1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 5

[ Page 8569 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

B. Jones: It's with great pleasure that I introduce to the House today a couple of distinguished guests from what I call the FOI community: firstly, Darrell Evans, executive director of FIPA, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, which has been most influential in assisting the government in developing what we think is outstanding legislation in this area; secondly, David Flaherty, one of the world's leading experts on privacy and data protection. Would the House please make these two gentlemen very welcome.

Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery today is Mr. Norman Thomas, registrar of the College of Pharmacists. He's here this afternoon to listen to committee stage of the pharmacy bill. I believe he has been waiting up to 15 years to see this bill to come through this Legislature. Would the House please make him welcome.

W. Hartley: Visiting Victoria and the Legislature today are two guests, George and Jean Scargill, from Crofton, England. They are travelling throughout our province. Escorting the Scargills are two good friends of mine from Maple Ridge: Bob and Betty Spiers. Please make them all welcome.

E. Barnes: It's with considerable sadness that I take my place this afternoon to advise the House of the sudden passing of Rev. Hartley Dent, the former MLA for Skeena. He was elected in 1972, along with myself and the hon. Attorney General, the MLA for North Island. I believe that the Attorney General and I are the only two members remaining in this chamber who were sitting when Hartley Dent was first elected under the Dave Barrett regime. Hartley served for a while in the position I now hold, that of Deputy Speaker. He was also at one time a provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party. It's very sad news.

I had no opportunity to get very many details, as I just found out about it this afternoon. I would like to ask that the House ask the Speaker to send condolences on behalf of all members.

The Speaker: Is it the will of the House that the Speaker do so on behalf of members?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

Introduction of Bills

PARLIAMENTARY CALENDAR ACT

D. Mitchell presented a bill intituled Parliamentary Calendar Act.

D. Mitchell: This bill is one that I'm sure all members will support, especially at this time of the year, as it establishes a fixed parliamentary calendar.

Under the bill there are two sessions of the Legislature each year. The first would commence on the first Monday in March and last no longer than four months. The second would commence the day after Thanksgiving in October and would be for a maximum of two months' duration. Furthermore, at the opening of a new session of parliament the Speaker of the House, with the advice of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, must draw up a parliamentary calendar to comply with these provisions.

Nothing, however, prevents the Legislative Assembly from amending the parliamentary calendar or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from recalling the House between sessions to deal with emergencies related to the health, safety or economic well-being of the people of British Columbia. The requirement for a sitting to commence can also be waived when a provincial general election occurs within 60 days of the dates fixed for a legislative session.

The most progressive legislatures in the world have fixed parliamentary calendars. It's interesting to note that in Ottawa this reform has been a very surprising success in the House of Commons, in that it has forced the government to discipline itself by bringing in legislation well enough in advance to have it pass before the end of the session. Likewise, it has imposed discipline on the opposition parties in the House of Commons in Ottawa to do their work of scrutiny and accountability in time to get the work done within the parliamentary calendar.

It is time to end the ad hoc approach here in B.C. and to have a parliamentary calendar of our own. The current ad hoc approach often results in a costly and inefficient use of the time of the House and in legislation by exhaustion. I am very pleased to commend this bill to all members of the House.

With those few words, I move the bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Bill M225 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

MISQUOTES ATTRIBUTED TO FINANCE MINISTER

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Finance. In a recent speech to members of the Health Employees' Union, the Minister of Finance is quoted as making some interesting remarks: "Socred bureaucrats who inhabit the Health ministry...." And he talks about the minister telling union members: "You can all identify the fascists who now work on your hospital administrations." But he said: "We simply can't fire and replace them all.

We'll have to change the way these people think." My question to the minister is: rather than conduct behaviour modification experiments on public servants that he suspects of being Socred fascists, does he not agree that his own behaviour should be modified and that he should apologize for this outrageous insult?

[ Page 8570 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously those are very unfortunate remarks. Fortunately, I didn't make them. I have here before me -- and I'll ask leave after question period to table it in the House -- a letter from the Hospital Employees' Union. I'll just read parts of it. It says:

"I hope you will agree that errors of this nature are understandable in publications produced by first-time newsletter editors who were working on a class exercise for an audience of fellow students. A very small number of copies of the Bugle were produced at the school for the enjoyment of students, and the newsletter went no further. Its first issue was its last." It goes on to say that there were quotes attributed to me which were incorrect. "Please accept my sincere apology for this error and any embarrassment it may have caused you.

"Yours sincerely Geoff Meggs

Communications Director"

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: Again to the Minister of Finance. Other remarks were attributed to this individual, and if he wishes to deny the fact that he said them, that's absolutely fine. But using the same beer-hall style, the minister described Socreds who sit on hospital boards as enemies of Canadians. Are you taking the same diplomacy courses as Kim Campbell and Brian Mulroney?

B.C. RAIL LABOUR DISPUTE

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the minister confirm that B.C. Rail, because of uncertainty around rotating strikes and lockouts, is currently losing about $250,000 a day?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No labour action is occurring in B.C. Rail at the present time. The parties are back to the table, successfully working their way through negotiations. Within a reasonable period of time I anticipate hearing that all matters have been settled.

J. Weisgerber: There is certainly a great deal of concern in northern and central British Columbia, and uncertainty about the future actions of B.C. Rail. Can the minister confirm whether or not he has instructed B.C. Rail not to lock out its employees in the event of rotating strikes?

[2:15]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Negotiations are being carried on between the corporation and its employees, and I will leave that matter between the corporation and its employees. I share your concern with regard to the impact of any labour action, but I don't know that you could point to any country in the world that deals with its labour problems in a more responsible way. We certainly know there are some that do a far worse job, and I would hope the member opposite would not encourage us in that direction.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, Leader of the Third Party.

J. Weisgerber: In his enthusiasm for the free collective bargaining process, will the minister answer the question? Did you or did you not instruct B.C. Rail not to lock out its employees?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, I did not. I am pleased to say that the CEO and the management of B.C. Rail understand perfectly well that lockout is not a good way to deal with any labour problem. That advice came to me directly from the president of B.C. Rail.

MINISTRY OF FORESTS BUILDING IN NANAIMO

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. On June 24 the opposition asked the minister about the purchase of land in Nanaimo for a new Ministry of Forests building. At that time the minister said: "It's strictly in the planning stages, and there are no dollars involved at this point in time." Can the minister confirm that on June 17, seven days prior to her statement in this House, the B.C. Buildings Corporation closed a property deal on 2.5 acres in Nanaimo at a purchase price of $960,000 for a Ministry of Forests building?

Hon. L. Boone: I will take that question on notice.

The Speaker: The hon. minister has taken the question on notice; therefore I cannot allow a supplemental on that question.

GRANTS TO NON-PROFIT GROUPS BY LOTTERY CORPORATION

L. Fox: My question goes to the same minister, the minister responsible for B.C. Lotteries. Can the minister tell us what authority, if any, the Lottery Corporation now has to make direct contributions to non-profit societies, schools or cultural groups? Can the minister further tell us what procedures or policies exist, if any, for accessing and awarding such grants?

Hon. L. Boone: The lottery board would make any decisions with regard to any grants that were given. But to my knowledge, they have not been giving out any grants to groups or corporations. They have supported the Canada Summer Games in Kamloops through the purchase of ads, which is strictly a business deal, but they haven't actually given dollars to the Canada Games.

L. Fox: Supplementary to the same minister. Can the minister advise us whether the chair of the Lottery Corporation has any authority or mandate to direct

[ Page 8571 ]

lottery staff to give money to non-profit groups, including schools?

Hon. L. Boone: It is not the Lottery Corporation chair but the board that has the ability to make some decisions with regard to whether they would give donations to schools or what have you -- not the chair on her own.

JET FUEL TAX EXEMPTION FOR CARGO FLIGHTS

D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Further to last week's question regarding the jet fuel exemption on all cargo flights: why did the minister not allow pro rata exemptions on mixed flights to enable Canadian airlines -- and that's small-case letters -- to compete on a level airfield?

Hon. G. Clark: It's an odd question. As part of the prebudget consultation process, we met with a variety of groups, including the airport authority. Like most groups, they asked for elimination of all the taxes associated with their venue. Obviously, in dealing with our fiscal situation, that wasn't possible.

They then suggested that we were losing dedicated cargo traffic out of the Vancouver port and that we would now have no traffic for international air cargo. As a result of that, we made a fairly major move to promote that kind of new business initiative in British Columbia -- to exempt new international air cargo transportation from Vancouver Airport in order to exempt them from the tax. For any Canadian airline which proceeds with international air cargo, designated cargo traffic will be exempt as well from the tax, so there is no discrimination against Canadian airlines.

D. Symons: Since the minister spoke to the people at the Vancouver Airport Authority, I am wondering if he also spoke to the two Canadian airlines that operate out of that airport and included them in this decision, to see that they had some input into it -- because they are impacted by this government's decision.

Hon. G. Clark: I have had discussion with both airlines on a variety of issues. I believe that Mr. Harris is now the chair of the board of trade. I met with him very recently on this question. They are seeking, as most groups are, tax concessions for their industry. I gave them a commitment, as I have consistently, that we will monitor this. Our purpose is to build a brand-new business opportunity in British Columbia. We are very confident that with aggressive marketing we can do that. This is new business which does not take place now in British Columbia. We will work with the airlines to ensure they are not inhibited.

Just one last point, hon. speaker: our taxes on jet fuel are exactly the same as Alberta's.

AIRCARE LABOUR DISPUTE

A. Warnke: My question is to the Attorney General. During the AirCare strike the Attorney General stated that no loss of revenue would occur, because cars not tested during the moratorium would later be tested. After the AirCare strike was over the Attorney General conceded the impossibility of processing all these cars through the AirCare stations. When did the Attorney General realize this impossibility? Was it perhaps when the union said it was okay to say so?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I must confess I'm not sure precisely what the question is. If he is asking me the date that I realized we couldn't process all the cars that weren't tested during the course of the strike, I can't give him that answer. But during the course of that dispute it became evident that it would be very difficult for us to test all the remaining vehicles in this calendar year. However, I am encouraging motorists in Vancouver who have not had their cars tested to do their bit for clean air by going in and having their cars tested this month.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

A. Warnke: Since the Attorney General concedes the impossibility of processing all these cars, and since a loss of revenue is obvious, when will the government reimburse Ebco-Hamilton for the loss of revenue?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is making assumptions I'm not prepared to concede.

B.C. FISHING INDUSTRY

R. Chisholm: To the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister taken time to call or meet with the new federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans -- the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs, Ross Reid -- to inform the minister of the potentially disastrous season for the fishing industry in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, I was just in Newfoundland. Their fish stocks are in dreadful shape. We had a fisheries conference. Unfortunately, in that Liberal province they've lost 30,000 jobs. We've gained 30,000 in the last month, by the way. They are very envious not only of our position, but of our success in that particular area. Ross Reid is indeed the new Fisheries minister, and he is carrying on the policies of the former Fisheries minister, the Hon. John Crosbie.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the minister to conclude his remarks.

Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly. So we are monitoring the situation. We explained to the federal government, and indeed Ross Reid knows this, that the experiment on the Fraser River last year was an abominable failure. We are looking at it very closely. We insist that they conserve the stock. Our stocks, by the way, are in excellent shape.

[ Page 8572 ]

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: So much for political rhetoric.

The track record of the former federal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Crosbie, speaks for itself in the fisheries on the eastern seaboard. So you can blame that individual. We have a new one that's following the same policies. The stakes are very high, and the issue is urgent in this province. What have you told the federal Minister of Fisheries about how to handle the fisheries on the British Columbia coast, before they end up in the same state as the fisheries on the east coast?

Hon. B. Barlee: We have told the minister to handle it very carefully.

CORRESPONDENCE ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Can he explain why it took his office a full nine months -- from October 15, 1992, until June 18, 1993 -- to reply to correspondence from a gentleman from Kamloops with a workers' compensation claim?

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member will be kind enough to give me the details of the situation, I will be happy to give him an answer.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that the minister knows what correspondence does and does not go out of his office. Can the minister then tell me why it took a full 12 months for me to get a reply to a letter of June 15, 1992, from his office concerning information he had promised me at that time?

The Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

G. Farrell-Collins: I presume that the very reason this House is sitting here today in mid-July is because of irresponsible management by the Minister of Labour. When individual workers with claims in this province write a letter to the Minister of Labour they should get a answer fast, not nine months later.

The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that there was no question in those comments. I would remind all hon. members about the rules for question period. The intent is to obtain information, not to give it.

ALCAN AND THE KEMANO REVIEW PROCESS

L. Fox: I have a question for the Premier. Given that Alcan has now made a commitment to be part of the Kemano review process, are the Premier and his government prepared to extend the length of that process to allow adequate time for the public to preview the massive amounts of information that Alcan will contribute to that review?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think we should leave that with the Utilities Commission inquiry that is sculpting out and talking with the parties about the range of the inquiry and the length of time.

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave of the House to table a letter of apology from the Hospital Employees' Union.

Hon. G. Clark tabled a letter of apology from the Hospital Employees' Union.

Hon. A. Hagen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights for the year July 1, 1991-June 30, 1992.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to table the 1992 annual report of the ombudsman. I would like to advise hon. members that the report will be available on audio-cassettes distributed to all members for their constituents.

Presenting Reports

B. Jones: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint an Information and Privacy Commissioner. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

B. Jones: I ask leave to move adoption of the report.

Leave granted.

B. Jones: It is certainly a great pleasure for me to move that the report of the special committee be adopted. I'd like to begin by thanking all members of the committee, representing all parties in this Legislature, for the unanimous recommendation. In fact, the difficult exercise that we went through was, I think, a model of cooperation among parties in this House.

[2:30]

I'd also like to thank the Clerk of Committees and his staff -- in particular, Adrienne Cossom -- for the tremendous support they gave to the committee since last December. I might note that the process we engaged in saved the taxpayers of this province some $70,000, the difference in cost between doing it in-house and doing it through a consulting firm.

The committee is certainly very pleased at the overwhelming response to our advertisement: some 222 applications from across British Columbia, across Canada and in fact Europe as well, with some very high-calibre applicants for this position. I would certainly like to express sincere appreciation to all those who expressed interest in this very important position in British Columbia.

[ Page 8573 ]

The committee work, involving some 22 meetings, was certainly onerous and demanding on committee members, but I think all members found this a most educational and satisfying process. We have selected a candidate to serve this Legislature in the very important position that was created on June 23, 1992, when we adopted the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The commissioner is, as I mentioned, an officer of the Legislature, like the ombudsman, the auditor general and the conflict-of-interest commissioner.

Like the ombudsman, whose annual report we have just seen, he will also report to this Legislature; however, unlike most officers of legislatures across the country in this particular area, the information and privacy commissioner will have the power to issue binding orders. The commissioner will hold office for a single six-year term. He will be paid a salary equivalent to that of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

And he will be responsible for monitoring how the act is administered to ensure that the purposes of increased accountability of public bodies and protection of personal privacy are achieved, as well as for reviewing decisions by public bodies in B.C.

It's with great pleasure today that I introduce to the Legislature the successful applicant, David Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty has over 20 years of experience with privacy protection and access to information as an academic, a teacher, an adviser, a consultant and a lobbyist. He is recognized internationally as an expert on privacy and data protection. Since completing his doctoral work at Columbia University, Mr.

Flaherty has studied various aspects of law as either a faculty member or a visiting scholar at the University of Virginia, Princeton University, Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School, and he has recently completed a one-year sabbatical during which he was a fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. He was also a visiting scholar of Georgetown National Law Center, a fellow of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, and a Fulbright scholar in law from Canada to the United States.

Mr. Flaherty has been a consultant and adviser to all of the privacy commissioners of Canada, the information and privacy commissioner of Ontario and la Commission d'acc�s � l'information de Qu�bec. He has written and published four books and edited two international bibliographies on privacy and data protection policy as well as numerous other publications. I know that British Columbians will be very well served by Mr. Flaherty as its first information and privacy commissioner. [Applause.]

The Speaker: The motion before you is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I believe we have a report from Committee A with regard to the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES

L. Fox: As is typical with this government, there's no organization or advance warning as to what the next agenda item is going to be. I'm actually quite surprised, but I shouldn't be. Day after day we see the same thing: the agenda is adjusted without any consultation at the last moment, and we are asked to contribute in a meaningful way. Sometimes it's extremely difficult.

We went through countless hours of debate on Municipal Affairs estimates. While most often there was a cordial exchange, what troubled me the most through that whole process was the lack of understanding by the minister himself. Certainly the bureaucrats have a good understanding of where the ministry is, but the minister himself has very little understanding of his ministry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the member just take a moment until the House comes to order. Please proceed, hon. member.

L. Fox: The key issue during the estimates was that the government should encourage growth in sectors of the province other than those that are enjoying growth at the present time. When the minister first made that observation available to me and to other members of the committee, I was encouraged that we were looking at economic development and taxation policies that would encourage growth outside the lower mainland area and the Okanagan. But in canvassing that subject further, I found that the minister's key ingredient for encouraging that development was to look at the infrastructure grant process.

I found that rather interesting, because in my experience, it seems to me that if you don't have growth in a region, there's no need for infrastructure. While there may be a point made for infrastructure encouraging development, along with those infrastructure policies, we also have to have economic and energy policies that reflect and encourage development in the regions of the province; taxation policies that allow for investors to make a return on their investments; and respect on the part of this government for the resource industries of this province, which is something we don't have right now.

The minister had a lack of understanding as to what kinds of needs had to be there in order to provide opportunities for other parts of the province. Geographically, probably 90 percent of the province is not enjoying the same growth as the southern parts of the province and the Okanagan. While I have some appreciation for the housing policies of the ministry and the attempts the ministry is making regarding its housing programs, I'm extremely disappointed that this minister does not understand the economic problems of municipalities in the rural parts of this province.

He is not prepared to take a leadership role at the cabinet table to make sure that policies are in place that would encourage economic growth in those rural areas.

[ Page 8574 ]

A. Cowie: I wish to say that we on the Liberal side were informed. I guess it shows that our House Leader is a little more organized.

I want to thank the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs for responding freely and, I believe, genuinely to questions during the estimates. This ministry is a very wide-ranging ministry, and it's my personal feeling that it could be contracted slightly. Some minor responsibilities such as electrical inspection could be given to the municipalities, which could make a profit on such a service. The ministry might want to think about that. From my own point of view, transportation planning could be transferred from Highways to Municipal Affairs.

We hear even more about a great need to combine land use and transportation planning in order to handle the growth that we have today. I hope that is something the government will think about in time. That was mentioned during the estimates.

Especially in the greater Vancouver, Okanagan and greater Victoria areas, we are witnessing unprecedented growth. There were a number of other issues that were referred to. We spent some time on the Islands Trust, which has recently issued a paper on the direction they are going in. There's certainly a need to rationalize that authority. The Islands Trust is right in the middle of the Georgia strait.

A recent report by the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy stated that the population in that area, down to Washington and up the valley of the greater Vancouver area, is going to double over the next 20 to 40 years. We have to get a grip on how the future of that area is going to go; we have to direct it. There's a requirement for a great deal of leadership, certainly on land use, air quality and pollution, which cross all boundaries.

Housing is another issue that we spent considerable time on. I have to commend the minister on the progress that he's making in that area by implementing some 17 recommendations of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options. I'm looking forward to the 30 more that are in the works. We're moving in that direction, and the minister is certainly being flexible and responding to the needs.

We looked at provincial grants for a while. I'm a little disappointed about some of the areas there, especially revenue-sharing. The municipalities are looking for more certainty on how they get money from the provincial government. More work has to be put into that area. The minister informed us during estimates that approximately 80 municipalities or local authorities are looking at restructuring. I'm looking forward to more rationalizations there. For instance, three regional districts in the lower mainland, apart from the Greater Vancouver Regional District, are looking at getting together. I see that as a very positive thing, and I'm looking forward to more information there.

As for reassessment of regional districts elsewhere, I believe that more energy will have to go into that, so we can achieve a better use of the funds expended on regional government. As the minister knows, that's something I feel quite deeply about. I'm looking forward to the next year, when we will progress further in Municipal Affairs, especially in the housing area. I await much progress.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Firstly, I'd like to thank my Liberal critic for his kind comments. Indeed, I think that the issues he raised were excellent. For the most part, he and I had an excellent dialogue, which I think speaks well for the process here. Due to the nature of the system, obviously there are some things we don't agree on. But I think there was a consensus on many areas he brought up, particularly on restructuring, regional planning, growth management and housing. I thank the member for his comments on the housing report. Indeed, we are moving ahead. The ministry is very active, and we think we have a very successful agenda to accommodate.

I'm disappointed that my colleague from the third party took the position he did in preparing for this discussion this afternoon. I think the standing orders are clear. The information is there in terms of when we bring forth reports. Be that as it may, I felt that the discussion I had with my critic from the Social Credit Party was, for the most part, good and informative, and good questions were asked. My style and my approach is that if information is required, we will give it.

[2:45]

In municipal government, and in Municipal Affairs in particular, we're all working in the interest of local government. At times there will obviously be political or partisan issues that we'll disagree on, but most of the time those of us who work in the municipal field or who come from the municipal field recognize that the issues faced by local government need the consensus of all of us in this House. I think that was imparted, to some degree, during the estimates in the Douglas Fir Room.

We talked at length about regional planning and growth management strategies. I indicated to my good colleagues that we are in the process of research; extensive consultation is about to begin, and we hope that in 1994 there will be legislation providing local government with more tools for growth management strategies. My good colleague the Liberal critic is interested in this topic, and has provided excellent ideas and suggestions for moving ahead on this agenda, which I appreciate.

We talked briefly about sport and recreation, which comes under my ministry, and the things we are doing there in terms of expanding opportunities, particularly at the community level. It is a part of my ministry that I have a lot of time for, in terms of young people and coaching and providing support for our excellent athletes while they go to school. We didn't get into the Commonwealth Games or the Canada Games, or the number of other multisport games that we participate in, which provide opportunities for British Columbians to participate and to actively seek a healthy lifestyle through sport and recreation.

We talked about the fire commissioner, and the support my ministry gives to the firefighting community. We also talked about the close to 30 percent increase that I have given it this year to support the Fire Academy, fulfilling a longstanding request by the

[ Page 8575 ]

firefighting community for more money for fire training.

We talked about revenue-sharing, and the concerns that local governments have for more grants and time, and the requirement that.... We have said to local government that we want to review the revenue-sharing system to make sure that it works for the future. We had a good discussion about that.

As I mentioned, we also talked about the Provincial Commission on Housing Options report and the housing matters that are before the province. I clearly stated that in terms of the political agenda, housing is a high priority for this government. We are moving ahead on a policy. B.C. Housing has been revamped, with a new board and a new executive director. We have a whole new system of allocating units, a streamlined process. We thank the member for mentioning that we have introduced 17 recommendations already and we are moving ahead on 30 more.

In the next week or two I will be announcing the appointment of a special advisory committee to the Ministry of Housing to get advice from all stakeholders for developing the policy in the next year.

In conclusion, I want to thank the men and women in my ministry who work diligently behind the scenes. They are loyal public servants who believe in the public service, work hard for it, serve long hours and are available when the minister requests it. We have had a very active year in my ministry. Many agendas have come forward, and long hours have been spent. Sometimes the system does get a little overloaded, but it is always responsive. I really want to pay special tribute to the staff in my ministry, who are always there and serving who we are serve: the public of British Columbia.

I thank my critics, I thank my staff and I thank the House for allowing me the honour of presenting my estimates this year.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I think that marks the first time the Minister of Municipal Affairs hasn't taken up his full allotment of time.

In any event, I call committee on Bill 51, the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act.

I also wish to advise all hon. members that Committee A will convene in the Douglas Fir Room to deliberate upon the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.

HEALTH CARE (CONSENT) AND CARE FACILITY (ADMISSION) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 51; J. Pullinger in the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 13, by deleting the proposed

section 13 and substituting the following:

Exception -- informed consent not required for preliminary examination

13. A health care provider may undertake triage or another kind of preliminary examination, treatment or diagnosis of an adult without complying with

section 6 if

(

a) the adult indicates that he or she wants to be provided with health care, or

(

b) in the absence of any indication by the adult, the adult's spouse, relative or friend indicates that he or she wants the adult to be provided with health care.]

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

section 14.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to

section 14 standing under my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 14,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (1)(

d) by deleting "subsections (4) and (7).", and substituting "subsections (4) to (7)," and

(

b) in the proposed subsections (2)(

a) and (5)(

a) by adding "or the decision about the adult's incapability" after "major health care".]

Amendment approved.

section 14 as amended.

L. Reid: I have a quick question about assessment. Under

section 14(2)(b), it says: "The health care provider must arrange for an assessment, in accordance with the regulations...." Very briefly, could the minister advise what that assessment may look like, and how it will follow under the regulations?

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. E. Cull: The details of that are still to be determined.

I'm going to make this comment now, because it will apply to many details that members may want as we move into this legislation. This act is part of companion legislation that is going forward dealing with adult guardianship. These four acts are intended to be implemented over a number of years, because many detailed steps will have to be sorted out once the legislation is brought into place.

With respect to the assessment, we're anticipating an interdisciplinary team would be responsible.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Sections 15 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[ Page 8576 ]

[SECTION 21, by deleting the proposed subsections (1) and (2) and substituting the following:

(1) If the adult rejects the facility care proposal, any one of the following who has reason to believe that the adult

(

a) needs and would benefit from admission to the care facility mentioned in the facility care proposal, and

(

b) is incapable of deciding to reject the proposal,

may arrange for a designated agency to assess whether the adult is incapable of making that decision:

(

c) a substitute decision maker, guardian or representative who is authorized to make decisions about the adult's personal care;

(

d) the adult's spouse;

(

e) a relative referred to in

section 22(2)(

b) to (e);

(

f) the adult's medical practitioner;

(

g) the Public Trustee, if no one else is available.]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: As I understand it, the amendment is supporting the B.C. Health Association and our concerns regarding (a), (

b) and (c). That's commendable. But one thing that should be observed at this time is the lack of time that such associations have had to consult on these particular issues and concerns. This minister and others are constantly standing up and talking about the consultation process. This amendment may not have been necessary had there been more consultation in the beginning. That's just an observation. I think it's commendable that the minister listened to those associations and clarified their concerns with this amendment.

Hon. E. Cull: I have to point out to all members in this House that this legislation, and the other three pieces under the Attorney General, have been under consultation for the last two years. In fact, all stakeholders have had extensive involvement in the concepts that led to the legislation -- and in earlier drafts of the legislation as well. While there may be times when members opposite can talk about inadequate consultation, this certainly isn't one of them.

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Section 22.

L. Reid: I have a brief question to the minister on the best-interest test under

section 22. The relative or substitute decision-maker has a duty to consult with relatives and friends and apply a best-interest test before making a decision. I understand that may fall under the regulation, but could you elaborate on what that may look like?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, the best-interest test looks first at what the individual's wishes are, should they be known, and then at what facility might suit them or whether a facility placement is in their best interest, having taken the wishes and desires of the individual into consideration to the extent possible.

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 25 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 25, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (b), by adding ", and" at the end of paragraph (

c) and by adding the following paragraph:

(

d) the necessity for the restraint is periodically reassessed in accordance with the regulations.]

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

L. Reid:

Section 29 refers to hearings; they must be in seven days. There seems to be some discussion, hon. minister, about whether or not that's a reasonable time frame for people who may be travelling from out of town. Has there been any discussion of whether some exceptions may be permitted?

Hon. E. Cull: The panels will be structured regionally, which should eliminate the need for people to have to make lengthy travel to, say, Vancouver. We'll be trying to take the panels to where the people are, as opposed to the other way around.

L. Fox: Just for some clarification, in this

section you suggest that a party is entitled to be represented by counsel or an agent. It's probably worthwhile asking if it's a good idea to have lawyers involved in what should be a family matter or a matter between close friends. What is the rationale for that?

Hon. E. Cull: The

section doesn't say that legal representation -- counsel or an agent -- must be there, but under administrative law they would be entitled to. There are elements of this legislation which have to reflect good administrative law practice. When someone is before a hearing like this, they would normally have the right to have someone there with them -- counsel or an agent.

[3:00]

Sections 29 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

L. Reid: This

section states that any person acting in good faith is protected from liability under this act, and that providers and operators can rely on reasonable evidence for the authority of a substitute decision-maker under this act. If there was a question of

[ Page 8577 ]

competence or liability, would the minister or this act allow someone to stand forward to represent that individual? Would legal counsel be a provision of this act?

Hon. E. Cull: Are you asking whether we would provide legal counsel, or are you asking whether legal counsel would be entitled to be there?

L. Reid: Both.

Hon. E. Cull: Certainly legal counsel would be entitled to be there. I'm not sure that we would provide legal counsel, as we don't as a policy provide legal counsel anyway, except through legal aid processes.

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

section 35.

L. Fox:

Section 35 suggests to me that there will be no offences under this act. I'm wondering if the minister has considered whether that isn't a bit of a paradox if a contravention of

section 25 respecting restraining people.... Given the rights of individuals with respect to that clause, is there any contradiction here between sections 35 and 25?

Hon. E. Cull: First of all, this is a very common clause in many of the acts we have been debating in this session -- or would debate in any session. The member should be aware that it's quite common to see this in legislation. Essentially, what

section 35 says is that contravention of the act or a regulation is not an offence under the Offence Act unless it is specifically stated to be an offence in this legislation. That means that it doesn't become a criminal issue; it becomes a matter of civil law. If the act is contravened, someone is entitled to a remedy under civil law, but it doesn't make it a criminal offence to do so.

Sections 35 to 40 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. E. Cull: This is the first bill I have taken through to the end of committee stage, so I'm a little rusty in my motions here, but I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 51, Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. E. Cull: I call committee on Bill 55, hon. Speaker.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 55; E. Barnes in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

L. Reid: In

section 4(2) we are talking about the council seeking ministerial approval, as before, for a decision not to allow a particular profession to be designated. Are there any applications before the council at the present time other than the ones we have considered in terms of briefing?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, there are a number of applications. I haven't received a report in at least eight weeks, so I couldn't be absolutely up to date on those that are there. When my staff member joins us I'm sure he'll be able to give a complete listing, but I don't have them at my fingertips -- I'm sorry.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 8, by deleting the proposed

section 15.1(2) and substituting the following:

(2) A college has the following objects:

(

a) to superintend the practice of the profession;

(

b) to govern registrants according to this Act, the regulations and the bylaws of the college;

(

c) to establish, monitor and enforce standards of education and qualifications for registration of registrants;

(

d) to establish, monitor and enforce standards of practice to enhance the quality of practice and reduce incompetent, impaired or unethical practice amongst registrants;

(

e) to establish and maintain a continuing competency program to promote high practice standards amongst registrants;

(

f) to establish, for a college designated under

section 12(2)(h), a patient relations program to seek to prevent professional misconduct of a sexual nature;

(

g) to establish, monitor and enforce standards of professional ethics amongst registrants;

(

h) to require registrants to provide to an individual access to the individual's health care records in appropriate circumstances;

(

i) to inform individuals of their rights under this Act, the regulations and the bylaws of the college and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

(

j) administer the affairs of the college and perform other duties through the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act, the regulations or the bylaws.]

L. Reid: If I may just seek clarification, subsection 2(

f) in the amendment refers to the establishment of a

[ Page 8578 ]

patient relations program to seek to prevent professional misconduct of a sexual nature. There has been a discussion in the press over the last number of days in terms of the College of Physicians and Surgeons not putting in place a complaints officer. Does this piece of legislation enable the minister to intervene to ensure that the public truly is protected? I know that a number of British Columbians are looking to this legislation to give them that assurance. Does it indeed do that, in your mind?

Hon. E. Cull: I don't believe it would provide exactly what the member is looking for. What this says is that a college must have a patient relations program to seek to prevent professional misconduct of a sexual nature. So essentially it says that they must have a program; it doesn't stipulate what the program should be or how the program should be carried out.

Unfortunately, the debate that has been taking place recently with respect to the College of Physicians and Surgeons refers to a recommendation from a task force that they struck, which reported about a year ago and recommended a separate complaints officer -- actually separate from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, to a considerable extent -- which the college has, for various reasons, chosen not to accept as part of the recommendations. This does not mean that they're not going to have complaints officers; they just haven't supported the recommendation from the "Crossing the Boundaries" report.

I don't believe this particular clause would have anything to say on that, because it just says that they must deal with the issue. How they deal with it is up to the college, and they will have to continue to deal with this particular one.

L. Reid: Is the hon. minister of the opinion that Bill 55 does further the public safety issue for British Columbians? It may not get us all the way down the road in terms of what I might like to see, or perhaps what you might like to see, but can British Columbians, particularly women, feel better about this piece of legislation than about previous college structures that may or may not have put in place something they could rely upon?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes. The reason for the amendments to the Health Professions Act, and also the ones that we are going to be debating next under the Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, is to make a number of changes to the rules that apply to the self-governing professions so that it is absolutely clear that these bodies are regulating in the public interest.

The major feature of the legislation to accomplish this is a change to specify the duties and objects of the college, to stipulate very clearly what it is that they are established to do, and to build in things such as the patient relations program that we've been discussing and other objectives that require them to regulate in the public interest. To use the example of doctors again, there will be an increase in the number of lay or non-college members, if you like. There will be other people besides doctors serving on the college board so that there can be representation from the general public.

Those particular changes will, I think, have quite an impact on clarifying the roles of the college and making abundantly clear our expectations as a government and as legislators with respect to these bodies.

Amendment approved.

section 8 as amended.

L. Reid:

Section 15.1(1) states: "It is the duty of a college at all times...(

b) to exercise its powers and discharge its responsibilities under all enactments in the public interest." Is it the position of the Minister of Health that the public interest is going to be determined by or will rest with the minister? If indeed that is the case, could she perhaps give us some parameters for that discussion today?

Hon. E. Cull: The definition of public interest has two applications with respect to this act. I'm not sure whether the member is asking about one or the other, or probably both. In one case, the Health Professions Council is required to make its decisions based on the public interest. Their decision to recommend the formation of a college or not has to be based on it being in the public interest. What is that? We worked very hard last year to establish the public interest criteria through regulations, which are there now to guide the council.

The other application of the term "public interest" would be in the direction that we're giving these colleges -- that they are supposed to be conducting their business in the public interest. There certainly may be some direction from the other set of public interest criteria that I spoke of a minute ago, which were developed under regulation, but I assume that we will also have to refine that and make it directly applicable to the business of the college.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 55, Health Professions Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

[3:15]

[ Page 8579 ]

HEALTH PROFESSIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 71; E. Barnes in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Reid: I begin debate this afternoon by suggesting that the number of this bill does not warm my heart, because I know that the Minister of Health and I were in extensive debate during last spring on a Bill 71.

Hon. E. Cull: Hopefully this will be much shorter.

L. Reid: This will definitely be shorter.

The intent of Bill 71, the Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, has the support of the opposition in terms of whether or not it is possible to create a relationship the public can have some confidence in and where they wish to be with respect to the very precious trust relationships referred to: the relationship between a teacher and student and between a physician and patient.

We have tremendous support for the introduction of laypeople on the council. I have a concern under

section 2, the duties of the college. I agree with where this legislation is headed in terms of public accountability. Would the minister be able to give us any indication this afternoon as to how she's going to scrutinize that level of accountability and whether or not we will be able to see that this legislation has made a difference in accountability to the public?

Hon. E. Cull: Coming up in another

section of the bill is a requirement that there be an annual report prepared by each college and given to the minister, which is a change over past practice. These colleges haven't been required to do that in the past. The provision of an annual report will certainly help in terms of accountability, and will give an indication to the minister of where there may need to be follow-up.

I think the other place where this will occur, though, is with the increase in the number of public members serving on the college. One of the things we will be doing is providing orientation to those new appointees, so that they have a clear understanding of what their duty and function is on the college board they will be sitting on. Probably the best route for accountability is to have people who are clearly there to represent only one interest, and that's the public interest.

L. Fox: In reviewing

section 2.1, the clause here is different from the clause in

section 15.1(2) of Bill 55. I'm just trying to compare the amendment.... It still appears to be inconsistent.

Section 15.1(2)(

i) states: "...to inform individuals of their rights under this Act, the regulations and the bylaws of the college and under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.... Is there no need to have the wording of those two consistent?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, if I might just take a minute here, I'll make another comment which I hope will have a general application throughout the remainder of this debate. This bill amends 15 separate statutes. While it makes essentially the same amendment to each statute, we had to go back to each statute and look at how it was originally structured and work with the structure that's there right now, because we weren't going to rewrite all the bills, and we certainly weren't going to collapse them all into an omnibus bill, as had been suggested by the royal commission.

We respected the fact that some of these statutes had particular significance for the bodies they were regulating. So we have tried to bring in the amendments within the structure that exists in each of those 15 acts. Naturally there will be some differences from one act to another, and there will be differences with the Health Professions Act, which has the standardized generic version, if you like, of the objects in it.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

As we go through each one of these.... We're looking at

section 2 right now, dealing with chiropractors. If we pulled out the Chiropractors Act and had a look at it, we would see that many of the things in here reflect what is already part and parcel of their legislation. That's why you'll see a difference from one to the next. I think you'll find, though, that the overall intent is consistent throughout.

L. Fox: Just for the record, the minister might answer a question. If there is a conflict between Bill 71 and Bill 55, which would be the key legislation? Would it be the legislation contained within Bill 71 or would it revert back to 55, which seems to be the main bill?

Hon. E. Cull: No conflict is possible in the legislation, with the exception of the one

section which we have yet to come to, which makes an amendment to the Health Professions Act. Professions are only regulated by one act. Chiropractors are regulated by the Chiropractors Act; they are not regulated by the Health Professions Act. When midwives are established as a college they will be governed by the Health Professions Act, not a separate act, because that is the procedure that we are moving into now with the health professions legislation that was brought in a couple of years ago. The Health Professions Act only applies to designated professions.

Other professions not designated under the Health Professions Act have their own legislation, and only that applies to them. They don't have the situation where more than one act applies to them.

L. Reid: I know I have shared my concerns with the minister in the past in terms of former patients. How do they have recourse? Does this new legislation provide any recourse for patients who have -- in their view and in the view of the courts at some time -- been mistreated by their practitioner, but the practitioner has since left the practice of their profession? Certainly the minister knows of the case I speak, Mr. John Evaniuk,

[ Page 8580 ]

who continues to receive no reasonable response. Does this piece of legislation allow him, as a former patient, to receive some compensation?

Hon. E. Cull: We have to be clear about the difference between the responsibilities of a college to protect the public and the use of the courts for redress. The role of the college is restricted to regulating who will be permitted to practise a profession, and under what circumstances. Thus the jurisdiction over former members is important for the public protection, because it provides a means to limit the entitlement of an unethical or incompetent practitioner to re-enter practice at a later date, except under circumstances deemed to be safe by the college.

So the role of the college is to regulate who can practise and under what conditions they can practise. It may go as far as removing the licence to practise from individuals should they be found to be incompetent or practising in an unethical way.

With respect to compensation and damages due to the irresponsibility of a practitioner, that still remains with the courts. That hasn't changed.

I will point out to the member, because we have discussed this matter on a number of occasions, that many of the health professions have already put in place jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against former members. So it's disciplinary action, which doesn't deal with the compensation issue, that the member mentions.

L. Reid: So, for clarification, there is no mandate for a college, whose mandate is to protect the public, to directly compensate someone for malpractice.

Hon. E. Cull: That is correct. The college itself is not liable for malpractice; the individual practitioner is, which is why they have malpractice insurance. One would have to sue that individual practitioner for compensation or damages.

L. Reid: To continue the discussion, if the patient at that point needs to go back and sue the individual practitioner.... In the case you and I speak of, that individual practitioner was licensed to practise by the college. He will say that he has no dollars to reimburse the individual. Even though the college licensed him, and its duty is to serve and protect the public, it has no liability. Is that my understanding at this point?

Hon. E. Cull: The only time liability would fall to the college would be if it was negligent in its role. If it failed to respond to a complaint or dealt with a complaint in a way that was negligent or somehow remiss, then the college would be liable. But if it is carrying on its responsibilities in good faith and acting appropriately in terms of hearing complaints and making decisions on them, then no, it would not be liable.

V. Anderson: Under (2)(g), "to establish, maintain and enforce standards of professional ethics," which is in each of the sections, would the minister like to comment on how she assumes that professional ethics are going to be arrived at? Are they different for each of the professions related here, or is there a similar kind of guideline or background for these professional ethics?

Hon. E. Cull: Part of the self-governing arrangement for all of these professions is that they develop their own codes of ethics. While there may be similarities between them -- in fact, I would think that we would probably see quite a bit of similarity if we were to get them all out and have a look at them -- they are up to each individual profession to determine.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

V. Anderson: As I understand

section 3, the eight members of the Board of Chiropractors are elected from among the chiropractors themselves, and the four who are not chiropractors are appointed by the minister. Does the minister have some selection guidelines for these members? Or are there characteristics or some indication of the kinds of characteristics that would be looked for in the appointed members? Will they be other medical people? Will they be lawyers? Will they be community people? What kind of expertise will they bring to the college board?

Hon. E. Cull: These individuals are to represent the public. Therefore they would not be targeted as members of any other particular profession, such as physicians or lawyers or what have you -- although there is no reason why such individuals would be ruled out from being there in a public role. We will be looking for people who have an interest in the profession and in public service, and who can represent a wide range of situations and individuals in our province.

So in some cases we will be looking for people who live in a larger centre, or in small towns or northern areas who might have a different view on how the profession is governing itself. That may not always be applicable. We might be looking for people of aboriginal background, for example, in some cases where that might be very useful. But generally we will be looking for people who have interest and integrity, and who can represent a sector of the public.

V. Anderson: Following up on that question, in what manner will these people be discovered? There are a lot of boards, so quite a few people will be needed in the representation. Will there be advertisements in the community asking for people who might be interested? What will be the process for finding the kind of people throughout the province who would be interested in serving and who could make a contribution? Will there be approaches to voluntary agencies? How will the reach-out be to these people, so that they will feel the community at large has adequate opportunity to suggest representation?

[3:30]

[ Page 8581 ]

Hon. E. Cull: The member is right that there will be quite a number of appointments possible with these changes. At this point, we haven't made any decisions about the process that would be used, but we make dozens -- probably hundreds -- of appointments to hospital boards on a rotating basis. I would think that we would probably draw on a similar process to the one that we use there, where we ask local people for advice or names, and to send us r�sum�s so we know something about the individuals, because we wouldn't always know about them.

We certainly would seek advice, as we do with hospitals, from the current board as to whether there are suggestions, but we would be going well beyond that. We would want to give a bit of thought to the process that we could use to generate names. The objective here is to come up with a large pool of people who we could potentially appoint to these bodies who would be as representative of the province as possible. I'm quite open to suggestions on how we might go about gathering those names beyond the channels that are currently known to us through the hospital board process.

Sections 3 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

L. Fox: Generally, from our discussions with the College of Dental Surgeons, they support this section. But I have one observation, which probably runs through sections 11 to 16. The reworked legislation that was passed in 1988 already contains many of the changes. Their main concern was that there is too much legislation to digest in such a hurry. The registrar of the college complained that the consultations were too brief -- in fact, "most of them were conducted over the phone." That's a direct quote. I just want to put that on the record. As well, the college sees some further administrative problems.

That being said, I have to come back to the question I asked at the very beginning. The minister is correct when she says it runs through each section, but in

section 11,

section 2.1(2)(i), we get back to that same statement. If it was necessary to make it mandatory that individuals be apprised of the bylaws of the college in Bill 55, why does it not run through each of these? I understand the minister said that this reflects what each act already has in place, but I just have to wonder why it was not necessary in each

section of this act.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm going to ask my staff person to check this. I didn't look for this particular

section earlier, but when I was asking similar questions about why something was in one place and not in another, when I went back and looked at the acts, I found that it was already in some of them. So I am assuming that this section, where it does not appear in this amendment, already appears in those newer acts that were amended most recently. But we can check that for you, because that should be there.

With respect to the College of Dental Surgeons, I'm sorry that they don't feel they had sufficient time to discuss it. In addition to telephone calls, there were facsimile copies submitted to them of what we were talking about so that they could see things in hard copy. There were lengthy discussions with the college's lawyers as well. So we felt that we had a good opportunity to discuss them with them.

From second reading debate on this bill, you will also recall that it was and is my intention this fall -- as a result of the passage of Bill 55, which will allow us to expand the Health Professions Council -- to ask the Health Professions Council to review all legislation pertaining to the individual statutes and make comprehensive amendments. Because of a number of situations that have come up in the last year, particularly in the last number of months, it was felt that it was important to get on with making these amendments now, and that we could not afford to wait for another year with some of them.

In fact, in some cases the colleges themselves have been asking for these changes to be made so that they could get on with protecting the public interest in a way that they felt would be more effective.

I should introduce my staff person. This is Alan Moyes from our policy and legislation planning unit. He points out to me that it is in all of the amendments; it's just not always itemized. It moves around from statute to statute, depending on other changes that reflect the structure of the act that we're amending.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

L. Fox: In

section 15,

section 39.4 is being repealed and replaced. This

section states that a person who makes a seizure with a court order must report that the seizure has been made to the same judge who issued the order, unless not practical. The college believes that if this is going to go back to the same judge, it's going to be a waste of time.... Who decides if it's not practical?

Hon. E. Cull: This is a function of the court registrar, who has to

schedule chambers. If a matter is thought to be very urgent and the judge is not available, then another judge would be scheduled to hear it.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

section 17.

V. Anderson: I notice that they have designated emergency medical assistant as a profession. Perhaps the minister could explain the nature of the training or the designation by which an emergency medical assistant comes into being in order that this would then be regarded as a profession. What is the nature of the designation, and why particularly at this point is emergency medical assistant designated as a profession? Is this someone who has taken a college course? What is the indication of a profession in this clause?

Hon. E. Cull: This is a somewhat unusual

section in this act, in that there is an overlap with the

[ Page 8582 ]

Emergency Medical Assistants Licensing Board, which also has some responsibilities with respect to these particular individuals. All this does is designate an emergency medical assistant as somebody in the profession. The determination is through the licensing board itself -- and the Emergency Health Services Commission -- which licenses individuals under their regulations. I think this is somewhat confusing -- it's certainly a little bit confusing to me -- with respect to the dual roles. For that reason, very few amendments are made to this particular act, because more time needs to be given to sorting out the dual responsibilities between the act and the commission.

V. Anderson: Do I understand, then, that the licensing board you are referring to is separate from the Health Emergency Act? Or is it contained within and does it operate under that act?

Hon. E. Cull: No, both bodies are established under this act.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

L. Fox: The first question I have to ask the minister is: why do we see an amendment to the Health Professions Act in this particular bill when we just passed Bill 55, which amended that act? It seems to me that we see here a lack of organization in terms of how we are going to deal with the respective acts. On a day-to-day basis we seem to come up with ideas and changes that are required in the legislation. I would think that this particular

section would have been contained in Bill 55. I look forward to a comment from the minister on that.

Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct. There are two acts that make amendments to the Health Professions Act. They do, though, deal with slightly different objectives. I suppose that a decision could be made as to whether to put them in one or the other: to put them in the act that was amending it to primarily deal with expanding the Health Professions Council; or to put them into this bill, which deals with all the health professions. The simple fact is that after Bill 55 had been put together, we had further consultation. We are responding to that consultation with these amendments.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

section 22.

V. Anderson: I have a similar question to the one I asked previously. This concerns the definition of "the practice of a hearing aid dealer and consultant." Normally when you think of a hearing aid dealer, you think of a salesman, but there is much more required here. I am asking for the meaning of the

definitions, as they are included here, for both "hearing aid dealer" and "consultant." What standards and professional qualities are indicated by this act?

Hon. E. Cull: Again, this is somewhat similar to your last question. Maybe I can be a little clearer in the answer this time. Subsection (2)(

a) under

section 2.1 says that one of the objects of the college is: "to superintend the practice of the profession." That is described there as an object of the board. "Profession" is defined under

section 22 of this act to mean "the practice of a hearing aid dealer and consultant," simply so it's clear as to what is being referred to on the next page when we get to the word "profession."

[3:45]

The society representing hearing aid dealers presently has an application before the Health Professions Council to be designated as a separate health profession. So the legislation here and in the Health Professions Act will become applicable to them.

V. Anderson: I understand that you're right: they have an application in to be recognized as a profession and to have

an act. What kinds of standards or process do they put forward in order to do that?

Hon. E. Cull: They make an application to the Health Professions Council, which conducts a hearing and receives written submissions on the application. The Health Professions Council is guided by the public interest criteria that exist in regulation, which determines what criteria they must use to answer the question of whether or not the establishment of this group as a self-regulating health profession is in the public interest. That criteria, with a bit more embellishment than I've just given it right now, is used by the Health Professions Council to make their determination.

They hold the hearing and produce a report. You have seen some of those reports, because they have completed three, which I have publicly released. Those reports then come to me. I review them and take a recommendation to cabinet, which then makes the decision on whether or not to support the Health Professions Council. So it's a very straightforward process.

I could give you more information about it, if you wish. It's new. While the act was brought into place and passed in 1990, I believe the first hearings were held in 1992. So the council is just starting to get its procedures down. As the minister, I've been trying to standardize the procedures as much as possible from my end as soon as I receive the reports, so that we do the same thing with each health profession's application as it comes forward.

V. Anderson: Just to follow up on that, if I understand it properly, a process is now in place which was not there previously. A number of groups, such as the one we were just discussing, are now in a position to come forward. So many groups that were stymied before because of different

interpretations now have a channel through which to come forward and get consideration, and other groups that might object to

[ Page 8583 ]

them coming forward have an opportunity to be heard in those hearings as well.

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, that's the case. Mr. Moyes said at the very beginning of this debate that there are more than a dozen applications before the Health Professions Council. The opposition critic asked whether there were applications before them that haven't yet been released or heard. There are a dozen. I don't know exactly who they are, but certainly I'd be willing to share that with the member. It's public knowledge, once an application has been made. It's just a tracking procedure we're able to use to determine where they're at and what we're likely to hear about next.

From talking to the chair of the council, I know that they try to scrupulously follow the practice of dealing with the applications in the order they have been received. So they do them in the order of the filing of the application.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

section 24.

L. Fox: This

section deals with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Prior to drafting sections 24 to 28, I wonder if there was any consultation with the surgeons and physicians around the independent committee report called "Crossing the Boundaries," which I understand had some recommendations around the appointment of independent officers to investigate charges with regard to sexual issues.

Hon. E. Cull: As the member is aware, the College of Physicians and Surgeons just last week released its response to the "Crossing the Boundaries" report, so an official position was not available until last week. I received a copy of the report a few hours before it was publicly released, and that's the extent of the notice we had with respect to their final deliberation.

However, we did meet with them prior to the conclusion of their work on "Crossing the Boundaries" to gain an understanding of the direction they were going in, particularly to gain an understanding of what legislative support would need to be done by the province to be able to support the final recommendation. I also met with the co-chairs of the "Crossing the Boundaries" report so that I could understand the legislative implications coming from the report.

The timing of this legislation and the final report of the college have perhaps not been as good as we would have liked. It would have been better to have had their final report in our hands well in advance of the drafting of the legislation, which as you know was tabled prior to our receiving the report, and to then have been able to move on all of the things that they wanted. Unfortunately, we had no indication of how soon they would be able to complete their report, and we feared that we wouldn't get it until after the session had concluded. As I said earlier in my remarks, I think a number of the changes here are just too important to wait for the next session of the Legislature.

L. Fox: When I look at the Province of Sunday, July 11, and read that particular issue where the individual -- I don't want to name names, although obviously it's public -- was extremely concerned because the college would not hire an independent investigator to investigate the issues, it just seems to me that it might have been more important. Perhaps this particular

section could have been done in an independent way, because the

section as it is now reflects pretty much the existing act. There are not a lot of amendments. If we had held off, perhaps there might have been an opportunity to look after some of those concerns. That's just an observation. I don't really expect a response.

Hon. E. Cull: Nonetheless, I will offer one, because I think it's important. The "Crossing the Boundaries" report contains, I believe, something like 97 separate recommendations. The vast majority of those recommendations do not require legislation to put them into place; they are administrative. They have to be undertaken by the college, which struck the task force in the first place, and which I hope will listen to the good advice that the task force provided to them and perhaps reconsider some of the decisions they've made with respect to an independent complaints officer.

In any event, the establishment of a complaints officer or an independent complaints officer, or one complaints officer or 50 complaints officers -- however you do it procedurally or administratively -- is not something that's subject to legislation unless you're suggesting that we would actually legislate the "Crossing the Boundaries" report not only for the College of Physicians and Surgeons but for all professions right across the board.

While the sentiments that have been expressed around the college's decision are worthy of further investigation and discussion, I think the legislation enables the college to do what it needs to do and what the report recommended that it do. In fact, it makes it quite clear that we expect all colleges to have a program that deals with this. Prior to these amendments, there was no explicit requirement in legislation that professional colleges deal with this subject in this manner. What we're saying is: do it.

Certainly the administrative details may be different from one organization to another. We're saying that all colleges have to have them. Some colleges are very small in terms of the number of members they have, and they may find another procedure would work as well in terms of protecting the public interest.

I certainly wouldn't, without a great deal more discussion and thought, recommend that the "Crossing the Boundaries" report be applied without change to all of the health professions. Essentially, what we've done is to say: "Do one. Have a "Crossing the Boundaries" report if you need to have one in your profession. Put in place a system to deal with sexual misconduct." But with respect to the details, at this point we have left it up to the colleges to sort out how best to do that. I think that's perhaps the most appropriate way to approach it.

L. Reid: In concert with my colleague from Prince George-Omineca, the issue for me is confidence. Can

[ Page 8584 ]

the public have confidence in the bodies that exist? Hon. minister, I would suggest that if you or I were assaulted on the street, or even if we were assaulted in a medical facility of some sort, it wouldn't make any difference in terms of what college processes were in place. I believe you and I would still seek counsel from the sexual assault services and from the police. Is that your recommendation to British Columbia women -- that this is criminal activity and that it should not simply be shuffled off into the college structure if the colleges are not prepared to stand up and give the public some confidence surrounding these issues?

Hon. E. Cull: There are two issues here that we have to be careful not to confuse. There is the criminal issue around sexual assault, for which we have a system which you and I might fault in many places in terms of the legal system that's in place to protect women; but it is there. With continuing improvements, I think it will do a better job of protecting women in that regard and giving them redress should they find themselves in that situation.

What we're dealing with here is a question of ethical behaviour and whether a physician, first of all, has any implied permission from his or her peers to engage in sexual activity with patients. The "Crossing the Boundaries" report and the college's response make it absolutely clear that there are no circumstances in which a physician can be engaged in a sexual relationship with a patient that are considered to be ethical.

That is the point of what we're trying to do here: making sure that not only do the individual colleges have a statement about what is and isn't ethical with respect to this kind of behaviour between a practitioner and his or her patient, but also that there is a program to hear complaints. Because you're absolutely correct. What the "Crossing the Boundaries" report told us -- and I think what many of us already knew -- is that the public didn't have confidence that complaints of that nature were being heard by the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The task force was struck to try to determine the extent of the problem not only in terms of how many patients and physicians were engaged in this activity but also what women felt about the processes available to them. A great many shortcomings were pointed out to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Their report has now tried to address the vast majority of them. There are, though, some outstanding issues which I believe will continue to be a subject of debate for some time, because the college has not accepted all of the recommendations.

We are now reviewing those recommendations, including the ones that they have not accepted, to determine what further action needs to be taken, if any.

Sections 24 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

V. Anderson:

Section 33 says: "'practical nursing' means practising as a practical nurse."

Section 43 says: "'psychiatric nursing' means practise as a psychiatric nurse registered under this Act." I'm wondering why in one case it says "registered under this Act,"

whereas it doesn't indicate that designation with a practical nurse. That relates partly to the questions I was raising earlier.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm not sure that I have a particularly good answer for why there is that difference in terms of "registered under this Act." I think the intent of both sections is the same. Some of it may come up around concerns regarding exclusive use to title and how we describe the different types of nursing and different regulatory bodies that already exist, such as psychiatric nurses, licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, etc. But the intent of the

section is that they be read the same.

V. Anderson: I probably understand the intent, but it would be clearer for people if it was saying the same thing under

section 33, namely that it means practising as a practical nurse "registered under this act." If the minister is willing to just make that minor change, it would clarify that and avoid difficulty in the future.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm somewhat apprehensive about accepting that recommendation at this point. I'd have to go back and look at the act. I think there is a distinction between a practical nurse and a licensed practical nurse. Rather than make an amendment on the floor that we might live to regret, we'll take this under advisement.

[4:00]

V. Anderson: Could we step this down until it can be clarified? I appreciate the need to check it out. I agree that action shouldn't be taken until it is clarified.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm not sure if it's possible, but if we can put this

section to the very end of this committee stage, then perhaps in that time my staff can see whether in fact there is something in the existing legislation.

Section 33 stood down.

Sections 34 to 44 inclusive approved.

section 45.

V. Anderson: I am curious about the board of directors under

section 45. In nearly all other cases where the movements have been the same, the number of persons who are on the board and who are appointed by the minister have been indicated. This particular board seems to be unique: there are no designated numbers, either by the officers of the board or by the minister.

Hon. E. Cull: I said earlier that these amendments reflect the existing acts. In this case, there is no number specified in the act, so we go to the one-third rule as opposed to an absolute number.

[ Page 8585 ]

Sections 45 to 47 inclusive approved.

section 48.

V. Anderson: This has to do with Optometrists Act. I'm wondering why, instead of just being referred to as the "board" like other boards all the way through the act, the board in

section 48(1) is particularly referred to as the "board of examiners."

Hon. E. Cull: My answer is the same as last time: this is in the existing legislation and is the name of their board.

Sections 48 to 50 inclusive approved.

section 51.

V. Anderson: I notice this is the Physiotherapist Act, yet when we turn to

section 53, it is referred to as the "Council of Physiotherapist and Massage Practitioners." I'm wondering if both of those names should properly be in the act, or whether that's just another one of these differences.

Hon. E. Cull: It is indeed another one of these differences. The Physiotherapists Act covers massage practitioners as well; their name does not.

Sections 51 to 65 inclusive approved.

section 33.

Hon. E. Cull: The answer to the question that was asked by the member is again historical. The title "nurse" is reserved for three groups: registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses and licensed practical nurses. There are, however, a number of practical nurses who are not licensed but who have been brought in under new legislation. They have been grandfathered, if you like, to be able to continue in their profession without being one of these other three categories. That's why it doesn't make a reference to licence under the act, because then we wouldn't include those other people who have been recognized.

Section 33 approved.

Section 66 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 71, Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. E. Cull: I call committee on Bill 61, the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, 1993.

PHARMACISTS, PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND DRUG SCHEDULING ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 61; R. Kasper in the chair.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to

section 1 standing under my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 1,

(

a) in the proposed definition of "costs" by deleting "46, 49" and substituting "46, 47, 49",

(

b) in the proposed definition of "practitioner" by deleting "health care profession established by regulation under any enactment of the Province" and substituting "prescribed health care profession",

(

c) in the proposed definition of "prescription" by deleting "or supplementary practitioner", and

(

d) by deleting the definition "regulations".]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to

section 7 standing under my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 7, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting paragraph (

c) and substituting the following paragraph:

(

c) members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council who must not be registrants, former registrants, the equivalent in other jurisdictions of registrants or former registrants, owners of a pharmacy or directors of a corporation that owns a pharmacy.]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 through 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to

section 16 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 16,

(

a) by deleting "registrant" wherever it appears and substituting "pharmacist", and

(

b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "registrant's registration" and substituting "pharmacist's registration".]

Amendment approved.

[ Page 8586 ]

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 through 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

L. Fox: I want to get some clarification; I am trying to understand the situation. Many department store chains operate drug departments within their facilities. I am not sure whether a pharmacist has the controlling share or what the arrangements are, but I can't find any situation in this area where a department chain could continue to run a pharmacy under the direction of a pharmacist. I want to know whether that is contained within this, because it is my understanding that that option is there today. Would the minister like to clarify that?

[4:15]

Hon. E. Cull: With the corporations and the large chains, my understanding is that they set up a small corporation for the pharmacy with a pharmacist in a position to comply with the act.

L. Fox: I will accept that there is no change to the present practice contained within this legislation. Is that correct? Is that what the minister is suggesting? If so, I accept that there is no change in this legislation from what is presently in place.

Hon. E. Cull: That is the case.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

L. Reid:

Section 26 deals with change of management to ownership. I want to pay particular attention to subsection (3): "In the case of a sole proprietorship, if the owner of a pharmacy dies, the personal representatives or trustees of the sole proprietor's estate may continue to operate the pharmacy subject to any terms the council may impose for a period of not more than 5 years...." A question was posed to the minister in second reading debate, and I would pose the question again: is there an ability to have an exception to that five-year period?

A number of families of pharmacists believe that they would be unnecessarily penalized if they were forced to sell the family business within a period of five years. It may be that five years is not in the best interest of that company or that the market at that time is not supportive of getting the best price for that business. And this is about regulating the sale of a business. Are there opportunities for exceptions to be made, or is five years an item that will stand in stone?

Hon. E. Cull: The college believes, as does the government, that the public interest is best protected by having a pharmacist in control of the pharmacy operation, so that there isn't any potential for conflict between good professional practice and counselling and dealing with patients on pharmaceutical matters and the profit-making motives that might be there -- and probably are there -- in the case of just the business owner.

With respect to the concern that the member is raising, which is obviously a compassionate one, about what happens if a pharmacist dies and the spouse is left owning the pharmacy, and whether the five years is reasonable, I think the five years is quite a reasonable period of time to make whatever changes need to be made. In any event, although the form of ownership has to change within the five years, it doesn't mean that the survivor can no longer derive income from the pharmacy. For example, a corporation could be formed to take over the pharmacy, and the spouse could own the corporation and receive all of the profits from it.

In terms of whether a spouse who is left behind would suddenly be cut off after five years, the answer is no, but there is a requirement that certain changes be made to respect the act.

L. Fox: If a pharmacist decided to go into volunteer receivership and the bank worked it out so that the pharmacist would continue to manage the receivership, this clause appears to limit that to a six-month period, during which he wouldn't have time to work it back out of the receivership. My concern is that this would prevent a situation where the bank and the owner could collectively work in a receivership mode to bring it back out. Quite often they go into receivership because the pressure of the creditors is so great that the bank decides it's going to manage it, but the pharmacist could continue to operate it, signed by a trustee of the bank.

This clause would appear to limit what in my view is an opportunity for most other businesses. Has the minister given that any consideration?

Hon. E. Cull: The six months is the recommendation of the College of Pharmacists. We're really taking their advice as to what is a reasonable period of time to wind up the affairs in this circumstance and also protect the public interest. I suppose it could have been eight, ten or 12 months, but the recommendation with respect to time came from the pharmacists themselves.

L. Fox: I could understand this if the business were to be wound down, but it is possible to operate some receiverships and bring them out of the receivership classification. This clause prevents that, and that's my concern.

Hon. E. Cull: We're really into an area here that I don't feel totally confident about, and that's bankruptcy legislation and all of the things that would come about because of it. But I don't see that this clause actually prevents a pharmacist or trustee involved in a bankruptcy from doing what the member suggests. It just says that in the case of a bankruptcy, the pharmacy can operate for six months provided the pharmacy is under the bona fide management of the pharmacist. But if during that period of time a recovery plan has been started to be put into place, provided the requirement of the act is that there is a pharmacist in place, I don't

[ Page 8587 ]

see that what you are suggesting is prohibited from this at all.

L. Fox: I'm not a specialist in this either, but I do have considerable business experience. I can only suggest that while this particular clause doesn't prevent it, the six-month clause prevents it. If a business is indeed suffering, perhaps because of the economics of the community, and there is going to be any recovery, it may take a lot more than six months to go through the process. An individual, in consultation with his bank or creditors, should have that opportunity. They do in virtually any other business. They should have the same opportunity to work it out, in cooperation with their creditors.

This would force it, so if after six months you could not get out of the receivership classification, you would no longer have permission to prescribe drugs. That has to be a limitation on that pharmacist's rights.

Hon. E. Cull: It doesn't restrict the pharmacist; it restricts the trustee, with respect to operating beyond the bankruptcy, by six months.

L. Fox: If the scenario is being put forward as I am describing it, the pharmacist could in fact be the trustee. In many cases the bank will appoint the owner to be the trustee of the bankruptcy, if there is that kind of cooperation. That is the concern. So in actual fact you are limiting that pharmacist through this legislation.

Hon. E. Cull: I am afraid that since I am not an expert in bankruptcy matters and neither is the hon. member, we are going to have to trust that the pharmacists who advised us on this, who are also business people, are comfortable with this six-month time line, and we'll stay with it.

Sections 26 to 29 inclusive approved.

section 30.

L. Fox: This

section deals with generic drugs. It's not clear anywhere in this

section that the pharmacist has to indicate to the person receiving the prescription that they are in fact giving them a generic drug. Is that something that would be done by regulation or is that something that the minister deems is not necessary?

Hon. E. Cull: That is a practice standard that the college itself could require. As you will recall, one of the things that the colleges are required to do is set practice standards. In this case, this would perhaps be a candidate for such a standard, and it might already be in place in terms of pharmacists giving this kind of information to their patients. But I would expect that the college would deal with this under their own authority.

L. Fox: I have just one other concern with this, because I have had several people approach me on the generic drug issue. Under this act would an individual be obligated to take a generic drug over a regular prescribed drug? In other words, is that decision going to be made through the Ministry of Health and through this act to force that individual to use generic drugs? Or do they have the choice of the original drug?

Hon. E. Cull: Some provinces do require a mandatory substitution of a generic when it is equivalent to a brand-name drug. We don't do that here in British Columbia; this act doesn't do that. At this point we have no intention of bringing in such a regulation. I say "at this point" because as you know I do have a review team looking at Pharmacare, and I would not want to preclude them from bringing forward any recommendations that they may have for us.

In this case it is a pharmacist acting in his or her professional capability, which is one of the things I would like to encourage to the maximum extent possible; that pharmacists do become involved with the matters concerning their patients, that they consult with their patients, provide information on other drugs that may be possible, and work with doctors to ensure that we are providing them with the most effective formulation and the most effective drug in that case.

[4:30]

Our Pharmacare network will provide a computerized system so that all pharmacists will be able to call up your patient drug record. When we are able to implement the network, I expect that pharmacists, too, will be in a much better position to start advising patients when there are drugs that they shouldn't be taking at the same time, or drugs that are perhaps outdated that they have been on for a long time that they may want to reconsider or check about with their physicians. So in this case, yes, I would expect that if a patient wanted the brand-name drug and asked for it, a discussion would take place between the pharmacist and the patient, and a decision would be arrived at mutually.

L. Reid: Under

section 30, "Interchangeable drugs," subsection (2) reads: "If a practitioner has not made the indication described in subsection (1), a pharmacist may dispense an interchangeable drug provided its price to the purchaser does not exceed that of the prescribed drug." My question looks at an example of a very young child whose parent will know that they cannot take capsules for any reason, and wants to have, say, an antibiotic liquid prescribed. They arrive at the pharmacist's, the liquid is more expensive than the tablet, it is a weekend, it is an evening and they are not able to contact the physician.

In fact, this would not stand us well in terms of providing immediate care and treatment to very young children. Often, a liquid antibiotic is going to be much more expensive than a tablet form. Will there be some exception made to that? That is certainly the reality today.

Hon. E. Cull: What I think you are talking about here is the same drug in two different forms, whether it is in liquid or capsule or some other form. This

section doesn't deal with that at all. It just deals with whether you substitute another drug that is essentially the same, but not precisely the drug that was listed on the prescription. This would not apply in that case, in any

[ Page 8588 ]

event, but I think common sense would dictate that if a pharmacist has the choice of two formulations of the product and the parent says, "My child has difficulty with this formulation," then the other formulation would be made available. The parent could talk to the physician about that at the prescribing stage, too. But this just talks about -- and I wish I could readily think of two drugs by their chemical and generic names -- substituting generics for brand-name drugs, not the different formulations of a drug.

L. Reid: Hon. minister, I understand your point. But my point is that the case may arise where it is a different product: one is a tablet and one is a liquid. The only one that will be useful to the child is the liquid. This does touch on whether or not you can interchange a drug because of its actual formulation, so I believe it is a reasonable comment under this section. I'm only asking for clarification. If the two products were different brands, would the pharmacist be precluded from prescribing the liquid under this section?

Hon. E. Cull: No, because the

section says "may." It gives the pharmacist the ability to make a change, but it doesn't require the pharmacist to do so.

L. Reid: I don't wish to belabour this point, but it says: "...may dispense an interchangeable drug provided its price to the purchasers does not exceed that of the prescribed drug." My point initially was that a liquid is going to be more expensive. It does not fall under this

section -- i.e., provided it does not increase the cost. It would indeed increase the cost. Does the pharmacist still have the option to prescribe the more expensive product?

Hon. E. Cull: In the case that you've described, yes, because it wouldn't be the pharmacist who would be using his professional judgment to make the change; it would be at the request of the patient. So, yes, the

section that stipulates that it can't be more than the prescribed drug would not apply.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

L. Reid:

Section 31, "Terms of a prescription," says: "

(1) A registrant must not dispense a prescription drug or device in any manner or in a quantity that is not authorized in the prescription unless the change is permitted by subsection (2) or

section 30." Is it the intent of the minister under this

section to restrict professional judgment? My understanding of where this would flow next is that we would end up in a situation where there would be numerous bylaws dictating specific sections. Are we moving into the area of trying to restrict the professional judgment of a pharmacist?

Hon. E. Cull: Absolutely not.

Section 31 approved.

section 32.

L. Reid: The

section on misrepresentation says: "

(1) A registrant must not knowingly make a misleading or untruthful statement about a drug or device." My concern is whether or not this is going to restrict clinical practice in this province. My suggestion to you today is that yes, indeed it would. There are a number of instances in research in this province where clinical trials are employed, and clinical trials do use placebos. We certainly have an open-ended situation here today. I would hope to discuss in some detail an amendment that I propose to this section. It is the position of the opposition that we're not here to restrict research and development.

Indeed, we must look at whether or not qualified researchers and qualified practitioners should be able to engage in clinical research. Certainly this

section as it reads now, to my understanding, precludes that.

I move the following motion -- notice of which has been given to the table -- to amend

section 32 to add a new subsection (4): "Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2), nothing shall preclude the use of placebos by qualified researchers or practitioners in drug research or medical treatment protocols."

On the amendment.

Hon. E. Cull: Despite the fact that the chair of the college's legislative committee is very much involved in this type of drug research at the University of British Columbia and didn't see any problems with this

section -- and certainly it's not our intent to in any way thwart legitimate drug research -- we would be willing to have a look at a variation on this amendment, but with not quite that wording. There is one technical error in terms of the citing of the sections. If we just stand it down for a few minutes, we could probably draft something.

The Chair: Is it agreed by general consent that

section 32 be stood down?

Leave granted.

section 33.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 33, by deleting "presence" and substituting "presence on business premises".]

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

section 37.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[ Page 8589 ]

[SECTION 37, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "or other employee" and substituting ", a registrant who is not a pharmacist, or other employee".]

Amendment approved.

section 37 as amended.

L. Fox: I guess

section 37 deals with computerization aspects and record-keeping. The question here has to be: will it be a requirement for the pharmacist to purchase the hardware necessary to link into a central database? Is that the intent of this section? What might that demand be in terms of the pharmacist?

Hon. E. Cull: I don't believe the

section requires that, but the intent is that all pharmacists will be linked to the Pharmacare network, so they will have to have not only necessary hardware but also software. Indeed, we're working right now with various software manufacturers to develop the software that is necessary to link us all into the Pharmacare system. The intent of the network is that the benefits available under the Pharmacare program will be instantly available at the cash register or at the pharmacist's counter to the beneficiary.

For example, instead of having to save up your receipts until you have reached your deductible and then submitting them manually, on paper forms and all the rest, through the mail, there will actually be an electronic record of your account kept with Pharmacare. Once you've reached your deductible, you will start getting your benefits; and once you've reached your annual limit, you will get additional benefits, etc. That's the intent of it. We will expect all pharmacies to come on-line to that system.

In fact, when it's fully implemented, it would be very undesirable for pharmacies to not be part and parcel of it, because customers will prefer to have the quick benefits that would be available through a network system.

L. Fox: Given the history of payments by government, will this expedite payment to pharmacies for medicines under the Pharmacare program? As well as the other data that's collected, will those payments be made through this?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry, I don't have information about the payments here, and unfortunately we don't have the Pharmacare expert in the House with us today. It's really not part and parcel of the legislation; it's part of our program elsewhere. I'll make a note of it and ask John Greschner, head of our Pharmacare department, to drop you a line explaining it all.

Section 37 as amended approved.

Sections 38 to 42 inclusive approved.

section 43.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 43, in the proposed subsection (2)(b)(vii) by deleting "or mental condition" and substituting ", mental, financial or other condition".]

Amendment approved.

Section 43 as amended approved.

Sections 44 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

L. Fox: This

section allows the college to revoke the licence of a pharmacy or the registration of a pharmacist pending a hearing. That seems to me a fairly substantial action if there's any doubt. The hearing process could be some time away, and even if he's not guilty of any of it he is deemed to be guilty, and it appears to me that he loses his right to prescribe pending the hearing. Do I interpret that correctly?

[4:45]

Hon. E. Cull: This particular section, which applies to the licence of the pharmacy as opposed to the pharmacist, mirrors the changes that have been made to all of the health professions as part of the package of amendments that we have been discussing this afternoon. It deals with the very problem that people have been seeking to have addressed, whereby someone can have a complaint made about them and the process goes to a hearing, which may take months or a very long period of time, and in the meantime the practitioner continues to practise.

We believe that at some point the college or the body that has the responsibility for regulating a professional has to say that in their opinion they believe the situation to be so dangerous to the public interest that the person should not be allowed to continue to practise. That's the situation in front of us with respect to the College of Physicians and Surgeons which has been carried in the media over the last number of weeks.

Obviously a balance is required. You can't have a situation where every time a complaint is made, somebody loses their ability to make a living because their licence has been suspended while a hearing goes on. In other cases, justice is not served well if a person can go on practising when information is known about them that would lead any responsible person to conclude that the public may be at risk if that practice continues. That's the provision that occurs with a professional; there is a similar provision with respect to the operation of the pharmacy itself.

When the college receives a complaint starts the work to conduct a hearing, which may require the gathering of evidence, etc., and they become aware of information that is so concerning to them that in the opinion of the college the public safety would be at risk if that pharmacy continued to operate, then the college has to have the ability to take action in that situation, just as it would in the other situations I've described. There is recourse to the pharmacy owner, however, to appeal to the Supreme Court, which would give a very prompt hearing to such a claim because of the immediate

[ Page 8590 ]

concern about the loss of income and livelihood that would occur if someone's licence was suspended for any lengthy time.

L. Fox: I understand what the minister is saying. The college has the right to make the determination that it's in the best interests of the public to suspend a particular licence. My concern is that if I am a partner within a business -- perhaps the largest shareholder -- and there may be other shareholders involved, does this particular

section allow the college to suspend just that pharmacist and allow the pharmacy to continue to do business without that pharmacist? It's not clear to me, but it may be a lot clearer to the minister.

Hon. E. Cull: The college has the ability to deal with either the pharmacist or the pharmacy licence, whichever is applicable.

Sections 49 and 50 approved.

section 51.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 51, in the proposed subsection (6) by deleting "under subsection (6)" and substituting "under subsection (5)".]

Amendment approved.

Section 51 as amended approved.

section 52.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 52, in the proposed subsection (1)(

f) by deleting "or mental condition" and substituting ", mental, financial or other condition".]

Amendment approved.

Section 52 as amended approved.

Section 53 approved.

section 54.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. chair, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 54, by deleting "section 52" and substituting "section 51(7) or 52".]

Amendment approved.

Section 54 as amended approved.

Sections 55 to 57 inclusive approved.

section 58.

L. Fox: This

section places a mandatory obligation on a pharmacist or a practitioner to report a misconduct of a pharmacist. To date there are no cases where a physician has reported a misconduct. I'm wondering how the minister sees this particular

section being applied and how she sees it working. It would appear that it's putting an onus on an individual who is not covered under this act and is in fact covered under another act. I'm wondering how all that's going to work.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm not clear on the question that the member is asking. Is he asking how this act can require a practitioner who is not covered by this act to do something? Is that the concern, or is it what he's being asked to do in this case? I'm not sure what he has been asking me.

L. Fox: Let me clarify the question. This particular

section requires a practitioner to report a pharmacist should they know of excessive personal use of alcohol or drugs, or whatever may constitute a danger to the public. If the practitioner does not do that, given that they're not covered under this act, how is he going to be disciplined for failing to report what he knows about a pharmacist?

Hon. E. Cull: In the case of a doctor, it would be for the College of Physicians and Surgeons should it come to their attention that one of their members was aware of a situation that they did not report. Therefore it would fall under the standards of practice and ethical behaviour imposed on physicians to take whatever steps would be appropriate in that situation. The College of Pharmacists would not have any recourse over another practitioner.

L. Fox: I understand that the practitioner would in fact be disciplined under the previous act that we discussed and through the clause that the minister suggested, but I see no process here for a recommendation from this body to that other body, and I wonder what the mechanics are going to be. Are there perhaps going to be regulations to determine the process, or is it left up to the college to determine that? I would have thought there would be some mention under this legislation of an action that would be necessary to recommend a disciplinary action from this body to another college.

I have some difficulty understanding how that's going to work, because they are two independent structures. I see nothing here that suggests what the process is going to be or, for that matter, how much weight this college will have in influencing the other college as to what disciplinary action it should take. That's where I'm having difficulty.

Hon. E. Cull: I don't think it would be appropriate for one college to be recommending to another college disciplinary action or action that they should take. Each college has to be governed by its own legislation and bylaws and regulations and other things that apply to them. However, I would imagine that the College of Pharmacists, should they discover that a physician has been aware of an excessive personal use of alcohol, for example, and did not make any statement, could obviously make a complaint to the College of

[ Page 8591 ]

Physicians and Surgeons, which would be handled in the normal way of complaints.

Essentially, this

section is here to provide some moral obligation on the part of other professionals, who may be in contact with a registrant of the College of Pharmacists, to act on suspicions -- in this case, where someone suspects that a person might have these problems and could potentially be a danger. We're trying to create a moral situation here, and the practice of how it is actually policed will come about under the regulations and bylaws of each college.

L. Fox: Just one final point, and I don't want to belabour it. As I understand it, there has never been a situation where this circumstance has been before the medical profession or the pharmaceutical group. I would ask why there wasn't some specific mention of this in the other act. I know the minister mentioned the clause under which it would be considered, but it seemed to be fairly broad. It seems to me that there should have been something a little more specific in the previous act dealing with this requirement of the pharmacists and pharmacy operations in the drug scheduling act.

[5:00]

Hon. E. Cull: This bill is a complete rewrite of the legislation that applies to pharmacists and pharmacy operations. The other amendments, as I indicated in both my second reading and committee stage remarks, were a specific set of amendments put in place to address rather pressing matters that we felt couldn't wait for the full overhaul of the acts. When the other acts are done later this year by the Health Professions Council and there is a further review of them, these kinds of cross-linkages between this act, which has now been completely rewritten, and others which are still waiting to be completely rewritten, will be taken into consideration and addressed at that point.

Section 58 approved.

section 59.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 59, in the proposed subsection (2)(

j) by deleting "facilities" and substituting "facilities, care centres".]

Amendment approved.

Section 59 as amended approved.

Sections 60 to 62 inclusive approved.

section 63.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 63, by adding the following definition:

"regulation" means a regulation made under

section 69;.]

Amendment approved.

Section 63 as amended approved.

section 64.

H. De Jong: I would like some confirmation from the minister whether there is any change in the current practice where a veterinarian can supply a farmer with various types of drugs for illnesses of animals so that they can be treated quickly, which is quite often the case in emergency situations that arise from time to time.

Hon. E. Cull: No, I don't believe that that practice is at all affected by these changes.

H. De Jong: I'm not quite sure what the minister meant when she said: "I believe." This is a very important situation for the agriculture community, because if there would be some change, where the supply of medicine could not be made available to the farmer and the farmer had to call out a veterinarian every time application of those medicines was required, that would be a very costly procedure. Not only costly in terms of the veterinarian having to come out, but also very dangerous in terms of diseases such as milk fever and grass tetany, which need immediate attention. I want some confirmation from the minister that that in fact is not the case.

Hon. E. Cull: I said "I believe" because I stopped to read the

section again just to make sure that there wasn't something in there that the member had seen that I had missed. But this

section simply says that you can't "manufacture or sell medicated feeds or sell veterinary drugs" unless you have a valid licence. Basically, it says that to manufacture or sell them you have to have a licence, and you have to be governed by this act and a number of other things that are listed in this section. I don't think i