutes that would allow even the smallest loophole through which those people can fall who would breach the trust placed in them with respect to this issue. I think the member for Richmond East is absolutely correct when she points out that we are creating a committee that does not have, within the definition structure, any parameters that define it by way of the terms of reference that would have to govern its

[ Page 10963 ]

findings on sexual misconduct. I see this as a very worthwhile amendment, and I would argue it to be a friendly amendment. It doesn't in any way alter the intention or meaning of the bill, and I would expect that the minister would have little or no trouble with it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The members opposite and I are in substantial agreement on both the necessity to provide the College of Physicians and Surgeons with the authority to deal with sexual misconduct and the relative infrequency of its occurrence among physicians. We are also in agreement that although the occurrences are infrequent, the misconduct is probably the gravest that a physician can commit.

I want to assure the House that in preparing the amendments to the Medical Practitioners Act and in discussing proposed amendments with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the matter of whether or not to define in legislation sexual misconduct was canvassed thoroughly. As the member opposite knows, it was canvassed by the panel that put together the "Crossing the Boundaries" report, and it was a matter of discussion between myself, my colleagues and others as we looked at this matter. At the end of the day it was our decision not to include that definition in the act, and I want to explain why we chose that action.

First of all, we took a very hard look at the "Crossing the Boundaries" report commissioned by the college. That report involved not just the college but people from a broad range of segments of the population who were concerned about physician behaviour and fairness in the action of public bodies, including a very well-known deputy ombudsman. Their recommendation to the college was twofold. They said: "We think that there are some clear principles here around sexual misconduct and how we should define it." Their definition was the one I quoted to this House earlier.

They recommended that rather than put it in legislative framework, the college should have a rule it would adopt and publicize, stating that sexual conduct of any kind by a physician with a patient is always unethical.

My understanding is that the college has acted on that recommendation and has enshrined that principle -- I'm not sure of the precise words -- in its guidelines for ethical conduct which a physician pledges to adhere to when he or she is admitted to the registry of physicians by the college. It is enshrined as part of what a physician must do to practise ethically as a registrant of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The reason for having it in a rule or ethical code of the college rather than in legislation is to ensure that the college has the broadest possible discretion in determining whether or not sexual misconduct occurred in a specific situation. Is the benefit of the doubt given or is it not given? I know that some other jurisdictions have sought to define the term in legislation.

I am very concerned that any definition that might be put forward, including the one that the member opposite has proposed, might be found unduly narrow and restrictive by some, while others might argue that it's exceedingly broad and open-ended.

To take a look at the specific words of the member's motion.... The amendment proposed by the member and the definition proposed says that sexual misconduct exists where exploitation of the patient-physician relationship occurs. Quite frankly, I'm not sure whether that is not indeed narrower than the definition of sexual misconduct that the college itself has adopted in its rules, which says that any conduct of a sexual nature is, by definition, misconduct.

The other thing that concerns me greatly about this is that in the medical profession, unlike some other professions in which sexual misconduct or sexual harassment could occur, the practitioner has to deal with sexual problems or difficulties brought to him or her by patients. So we have this professional responsibility to treat and attend to sexual conditions brought forward by the patient, and indeed to inquire into sexual matters in some circumstances, as appropriate under the rules and guidelines of the college.

[4:00]

In conclusion, I recognize the intent of what's here. I share your concern that we must make sure that sexual misconduct is defined in a way that allows the college the widest possible discretion to protect the public, which I'd remind members is the first duty of the college under amendments introduced and passed by this House last year. I believe that introducing a definition into the bill would not serve that purpose, and I have some considerable concerns with the specific wording proposed by the member.

C. Serwa: I have just listened to the words of the minister, but I'm not convinced that the proposed amendment is either too narrow or too broad. The minister doesn't read the matter in full context. Sexual misconduct means exploitation of the physician-patient relationship in a sexual way, and you stop short of that. When you stop short of that, then all of a sudden you change the parameters of the amendment. I think that both for the protection of the physician and for the understanding and awareness of the female patient, a definition has to be contained.

This is a fairly broad definition, but it specifically says exploitation, which is very important. It talks about words or actions for a physician's selfish purpose. I think that's a broad enough definition, but it's fair enough. I think that when you draft legislation, you have to be specific in some areas. This is specific in a general way, but it doesn't leave some diffuse latitude for others to interpret through regulations. I would say that it's very important to have this contained.

I spoke quite extensively in second reading of this particular bill about my concerns about a definition, and I think that the hon. member of the official opposition has come up with a definition that I can certainly live with. It is reasonable, sensitive to the practitioner's concerns and very sensitive and realistic to the patient's concerns. I'm very supportive of that, and I have difficulty with the minister's statement that he cannot support this, because what we're truly talking about is the intent of the legislation.

This is clearly in line with the intent of the legislation, which is to protect the female patient from sexual abuse or advances by a medical practitioner in whom she has placed her faith, trust and confidence. It's in line with the intent. It defines the scope and the latitude with which the matter can be looked at and attended to. I'm not at all convinced by the minister's words that it doesn't have a great deal of merit. I'd suggest that if we don't adopt some sort of definition in the legislation, latitude will be left, and the legislation will become toothless.

L. Reid: I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: It's my pleasure today, on behalf of the Speaker of this assembly, to welcome 48 grade 6 students who are visiting us from Cathcart Elementary School, which is in Snohomish, Washington. They are accompanied by Mr. R. Moffitt. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

[ Page 10964 ]

G. Wilson: A second consideration that the minister must surely add, in agreeing to this particular amendment, is that it's the purpose of all of us who were elected to this assembly as legislators to put as clear an intent and definition of the bill as possible into the legislation. When we're providing legislation that will become the legal framework and guide-line by which actions will be taken, it's critical that as little as possible be left to discretion as to what can or cannot be meant by particular issues. This amendment is further definition for reference to the creation of a sexual misconduct review committee. Therefore the definition is important.

Hon. Chair, I can tell you that I am not one who has a huge amount of faith in putting the kind of latitude that we're hearing about into the College of Physicians and Surgeons or law societies or other kinds of legal entities that are the creation of themselves and for themselves and by themselves and unto themselves. Our duty and responsibility isn't to try to make the life of physicians and, in particular, the college easier in this instance. We're elected by the people of the province and charged by our duties to them to provide legislation that provides an opportunity, if they believe that in some way there are means and grounds, for a review to take place.

One of the big criticisms we've had in this province is the fact that when these kinds of complaints have come forward in the past -- and I assume this is the reason for the establishment of this sexual misconduct committee in the first place -- there seems to have been far too much latitude in the college as to whether or not the review would or would not take place. Does it proceed or does it not proceed? The parameters within which those decisions are taken tend to be somewhat lax.

I already raised the spectre of the problem of taxpayer dollars going into physician defence funds against litigation by the public, and how that puts the public at a serious disadvantage. My suspicion is that without this amendment, without the proper definition of the term "sexual misconduct," you further put the public at a disadvantage, because you empower the College of Physicians and Surgeons to make decisions on the basis of subjective information, rather than say: "There is a clear breach of the definition

section of Bill 27, 1994, which says that in this instance there has been exploitation for selfish purposes by a physician who has abused the physician-patient relationship in a sexual way."

For the minister to say that any sexual relationship between a physician and a patient is wrong is going to lead to problems. There's wide latitude. I could understand, in a question of consenting adults, where relationships may in fact be in existence in that sense.... What you are saying is that no physician who has a relationship with an individual, other than a strictly patient-physician relationship, is able to act in the capacity of physician in that relationship. That's just not realistic, and I think the minister knows that. So the key is exploitation of that relationship for a selfish purpose.

I think this is a perfectly acceptable amendment and one that provides us as legislators the opportunity to direct the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is what the public is asking us to do, not to further empower the college to act on their own behalf.

J. Dalton: I wasn't sure whether the minister wanted to jump back in, but I am fully supportive of this amendment. There are two points that I would like to make. I listened carefully to the response of the minister, and it didn't satisfy my concern.

Central to this amendment and this bill -- and I'm sure the minister will agree -- is public confidence in the system. In this case, the system is the investigative power of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Over the years it has been well documented that the college has not had the happiest track record of conducting such investigations, so we at least can applaud the minister for bringing this bill forward. But there is a serious omission in the bill, and that's the lack of a definition of the very thing that the disciplinary committee will be looking at.

With all respect for the minister's position, if there's no reference point in the governing and enabling statute, the disciplinary committee has nothing to fall back on. I had occasion to look at the notice put out by the college about allegations of sexual misconduct, and I don't think the wording contained in the policy statement is sufficient. We need a reference point in an important statute like this, and the reference point is the definition. Then the committee can look at allegations in that framework.

Without that reference point, public confidence -- which I feel is central to the entire argument in this amendment -- is eroded. If public confidence is lacking -- and it certainly is now -- I suggest that a lack of definition is not going to help the situation; it's going to further compromise it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the members opposite for their comments on this amendment. I must say I'm not persuaded. I want to outline some of the concerns that I have with enshrining any definition, and then I want to talk particularly about the proposed amendment.

First, the idea of enshrining any definition here.... The Medical Practitioners Act does not define misconduct in a general way. You will find no definition in this act of what misconduct is when a physician practises his or her profession; you will not find

definitions in the act of what misconduct is in diagnosis or treatment. You will find extensive references to misconduct in the ethical guidelines for members of the college, in the rules promulgated by the college, and in case history or case law that has grown up around what misconduct is in the practice of being a medical practitioner in this province. I submit that that is what will also occur in this case.

The college has taken upon itself to address what it perceives as a very serious problem for their profession caused by the public not being sure, in cases of sexual misconduct, that the college has as its primary purpose the protection of the public. It has taken the action of enshrining in its ethical code a definition of misconduct which requires registrants of the college to adhere to.

I'm well aware that other jurisdictions have taken a different approach. For example, Ontario recently amended its health professions code, and it included a definition of sexual abuse. I will just quote it for the members:

"(

a) sexual intercourse or other forms of physical sexual relations between the member and the patient; (

b) touching, of a sexual nature, of the patient by the member; or (

c) behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member towards the patient.

"For the purposes of subsection (3), 'sexual nature' does not include touching, behaviour or remarks of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided."

Ontario has taken one approach to this. It hopes that that definition will hold up and that the fact it is there will somehow enable all cases to be caught. I believe the premise for not including a definition is that a common-law approach to this matter is more appropriate. To quote the Minister of Women's Equality during second reading: "A patient knows when sexual misconduct has occurred. A patient knows. It is the college's job to make sure that, when sexual misconduct

[ Page 10965 ]

occurs, discipline also follows." I respect very much the intent of this amendment. I believe that the approach we have taken respects that intent, but does not restrict the college's broad discretion to determine whether sexual misconduct has occurred.

Having dealt with the general issue, let me now turn to the specific amendment. The amendment, I think, illustrates some of the difficulties here. It defines sexual misconduct as "exploitation of the physician-patient relationship in a sexual way, by the physician's words or actions and for the physician's selfish purposes." I would submit that the college's own conception of sexual misconduct is more broad than this. For example, one situation that received a great deal of attention in the "Crossing the Boundaries" report was where a physician may be the sole practitioner in a small community.

They wrestled with the issue of whether or not sexual relations with a patient were in some way misconduct in that situation. At the end of the day, they were not sure what they should be doing, in that the physicians themselves said that any sexual relations between a patient and physician, even in that remote situation, were open to the charge of misconduct -- and there was no selfish purpose in that situation.

Yet those who have worked on the whole issue of physician sexual misconduct in the "Crossing the Boundaries" report, and are working with the college to make sure that they address this seriously, have some very serious concerns about that sort of action.

[4:15]

I am afraid that the limitation in this amendment of sexual misconduct to cases where a selfish purpose is behind an action is itself a limitation of the college's ability to deal broadly with individual actions by physicians and patients' perceptions of those actions.

C. Serwa: I have several questions on the amendment that I would like to ask the minister. Is the minister confident in the College of Physicians and Surgeons being capable or being perceived in the eyes of the public as being capable of attending to this matter in such a manner that it does gain the confidence of the community? Does the minister have full confidence in the College of Physicians and Surgeons for that purpose?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am pleased to see that the college itself has recognized that it has a difficulty in the public perception of its handling of its duties in cases of sexual misconduct by a physician. That is why the college itself instigated the "Crossing the Boundaries" investigation and that is why we have been working with the college to strengthen the legislative framework within which they operate.

The other thing I would say is that I believe that the steps we have taken to enshrine in legislation the responsibility to protect the public as their first and primary responsibility, and the steps we have taken to enshrine public representation on the council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, on the executive committee of the college and on every inquiry committee that the college strikes to hear cases of misconduct by a physician, whether sexual or in practice, gives me the confidence to say we have established a clear framework within which the college can and must protect the public.

We are taking further steps in the amendments before us today to ensure that allegations of sexual misconduct are given the attention they deserve by the college.

C. Serwa: The minister recognizes that, traditionally, legislation was drafted in a far more comprehensive manner than it is being drafted today. Today the tendency among the drafters of legislation, who seem to be in control of the situation, is to draft legislation which is very, very broad in latitude. Then the details tend to be covered in regulation.

I've listened to what the minister has said because that was the point I was going to make. My concern in this particular case is that when you draft broad legislation, and when the minister and the government abdicate responsibility that they want to stand proud and tall on -- and they are abdicating responsibility to the college.... The point I want to make is that the minister is fully aware that professionals and experts and politicians are all met with a substantial degree of cynicism out there on the part of the public. I am confident of that statement, unfortunately.

The concern I have is that the government itself recognizes that cynicism, because the government brought in legislation, which the minister alluded to, that indicated the lack of confidence the public has in the governing board of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. That's why the minister put forward legislation requiring government appointees to be on that board -- to look after the public interest.

With that in mind, I'm not entirely as confident as the minister that the college itself is able to handle this matter, with the broad, sweeping opportunities that this legislation enables it to have, without adopting something like the amendment proposed by the hon. opposition critic that defines general parameters and defines what we're talking about.

L. Reid: This is a difficult discussion, hon. Chair. I can tell you I don't know when I've been more disappointed in the Minister of Health in terms of his suggestion that this is somehow restrictive. I think this is the base line -- the benchmark, if you will. This is not going to preclude any other discussion that needs to go on. This is simply going to establish, for patients in this province, what sexual misconduct is. To put forward a bill that somehow leaves that out.... I am not reassured by the fact that it may or may not appear in guidelines and regulations. I think it will.

But the bottom line is that if it's not prepared to be in the legislation, this is simply optics. We are suggesting that we are not standing behind what this bill was intended to do, which I believed -- and I hope I haven't believed erroneously -- was to reassure women and patients in this province. If we're not defining what we're supposed to be reassuring them about, it leaves a great deal to be desired.

I have some concerns regarding the minister's comment about physicians having their first accountability to the patient. I support that notion, but our first responsibility is to public accountability in this province. That is the role of legislators. I believe it is the role of this chamber to set standards about care and service delivery. To suggest that a definition removes the necessity to do that does not make sense to me. I do not share the minister's comments on that.

The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talked about exploitation. That is exactly the intent of this amendment: to indicate to women that if they are exploited in a relationship with a physician they can carry that issue forward through the other sections of this act and, hopefully, through an appeal process that will be in place. To zero in on exactly what we find needs definition is contained in the amendment I have put forward. If the purpose of this bill was to reassure patients, this amendment will be supported.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have almost two conceptions of how a law is going to work here. I am very firmly of the view that we will have at the college -- as we have had in the college's

[ Page 10966 ]

dealing with misconduct of a professional nature -- an evolving set of rulings by the college and by courts reviewing the college's actions on the issue of sexual misconduct. I am concerned that any definition enshrined will restrict the college's broad discretion to determine whether or not sexual misconduct has occurred. I again submit for the Liberal critic that I have a conception of sexual misconduct that goes more broadly than "selfish purposes." I don't want to inquire into the motives of the physician who has engaged in inappropriate behaviour, whether it was selfish or altruistic; I am concerned with that action.

[4:30]

When the college itself adopts a rule in its code of ethics that defines sexual misconduct more broadly than conduct that can be tied to a particular motive, I submit that you are, by your amendment, placing some unnecessary restrictions on the scope of the college's ability to investigate and discipline sexual misconduct.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 19

Chisholm

Dalton

Reid

Campbell

Hurd

Farrell-Collins

Gingell

Stephens

Hanson

Serwa

Wilson

Neufeld

Symons

M. de Jong

K. Jones

Warnke

Anderson

Jarvis

Tanner

NAYS -- 32

Petter

Pement

Edwards

Zirnhelt

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Dosanjh

Hammell

B. Jones

Giesbrecht

Miller

Gabelmann

Clark

MacPhail

Ramsey

Blencoe

Pullinger

Janssen

Evans

Beattie

Doyle

Lord

Streifel

Sawicki

Jackson

Kasper

Brewin

Schreck

Lali

Hartley

Hon. P. Ramsey: Further to

section 1, I want to point out to the House one of the changes that I think is significant. The definition of "member" is now defined in a way that includes both current and former registrants of the college. The intent is to avoid a situation where a practitioner is accused of sexual misconduct or misconduct of another nature and resigns as a registrant to escape discipline for his or her actions. This expands the responsibility of the college and its authority to discipline former as well as current members.

C. Serwa: The minister's comment prompts a question. Could the minister advise me on how many occasions a resignation has occurred? It must be significant in order to propose this as part of the definition.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The numbers are not high, but very often they are indeed the worst cases, where it is clear that a registrant would permanently lose his or her licence to practise.

What has happened in some circumstances is that the physician has given up his registration in this province, avoided discipline and registered in another province to practise medicine, and when that college has inquired of the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons whether there were any charges or discipline brought against the member, the B.C. college has had to say: "No, there's been no discipline, reprimand or suspension." So the cases are few. With this amendment, we are attempting to catch the really bad apples in the barrel, quite frankly, few though they may be.

L. Reid: I would like to provide the information the hon. member sought. In fact, the statistics for this issue, up to December 1990, suggest that eight members surrendered their licences to practise before a hearing took place. If the member is interested, I have the documentation that looks at all of the issues surrounding sexual misconduct in terms of the numbers that were put forward by the college.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Reid: I'm indeed pleased to speak to

section 2, because I have some sense that this

section attempts to clarify the process for complainants in the province. I take some issue with

section 2(j.3)(iv), where it states: "...to give proper notice of the suspension to patients, or persons that might wish to become patients...." I would ask the minister perhaps to expand on how that may be achieved. I would also ask the minister to speak to my amendment, and I would so move: "...to give proper notice within thirty (30) days of the suspension to patients, or persons that might wish to become patients...." Frankly, I think the way it's stated now, "to give proper notice," is too broad. I would want that information to be in the hands of patients at least within 30 days, and the sooner the better. I can't imagine this

section being enforceable without a time line, and I'm not convinced.... Perhaps the minister has some thoughts on how he would wish that information to be in the hands of individuals who are not current patients but may be future patients. I think there are a lot of complexities around that.

On the amendment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: In

section 2(j.3) of the amendments proposed in Bill 27, we are seeking to lay a framework within which the college will bring forward rules governing various aspects of suspension. We had a number of options here. You may know that currently

section 52 of the Medical Practitioners Act governs the effect of suspension. There was extensive consultation with the college around various aspects that might affect a suspension. What do we do about referring patients, about medical premises, about income and about patient notification? How do we ensure that patient care does not suffer because of the action to suspend? It goes on and on; there are a huge variety of issues there.

Again, we grappled with two options: one, to enshrine all the details in legislation and hope that we caught them all; or two, to say that each case may differ, and trust that the college, with its rules, will attend to the specifics of those cases. I would note that we are requiring, by the amendments we brought forward in this act, that the rules the college proposes to carry out its duties under this

section are subject to review and approval by cabinet.

Once again, hon. member, I recognize the intent that notice be given promptly to patients. But why 30 days? Why not seven? I can conceive of cases where notice should be almost instantaneous; I can also conceive of cases where you might want greater latitude. I am very concerned about a

[ Page 10967 ]

regulatory atmosphere which, on the one hand, says to a practitioner group -- whether it's physicians orphysiotherapists or whomever -- that we entrust them with regulating their own profession and carrying out discipline of their members, and on the other hand, has details of this specificity in the legislation. So, regrettably, I will not be supporting your amendment.

C. Serwa: I have been listening to the remarks of the minister, where he has said that the profession has been self-governing and they're not going to change the situation, and yet in this piece of legislation the rules and regulations of the College of Physicians and Surgeons now have to be approved by cabinet. I fail to understand the words of the hon. minister when he states that there are some changes being made. As a matter of fact, to be unwilling to apply in legislation something that the college is supposed to do, yet to require that that subsequently be approved by cabinet, seems hypocritical at the least.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We are in the process in this province of revising all the statutes that regulate health professions. The new Health Professions Act, under which we're going to be designating physiotherapy and massage therapy later this year, provides a framework for regulation. We have a number of old-style regulatory acts, if I can phrase it that way, that attempt to enshrine in legislation a number of quite specific matters that, quite frankly, should not be included in legislation -- specific dollar amounts for the performance of a duty by a college, for example. Those should not be enshrined in legislation.

They were done at a time when drafters of legislation believed that you should be able to pin down every eventuality in the clauses of

an act.

We are moving towards a different model. Rather than enshrine it in the act, we're moving towards a model where the regulatory framework is established. The requirement that rules be brought forward for approval by government and cabinet is enshrined in the Health Professions Act, and we're adding that provision to the Medical Practitioners Act now. But we are staying away from the specification of every circumstance and are trying to avoid imposing restrictions on the manner in which a college carries out its duties under the act. Unfortunately, this amendment constitutes that sort of restriction.

L. Reid: This bill is before us today, hon. minister, because your predecessor, the current Minister of Finance, talked about public accountability and about why it was important for women and patients in this province to understand how this new legislation, which was being designed to prevent future abuse, would unfold for them. To suggest that a time line doesn't make sense.... It does make sense. It suggests that there's some common sense around the issue for patients in this province.

[4:45]

In my first comment to you, hon. minister, I asked the question: how do you believe proper notice could be given to individuals who may be future patients? You have not addressed that. I would ask you to do so now.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is one of those issues where we require the college to come forward with the rules it will be using to effect their responsibility to notify patients and potential patients. I could conceive of a range of rules that they might bring forward, ranging from posting a notice on the door of your office if you're a suspended practitioner, to advertising, to informing other practitioners. There are a variety of means that a practitioner might be required to employ.

For example, if a practitioner were a specialist who received referrals from other physicians, part of the requirement might be that the specialist notify all general practitioners in the area who might refer patients to him or her that he or she is under suspension. There are a broad range of vehicles and mechanisms that might be used to do that notification, hon. member.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

L. Reid: I would very much like to speak to the

section in terms of an appeal process around this issue. I have some concerns, and a number of concerns have been shared with me by women in this province, by patients in this province, who see all the authority and all the ability to reach a decision being vested in the college. If the college were to reach a decision which they did not believe to be in their best interests, they in fact would have no recourse beyond that.

I, for one, strongly support the notion that there must be an appeal process in place. Certainly as we read

section 7,

section 25.1, it allows for the decision to be reached in conjunction with a special deputy registrar and to go back to the misconduct review committee. But if each of those avenues does not result in a desired outcome, whatever that desired outcome may be for the patient, the only alternative at the present time, as stated here, allows the patient to go back to the special deputy registrar. The special deputy registrar is under no obligation to revisit that decision.

My thinking and certainly the discussions I've had with a number of physicians and patients in this province suggest that there should be an opportunity, if the patient does not accept the decision, to go to an appeal process within that framework, as opposed to having to move out into the court system. It seems to me that this is a beginning, but it's very narrow in terms of providing patients with as many options as I hope this House would like to.

I hope it would like to put in place a framework for decision-making -- not just for the college, but a framework for decision-making for the patient, so that at the end of the day, if they do not like, appreciate or accept the decision that has been handed down, they are able to put themselves back into the process and hopefully appeal the decision.

So having said that, I move an amendment to

section 7, a new section, 25.2, to read: "A patient or a representative of the patient may appeal to the college any decision, determination or order of the sexual misconduct review committee that affects the patient." I trust that that will meet with a favourable response.

On the amendment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I wish I could find a way of supporting this amendment, because I think there's nothing more crucial than the right of somebody to be heard who feels that their complaint has not been taken seriously. Indeed, that's why we've charged the sexual misconduct review committee to establish and maintain the procedures by which the college deals with the complaints of sexual misconduct that it receives, and to do a variety of other things to both inform the public about the requirement of the college to deal with sexual misconduct and inform physicians of it and a variety of other things. Among them, I would suggest, would be the

[ Page 10968 ]

handling of complainants who feel that their concern has not been taken seriously.

Let me briefly outline what is available under the amendments to the act that we are proposing for appeal, and then let me raise some serious technical objection to the amendment that has been put forward. First, there are at least two avenues of formal appeal from a college's failure to act. One, of course, is judicial review. If a complainant feels that the college has not carried out its responsibilities under the act, he or she has every right to challenge the college in court for failure to carry out its duties under the act.

Second, this government has expanded the ambit of the ombudsman to include the operations of the College of Physicians and Surgeons -- indeed, of all colleges that govern the activities of health professionals. If a complainant feels that the college has not taken the matter seriously, if there has been a flaw in procedure, if evidence that should have been gathered has not been gathered -- or any other variety of circumstances -- he or she has the clear avenue of working with the ombudsman to have that matter investigated.

Third, there are the internal appeals which the sexual misconduct review committee will be taking most seriously in making sure that there are thorough considerations of any allegations of misconduct brought forward. But at some point somebody has to be saying that that is a complaint that must go to inquiry or must not; and that responsibility has to rest with the college.

Finally, the technical difficulty I have with the amendment that you propose is that I'm not sure who the patient or representative would be appealing to. The college constitutes the gathering of physicians who are registrants as medical practitioners and the set of officers and employees established under this act. There are a variety of bodies within the college, but I am not sure how this particular amendment is designed technically to work.

On both the general grounds that I have spoken to and on the specific concerns about the technical implications of this amendment, I unfortunately must reject it.

L. Reid: It seems that the minister would have women in this province seek recourse through the ombudsman's office. If this legislation is designed to make the process less complex, we're not achieving that end; we're making the process much more time-consuming. We're inviting participation by a number of other players in the field. This is a very sensitive area. This is a very vulnerable time for women. The minister has said that if the college cannot reach a decision, they are not going to provide any appeal process for you; you're welcome to take your concern elsewhere.

I'm not convinced that's the message I want this government to be sending to women in this province. It seems to be somewhat contradictory to what the Minister of Women's Equality has stated about women in this province receiving basic protection under the law.

If it was the intention of this government to bring in something that was a meaningful piece of legislation, it has to be enforceable and it has to be understood. But it has to allow for the basic human right of appeal. There has to be some recourse under the legislation. So I do not accept the minister's comments that at that point the women can be asked to seek redress through another authority. I don't believe that's appropriate. In the minister's own words, he stated: "...responsibility to rest within the college." I agree with that. If the minister continues to agree with that, it makes sense to allow women to have an appeal process within that framework.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let's be clear. Complainants do have a right to appeal, regardless of what the college does with a particular complaint. In any circumstances where a complainant feels unsatisfied, the avenues of review by the ombudsman or judicial review are clearly there. Finally, let me say this. I do take this matter very seriously. The college will clearly have to be bringing forth its own internal regulations and rules on how it deals with the matters that the member has brought forward. I want to say clearly that I consider this a broad issue across all health professions.

As the member may know, we are asking the Health Professions Council to consider a professional review in other health professions as well. I will be asking the Health Professions Council to consider this issue of an internal appeal in self-regulating health bodies when they begin their legislative review of all health professions in the next few weeks, and I'll be asking them to bring forward a comprehensive approach to this issue.

C. Serwa: I rise to speak in favour of the proposed amendment. I see that the hon. minister is very sensitive about this particular issue -- and well he should be, because there is a concern that the legislation, while it appears to be intended with a great deal of honour and integrity, seems to be missing some of the necessities. The appeal process must be included in the legislation. I accept the minister's statement that it may be difficult, but I must say that in virtually every process -- in Social Services, for example, and in land assessment -- there are various levels of appeal.

We in a democracy really believe in the ability to appeal. At some point that is one of the safety measures in the system.

The structure can be developed by the minister. It may be a tribunal. It's obvious there is no ability to go back to the same group that rendered the original decision. The problems with a judicial review -- knowing full well that.... For example, one of the greatest problems with the Young Offenders Act is the length of time that passes before an individual appears before a court for sentencing, and I think that justice delayed is justice denied. In the case of this particular issue, I think it's important that the appeal process be set forward and initiated.

Going through the ombudsman is also a rather prolonged process. It's very difficult to access; it's not a straightforward appeal process. The intent of the legislation is very good, but it should be equipped with this in the legislative package.

If the minister has concerns about the process of appeal, hon. Chair, I would suggest that the minister have this

section stood down, so that he can attend to it and investigate the matter of a possible appeal process that can be included in the legislation. We're not simply appealing matters with the College of Physicians and Surgeons; we may be appealing matters that extend to other medical health practitioners beyond that. It may be necessary to have an appeal process that involves ministry staff -- perhaps, for example, the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Social Services.

But somehow a simple, straightforward tribunal scenario could be established that would, again, gain the confidence of the client group -- women, in this particular case. The intent of the government is honourable, and the legislation certainly supports the intent of the minister. That may be an option that the minister could, and hopefully will, consider.

L. Reid: The minister made mention of having other self-governing professions take a look at this. I would hope that the ability and right to appeal any decision that is reached is a standard

section for all self-governing

[ Page 10969 ]

professions in this province. All we're asking today, hon. minister, is that in this legislation you tell patients in this province that they have the right of appeal within the college framework.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll conclude this briefly. Complainants do have the right to appeal, both informally within this college and in others. There is nothing in this act that would prevent a different panel of the sexual misconduct review committee from holding an informal review of the decision. There is nothing in this act that prevents the college from establishing -- indeed, much of it encourages the college to establish -- internal mechanisms for review. And external review is available through both the Ombudsman Act and the courts.

[5:00]

I accept that this is something that must be looked at broadly across all health professions. The Health Professions Council will be asked to consider this issue in relation to regulation of all he