2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th 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)

MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 22

[ Page 17717 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

[1410]

G. Farrell-Collins: I have the privilege today to introduce to the

House my wife, who's here as a civilian, I might add. She is here with her

mother Barbara Cox and her father Ron Cox, who are visiting from Saskatchewan.

My mother Kay Collins is here as well. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm informed by the Deputy Premier that my wife's

name is Wendy, so I'll pass that on to the House as well.

Hon. T. Stevenson: In the gallery today is an employee of mine,

someone who works in my office, Christine Pascus. She doesn't know that I'm

making this introduction; it was set up by other members in the office, who

asked me not to let her know that this was occurring. But I'm letting everyone

know this is occurring. Also, Christine is with her parents, her father George

and her mother Mary Ellen, who are from Port Hardy. Will all members please make

them welcome.

S. Orcherton: I have two introductions to make today. The first is to

advise the House that there are about 27 students from Richmond Elementary

School in my constituency. They're accompanied by a number of adults and their

teacher, Ms. J. Warrington. Interesting for the members to note as well is that

the student teacher accompanying them today is Jacqueline Coleman, the daughter

of the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. I would ask the House to please make

all of these people very welcome to the chamber today.

G. Hogg: In the gallery today is a recent migrant from Manitoba and a

new resident of Surrey-White Rock. Would the members please make welcome Mr. Ed

Masters.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is Janet Erasmus,

who's a legislative counsel in my ministry. She's joined today by her

14-year-old son Lars. They're here because he's job-shadowing his mother. I

wondered what watching question period had to do with job-shadowing a

legislative counsel. Somebody in the precincts suggested to me that legislative

drafting may not be that interesting -- although I think it's very interesting.

I ask the House to join me in welcoming Janet and her son Lars.

C. Hansen: I had the pleasure of meeting earlier today with some

representatives of the BCGEU and the HEU. I'd certainly like to welcome

Catherine Glennie, Jaci White, Donna Purcell and Marilyn Foster of the BCGEU,

and Deborah Gillis, Fred Muzin, Arlene Schimmelafennig, Stephen Howard and Marty

Norgren of the HEU. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. H. Giesbrecht: From the riding of Skeena, we have someone that

I'd like to introduce to the House: Glen Williams, who's the chief negotiator

for the Gitanyow band. He's here from Gitanyow. Would the House please join me

in making him welcome.

S. Orcherton: I just wanted to join the sentiments from the Health

critic opposite in welcoming the guests from the BCGEU and the HEU who are in

attendance this afternoon. He kind of beat me to the punch on that one. But

we'll see what occurs this afternoon while they listen to the debate and the

discussion around Bill 23. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: I see in the gallery today Roger Kishi, who is the

candidate for the NDP for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, and also his lifelong

partner Catherine. They are strong activists in their own community in their own

right. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1415]

B. Penner: I'd like to join the Attorney General in welcoming Janet

Erasmus here today. Back in 1989 I was a first-year law student, and I had the

privilege of having Ms. Erasmus as my law professor for "Law, Legislation

and Policy." I appreciate the chance to put her good instruction to work

here at the Legislature. Would the House please join me and the Attorney General

in making her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

HOMEOWNER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first

time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 24, the

Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2001. For most British Columbians, their

most valuable financial asset is their home. These homes are often in

strata-title buildings such as condominiums and townhouses. There are about

18,000 strata corporations in British Columbia overseeing hundreds of thousands

of units. The companies and individuals who manage these buildings

professionally handle millions of dollars of homeowner funds, and on the whole,

they do an excellent job of providing safe, secure housing and protecting

people's investments.

However, there is an increasing recognition that there is a lack of

regulatory safeguards on funds being handled by strata management companies.

Moreover, there are no standards of qualification for the managers who carry out

their day-to-day work. Unfortunately, there have been incidents of conflicts of

interest and unethical behaviour on the part of a few hired strata managers.

Standards are needed to protect the interests of strata homeowners. These

proposed amendments to the Homeowner Protection Act are intended to provide

those safe-

[ Page 17718 ]

guards. They're part of our commitment to increase consumer protection for

British Columbia homeowners. This legislation aims to protect the financial

interests of strata corporations and strata homeowners. It will allow for

individuals and companies that manage strata property to be licensed. It will

allow for the establishment of minimum educational standards for individual

strata managers. It will require regular audits, bonding and/or insurance to

protect against fraud and improve accountability.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You may think that living in a leaky condo is a lot

of fun.

The Speaker: Order, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: But most of us don't. It will require disclosure of

potential conflicts of interest between strata managers and the owners,

contractors, developers, real estate agents and others with whom they deal.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24 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

PAYMENTS OWED TO B.C. HYDRO

BY CALIFORNIA UTILITIES

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the minister responsible for

B.C. Hydro. Last Friday California's largest utility filed for

chapter 11

protection under the bankruptcy laws. It and a number of other California

utilities owe B.C. Hydro hundreds of millions of dollars. It's unclear exactly

how many hundreds of millions.

When the story first broke, B.C. Hydro told BCTV that PG&E owed $150

million. Later in the afternoon the minister told CBC radio that PG&E and

Southern California Edison owed a combined $280 million. Later in the day it was

reported that the minister said PG&E owed $200 million. And then late in the

afternoon Hydro released a statement that PG&E and Southern Cal Edison

really owed money to the California Power Exchange and the independent operator,

which in turn owed Hydro about $300 million (U.S.).

Can the minister tell us, so we can get the record straight, exactly how much

is owed to B.C. Hydro by PG&E, how much is owed by Southern Cal Edison and

how much is owed by the California Power Exchange?

[1420]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The moneys owed to Powerex and through them to B.C.

Hydro are from the California independent system operator. One of the

difficulties here is that while, through the independent system operator, power

is provided to both Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern Cal, the breakout is

not something that I have access to. So that $300 million in total is the

figure. This is a very significant amount from the failed deregulation and

privatization experience in California. It should really be a lesson for anybody

in this province who thinks that deregulation or opening to more private power

providers is the way to go for B.C. Hydro.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a supplemental question.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know sometimes the opposition asks tricky

questions of the minister, but this one isn't terribly tricky. It's something

that the minister should have been prepared to answer today. He should have been

prepared to answer it on Friday. I think it is important for the minister to set

the record straight. How much are we owed by these various companies? How much

by the independent operator? How much by the San Diego Power Corporation?

British Columbians have a right to know where $465 million that's owed to this

province is going to come from, if it ever arrives.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I already answered the member's question about the

amount of money that's owed. It's owed largely to the California independent

system operator. Powerex and B.C. Hydro intend to pursue the bankruptcy

proceeding in California with vigour. The more positive news from Friday's

events is, of course, that in filing for

chapter 11 protection, Pacific Gas and

Electric's president said that it is their goal to pay all of their outstanding

bills. It is Hydro's and Powerex's intention to pursue every dime that we're

owed.

I would say again to the member: this is a failed experiment in privatization

and deregulation. It is a story of a system in which those producing power are

not allowed to pass on the costs to the actual consumers. It is an abysmal

failure. Those who want to dismantle B.C. Hydro should look at California,

should look at Alberta and think twice.

M. de Jong: Those are horribly general answers to specific questions

involving hundreds of millions of dollars. I would have thought the minister

would have been better prepared. Here's another troubling aspect to this whole

issue. Back in January of this year the government knew, or ought to have known,

that some of B.C. Hydro's California customers had hit their credit limits and

were actually late paying their bills. Yet the documents that the minister

himself tabled a week or two ago to justify his inflated Hydro targets show that

at that time, he was actually looking to increase those credit limits. Why was

the minister prepared to sell even more power to California utilities when they

couldn't even pay for the power they had already received?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We are indeed supplying power to California when

Powerex can purchase it at a price which will enable them to make a profit for

the people of British Columbia by selling it to California. They have continued

to make reasonable profits for British Columbians in doing power swaps and

sales. They are also doing it, hon. Speaker, while making sure that appropriate

credit -- indeed, in some cases cash on the barrel head from state agencies --

is in place, and they're going to continue to do that. B.C. Hydro has a 20-year

relationship with utilities up and down the west coast. It has been a profitable

relationship for the company and for the people of British Columbia, and it

should continue.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.

[1425]

[ Page 17719 ]

M. de Jong: Only an NDP Finance minister would define as profit money

his government hasn't received and may never receive.

The fact of the matter is this: back in January the credit card was maxed

out. The payments were behind, and this minister's response was to up the limit

-- to continue selling power and to put at risk the British Columbia taxpayers

to whom that money is owed. Why should British Columbians have any confidence at

all in a minister and a government that proceed in such a reckless way?

Hon. P. Ramsey: B.C. Hydro recorded very good profits last year doing

power sales into the U.S. It passes understanding why, if appropriate credit

mechanisms are not in place, the opposition would oppose B.C. Hydro and Powerex

continuing to earn money for British Columbians. The real threat to B.C. Hydro's

profitability lies with the plans of the Liberal opposition.

The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain proposes to shut down Burrard

Thermal, which in low-water years provides low-cost electricity to British

Columbians. That one move would cost $2.5 billion. The Leader of the Opposition,

for whatever reason, wants to impose a firm limit on what B.C. Hydro can or

cannot do with the Williston reservoir -- again, costing hundreds of millions

for B.C. Hydro. In order to make up for it, the member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain has the answer. He says: "We will authorize private power

producers to get into the game, and that will make up the shortfall." This

is exactly what happened in California; this is exactly what happened in

Alberta. Hon. Speaker, if British Columbians think the price of gas was high

this year, wait till they see what a Liberal government would bring them in

electricity costs.

PREMIER'S TRIP TO INDIA

C. Clark: On to another story that the government keeps editing as we

go along, and that's the Premier's private-public trade mission/personal visit

to India. On December 29, while he was actually in India, he said: "I am

not leading a trade mission; I'm on a personal visit." But then there's the

briefing note from December 14, which came out through freedom of information,

that said the Premier would be undertaking a program in India arranged by his

office "which will include a mixture of public and private events."

That was two weeks before the Premier had his feet up in India on his personal

visit. So can the Premier tell us why he tells the public one thing about his

visit while his briefing notes tell us an entirely different story?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, I want to say for everyone to hear: I was

absolutely proud to go back to my roots.

Secondly, if the Leader of the Opposition and all of the opposition members

ever read the newspapers straight . . . . Sometimes they do give you

the whole story, and that's rare. On December 11 the story done by Kim Bolan in

the Vancouver Sun said that there would be many Sikh friends who might

meet me there and that I was going on a private visit but would also be

discussing trade with many people, including the Prime Minister of India and the

Chief Minister of Punjab. It was all there for everyone to see on December 11 in

the Vancouver Sun . There is absolutely nothing to hide.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a

supplemental question.

C. Clark: Well, the question is: if the government employees were

preparing briefing notes for the Premier, talking about a trade mission, telling

the Premier clearly that this was going to be a mixture of public and private,

why was the Premier, when he was in India, suggesting that somehow this was

still a private trip?

There's another question that leads from this too. The Premier also said .

. . . In fact, it was the Premier's Office that said: "We don't know

of any group that's accompanying the Premier." And in fact, not only was

there a group, there was a whole delegation going with the Premier. It turns out

that they had a key NDP fundraiser and business associate going with the Premier

on that trip. So again, my question to the Premier is this: why does he keep

changing his story about this trip to India? And why doesn't he just come clean

about what this trip was really about?

[1430]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, it was all in the Vancouver Sun

on December 11 last year. If there are any other questions . . . .

The documents have been released to the opposition; they have all of the

documents in their possession. There is absolutely no other question to answer.

Unless the hon. member has a legitimate question to ask, I'm not going to be

responding. It's all in the public; there is nothing to hide. If you have a

specific question, hon. member, I'd be happy to answer.

G. Plant: Well, let me try a specific question. The Premier's

so-called private trip turns out to have generated a fairly large pile of

official documents. Now, it turns out that if you're an NDP fundraiser

accompanying the Premier on that trip, you get access to all of the documents.

But if you're a member of the public asking for disclosure of the documents,

what you get is a pile of documents quite significantly edited under the Freedom

of Information Act. So my question for the Premier, who has, to quote him,

"absolutely nothing to hide," is: why is it that an NDP fundraiser has

access to information that he is now withholding from the rest of the people of

British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Heaven forbid. The member opposite, if the Liberals

ever form government, wants to be Attorney General. I would urge him to check

the facts. The individual they're talking about had access to the memorandum of

understanding, which is a public document the press has had for a long time, and

had no access to any of the briefing material. That briefing material was

prepared for my eyes.

If they ever get into government -- and we are going to try hard to make sure

they don't -- they should know that when the Premier of the province travels

outside, whether it's on a private or a public visit, he or she would be

apprised of all of the issues that might be of interest and might bear on the

relationships between your country and the country that you're visiting. That's

essentially what the Foreign Affairs ministry was doing. And I said publicly .

. . .

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I make no apologies for trying to rebuild the

relations between Canada and India that were disengaged. I make no apologies for

doing public business in a private trip at private expense.

[ Page 17720 ]

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston has a supplemental

question.

G. Plant: I want to pursue an issue arising out of the Premier's last

answer. Apparently the Premier did sign an agreement with the government of the

state of the Punjab while he was on his personal visit to India, and yet a

review of the documents shows that some last-minute revision to that document

was assisted by the NDP fundraiser who accompanied the Premier on his trip. So

can the Premier explain to me why he thinks it's appropriate for a private

citizen, who just happens to be an NDP fundraiser, to be involved in reviewing

international agreements before they're signed?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This agreement had been prepared and in fact

completely concluded in terms of the preparation in November of last year, when

the Chief Minister of Punjab was supposed to visit here. That agreement was

supposed to be signed at that time.

[1435]

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I will refuse to speak until they are

quiet, because it is important.

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't heckle. They have their time. I didn't heckle

them asking questions. I'll be happy to respond.

This agreement was concluded in November of last year. It had to be signed

when the Chief Minister of Punjab was supposed to be here. He cancelled the

visit due to security reasons. I was going, and I felt that that was an

important agreement. I could do that at my own time, at my own expense. That

agreement is a general agreement, which had been made public during

Christmastime here.

I understand that the gentleman that was travelling with me, who happened to

be a personal friend of mine for the last 20 years . . . . He was

travelling at his own expense. I needed some support to make sure that things

were done right. He basically was given the task of comparing the agreement he

had to the one I might be presented with to be signed. And we had the assistance

of the high commissioner for Canada, who did a wonderful job during my trip.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I ask leave to file two sets of documents that have

been provided pursuant to freedom of information with respect to this matter,

and there's absolutely nothing to hide.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Janssen: I call second reading of Bill 23.

HEALTH AUTHORITIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(second reading)

Hon. C. Evans: I move that Bill 23, Health Authorities Amendment Act,

2001, be read for a second time.

Hon. Speaker, this legislation supports the integration of health care

services that are provided in our health facilities and those that are provided

in other community settings as well. It does this by creating a new and

consolidated health services and support bargaining unit within the health

sector that will cover all unionized workers providing the same types of health

care services, whether they work in hospitals, in continuing-care facilities or

in a community.

This change introduces greater flexibility into the delivery of health

services in British Columbia and greater portability of employees and their

skills within the health system and further integration of community and acute

care service delivery. It reflects what is happening at the bargaining table for

the health services and support sector, and it is consistent with our goal of

improved health care for B.C. patients.

As I stated at first reading, this legislation continues the process of

health sector collective bargaining rationalization and restructuring that was

begun by the government in 1995. In that year James Dorsey was appointed as

commissioner to review and make recommendations respecting the overall framework

for health sector collective bargaining in B.C. As members of this House will

recall, before Dorsey the health sector collective bargaining structure in this

province was composed of 888 individual bargaining units and 38 unions holding

representational bargaining rights in those 888 units. The result was a

proliferation of collective bargaining and an overall lack of consistency and

integration among the different components of the health system across B.C.

[1440]

The Dorsey commission spent six months meeting with various interested groups

in the health sector, consulting on what those parties thought would be a

logical and reasonable bargaining structure for this industry. His principal

recommendation was that the overall number of bargaining units in the health

sector should be reduced from the previous 888 to just five and, further, that

these bargaining units should be multi-employer, with groups of employers

represented by the Health Employers Association of B.C., HEABC, sitting across

the bargaining table from associations of trade unions representing the interest

of health care employees.

In these comments I don't want to go into too much detail on the various

changes and problems faced by the health sector over the past six years, all of

which we've talked about many times. Transition and change always bring

complications, but suffice it to say that the basic thrust of the Dorsey

commission recommendations also became in that time a statutory structure for

health sector collective bargaining with the passage of Bill 28, the Health

Authorities Amendment Act, 1997. Bill 28 introduced a new part,

part 3, into the

Health Authorities Act, the HAA -- that is, the health sector labour relations

part. The current proposals before this House, those contained in Bill 23, make

some further modest but I think important changes to the health sector labour

relations part of the HAA.

Before I get into the specifics of the bill, I'd like to acknowledge and give

considerable credit to the parties

[ Page 17721 ]

affected by Bill 28 and by this present legislation. We are not here because

I'm a good minister doing a good job; we're here because a whole lot of people

worked really hard to prepare for the day when we could come here and make this

good legislation. Some of those people are here today, and there are lots out in

all parts of British Columbia who bear the responsibility for doing the work to

get us to this moment.

Health care employers and their association, the HEABC, on the one side and

the various trade unions who are actively representing employees in the health

sector on the other side have worked effectively toward ensuring this

legislation and the goals envisioned by Dorsey have been achieved. The parties

are now in their second round of collective bargaining, and a tentative

agreement has been reached in both the facilities and community subsectors. I

hope all members will agree that considerable progress has been made to date in

moving towards a more workable and rational structure of bargaining within the

health sector.

That brings me to the changes outlined in this bill that's before this House

today, which I hope will carry on that process. The principal change introduced

within the proposed amendment is the merger of the current facilities subsector

bargaining unit and the community subsector bargaining unit into one new single

bargaining unit to represent the collective bargaining interests of all the

parties within the health services and support sector. The government believes

that this change is both reasonable and also necessary at this point in time. It

brings the bargaining unit structure for health services in the support sector

into line with sectorwide bargaining unit structures that already exist for

three other units in the health sector: nurses, paramedical professionals and

residents.

I recognize that the opposition has said that this broad health services and

support bargaining unit is not one that was recommended by Dorsey and that it's

just simply something that comes out of the ideas of the government. I stood

here last week and couldn't even introduce the bill into the wave of animosity

coming out loudly as we attempted to move to this public policy. But I'm going

to encourage them, in the interest of getting along and doing good work, to go

back and read the Dorsey report and look at his comments again about the

desirability of integration of health care delivery, because this change makes a

great deal of sense. It further moves the bargaining system along in a natural

progression toward four practical and effective bargaining units for the health

sector.

[1445]

Dorsey stated on page 23 . . . . I think there might be some of

you guys who won't actually go read it, so I'm going to read it to you:

"Integration is the shorthand for seamless service across the continuum of

care that will allow the citizen to receive the level of quality care required

from the appropriately trained and experienced care provider in the most

cost-effective setting. To achieve seamless service, the system must allow ease

of mobility for both the citizen and the health care provider." Further, on

page 24, he said: "Removing barriers enables integration."

Opposition members and government members alike, I hope you would agree that

this proposed amendment does remove one further barrier and does permit the

parties to move further towards a greater ability for integration of health care

delivery, precisely as Dorsey was talking about.

In very concrete and practical terms, what this proposed legislation does is

to merge two bargaining units into one bargaining unit covering all employers

and all employees within the health services and support sector. After -- and I

think this might have been some of the confusion that led to some of the noise

last week -- the current negotiations are completed and after the expiry of the

collective agreement that will come out of this current bargaining, then all the

parties currently involved within the facilities and community subsectors will

sit at one bargaining table and will negotiate one collective agreement for this

sector. This merger of bargaining units is dealt with by

section 2 of the bill.

D. Lovick: So there's no money attached.

Hon. C. Evans: You're right, hon. member. You could keep on saying it,

and it will sink in. We'll get everybody agreeing later on, I think.

Section 3 of the bill deals with the future consideration of health sector

bargaining units.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: Say what? It's okay. If you want to engage in heckling

and stuff, we'll get into a dialogue, and it will help British Columbians

understand who we are -- and who you are, hon. member.

The Speaker: Through the Chair, please, members.

Hon. C. Evans:

Section 3 of the bill deals with the future

consideration of health sector bargaining units. The current legislation,

section 19.5, allows the Minister of Labour to screen an initial application to

the Labour Relations Board representing a consideration of appropriate

bargaining units in the health sector. At one time, hon. Speaker and members

opposite, that was considered desirable as a transition provision precisely

because of the newness of the structure that Dorsey had recommended. The

government now believes that the current structures are established correctly,

are well understood by the health community and work. At this time it is

reasonable for the board to be given full authority to deal with the appropriate

bargaining units' issues.

The board does have authority already under the Labour Relations Code for

dealing with this issue in other industrial areas. We do not anticipate that the

board will readily amend or change the bargaining unit structure as set out

within HAA. Flowing from this merger of bargaining units is also the need, then,

to merge the two existing associations of trade unions that were set up under

Bill

Section 4 of the bill establishes a mechanism to merge the two existing

current associations within the health services and support sector into one new

union association. We do not anticipate major problems in establishing this new

association, but the legislation does give authority to the Labour Relations

Board to oversee the merger.

Section 5 of the bill is a further transitional provision. As stated

previously, the agreements are currently being negotiated and ratified within

the community and the facilities subsectors and will be continued until their

expiry in 2004. We are not attempting to override the agreements that the

parties have worked hard to achieve in collective bargaining. It is only in the

next round of bargaining that a unified agreement will be negotiated for the

health services and support sector.

Last week, when I introduced the bill, it was sort of just hollering in here,

but out in the hall I actually heard comments

[ Page 17722 ]

that suggested there was a cost attached to this bill. I could read again

what I just said, but I hope everybody gets it. It is in the next round of

bargaining that this process will have an impact, and I would hope that hon.

members would acknowledge that the impact, in fact, will be to make efficiency

better and to make health care delivery better so that it's good for the people

of B.C. And I hope that they regret -- or forget, at least -- some of their

thoughts about cost that I heard outside.

[1450]

Section 6 of the bill outlines the overall structure of the future collective

agreements that will be required within this sector. This

section requires that

all issues that are common to both the facilities subsector and the community

subsector will be negotiated as part of a master agreement. The collective

agreement will also contain two subsectoral agreements applying to the community

subsector and the facilities subsector respecting issues that are unique or

specific to those respective subsectors.

With respect to the structure of collective agreements and its components,

the government feels that it should be available to the parties to determine and

negotiate what issues will be dealt with where. They are, better than we, in the

best position to know what will work best within the health services and support

sector.

As I've said, this legislation builds on the progress that has already been

made at the bargaining table. It will create a sensible and workable bargaining

system in health care, and it will support a seamless health services delivery

system that will benefit employers and employees. I urge all members to support

the passage of this legislation.

In closing, I want to add some comments about health care and how this law

fits in -- in a general sense rather than specific to the bill. Hon. members,

everything in the health action plan and everything the government has been

involved in of late have been attempting to take down the walls in the delivery

of care. Just one example would be that I think everybody has come to understand

that in order to make acute care work, you have to build enough continuing-care

capacity that people can be in the appropriate facility for their needs. In

order to make continuing care work, you have to have home care capability. So it

only makes sense to me, since the government and the Ministry of Health and

citizens and 108,000 professionals are trying to deliver care in a more

appropriate location -- closer to home -- in every other way, that collective

bargaining should begin to mirror what's already happening in society and the

direction we have to go.

I want to encourage members opposite, those men and women who were yelling

"payoff" at me and other things which tended to irritate me . . .

. I've calmed down now; I'm no longer yelling back. You kind of made me

grumpy when you suggested last week that this was not public policy in the

interest of patient care, health care delivery. I want you to now make eye

contact, listen to me, get it: this will make citizens' and patients' lives

better. Hon. member, I want you to think that maybe voting for it is not an

ideological thing but just common sense. I want you to imagine that maybe the

trade unions and the workers who helped to bring us this day were actually

thinking of the interests of citizens and patients and facilities and the future

health care rather than personal self-interest.

You don't have to believe it from me; you can read the bill. Then I hope that

everybody will stand up and vote for it. Thank you.

C. Hansen: This debate has been going on now for about four years

among health care providers in British Columbia, really following from the

amendments that were brought in in 1997. Certainly there has been lots of

discussion about what would happen if you combined the facilities sector and the

community sector.

There's certainly been a lot of concern on the part of some providers in

terms of what the impact would be on individual workplaces, both from the

perspective of the employers and the perspective of the individual workers,

especially in small operations in this province.

The other thing that was talked about a lot during those years this was being

debated was how much it was going to cost. We have seen time and time again

where decisions have been made by this government without any reference to what

the cost would be and what the impact would be on the delivery of patient care.

You know, last year we finally had the Minister of Finance coming forward with a

report that looked at the real cost to the taxpayer of the zero-zero-and-2

collective agreements that were signed three years ago. The real cost turned out

to be $1.3 billion. Now, of that $1.3 billion, $700 million was in health care,

and that is one huge chunk of change. That has a bottom-line impact on our

ability to serve patient needs in British Columbia.

[1455]

There has to be that delicate balance, I believe, between ensuring that

workers in British Columbia are properly compensated for the hard work and

overtime that they put in and the frustration and the growing acuity levels that

they face in health care facilities, where we have to balance that with our

ability to fund the needs in health care from the patient perspective. As we

have seen wait-lists go up, as we have seen beds being closed, as we have seen

cutbacks in terms of hours of home support workers at the less acute levels in

home support . . . . Those all have a real impact on patient lives.

As this debate heated up, there was a great fear that this government was

going to bring in a sudden change to that legislation, to that environment,

which was going to be extremely disruptive and extremely expensive. And the only

way it could be funded was by impacting negatively on patient care.

Let's just look for a moment at the environment we had leading up to the

tabling of this bill. First of all, this is a bill that comes into this

Legislature just before 5 p.m. on the last sitting day of the week. We all know

what that means. We've been there before. We've seen that type of legislation

come in before. We've seen the government announcements that are made on the

Friday afternoon when they hope that the press gallery has gone home for the

weekend. That's exactly the time slot this particular bill fit into: the last

sitting day of the week, the last possible opportunity for this government to

bring in a piece of legislation. It had all the trappings of something that they

were trying to sneak into the House at a time when it would avoid public

exposure.

That's the time frame. Now, the other thing that was happening that day was

that it was within hours of a tentative agreement being worked out at the

bargaining table. That's the thing we all want to see happen. We want to see

agreements between workers and employers by mutual agreement at the bargaining

table. We had the community sector settled earlier -- at least a tentative

agreement -- and on Thursday afternoon we had a tentative agreement with the

facility sector.

[ Page 17723 ]

Given that background concern about what was happening with this whole debate

over the amalgamation of these two sectors, given the timing that this minister

chose to bring in this legislation, I think any independent observer would have

every reason to be extremely skeptical as to what was in this legislation and

what was behind it. The quick reading of it, the quick glance, the way the

minister explained it in his first reading remarks, really reinforced that

skepticism. It reinforced the sense that this was a government that was trying

to sneak something in on the dying day of the sitting of that week.

Quite frankly, I don't apologize for the reaction the minister got from this

side of the House. We were concerned. We were anxious about the impact it would

have on the needs of patients in British Columbia this year and next year.

The minister says that if we weren't convinced then, we should have at least

read the bill, and we'd be convinced now. I have read the bill. I've gone

through and actually itemized where every single change comes into the Health

Authorities Act. I agree with the minister that the initial reaction we had to

that legislation was based on our fears as to what this government might do. But

in reading the bill, I realize that it is a much more measured approach to this

change.

I have an enormous amount of respect for the work that is done by those in

the service and support sector. I have enormous respect for those who work in

the facility sector and in the community sector.

When we did our health dialogue tour last fall, we went to 23 communities

around British Columbia, and we heard firsthand from front-line workers. They

came out to those meetings and shared with us their personal experience, their

frustration in trying to deal with the growing acuity levels in the hospitals.

We heard their frustration in seeing hospital beds close at the same time that

they're trying to get individuals who should be in some kind of residential care

out of their homes, because home support and home care are no longer capable of

taking care of them because of their increasing acuity.

[1500]

The front-line workers are the ones who bear the brunt of that. The

front-line workers are the ones who, when you have somebody who should be in an

extended care facility and they're still in their home because there is no

extended care bed available because this government hasn't built any beds in the

last five years . . . . Those are the workers who have to pay the

price for that.

When you wind up with a senior citizen who is in an extended care facility

and who should be lifted by a lift, where the worker who's trying to assist that

patient has two or perhaps three other people to help them -- or being available

in a long term or extended term facility . . . . When that senior is

still in his or her home only because there is not a community bed available,

the person that pays the price is that home support worker or home care worker

-- the ones that are trying single-handedly to provide for the needs of that

individual who should no longer be in their home but should be in some kind of

facility. We heard those kinds of stories time and time again around British

Columbia.

This morning I had the pleasure of meeting with other representatives of this

sector, and they told similar stories about the frustrations that they have in

trying to deal with individuals who are in need of dementia care or in need of

mental health care. It is not a question of whether or not these workers need to

be fairly compensated for the work they're doing. They need to be supported. It

is beyond just what's in a collective agreement. They need to be supported by

ensuring that the appropriate health care service is there for an individual

when they are assessed as being in need of that particular level of service.

My concern about this bill is not from the perspective of how the big health

care providers will deal with it. The big health care providers have got their

human resources departments. There is a critical mass of workers there who can

get their voices heard when these debates go forward. The large employers have a

better ability to impact at the bargaining table in terms of how that collective

agreement is negotiated and arrived at. The workers in those large facilities

and those large employers have a greater ability to get their voices heard when

it comes to the employee position that is put forward at the bargaining table. I

have no doubt that this framework that is being developed is not going to

detrimentally affect them.

When it comes to the other employees in smaller facilities and to the

employers in those smaller facilities, for me that's still a big question mark.

This is not the approach that I think many people feared -- that the government

was going to bring in a one-time hammer to combine these two sectors and incur

the estimated $82 million in increased costs if all of those wages were brought

to the same level as we now find in the facilities sector. That big bang

scenario didn't happen, as many people had feared.

Now we have a very different approach being taken by this government in this

bill. In this approach we have a situation where the employers' representative

and the union representatives have been through a collective bargaining process

over these last number of months where this issue was on the table. This issue

was a subject of negotiation. They arrived at a tentative settlement that

provided for the community sector to start moving towards wage parity with the

facilities sector. In addition to the 2 percent, 2 percent, plus COLA that's in

both of those tentative agreements, we wind up in the community sector with 3

percent, 3 percent and 3 percent, arrived at towards achieving wage parity. That

came out of a collective bargaining process. At the end of that process, all the

parties agreed to that tentative settlement. It's got to go out to the

respective memberships for their consideration, needless to say, but those

around the bargaining table agreed on that.

[1505]

So you've got an issue on the bargaining table that was discussed. A

conclusion was come to; there was some progress made. And then, within hours,

the government is actually taking yet another step -- one that was not

successful at the bargaining table -- in pulling these sectors together. I think

there are a lot of questions that come out of this legislation. They are

questions that should be considered rationally in a rational debate. What we

find is that there is not any urgency for this legislation to be pushed forward

today. We have a tentative agreement. The minister admitted in his opening

comments on this debate this afternoon that this doesn't even start to take

effect until we get into the negotiations for the collective agreements that

will expire three years from now. So there is no urgency on this.

The responsible approach for this government would be to put this bill out as

an exposure bill. This is not the approach that was anticipated. This approach

is one that requires and, I

[ Page 17724 ]

think, deserves input from all of those who are going to be affected. It

deserves the input from the small unions that is going to be expected by this

bargaining unit. It deserves input from the small health care providers around

the province who are operating the small home care and home support services.

Those are the voices that we have not yet had a chance to hear. That would be

the responsible approach for this government to take.

So we are not going to support this legislation if this minister wants to

push this bill through today. We're not going to support it, not because we have

any fundamental disagreement with the approach that is being taken, but rather

because there is time on our hands to do this properly. There is time to get the

input. There is time to put this out as an exposure bill, and there is time to

deal with this well in advance of the collective bargaining which has to start

taking place two or two and a half years from now.

In concluding, I would just like to say that I appreciate the more rational

approach that this government is taking, which is not what was expected. But I

think the minister can ensure that that rational approach is truly the outcome

of this bill by ensuring that there is enough time for that input from all of

those who could be affected across this province.

P. Priddy: I rise to vigorously support Bill 23 and encourage all

members of the House to do this. I'm not going to speak to the past history and

the Dorsey report. I want to talk about the workers out there, the employers and

the people who actually receive the service that we're talking about. Let us not

lose sight of the fact that this is about people who are receiving a health care

service.

The fact that this particular legislation . . . . Certainly there

is no instantaneous remedy in this at all. This is a remedy over time. But what

does it say? It says that if you're a unionized worker providing the same kind

of health care but in a different setting, your work is equally valuable; it's

the same work for people requiring a health care service. And because you work

in a community as opposed to in a hospital facility or in an acute care

facility, somehow your work has been seen as less valuable. Well, how can there

be anything that we need to go and consult about that says that we do not hold

true the fact that that kind of work is work of equal value? We've heard lots in

this House about work of equal value this session. This speaks to that as well.

[1510]

Think about people who are doing this work in the acute care sector -- but

particularly in the community care sector, because we are trying to take down,

brick by brick, the wall between the acute care sector and the community sector.

I'd kind of like it if we could just blow the wall up and it would happen

faster. Think about the people who are working in that sector. Why do they

choose to do this? Why do they choose to go and get education and training in

order to have the skills to do this job? Let's be very clear: this is a job that

requires education and training and skills.

Well, if I think about it, I'm pretty sure it's not because they're the best

paid. So I'm pretty sure the salary didn't do it. And I'm pretty sure it's not

because there's a public perception -- and by the way, there should be -- that

this is a high status, valued job in the community. So why do people do this?

Well, they do it because they care about people. They do it because they want to

make a difference. That's why they've gone and gotten that education and

training.

They want to make the same kind of difference whether they're providing that

care in an acute care facility or in a community care facility. Often they're

providing it to the same person, because there's often a movement back and

forth. I don't mean it's the most common, but it's not uncommon to see someone

who is either in their own home with support or in a community care facility

enter hospital for testing. Or they may have an illness or pneumonia that needs

to be treated. Whatever that might be, it's the same person.

So the people in the acute care sector who are helping that person to eat or

to move or whatever are doing exactly the same thing as the people in the

community were doing before this person came to hospital -- helping them to eat

and helping them to move and so on. So that work is the same, and why would we

not want to value and pay that work equally?

I too want to honour the work that's been done by employers and by employees

and by the people represented in the gallery today around bringing this forward.

They are indeed the people who do the work every day. And you know, the people

who do the work every day actually know more about it than anybody else does.

Their advice and their information have been incredibly helpful to us in

bringing this legislation forward.

I'm not a very big fan of the term "seamless" -- "seamless

service" is a phrase that gets used in the health care field. But there

should be a smooth transition across continuum of care. Everybody says that. If

someone's in the hospital, there should be a very smooth way for them to receive

support in their community and have there be no break in service and no break in

the kind of support they might be getting.

What this will do is allow that continuum of care to happen in an easier way.

It will make sure that what citizens receive is the best care from the

best-trained people in the setting that is most appropriate for them and, on

most occasions, also happens to be the most cost-effective setting.

I'm a bit concerned about a quote. I don't have it in front of me, so I

wouldn't dream of trying to quote it correctly. There's been some suggestion

that this is somehow a gift to people who do this work every day. It's really

hard for me to think that it's a gift to acknowledge the value of the quality of

the same work done differently in different settings. How is it a gift to

recognize the skills required to assist someone to eat in an acute care facility

versus the skills that are required to help someone eat in their home or in a

long term care facility?

I very carefully do not ever use the word "feeding." That's

probably my consciousness around language, but even if somebody needs complete

assistance to eat, it's still assistance to eat; it's not feeding. Feeding is a

word that takes away any remnant of dignity and respect that people still have.

But how could that be different? If you help someone in the hospital or an

acute care facility to bathe and then that person goes home or back to a

community care facility, are they bathed with different water, different soap,

different towels? I don't know. It seems to me that those are the same skills.

I've taught those skills, and I would suggest that in my experience with both

teaching them and visiting in homes with students, someone trying to do that

particular kind of work . . . . Let me use bathing as an example. In

a home environment -- where someone has every right to be; they're

[ Page 17725 ]

still able to be there, but they still do need some assistance -- it is way

harder than doing that in an acute care facility. You're working around a really

low bed that you have to bend over, and it increases the risk of back injuries,

because there aren't beds that go up and down and there aren't lifts to move

people or to help people move from their bed to their chair or from their bed to

a bathtub. There may not be a bedside table to balance the basin of water -- and

all the other things that you're trying to do.

[1515]

Anybody who's ever tried to help someone wash their hair in a bed at home

knows that it's a really difficult, awkward thing to do. I would suggest it's

harder than trying to do that in an acute care facility. So how could it be a

gift to say: "We know that it takes a lot of skill, and sometimes maybe

more skill, to do that kind of work in a community setting or in a home

setting"?

Some of the workers we're talking about are responsible for health and safety

issues, for standards of cleanliness and so on. And I don't think it's a gift to

say that we know that in a community facility the standards of cleanliness and

how the floors are washed or how the equipment is looked after or how that

standard of cleanliness is maintained is somehow different from how that happens

in an acute care setting. It's not. So how could it possibly be a gift to

acknowledge that?

The other piece that I think is so important for us to think about is the

issue of portability. We need people skills in a variety of places: either in

acute care facilities or in community facilities or at home. If we are going to

have no move at all towards beginning to even out wages, why should anybody in

an acute care sector who may have skills that we need in the community want to

do that, when the wages are less, and there's no commitment in any way to bring

those closer together? And this is bringing them together, I think, over a

significantly long period of time.

Therefore we lose people's skills, because people want to earn a wage, of

course, that I think, like everybody, allows them to support their family and

make sure that they at least have the kinds of things that we would all like our

families to have -- to at least have them be safe and healthy. People aren't

going to do that if what we have is a significant difference in wages with no

commitment to move towards closing those.

I did hear the opposition say, I think, that they do support this, although

they're not going to vote for it. But I think I heard them say they support it.

But it needs an exposure bill, because they're worried about what happens with

smaller employers and smaller groups of employees. Well, we do have examples in

other sectors where there have been changes, with very small employer groups and

very small groups of employees. And do you know what? They've worked. We've

managed to make them work. So they can work for large employers, but they can

also work for small employers. Some people actually make the argument that

sometimes it's easier to make it work for smaller employers and smaller employee

groups. But we have enough examples in other circumstances, I think, to prove

that.

I'm not sure, but I thought I heard a comment, something about: "What

will be the impact on patient care or person care of this piece of legislation

down the road a bit?" Well, what'll be the impact on patient care down the

road a bit if we don't do this, hon. Speaker? We'll lose people's skills; we'll

undervalue their skills; they'll move to something else where they think they

can get a wage that recognizes the skills they have. So I would suggest, if we

do not pass this, that will be the danger of having a negative impact on

patients over time.

I am delighted to stand and support this piece of legislation today, and I'm

delighted to stand and support the workers that will benefit over time from this

piece of legislation. But in the end, the people that we are supporting are the

patients or residents or people living in their own homes that receive the

service from these workers. Those are the people that we're standing to support

when we support this legislation.

Hon. G. Wilson: I hadn't initially intended to speak on this bill, I

must say, although I support it fully in both its intent and its form. But I

rise to speak after hearing the official opposition Health critic raise a number

of points that, first, cast into question the timing of the introduction of this

bill and, second, talk about the need for us to have more time in order to

properly consult on the bill. For those that are observing or reading about this

bill . . . . And I note that a notable among those who watched from the gallery was

one scribe from the Vancouver Sun . So rare is an

occasion that a reporter actually sits and listens to a debate and observes it

that one has to conclude that something will be written about this.

[1520]

I do find it interesting that the primary issue the member brought forward

was that of the correlation or connection that this bill may have to the

collective bargaining process -- the latest collective bargaining a case in

point -- and the timing of the introduction of this bill.

Now, what's interesting about that is that the member suggests that somehow

this was brought in late on a Friday at the last moment. Well, first of all, it

wasn't late on a Friday, and secondly, it has to be noted and should be noted

for the record that the minister fully conferred with the member opposite with

respect to the intent of the bill, the content of the bill and the timing of the

bill prior to its introduction. So there was absolutely nothing untoward about

its timing.

The members opposite scream daily for an election. They want us to get the

legislative agenda completed in this chamber as quickly as we can, and we're

doing that. We are moving forward. I think this will become one more example of

a contrast between what the members on this side of the House believe in and

what the members on that side of the House believe in. They have learned the art

of speaking out of both sides of their mouths with an ability that I think is

second to none anywhere in British Columbia. These members opposite will

constantly stand up here . . . .

An Hon. Member: Which party are you a member of?

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. member, which party am I a member of? I'm a

member of the most progressive party in this province, one that I can tell you

is going to knock you down in the next election. You know why I'm a member of

this party, hon. Speaker? This is a classic example of why I'm standing as a

member of this party. It's because those regressive people on that side of the

House will oppose a progressive piece of legislation that will be able to bring

into place a system for the provision of health care that not only will be good

for those people who receive health care -- the public of British Columbia --

but also will provide fairness and equity to those who provide the services

themselves.

[ Page 17726 ]

So the introduction of this bill, which happened after we had a tentative

agreement . . . . The member opposite says: "Why would this not

have been introduced before?" Is the official opposition critic suggesting

that we should have introduced this bill in the middle of collective bargaining?

Is that what he's suggesting -- that we should somehow have introduced it prior

to their having a tentative agreement? That would have been clearly

unacceptable, I would have thought. Nevertheless, he suggests that its timing

must somehow be a clandestine, sneaking-in-the-night kind of deal for our

friends on this side of the House.

It's interesting that when the minister spoke with the official opposition

critic -- and in the initial reaction when we tabled this bill for first reading

-- the opposition comments coming from the members opposite were clear, decisive

and definitive. They opposed it, opposed it and opposed it in principle, in form

and in substance. There was no doubt where they stood. But because we're heading

into an election and because they've had a visit from people who work in the

system -- and clearly the member opposite has understood how that kind of open,

honest and direct comment, which is the correct way to proceed, would not in

fact help their election chances -- he has now couched his opposition in all

kinds of flowery language.

He's now saying that he's not really opposed to it; it really wasn't as bad

as he thought it might be. It didn't have the clandestine, horrible kinds of

things in it that he was out telling British Columbians that it would have in

it. He was actually wrong on that point, as they are wrong on most of what they

tell British Columbians. Oh no, now that he's had a chance to actually confer

and consult with people who are actually in the business of providing health

care, he doesn't think it's that bad a deal. In fact, he thinks it might even be

a pretty good deal. But notwithstanding the fact that he thinks it might be a

pretty good deal, he thinks we should just put it out for exposure, because six

long years is not enough time for us to actually address this question and

finally put an end to what is in fact a bad system. Six years wasn't enough, he

said. "Put it out for exposure."

Let's be really clear. Let us be clear, and let us be honest in this. The

members opposite are heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies, by doctors and

by the corporate world of British Columbia. They took, just last year alone, $6

million in corporate donations. That's who bought and paid for those members

opposite. They represent those companies, the pharmaceuticals, the doctors,

those people in health care who would like to see a privatized system of care --

particularly in the sector where extended care is provided for people who are

receiving care at home.

[1525]

That's why they want it as an exposure bill, because it stands in the way of

their attempts to put in place a two-tiered health care system where they will

privatize the system and provide private care. That's why. These members

opposite are going to sell off our health system, our education system, our

hydro system. The Leader of the Official Opposition, having received over $6

million in one year alone in corporate donations -- $6 million -- will become

British Columbia's number one realtor -- number one real estate agent.

The only thing is that he's been paid his commission up front; they've

already paid the commission. That is why, in the opposition to this bill, we

understand the transparency of the kind of doublespeak we just heard from the

member opposite, the official critic. In the one case he stands up and says it's

really not that bad; in the other instance he's turning around and saying

they're going to vote against it. I say shame on the members opposite! Let's be

clear what their agenda is. The members on this side of the House know that this

is a good bill, long overdue, and I am very proud to stand and support it.

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health, to close debate.

Hon. C. Evans: It is my intention to close debate, and after that, I

hope you all have a vote and call division, and we'll actually see whether or

not the opposition critic and his sisters and brothers are for the bill or

opposed to it. I will respond to the things that I thought he said in as logical

a way as I can, because if this is a real debate, then I'm sure that the people

are actually listening, and I might affect the outcome of their vote.

The hon. critic's first point was that he didn't like the timing. He said

that it was brought in last thing on a Friday, when the press doesn't pay

attention.

An Hon. Member: Last thing Thursday, he said.

Hon. C. Evans: No, actually, he said last thing Friday. If he had said

last thing Thursday, that would have been news. But he said last . . . .

You want me to hurry up?

The Speaker: No, I want you to speak through the Chair, minister.

Hon. C. Evans: Oh, through the Chair.

We introduced this bill, hon. Speaker, at exactly the right moment in

history. For six years people talked about it. It couldn't come into this House

until there was an agreement. One hour after there was an agreement, in the

interests of transparency I walked in here . First I walked

over to the hon. member's office and said: "We're bringing in some

legislation. You might want to get in the House." Then I walked in here,

one hour after there was an agreement, and tabled it for the whole world to see

on television. We brought it in here so that the people could see it.

Exactly what, hon. critic, would you have liked us to do? It seems to me that

the job of the people who get paid by the citizens to govern is to actually

govern. This is the room where government does its job. Exactly an hour after

there was an agreement, we brought it in here, and you don't like the timing. So

we gave them three days: "Go home and talk to your citizens. See if maybe

they don't like it." Have you made the phone calls? Hon. critic, you had

three days.

An Hon. Member: Talk through the Speaker.

Hon. C. Evans: Through the Speaker to the raisin brains opposite, did

you ask those people at home? You had three days. Did you ask them?

The hon. critic said it was a secret. Hon. member, is that why we walked

outside and did an interview with the press to say that the government was

actually proud of what we just did? Is that trying to hide? That's your first

argument devas-

[ Page 17727 ]

tated. We didn't introduce it in secret. We told the world in the people's

building and went out and told the press so that they'd tell the people at home.

Then we sent you home to ask your voters what they thought, and you didn't do

that. You didn't do that because you don't want to know, because you're getting

ready to vote against it.

And his second point was: "Gee, it's a pretty good bill. I actually read

it, went through it clause by clause, and it's a pretty good bill." Hon.

Speaker, I appreciate that. What it usually means is . . . . When

public policy is good, we get together in that Latin term that means

"everybody voting for it," and we do something by consensus.

[1530]

In about two minutes we're going to get a chance to do something by consensus

in front of the people that care, in front of the whole world. We've been

talking about it for six years. The hon. critic says he liked it. All right,

take five minutes. Go home. Phone some citizens and see what they want you to

do. Or is it only your leader or the Fraser Institute ? Go

phone Michael Walker and ask him how to vote in five minutes.

Anyway, hon. Speaker -- lowering my voice -- he said in his third point that

he was going to vote against the bill, which he read and liked, because he

thought we should talk about it some more. In my initial comments I pointed out

that in the light of day, with everybody watching, we went through the Dorsey

process. Dorsey recommended a series of steps. Some of the people opposite --

certainly that member -- were in the Legislature at that time and already went

through the debate about Dorsey. If you didn't like the debate you had in here

-- first reading, second reading, committee stage, to ask every single question

-- then you had six years to go out and ask people in the outside what they

thought about it.

I can understand their position. If it's a brand-new idea . . . .

Maybe the idea of pay equity was too fast for them. Maybe the hon. member's bill

about complementary medicine was too fast for them. But six years?

I submit that as soon as I sit down and you call second reading, hon.

Speaker, people are going to come in here and vote out of their ideology.

They're going to vote for whose side they think they're on. I think they're

going to come in here in two minutes and vote according to whose side they're on

-- not because of the content of the legislation, because they read it and they

liked it; not because of the timing, and because they had six years to think

about it; but because of whose side they're on, and the idea of doing a fair

thing for thousands of workers is not in the interest of the people who they

work for.

If anything I'm saying isn't true, I challenge the member opposite to stand

up, enter the debate and explain how I'm wrong. The silence when I'm through

talking will prove my prophecy is correct. You'll be voting in two minutes

according to who you work for.

Hon. Speaker, you call second reading. We'll call their bluff and see where

everybody stands. I call division.

[1535]

Second reading of Bill 23 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38

Zirnhelt

Doyle

Gillespie

Kwan

Waddell

Hammell

McGregor

Giesbrecht

Farnworth

Lovick

Petter

Mann Brewin

Pullinger

Randall

Sawicki

Priddy

Cashore

Orcherton

Stevenson

Robertson

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Bowbrick

Janssen

Evans

Ramsey

Smallwood

G. Wilson

Streifel

Miller

Sihota

Calendino

Walsh

Boone

G. Clark

Lali

Kasper

Goodacre

NAYS -- 33

Whittred

Hansen

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

McKinnon

Masi

Roddick

J. Wilson

Barisoff

van Dongen

Symons

Thorpe

Krueger

J. Reid

Stephens

Coleman

Hawkins

Hogg

Nebbeling

Bill 23, Health

Authorities Amendment Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

[1540]

Hon. G. Janssen: I call committee stage on Bill M202.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

The House in committee on Bill M202; D. Streifel in the chair.

section 1.

S. Orcherton: As we go through this, I've got some people that are

assisting me in terms of technical advice. I'd like to let the members of the

House know who they are. With me today are Ms. Judy Kubrak, the director of the

Vancouver Island Citizens Supporting Complementary Medicine, and Mr. Randy Gomm,

the director of the lower mainland Citizens Supporting Complementary Medicine.

And in addition, on my right is Dr. Stephen Malthouse. He is the president of

the Canadian Complementary Medical Association. All three of these individuals

have offered me assistance and support in crafting this legislation, and I'll be

relying on them for advice where I need it as we go through clause by clause.

I believe, hon. Chair, the appropriate motion is that I would move the

amendment to

section 1 of Bill M202 that is standing in my name on the orders of

the day.

[ Page 17728 ]

[SECTION 1, by deleting the proposed definition of "complementary

medicine" and substituting the following:

"complementary medicine" means, with reference to a medical

condition or ailment of a patient of a medical practitioner, a diagnostic or

therapeutic measure that

(

a) is used by the medical practitioner to diagnose or treat the condition

or ailment of patients of the medical practitioner,

(

b) would not customarily be used to diagnose or treat that condition or

ailment by most other medical practitioners whose usual practice includes the

diagnosis or treatment of that condition or ailment,

(

c) poses no greater risk to the health or safety of that patient than does

a diagnostic or therapeutic measure in general use for the condition or

ailment by the medical practitioners described in paragraph (b), and

(

d) presents a reasonable prospect for alleviating the suffering or

improving the health of that patient in relation to that condition or

ailment;.]

On the amendment.

D. Lovick: During second reading I stood in my place and said that I

was happy to provide support in principle for this bill, but I did have some

questions based on my reading of the official position of the College of

Physicians and Surgeons. And at first blush, it would seem that the amendments

that appear under the member's name on the order paper have indeed accommodated

the questions and the concerns of the college. I'm wondering if he can tell us

something about the genesis, reasons, purpose, etc., of the amendments on the

order paper.

[1545]

S. Orcherton: The question is an appropriate one. There is an

amendment in terms of the definition around complementary medicine. The

definition prior to this amendment was . . . . Well, the objective,

really, of the new amendment on complementary medicine is to make it more

workable and more precise. It removes references to theories and beliefs and

clarifies that the therapeutic measure must present a reasonable prospect for

alleviating the suffering or improving the health of the patient. And it ensures

protection of the patient by requiring that the therapy pose no greater threat

to the patient than the treatments that were generally used by physicians.

In terms of the member's question regarding the discussions with the

registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, I believe some discussions

have taken place. This is an amendment that I think addresses many of the

concerns around the definition of complementary medicine. It actually provides

more clarity to the college and to those that are practising complementary or

alternative therapies.

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

C. Hansen: I wanted to comment on the first

section in the

preamble

where it says: "WHEREAS complementary medicine may improve the lives of

British Columbians."

That sentence probably sums up where I think a lot of the concern is around

this particular piece of legislation. We have had a tradition on all sides of

this House. For this government that's been in office for the last nine and a

half years, as well as others, certainly the position that we have taken has

been one of supporting evidence-based medicine in British Columbia. I'm

wondering if the member can square that reasoning between a commitment by his

government and his party to evidence-based medicine and the approach that he's

taking here, in particular when we talk about complementary medicine that may

improve the lives of British Columbians, as opposed to the traditional

evidence-based medicine that we have relied on, basically, on all sides of this

House in the past.

S. Orcherton: The member is referring to the

preamble. There are some

amendments that are being proposed later for the

preamble. I wonder if the

member would prefer to wait until we get to that point, because it appears we

are on

section 1 of the act itself.

C. Hansen: I stand corrected -- my apologies. I realize that we will

be dealing with that at the end.

But the definition that the member has, as it now stands for debate, leads to

a series of questions that I wanted to ask the member about. When you talk, in

the opening, about a diagnostic or therapeutic measure, I'm wondering if the

member could define for us what a therapeutic measure is.

S. Orcherton: Therapeutic measure simply means treatment that the

patient may or may not undergo.

C. Hansen: If you go on to subsection (

b) of this amendment, it says:

"would not customarily be used." We're talking about a diagnostic or

therapeutic measure that would not customarily be used by most other medical

practitioners to diagnose or treat a condition or ailment. Could the member

define for us how we determine what would not customarily be used? In fact, who

determines whether or not a therapeutic measure or diagnostic procedure is not

customarily used?

S. Orcherton: "Customarily" can be taken, I think, in this

context to mean what the majority of doctors who are licensed through the

College of Physicians and Surgeons are using in terms of therapies. That's what

it would mean in the context of clause (b): the majority therapy that doctors

are using. While there may be other therapies that are available, it's the

majority therapy.

[1550]

C. Hansen: I'm wondering if the member could explain to us how we .

. . . Would he envision that there would be polls done of doctors to

determine whether or not a majority of doctors are using a particular

therapeutic or diagnostic procedure?

S. Orcherton: There are many, many different types of diseases facing

people in British Columbia, and there are many different opportunities for

treatment and therapies. One could argue that some of them would be a majority

opinion on therapies, others an alternative or complementary approach to

therapies. That's what this bill is all about. It allows physicians, who are

governed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, to look at patients in

British Columbia, offer diagnosis and treat the conditions using a variety of

tools that could be placed at their disposal.

For some patients those may fall within the majority diagnosis in terms of

therapeutic remedies, and for others it

[ Page 17729 ]

may require alternative or complementary therapies. That's what this bill is

all about. It allows doctors and patients the freedom to choose what type of

therapy they should be engaged in, bearing in mind that every individual

circumstance and every individual illness has a capacity to be alleviated by

different approaches in each instance.

C. Hansen: With all due respect to the member, I don't think he

answered the question. What's in here is very subjective language. I would argue

that the courts would have a great deal of difficulty in trying to determine an

interpretation for this subjective language that is in here. When he talks about

most other medical practitioners . . . . For example, you could read

into here that if a patient has been referred to have a CT scan as a diagnostic

procedure, that would be complementary medicine, because most medical

practitioners do not use CT scans as a diagnostic procedure. There are

specialists who actually have that responsibility. You wind up, in certain areas

of diagnostic and therapeutic procedure, having only a very small percentage of

doctors practising who would use a particular therapeutic or diagnostic

procedure, because they are the specialists who are trained to do that

particular procedure.

So you've got a situation where most medical practitioners would not be using

that diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. In that context, I wonder if the

member envisions that most of these diagnostic procedures that are only

practised today by specialists in British Columbia would, in fact, be considered

complementary medicine?

S. Orcherton: I think it's well known that the College of Physicians

and Surgeons knows who's practising what types of medicine and whether they're

in the majority in terms of the methods they pursue. As the member knows, this

legislation applies to physicians and surgeons and doctors who are governed by

the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It's an opportunity to broaden the scope

of treatment available. Clearly the college would know who was treating who, in

a majority sense, in terms of any given illness. But there are other options

that are open, and I think the college would understand those to be the

different kinds of approaches that this legislation is purporting to deal with.

[1555]

C. Hansen: I think the member's explanation underscores the difficulty

with the language that's here and its difficulty in terms of the subjective

nature of the

interpretation of this section. I think we have a responsibility

as legislators to ensure that there is specificity in the language that's used

here in order to achieve what the member is trying to achieve.

I will move on to subsection (c). Let me just read this in context here.

" 'Complementary medicine' means, with reference to a medical condition or

ailment of a patient of a medical practitioner, a diagnostic or therapeutic

measure that . . . (

c) poses no greater risk to the health or safety

of that patient than does a diagnostic or therapeutic measure in general use for

the condition or ailment by the medical practitioners described in paragraph

(b)," which is immediately above. I'm wondering if the member can explain

to the House how we determine that a particular diagnostic or therapeutic

measure poses no greater risk.

S. Orcherton: I think the key is "poses no greater risk."

And physicians who are governed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons in

British Columbia have the capacity, the training and the education to determine

which therapies have attached which risk for which individual patients, given

their individual circumstances. I think that's been in place for some time, and

I don't think this definition is as broad as the member would make out. I think

it actually is appropriate, and I think it allows a check and balance to be left

in place in terms of what kinds of therapies can be applied. The key here is the

phrase "no greater risk."

I'm not sure exactly where the member is coming from on this. It seems to me

that this is a fairly narrow definition in terms of complementary medicine, in

terms of this legislation.

C. Hansen: Just so that I interpret the member's answer appropriately,

do I interpret the member's answer to be that "no greater risk" would

in fact be determined by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British

Columbia?

S. Orcherton: Yes, they would be determined by the College of

Physicians and Surgeons reviewing the current literature on different therapies.

C. Hansen: It's one thing for the member to stand up and say that the

word of the college would apply in this case, but I guess my concern is that

that's not how the legislation reads. So instead of specifying in here,

"poses no greater risk to the health and safety of that patient as

determined by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia .

. . . " That would certainly give, I think, the public in British

Columbia a little bit more comfort. But what you in fact have done in the

wording of this definition is leave that open-ended. In fact, you're going to

wind up with court cases consuming enormous amounts of court time in British

Columbia to determine whether or not something poses a greater risk.

I'm wondering if the member would consider an amendment to that

section to be

more specific, along the lines of his previous explanation.

S. Orcherton: As the member knows, this is a self-regulating

profession. This legislation is entirely about and applicable to the

relationship between the College of Physicians and Surgeons and its membership.

All of the clauses,

definitions and aspects of this act relate to the College of

Physicians and Surgeons and their responsibility to ensure the public safety in

terms of medical treatments and medical therapies.

[1600]

C. Hansen: With all respect to the member, I think the philosophical

intent of the bill is not what we're debating here. What we are debating is the

clause-by-clause . . . . We're debating word by word and in terms of

how those words will or could be interpreted. So I appreciate the member's

philosophical response to that last question, but that doesn't satisfy the

courts when it comes to trying to interpret legislation.

So I'm wondering if the member would entertain an amendment to specify that

this determination of "no greater risk" is in fact determined by a

decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

S. Orcherton: I'm advised that it's inherent in the act that the

College of Physicians and Surgeons do have that responsibility. Just for the

member's benefit, I'm not trying to wax

[ Page 17730 ]

philosophical here. I am trying to answer his questions; I think they are

important ones. But it is the College of Physicians and Surgeons, at the end of

the day, that makes a determination on these questions in terms of risk which

are detailed in (

c) under the definition of complementary medicine. So de facto,

it is the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and it doesn't, in my view,

require an amendment.

C. Hansen: Perhaps the member could explain to me where in the act it

gives the power to the College of Physicians and Surgeons to interpret the act,

which, in my understanding, is a purview of the courts in British Columbia.

Perhaps the member could enlighten us.

S. Orcherton: I believe what the member is seeking is under

section

53(1), "Inquiry," which says: "The council or the executive

committee may, and if requested in writing by 3 members in good standing of the

college must, cause an inquiry committee to inquire into a charge or complaint

made against a member of the college . . . . " And it goes on

to detail how that's done in

section 53. I think that gives the authority to the

College of Physicians and Surgeons to deal with these matters around issues of

risk.

C. Hansen: I think the member may have misinterpreted that section.

That's purely to do with the structuring of an inquiry. Certainly if there is a

provision in the Medical Practitioners Act that gives the power to the college

to interpret the act, this is the legislation that actually sets out the

parameters in which the college must operate. It would clearly be inappropriate

for any of the colleges in health care in British Columbia to be given the power

to give their own

interpretation to the provisions of the legislation. So I

would argue that the member is mistaken in that response and that in fact there

is nothing in here that says that the college can have the power to define what

is or is not "no greater risk." I'm asking, once again, if the member

would consider an amendment to this in order to specify that this power to

define that is, in fact, vested with the college.

[1605]

S. Orcherton: Perhaps I can be of more assistance to the member, in

terms of this discussion, by referring him to

section 3 of the act, which says

that the college has the following objectives, and there's a number laid out.

Most notably, I think, in terms of this issue, it is to govern members according

to this act and the rules. This definition, if passed, would apply under that

argument "to govern members according to this Act and the rules," and

therefore the college would have the authority to deal with these questions

around risk.

C. Hansen: Frankly, the member is not accurate in his

interpretation

of those sections, because there is nowhere in this act where it gives the

college the power to interpret the clauses of the act. That is the authority of

our courts. I would have thought that he's been a member of this House long

enough to appreciate that. But I gather we're not getting anywhere.

I will move on to subsection (d), where they say: "presents a reasonable

prospect for alleviating the suffering or improving the health of that patient

in relation to that condition or ailment." I'd like to ask the member who

determines whether or not there is a reasonable prospect for alleviating

suffering.

S. Orcherton: The College of Physicians and Surgeons.

C. Hansen: Again, the same thing applies here as in our discussion on

subsection (c), in that there is nothing that specifies that the college in fact

has that power to interpret the legislation. I'd like to suggest there are some

critical flaws with the wording that the member has chosen for this definition.

I'd like to give an example to the member. This is an example of a patient

who comes into a hospital with an injured ankle. We don't really know whether

the ankle is broken. It may be sprained; there could be a bunch of things wrong.

It used to be, in previous years, that more often than not the doctor would have

that ankle X-rayed, just to make sure there was no fracture in the ankle.

Well, in recent years a new protocol has been developed. There are protocols

that have been developed throughout health care. One of the protocols that's

been developed is something called the Ottawa protocol -- I assume because it

was developed in Ottawa; I'm not sure of the rationale for it -- which actually

says to doctors that if a patient presents with an injured ankle, there is a

procedure they go through to manually inspect the ankle, and if there aren't

certain indications, then an X-ray is not warranted. So it's a great protection

to the doctor.

A doctor was telling me that he had a patient in the emergency room in the

hospital when he was on emergency room duty. She was a teenager, and the mother

was adamant that this patient should be X-rayed. The doctor said no. He checked

out the daughter according to the Ottawa protocol and said that an X-ray was not

warranted. The mother stormed out of the operating room with her limping

daughter, threatening to sue the doctor and the hospital for not performing the

X-ray. So this protocol is there to ensure that there is good patient care,

responsible patient care, but also to protect the doctor for making a diagnosis

according to a standard that is acceptable.

Today in British Columbia a patient presenting with an injured ankle more

often than not would not be getting an X-ray. If I read through the definition

of complementary medicine the member has put forward, we then have a doctor who

is practising complementary medicine if he should decide to automatically go to

an X-ray rather than follow the Ottawa protocol that is there. I'm wondering if

the member can explain to me how it is that a doctor who asks for an X-ray to be

done on an injured ankle can be providing complementary medicine as defined in

his definition.

[1610]

S. Orcherton: It's an interesting example that the member gave. I'll

just pause and reflect and share something that occurred in my family on this

issue.

My wife presented herself with a problem with her foot and didn't receive an

X-ray and was treated for an infection. It turned out that she had a broken

foot. At the end of the day, she ended up having a cast on her foot and used a

tremendous amount of antibiotics, which caused additional difficulties to her

health circumstance.

By way of your example and my example, I think that the college has some very

good people working inside its organization -- doctors and physicians. There are

many different opportunities for treatment. And what (

d) speaks to is the

"reasonable prospect for alleviating the suffering or improv-

[ Page 17731 ]

ing the health," not making decisions . . . . Perhaps some

are making decisions based on -- I would hope not -- the dollar cost of X-rays

and the wait time for X-rays and those kinds of things. But it really speaks to

offering solutions that are available and offering them to alleviate the

suffering and improve the health of the patient, which is what this definition

speaks to.

C. Hansen: I want to come back . . . . This committee

stage debate -- clause by clause, word by word -- is not about what the member

hopes is in here or what he's hoping to achieve by the legislation. We're bound

by the words that he has presented to this House for passage.

If we walk through the four sections to the definition, as he's presented

them, with the example that I gave about somebody presenting with an injured

ankle, let's say, you wind up with this.

" 'Complementary medicine' means, with reference to a medical condition

or ailment of a patient of a medical practitioner, a diagnostic or therapeutic

measure that

"(

a) is used by the medical practitioner to diagnose or treat the

condition or ailment of patients of the medical practitioner."

If this doctor decides he's going to go straight to an X-ray, he fits that.

"(

b) would not customarily be used to diagnose or treat that condition

or ailment by most other medical practitioners whose usual practice includes

the diagnosis or treatment of that condition or ailment . . . . "

But again, that applies here, because most would now be using the Ottawa

protocol.

"(

c) poses no greater risk to the health or safety of that patient

than does a diagnostic or therapeutic measure in general use for the condition

or ailment by the medical practitioners described in paragraph (b) . . .

. "

Again, that doctor going to an X-ray meets that standard.

"(

d) presents a reasonable prospect for alleviating the suffering or

improving the health of that patient in relation to that condition or

ailment."

So (

d) also applies.

So in the example I've put forward, we wind up with a patient being sent to

the emergency room of a hospital to get an X-ray. That doctor is practising

complementary medicine. I would invite the member to prove my case otherwise.

[1615]

S. Orcherton: Offering a definition for complementary medicine doesn't

mean that complementary medicine is anything, potentially, other than what the

member talks about. It's offering therapies that can, in the view of a physician

and the patient, offer assistance. So it doesn't put complementary medicine

above traditional therapies. Nor does it put it below. It simply recognizes

complementary medicine and provides a definition that -- the member could well

be right -- is applicable in every circumstance. It's an opportunity to define

in this legislation that there are alternatives and there are

definitions that

could be applied to it.

C. Hansen: I think the important point is that there are ramifications

to this definition. There are ramifications to the bill he's putting in, because

if that doctor were to be investigated for doing an X-ray on a patient when most

other doctors may have followed the protocol, he would be subject to . . .

. If there were an investigation by the college, then we would wind up

with all these other provisions that click into place, which are provided for in

the rest of his bill. I would argue that the member has not thought through this

definition very well, and as a result, I think it's fraught with problems.

Section 1 as amended approved on division.

section 2.

S. Orcherton: I move the amendment to

section 2 standing in my name on

the orders of the day.

[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed subsection (1.1) and substituting the

following:

(1.1) A rule under subsection (1) must not unreasonably interfere with the

option of a medical practitioner to practise complementary medicine.]

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

C. Hansen: All these amendments were only presented to us a few hours

before this session started this afternoon. I'm wondering if the member can

explain to the House what the impact of this amendment is.

S. Orcherton: The previous wording in the bill may have been capable

of an overly broad

interpretation which would have completely removed the

ability to establish standards for physicians practising complementary medicine.

This amendment clarifies that physicians performing complementary medicine may

be required to do so in accordance with the same standards established for that

form of medicine.

Section 2 as amended approved on division.

section 3.

C. Hansen: Again, in this

section I think we have some problems with

interpretation and who does the

interpretation. We talk here about a person

"seeking registration under this

section must not be found to have failed

to comply with the requirements." I'm wondering if the member could explain

to us who determines whether or not there has been compliance.

S. Orcherton: My apologies to the member. I wonder if he could repeat

the question.

C. Hansen: The amendment that is being proposed is: "A person

seeking registration under this

section must not be found to have failed to

comply with the requirements of subsection (1)(b) . . . . " I'm

wondering if the member can explain to us who determines whether or not there

has been compliance.

S. Orcherton: The College of Physicians and Surgeons.

[1620]

Section 3 approved on division.

section 4.

C. Hansen: At this point, when we start talking about the

investigating committee that may be in place, it may be

[ Page 17732 ]

that . . . .

Section 4 and

section 5 both refer to investigating

committees. I wonder if the member can elaborate for us: under

section 4, who

would constitute an investigating committee?

S. Orcherton: I think the member's answer is in

section 51(1).

C. Hansen: Actually, what I'll do is move on to the next

section for

my next questions.

Section 4 approved on division.

section 5.

C. Hansen: In this

section what we have is: "An inquiry committee

appointed under subsection (3) to investigate a member of the college who

practises complementary medicine or uses non-traditional therapies must include

a representative of the Association of Complementary Physicians of British

Columbia." First of all, there is a reference here to non-traditional

therapies, and yet that is not defined. I wonder if the member could explain to

us what his definition of non-traditional therapies is.

S. Orcherton: In this context, non-traditional therapies are those

that are not taught in medical schools.

C. Hansen: That's a very disturbing definition because that's so

open-ended. It could include anything. Certainly we have seen some very serious

cases that have been reviewed by the medical profession throughout North

America, where colleges -- not just in British Columbia but elsewhere -- have

had to discipline medical practitioners who are using techniques that are

definitely not taught in medical schools. I think most people in the public,

including those in the Association of Complementary Physicians of British

Columbia, would probably support the fact that some physicians have been

disciplined when they have practised certain forms of non-traditional therapy.

Clearly there is an issue of where the line is drawn here. I wonder why the

member, in the wording of this legislation, didn't just leave it at

"complementary medicine," which is defined, as opposed to referring to

"complementary medicine or uses non-traditional therapies."

[1625]

S. Orcherton: The intent of this amendment to the act is to ensure

that there is a process in place that is fair when looking at those who practise

complementary medicine or non-traditional therapies. I'm advised that the

Association of Complementary Physicians of British Columbia does not condone the

use of any therapies that put the patient at risk or have a potential to cause

harm, and they've been very public on that question.

C. Hansen: I think the difficulty with the wording that the member has

chosen for this, though, is that it is so open-ended. We recently had a court

case in Vancouver -- not before the college but before the courts -- of a

psychiatrist who was practising some very non-traditional therapies and, as a

result, was found guilty of the offences that were brought against him in the

court. I'm wondering how the member rationalizes his wording in here with those

types of non-traditional therapies, which I think everybody in the public has

great concern about.

S. Orcherton: It's not the question regarding non-traditional

therapies that I think the member is getting at. I think the member is getting

at the question around harm. If non-traditional therapies cause no harm, then

they should be considered by both the physician and the patient. I hope that

helps the member.

Section 5 approved.

Section 6 approved on division.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Quilchena, just a clarification on

section 5. It's not necessarily protocol to go back and review it, but all the

other votes have been called on division.

Section 5 was not. Was the intention

to call it on division?

C. Hansen: Yes.

The Chair:

Section 5 is recorded as passed on division.

section 7.

S. Orcherton: I move the amendments to

section 7 standing in my name

on the orders of the day and also the amendment to

section 7 that is in the

possession of the Clerk.

The Chair: The hon. member for Victoria-Hillside is on which

amendment?

S. Orcherton:

The one in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 7, in the proposed subsection (3) by deleting "a greater risk to

a patient's health that the traditional or prevailing practice." and

substituting "a greater risk to a patient's health than the traditional

or prevailing practice."]

On the amendment to

section 7,

section 80(3).

S. Orcherton: Just for the

information of the members opposite, it is simply a typographical error. In the

last sentence of

section 80(3), "patient health that the traditional"

should be "than the traditional." It's just a typographical error that

was picked up by the Clerk's office today.

The Chair: Shall the amendment in the hands of the Clerk pass?

Vancouver-Quilchena on the amendment in the hands of the Clerk.

C. Hansen: I seek some guidance from the Chair on this. Certainly we

can dispense with these amendments, although I do have a question about one of

the amendments that's being proposed. But I would also like us to deal with

subsections (2) and (3) separately. I seek guidance from the Chair as to how we

can proceed on that basis.

The Chair: I was actually hoping the members would give the Chair

guidance today on this. As a matter of fact, it's not normally the way, member,

that we would deal with a clause such as this. But if the request is for leave

to proceed in that manner, I'll put the question. Shall leave be granted?

[ Page 17733 ]

Leave granted.

The Chair: We're on the amendment that is in the hands of the Clerk.

S. Orcherton: So that I'm clear, the amendment that's in the hands of

the Clerk is the typographical error.

The Chair: That's correct. Shall the amendment in the hands of the

Clerk pass?

Amendment approved.

[1630]

The Chair: Now we're dealing with the amendment on the order paper.

[SECTION 7, in the proposed subsection (2),

(

a) by deleting "freedom" and substituting "option",

and

(

b) by deleting "hope" and substituting "reasonable

hope".]

On the amendment to

section 7,

section 80(2).

C. Hansen: I assume that doesn't have to be moved by the member, then.

Is that appropriate? Okay. So we're just dealing with the first one in terms of

freedom and substituting "option" in the place of "freedom."

Is that my understanding? That's fine.

Amendment approved.

The Chair: Would you just give us a minute here to sort out the

amendments, members.

section 7,

section 80(2) as amended.

C. Hansen: I found the amendment interesting, because it . . . .

The Chair: We have the proponent of the amendment.

S. Orcherton: There were two amendments to

section 80(2). One

amendment was dealing with changing the word "freedom" to

"option." The other amendment was in the fourth line, adding a word to

say: "It offers the reasonable hope." I'm not sure whether we've dealt

with both of those or one of them.

The Chair: Member, both of those amendments have been passed. Now

we're dealing with subsection (2) as amended.

C. Hansen: It was obviously a very deliberate move to amend this

reference to offering hope of saving lives to offering "reasonable"

hope of saving lives. I wonder if the member can explain why he felt that that

particular amendment was significant in this particular case?

S. Orcherton: To say "offering hope" is a very, very broad

statement. I think it's important that the College of Physicians and Surgeons,

the doctors that are members and the patients understand that it's the intent of

this clause to ensure that reasonable hope is offered. It seemed like an

appropriate amendment in terms of the broadness of the word "hope"

itself.

Section 7,

section 80(2) as amended approved on division.

section 7,

section 80(3) as amended.

C. Hansen: Throughout the second reading debate, we heard a lot about

what was happening in other provinces vis-�-vis complementary medicine and

amendments to comparable legislation in other provinces. We often heard about

what was done in Alberta and what was done in Ontario with regard to their

wording. This wording that's contained here in this particular subsection --

that's going to be subsection (3), which is going to be added to

section 80 of

the Medical Practitioners Amendment Act. This essentially delivers on what

happens in other provinces. If this act were modeling itself after what happened

in other provinces, we would be able to support this.

Quite frankly, we can support this particular subsection because it is

consistent with the practice that's currently happening in British Columbia

today. It does ensure that there is a recognition of complementary medicine, and

as I said in my second reading remarks last week, we support complementary

medicine. But what we don't support, which is behind this bill, is the way in

which the member has chosen to bring in restrictions on the ability of the

College of Physicians and Surgeons to act in a way that ensures the public

interest is protected. So we in the official opposition are certainly pleased to

support this particular subsection.

S. Orcherton: It is true that that clause is featured in various

jurisdictions, not only in Canada but similarly in North America. The difficulty

is that when there are circumstances that occur that require investigation and

looking into regarding issues around complementary medicine and issues with the

College of Physicians and Surgeons, the processes that flow out of this

particular clause in other jurisdictions have nowhere to be enacted upon or

engaged in. This bill provides that. It provides a mechanism to allow for a

process to occur should there be some difficulties. I just note that in this,

there is again the reference to "non-traditional." I'm not sure if it

offers some comfort to the member to see that that phrase is in subsection

(3) or not, but it is. Well, I'll add my comments there on that particular issue.

[1635]

Section 7,

section 80(3) as amended approved unanimously on a division. [See

Votes and Proceedings .]

Section 7,

section 80 as amended approved.

Section 8 approved.

On the

preamble.

S. Orcherton: I move the amendment to the

preamble standing in my name

on the orders of the day.

[PREAMBLE, by deleting "AND

WHEREAS medical practitioners are

prohibited by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia from

practising complementary medicine."]

Amendment approved.

[ Page 17734 ]

Preamble as amended approved on division.

Title approved.

[1640]

S. Orcherton: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete with

amendments and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members, please. There has been a division

called. I need to get clarification on that. The Chair didn't hear the call. Has

division been called? Yes, division is called.

Members, please take your seats. We have a division here. Are the members

prepared to waive the time limits on this?

Interjections.

The Chair: The Chair has just asked a question. Order, please. Are the

members prepared to waive the time limits on this?

[1645]

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill M202, Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1655]

Hon. G. Janssen: I call second reading of Bill 13.

ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT

( second reading )

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm pleased to rise in support of and move second

reading of Bill 13, the Electronic Transactions Act.

As I mentioned in my first reading notes, British Columbia is the most

connected province in the country, and British Columbians are the leaders in the

use of Internet technology. We're the only jurisdiction in North America that

has every single one of our schools and post-secondary institutions connected to

the Internet.

Statistics Canada surveys consistently rank British Columbia citizens and

businesses amongst the top users of computers and the Internet. The British

Columbia government has been a leader in using information technology to change

the way it works and delivers services since the mid-1980s, with services such

as B.C. OnLine, Teleplan and PharmaNet. The InfoSmart strategy and the recent

announcement of the new B.C. Connects web site portal for government services is

an example of their continuing efforts in this regard.

Hon. Speaker, the Internet is changing the world, and commercial activity on

the Internet is expanding at a phenomenal rate. Industry Canada estimates that

Canadian Internet commerce will grow to just over $100 billion in 2003, up from

about $8 billion in 1998. Some have suggested that we are witnessing the

greatest development the world has seen since the wheel.

Nonetheless, rapid advances in technology have challenged some of our

traditional legal processes. The speed at which some of the technical solutions

have been implemented threatens to outpace the legal rules that have

traditionally supported commercial relationships. For example, our legal system

has relied on traditional paper-based evidence and natural signatures, and there

has been much uncertainty as to whether electronic documents, contracts and

signatures will have the same force in effect in law.

Even though the evolution of e-commerce has been rapid, certain factors have

hindered its growth, contributing to a lack of public confidence in electronic

transactions. The key factors are uncertainty about the legality and

enforceability of electronic transactions, concern about the protection of

personal information and concern about consumer protection issues generally.

The principal purpose of the Electronic Transactions Act is to deal with the

first factor mentioned: to remove any uncertainty about the legality and

enforceability of electronic transactions conducted in British Columbia.

With respect to privacy, B.C. is already a leader in protecting personal

information. Our Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is viewed

as a model for public sector legislation. The federal government's Personal

Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act goes a long way to

protecting personal information in the private sector but does leave some gaps

that can only be filled by provincial legislation. A special committee of the

Legislature has recently reported out on the protection of personal information

in the private sector, and I certainly expect that our government will take

steps to address any remaining issues concerning the protection of personal

information in the private sector.

Consumer protection is also important, and British Columbia's Consumer

Protection Act provides consumers with protection that is similar to that found

across Canada. Now, as a result of the Electronic Transactions Act, British

Columbians will have some protection when shopping on line as well. For

instance, the Electronic Transactions Act will ensure that consumers have the

ability to confirm their orders and correct any errors before their orders are

processed. Most Internet shopping sites already have this feature, but this bill

will guarantee that consumers will have this protection.

I'd like to look at an example. A B.C. businesswoman makes a decision to

reserve air travel on line. She clicks the "pay for the ticket" button

and receives a pop-up message that says: "You have requested a return

ticket from Victoria to Vancouver, Washington, for $100." She realizes

she's hit the wrong button somewhere, because she really wants to travel not to

Vancouver, Washington, but to Vancouver, British Columbia, and she can then

correct the mistake. That pop-up window appears thanks to

section 17 of the

Electronic Transactions Act, which stipulates that a consumer must have the

opportunity to review and correct a transaction before finally committing to it.

The Electronic Transactions Act provides both B.C. businesses and consumers with

the choice and protection they need.

[1700]

[ Page 17735 ]

The Electronic Transactions Act has five parts.

Part 1 is a set of

definitions and sets out its applications and exceptions.

Part 2 is really the

core of the legislation. It deals with functional equivalents. It sets out the

basic rules that ensure equivalent treatment of electronic documents, signatures

and information with traditional paper-based documents, signatures and

information.

Part 3 sets out rules for particular electronic transactions, including the

formulation and operation of contracts, the use of automated transactions and

the correction of errors and presumed time and place of the receipt of messages.

It would require a consumer to have the ability to review and confirm a

transaction before it is processed.

Part 4 contains special provisions related

to the carriage of goods permitting electronic bills of lading and other related

shipping documents.

Part 5 contains the provisions for making regulation.

This bill is based on work done at the international and national level. The

United Nations adopted a model law on electronic commerce in November of 1996.

This model law then formed the basis of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada,

which endorsed a model Uniform Electronic Commerce Act in September of 1999.

B.C. was represented at that conference. The bill before the Legislature is

substantially similar to the product of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. It

has been refined slightly, however, as a number of other provinces and the

federal government have enacted similar legislation, and we have incorporated

some of the improvements made since the model act was developed.

The Electronic Transactions Act will apply to commercial relationships and

all other legal relationships requiring documentation in British Columbia. It

will apply to both the public and the private sector. It adopts an approach

whereby rules of capacity are transformed into rules of proof: have I met the

standard? It does not mandate the use of electronic communications, but it

allows for their use, provided all parties consent. It removes doubt about the

legal uncertainty of an electronic transaction. It is technology-neutral in that

specific technologies are not mentioned or favoured over others.

British Columbia is not the first province to bring in this legislation, but

we are in good company. Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, the Yukon and Nova

Scotia governments have introduced and passed similar legislation within the

past 18 months. Quebec has introduced legislation, and the federal government

has passed, as I noted earlier, the Personal Information Protection and

Electronic Documents Act.

Many other countries around the world are also moving in this direction.

Australia's Electronic Transactions Act came into effect in 2000. The United

States passed legislation last year as well. Ireland, the U.K. and India are

also planning to introduce legislation.

Here in B.C. the bill would help both small and large businesses. It will

enable home-based businesses and small startup enterprises in rural communities

to compete on a national and international stage. Opportunities exist for B.C.

companies to use the Internet to quickly enter the marketplace by offering

competitive products with substantially reduced overhead costs.

We're not forcing businesses, of course, to conduct their business on line.

But the reality is that businesses must adapt to market conditions, and the

market is moving towards e-commerce. Today a growing number of contracts are

entered into electronically. It only makes sense that in the twenty-first

century British Columbians should have a law that says you can do business

electronically the same way you can on paper.

By passing this bill the government will be knocking down one more barrier to

business and inviting even more new investment in British Columbia. This bill

recognizes that electronic commerce is a real and effective way of doing

business now and in the future in B.C. This bill is essential if we are going to

ensure we are as advanced in our capacity to do business in this new way as

other jurisdictions across the world.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

G. Plant: One of the pillars of a free market society is a system of

rules that govern the making and enforcement of contracts. In our legal system

these rules are largely judge-made. They were developed mostly on a case-by-case

basis by common-law courts in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries -- long

ago, it seems now, and certainly long before the advent of electronic commerce.

Everyone knows about the growth of e-commerce, but what is less well known is

that unique problems arise when transactions leave no paper trail. When people

and businesses communicate electronically, the question that arises is: what

does it take to establish and prove a binding contract? It's clear that if

electronic commerce is to flourish in British Columbia and elsewhere for the

benefit of businesses in British Columbia and elsewhere, the old rules around

proving a valid contract must be adapted to the new circumstances of virtual

transactions.

[1705]

This bill follows the lead taken in Canada by the Uniform Law Conference of

Canada in drafting a model electronic commerce law that answers these questions

about the rules of contract in cyberspace. The purpose of this bill is to create

a foundation of legal certainty for electronic commerce. This bill generally

follows the Uniform Law Conference model, as explained by the minister. Its main

thrust is to ensure that business and consumer transactions entered into over

the Internet, entered into electronically in any way, are as valid and

enforceable as if they were made orally or in writing, subject to appropriate

safeguards with respect to security and authenticity.

This bill takes a good step forward. It creates no bureaucracy, it costs

taxpayers nothing, and it should make B.C. a better place to do business for

everyone. The opposition is delighted to support the Electronic Transactions

Act.

Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate the member opposite's comments. I know

he has reviewed the act carefully and worked with the staff in our ministry to

make sure that it addressed all the legal issues that can arise from taking this

significant step forward. I appreciate his comments today, and I look forward to

having further discussion at committee stage. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Electronic Transactions Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I call second reading of Bill 20.

[ Page 17736 ]

DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ACT

( second reading )

Hon. I. Waddell: It's my pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 20. I

think this is a very significant bill. It's the bill called the Drinking Water

Protection Act. You'll recall the incident in Walkerton, Ontario, not too long

ago, where six people died and another I think 2,700 people became ill as a

result of t