Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 6, Number 24

Part 2

[ Page 5849 ]

The House resumed at 6:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In this House, I call the continuation of committee stage on Bill 16.

The House in Committee on Bill 16; G. Brewin in the chair.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

(continued)

section 46.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move an amendment to

section 46 that's in the hands of the Clerk.

[SECTION 46(3), by deleting "section 41(3)" and substituting "Part 8".]

G. Plant: This is the amendment that changes words about the sixth line of

section 46(3). It changes the words "section 41(3)" to "part 8." Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I have no questions.

Amendment approved.

section 46 as amended.

G. Plant: Here we are dealing with the transitional provisions. These are important provisions in their impact on all police complaints that are in the old system, which is in place now and which is to be replaced by the provisions of the bill that is now before us.

I understand that one of the objectives of the new process is to expedite, shorten and make more efficient, as well as more fair and more transparent, the process of police complaints. That's a very good thing with respect to any complaints that are made after this act comes into force, but I think it's problematic for some complaints that are in the system now. The transitional process that is set out in

section 46 is pretty long and goes on for several pages.

For my purposes, the point that gives rise to my concern is

section 46(3) where we see that the guts of the transition, if you will, takes effect in this way: if there has been, in respect of an ongoing complaint, an inquiry requested, and if there has been a notice specifying the date and place for the inquiry, then if all of that is in place now or as of the day that this comes into force, then that complaint will be dealt with -- I think I'm right in saying this -- under the old procedure.

If, however, the ongoing complaint had not reached that point of proceedings -- that is, if it had not reached the point where an inquiry had been requested and a notice of the date and place of the inquiry had been provided by the tribunal -- then, generally speaking, I think the new regime applies. I think that it is so that the parties to a complaints process, which would otherwise continue under the old regime, have the opportunity to opt into the new regime, and that's reasonable enough.

I am more concerned about the prejudice that may be worked on some proceedings that are underway but have not yet reached the stage which is the triggering event to be grandfathered, if you will, under these transitional provisions. I am sure that what I'm saying here is not news to the Attorney General, because I doubt very much that I would have heard this concern if it hadn't already been expressed more directly to the person who is much more likely to be able to do something about it.

But I think there is a potential for unfairness here, because we're not simply replacing one pure process with another pure process. There are aspects of the new and old processes which are, I think, quite distinct. There's a burden-of-proof issue -- civil versus something else. There are issues around compellability and so on, and then there are these issues of . . . . In the early stages of the old process, you had the form 2; you had the form 3; you probably had an officer who made some statements that were without prejudice, hopefully.

And whether they will continue to be so if the rest of the thing happens under the new process is perhaps an open question. What we're talking about are situations where there may be procedural, jurisdictional arguments made. There may be arguments made by lawyers about whether or not someone's vested rights -- process rights -- are being interfered with. This could work not just apparent hardship but real hardship.

If I could complete the argument, as I understand it, we're not just talking about the fact that there is the prospect of some prejudice or hardship or change or something like that. There are apparently out there in the works some complaints that are quite serious, involving fairly serious allegations against police officers -- allegations that could well warrant dismissal. I think that police chiefs in some of these jurisdictions are concerned that if they get caught in some kind of jurisdictional trap or some argument about unfair process, they may lose the opportunity to ensure that particular officers who have done things that are wrong will have to pay the price.

So for all of those reasons, I think it's important that I bring to the attention of the Attorney General this issue -- the problem with these transition provisions -- and ask him why the grandfathering, if you will, can't be pushed back. I know that term is hopelessly politically incorrect now, but I'm sure the Attorney General understands what I mean when I use it. So there's the problem, and I leave it with the Attorney General to begin the discussion, if I may.

[6:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: When you change a process right in the middle of some matters that may be under investigation, there is no question that there is bound to be some discomfort, some sense of insecurity. There's no question that at the end of the day there may be arguments made by either the complainant or those that are the subject of the investigation that the new process is unfair. But there has to be a point of determination for the new process to take over.

Since the new process, particularly within the jurisdiction of the complaint commissioner and with all of the hearings, is quasi-judicial -- particularly, from that point on -- I believe that all of those steps would take into account fundamental principles of natural justice and the like.

But at the same time I just want the hon. member to know that there is the other side of this argument, as well. There are complaints that may be as old as four or five years where there hasn't been an inquiry date set or notice given of an inquiry, and that is in no one's interest -- not the individual

[ Page 5850 ]

police officer involved -- because there is this uncertainty that hangs over his or her head. So I take the hon. member's comments in the spirit he makes them: to make sure that we don't, in the process of bringing something new, do injustice to anyone that may have gone far in terms of being investigated under the old scheme. But I think the point of departure, the notice of inquiry date having been set, is the appropriate point of departure.

G. Plant: The minister began his defence of the approach taken here by talking about the kinds of things that are issues that arise for all public officials facing a period of transition from one set of rules to another. I understand the apprehension around all of that kind of thing. I think sometimes we can be fooled into regarding those concerns as being overly important, because all change causes some uncertainty and some apprehension. I'm prepared to acknowledge the existence of that, but that's not the reason for my concern here. So I would put those points to one side.

Then we get to the fact that there are cases in the system now that have been in that system too long -- four, five or maybe even six years. Of course, one of the reasons why the act is being changed is to fix those, not necessarily to fix cases that are currently in the system in a unilateral way, but rather to create a new process that will ensure that from this point forward, those delays don't occur.

In the context of the Human Rights Council, which the Attorney General knows well, we saw an experience where the time lines for processing complaints stretched out way too long. But that happened because of administrative issues and partly because of funding issues. That backlog is being dealt with in a way which, as I understand it, is more respectful of the process considerations that affect those claims than I think will be the case here.

It's not so much really the question of acknowledging that there will be discomfort. It's more a question of making absolutely sure that, by this change, we don't allow some people to escape the consequences of their wrongdoing. I acknowledge that every time there's change, there is discomfort and sometimes people get lost in the cracks in some ways. But this is too important an area, I think, for people to get lost in the cracks.

I don't think it would be a very good start at all, through an intent to restore public confidence in this new process, if in its early stages it operates in a way that allows people who, on the face of things, may have done some awfully bad things to essentially use the change in the rules as an opportunity to escape the consequences of their actions.

So I make the point again that we're not talking about here the discomfort or the uncertainty or the concerns that arise whenever there's change, and we're not talking about how we can redesign the system so that it works more fairly and more efficiently for all the people who enter it after the act comes into force. We're talking about those people who are caught in between those two stages and who may have not just simply an argument that will allow them to avoid the consequences of their actions but who may have an awfully good argument.

So again, I want to ask the Attorney General to consider this issue. There may be another way of looking at it. If there are cases out there which are fairly concrete instances where there's been a form 3 served and the penalty which is being sought is dismissal, then perhaps it would be more appropriate for at least those cases to be dealt with under the old legislation, even if the inquiry has not yet been requested or set down. That's another alternative which I ask the Attorney General to consider.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm quite confident that the system being enshrined in legislation in fact protects the respondent's rights more than ever before, because at the end of the day there is a right of hearing by a Provincial Court judge in an open court. If the member isn't satisfied with what happens . . . . I understand the hon. member's legitimate concerns. The hon. member is making an argument on the other side saying that one doesn't want to see a member or members of any force that may have made some mistakes go undisciplined or without any consequences. That may be a possibility in a case.

But I think at the end of the day, the process is fairly clear and open, and I'm not so certain whether the process in the past has been as fair or as just.

I have just been given statistics which indicate that over the last 20 years, out of 2,000 inquiries by police boards, only four inquiries have made any changes to the recommendations of chiefs of police. That is not to say that others should have made them. But if out of 2,000 cases over 20 years, there are only four inquiries that make any changes to the recommendations of the chiefs of police on a particular matter, then there is a very serious problem. If the inquiry has not been set, if the notice has not been given, I think it's important that we put that into this new stream and deal with those cases.

Section 46 as amended approved.

Sections 47 to 50 inclusive approved.

section 51.

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

[SECTION 51, in the proposed

section 3(1)(

c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, by deleting "for an officer of the Legislature, other than a financial, personnel or other record relating to the administration, operation or management support of the office of that officer of the Legislature;" and substituting "for, or is in the custody or control of, an officer of the Legislature and that relates to the exercise of that officer's functions under

an Act;".]

On the amendment.

G. Plant: Perhaps the Attorney General could explain the reason for this amendment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are simply making this provision consistent with Bill 23 that we just passed a few days ago in this Legislature -- the children's commissioner legislation. This FOI issue is being made consistent with that.

Amendment approved.

Section 51 as amended approved.

Sections 52 to 76 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

[ Page 5851 ]

[7:00]

The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.

Bill 16, Police Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Now, with leave.

Leave granted.

Bill 16, Police Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee stage on Bill 13.

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

The House in committee on Bill 13; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 1.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 1 that's on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 1, by deleting the proposed

section 1.]

section 1 as amended.

G. Plant: I thought that we were going to get rid of sections 1 and 2 of the act, and it seems to me that . . . . I don't know why I feel this inclination to allow it to happen in the proper way; I can't imagine that the favour would ever be returned. But it seems to me that the way to do that is in fact to allow the motion to pass, because . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, the explanation that may make sense is that it is out of order to move deletion of a section. So the procedure is to vote against the particular section. Is that clear to everyone? All right, then.

Section 1 negatived.

section 2.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to

section 2 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed

section 2.]

The Chair: The amendment has the effect of making the change that is required -- that is, to delete it.

Section 2 negatived.

The Chair: Sections 1 and 2 have now disappeared.

section 3.

G. Plant: I had a question, but in fact it will arise in respect of the next section.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

G. Plant:

Section 4 achieves the substantive goal of curing the problem that arose when the first commission was not appointed during the first session of the thirty-sixth parliament and now requires this commission to be appointed during the second session of the thirty-sixth parliament. I guess my question is to ask the Attorney General if he intends to do all that he can to in fact ensure that we will have a commission appointed during the second session of the thirty-sixth parliament, so that we can move forward to an examination of electoral boundaries and all of the things that flow from that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I will do whatever it takes to make sure that this is done, but the hon. member needs to understand the process.

The process is that the Speaker appoints a person pursuant to consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier. There is also a judge appointed, and then there's also . . . . Anyway, the process is outlined in the act. The Attorney General doesn't directly have anything to do with that process, except as a member of cabinet passing an order-in-council for the appointment. I can assure the hon. member that all of us are eager to make sure that this is done, that we do not let this deadline expire without the appointment of a commission.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.

Bill 13, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move committee stage of Bill 34.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

The House in committee on Bill 34; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 1.

R. Coleman: I'd like to move the amendment to

section 1 that stands in my name on the order paper.

[ Page 5852 ]

The Chair: Hon. member, I appreciate the amendment, but it is, regrettably, out of order, because it imposes an obligation on the Crown. As such, it should be initiated by a minister. So the amendment is now ruled out of order.

G. Plant: I'm curious to know, if I'm allowed to ask, how it is that raising the minimum fine imposes a financial burden on the Crown. The fine in question is in fact a fine that would be levied against people who commit the offence, which is the subject matter of the provision of the act. I'm just not sure how it is that . . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, I know you're aware that rulings from Chairs are not to be debated, but I'm happy to enlarge upon the explanation, and that is that a measure creating or increasing a tax or fine must be brought in by the minister.

Interjection.

The Chair: The ruling of the Chair is the ruling of the Chair. At this point, we're discussing

section 1 of the act.

R. Coleman: I'd just like to address this section, then, seeing as the amendment has failed, with regards to some comments and some questions to the minister.

In my comments on second reading debate, I outlined some concerns relative to penalties to a variety of participants with regards to high-speed chases. This is where this bill under this

section misses its mark; it misses its point. A fine by itself isn't going to be the deterrent that's necessary, particularly when most of the people . . . . I just did research, since the time I spoke in second reading debate, about the fact that most of the chases that we're dealing with are dealing with people who are underage. This is where the preponderance of the offences are taking place, and the penalty

section doesn't really seem to deal with that.

My first question to the minister is with regards to juvenile offenders who are involved in high-speed chases. Has any consideration been given -- either within this

section or within the regulations to this act -- to sanctions, penalties, a strong message to young people, some sort of an educational program that police can take into the schools and say, "Look, if you do this, this is going to be the result of your actions," other than just a monetary fine? Are they going to be able to give them the tools to start to deter these things and not just have some fine in place with regards to the offences?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a program underway in conjunction with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to educate the public, including the youth in particular. More importantly as a deterrent, first let me say with respect to this raising of the minimum fine, the maximum fine would be as is in the Offence Act, which I believe is now $2,000, if my memory serves me correctly. The court has the discretion to impose a fine higher than $500. If the court determines that the individual is guilty of the offence, $500 is simply the minimum fine. There is some comfort for those who want to see a higher deterrent that courts have that particular discretion.

[7:15]

In addition to that, my ministry is having discussions in concert with the police to determine if any harsher penalties can be imposed or legislated for joyriders, particularly. First, this would include taking away their ability to obtain a driver's licence for a long, long time -- and I mean a long, long time -- and second, if a joyrider had a licence, whether we should then take away that licence for a long time. That's being considered. There are other issues that are being considered. As I've indicated, the question of a dedicated auto theft squad is being looked at very seriously, and I'm hoping that we may be able to put that together within the next month, or month and a half.

I am cognizant of the concerns that the hon. member expressed. I said so during second reading debate. I take his comments very seriously, and I take the attempt that he has made to have this

section changed as an indication of his commitment and concern in this area, which I share.

R. Coleman: Thanks to the minister for giving me some time lines that you're prepared to work with -- you know, a month, month and a half or whatever the case may be -- in this regard. It's very important that the message be sent, and the message has to be sent strongly that the deterrent must be in the system. Hopefully we won't be chasing joyriders once we put into place the regulations that are going to outline the criteria for a high-speed chase. I don't think that we'll be entering into high-speed chases with joyriders, if that implementation takes place.

Obviously some of the guidelines that I would assume we're putting in place are going to restrict us from entering into chases just for the sake of entering into chases, and a joyride would more than likely be along those lines.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I take the hon. member's comments in the spirit they are made. I want to clarify one thing. I didn't mean that we would have our answer to the joyrider issue, in terms of penalties or the taking away of the licence or the right to have a licence, within a month and a half. I was talking about the auto theft squad, but others are under discussion, as well. Obviously we won't be able to do that in this sitting, if legislation is required. They would be for the next sitting.

R. Coleman: That's what I understood, but if I could add one thing . . . . As you go through that process, this is no time to be nice. This is people putting lives of other people at risk, and it's time for strict penalties with regards to people who want to commit those offences, and I'd like to see that strength.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Plant: I'm not sure if this was already answered, because I didn't hear what the minister said when he was talking about a month and a half as a time line. What is the status of the consultation process that is likely to lead to the new guidelines? How long will that process take? Could the minister explain what is involved in that process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I have indicated in the past, there is a Crown-police liaison committee, which is called a steering committee, that's working on the drafting of the guidelines. The work is already underway. They have set up a working group to actually draft the guidelines. It is now drafting the guidelines, and I understand that those guidelines are to be reported to the whole committee in September. I'm hoping that within the next few months we would have those guidelines in place. The work has been underway. It is a very comprehensive undertaking, as the hon. members realize.

There has to be that balance which allows discretion by the police to deal with issues of public safety and to not have

[ Page 5853 ]

to abandon police chases that they deem necessary in the interests of public safety; while on the other hand, they need to look at the interests of public safety in terms of injuries that might ensue. They have to balance those issues. I'm very cognizant of the fact that we do not want to tie the hands of the police force so that they can't do the job that has to be done; while at the same time, we want to make sure that we don't have unnecessary injuries. That diminishes the confidence of the public in the police, which we need to maintain.

G. Plant: Am I correct in my understanding that the Attorney General is of the view that the guidelines, which will become regulations under this section, will apply to all police forces within British Columbia -- that is, all those encompassed by the Police Act, as well as the RCMP?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.

Bill 34, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 15.

PHARMACISTS, PHARMACY

OPERATIONS AND DRUG SCHEDULING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

The House in committee on Bill 15; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 1.

S. Hawkins: As we discussed briefly yesterday when we were making statements on second reading, I think it is good, from some of the consultations that we've done, that the PharmaNet system be used to provide information to health care professionals and other health facilities for the purpose of allowing information to be shared, and to provide patients information in a way that will benefit them. One concern we do have is for confidentiality, and I think that is a very, very serious concern. I'd like to ask the minister what assurances she can give that this information will be used for the purposes of patient safety only.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's an excellent point. I absolutely agree that confidentiality is key here, that the system will only work when the confidential records of the patient are protected. We have a committee that has been struck to determine all of the confidentiality rules. The privacy and FOI commissioner's office is part of that committee, and we are doing everything to protect privacy.

I might just add that the record of privacy protection in association with the pharmacists has been exemplary, and it is upon that that we will build.

[7:30]

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister can tell me if this committee has been struck, who is sitting on the committee right now and what other persons from which health care professions she envisions sitting on this committee to establish these confidentiality guidelines or bylaws.

The Chair: Hon. member, we're on

section 1, so we are not into the issues about the council or the committee. I'm sorry, hon. minister. You may know more about that

section than I do.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think this is the

section that talks about privacy and disclosure, etc., so I think the questions -- if it's okay with you, Chair -- are appropriate.

The committee will consist of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., the College of Pharmacists, the ministry staff, the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner and the emergency room staff -- including physicians.

S. Hawkins: The reason I asked that is that in 1(3), it does talk about a council establishing a committee consisting of not more than ten persons. I wonder why that number was chosen, why ten . . . .

The Chair: That's

section 3. We're doing this

section by section. So we'll do

section 1, and then we'll pass it and move on.

S. Hawkins: Sorry. You're absolutely right. I'm reading it as a sub, but it's not; it's a different section. I'll let the hon. member for Matsqui take over for a bit now.

M. de Jong: I'll try to ask these questions under

section 1, and if they have application, the minister will tell me if that's the case. It could be under 1(3) or 1(4).

I received on my desk today the auditor general's report dealing with the collection of personal information by the Ministry of Health, which I understand is a separate matter. But they raise a couple of issues that I'm going to try to query the minister on, insofar as the issues they raise might apply, not necessarily the findings.

They talk about the office of the information and privacy commissioner, who talks about the need, through these information systems, to have in place "an automated audit trail" -- and I'm quoting from the report on page 14 -- "that will ensure that the information persons entrust to such public bodies will be used for legitimate purposes . . . . " I think the minister has the gist. I understand that this is a separate issue, but the need for an equally applicable audit trail . . . . Does she recognize that need? Is it in place with respect to this system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it is. Everybody who uses the system will leave what are called footprints that can be traced through audits. In fact, those footprints are in place with the pharmacists, and they will be expanded to include the other health care professionals who have access to the system.

M. de Jong: On page 21 of this auditor general's report, there is specific reference made, in a

section called practical privacy in computerized systems . . . . It talks about the ability to track who is accessing computer records. It refers to an assessment that was done of the Kelowna General Hospital. I

[ Page 5854 ]

have difficulty turning a computer on, let alone knowing how to track who was accessing or inputting information. Is that something that the minister is familiar with -- the model that apparently exists and receives good marks in this report? Is it something comparable to that which she is referring with respect to the accessing of pharmaceutical records?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, if I could answer the question in the context of what the system is, in terms of PharmaNet, in comparison to every other system that exists . . . . When we instituted PharmaNet over two years ago, we used the highest technology available for the protection of privacy. No system is infallible, but this system comes as close as is possible to protecting people's privacy through being able to audit abuse. It is a model that other jurisdictions are looking at.

I really would recommend it as being one that not only achieves the purpose of monitoring but achieves the highest quality of protection of privacy. To this date, we have not, as I understand it, had a complaint.

M. de Jong: This particular report dealing with the Ministry of Health spends a considerable amount of time dealing with access to and availability of social insurance numbers. I don't know to what extent SIN numbers are relevant with respect to the Pharmacare system. Maybe I'll just ask that question: in addition to any other log-in procedure, do SIN numbers play a component?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The identification number in this system is the personal health number which is on your CareCard; SINs are not used.

M. de Jong: That was my recollection the last time I got any medication, but I recall that when there was a difficulty accessing my personal health care number, the fallback was my SIN number. Is that standard procedure within the PharmaNet process?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I will certainly take that on notice. It's my understanding that it is the personal health number, but I will endeavour to get that answer for the member.

M. de Jong: My last point, then. I think the minister's response to this issue depends on what she finds insofar as her investigation of this, but the auditor general does express some concern about the manner in which ministry personnel are taught to deal with social insurance numbers. If in fact, through the PharmaNet process, that is a piece of information that is used on a semi-regular basis, my submission to the minister is that perhaps some of the recommendations made in this report would be equally applicable to the PharmaNet system.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Point well taken. I will make sure that the auditor general's report is made part of the committee on protecting privacy.

S. Hawkins: The minister also said, just a short while ago, that this was going to be implemented first in emergency departments. Is there a pilot project starting soon, and where? Which persons are going to get access to the system first?

Hon. J. MacPhail: When the legislation is passed, we'll actually be confirming where the pilot projects are. There's a great deal of interest. We'll probably start with about ten pilot projects. We're working with the various interested parties to determine where those pilot projects should be. The final decisions will be made after the legislation has passed.

The Chair: Hon. member, I'd like to point out that the last question was indeed on

section 4. Acts are done differently than estimates. I'd like to suggest that if we have finished with

section 1, we pass the other sections and move to the

section that is applicable for discussion.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

S. Hawkins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll try and stick to the sections.

This

section reads: " . . . a committee consisting of not more than 10 persons appointed . . . . " I wonder: why ten? I know that the minister mentioned some of the players that are going to be on this committee. I guess I just want to know why the number ten was chosen.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The significance of the number is just that it's the right number to include all of the parties that need to have input. It's no more significant than that. It's those that have been expressing a great deal of interest in working on this project and that also represent the consumer's point of view.

S. Hawkins: Will there be persons from around the province appointed to this committee? Will it be a provincial committee?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me answer in two ways. One is that it is a committee that represents provincial interests. If the member is asking whether representation from outside the large urban areas is on the committee, the answer to that is yes, but it is through the appointment of the various colleges. I'll actually take a look at it to make sure there is good representation from outside the large urban areas.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

S. Hawkins: I think this is the

section where we're concerned about the medical information on the PharmaNet system actually being used by the people it's designed to be used by.

First of all, I am familiar with the computer system at Kelowna General Hospital, and I believe Dr. Duane Zilm, who is the information specialist who runs computer services for that region, was in the House one day. The audit that the member for Matsqui mentioned that was done at Kelowna General is an excellent model. I'm not sure that all the computer systems around the province will actually line up in sync and use the system that Kelowna General does, but certainly the way they've set it up does leave the footprint that the minister is talking about.

They can check back to make sure that the people who have punched in are actually authorized to access those files. Hopefully, that's the way this will function.

[ Page 5855 ]

I will raise some concerns that were passed on to me to raise at this time. The one I mentioned yesterday was the situation where you get into a busy emergency room, somebody leaves their access code on a little piece of surgical tape on the computer screen, and it's there for everyone to read. So there could be a situation of unauthorized access, I guess, with someone punching in that code and getting into the system and not actually being the person that the code belongs to.

There was a suggestion that came from some pharmacy individuals that perhaps the system should actually go into the pharmacy system in the hospitals and be accessed by pharmacists, and the information could then be relayed to medical personnel in emergency. I don't know how that would work, because I don't think pharmacists work 24 hours like the emergency departments, so that makes it difficult, as well.

I understand in this

section that cabinet will be establishing the requirements, restrictions and conditions. I'm wondering if there is already a template for them. Is there something in place already that's going to be added on to, or is this something new that's going to be designed for this system now moving into the pilot projects?

[7:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the member means, in terms of protecting confidentiality, if there is something new. We will build on the successful confidentiality. But the member is quite right that when one moves this system into a larger organizational atmosphere, there have to be other issues taken into account. That is exactly what the committee is examining. There are issues such as the proper placement of the computer so that access is limited to the actual terminal. Also, the monitoring of access during . . . . The member is quite right: in most emergency wards it's 24-hour access.

But monitoring that from the point of view of observing who has access to it in a secured area is exactly the issue that the committee is grappling with and will be adding to the current template. These new provisions will be added.

The other important matter here is the assurances from the colleges. There are oaths of confidentiality by which the professionals live and are, frankly, not only guided by but disciplined for as well. So there is a great deal of commitment from everybody that this system must work from a confidentiality point of view, or else the failure will be rained upon the heads of the professionals.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.

Bill 15, Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 20.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYERS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

(second reading continued)

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the remarks of the opposition on this, and I look forward to taking the concerns into account. At committee, we can certainly debate this at length. Is the opposition standing to address this bill, or . . . ?

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm sorry. I was making my closing remarks, so perhaps I'm a little bit early here. We had adjourned debate on this matter.

Deputy Speaker: Continuing debate on Bill 20, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: I was waiting with bated breath for the minister's opening remarks which, of course, we heard yesterday. How can I forget them.

As I look back on those remarks, the question that came to my mind at that point was: why are we debating this bill now? Why has this legislation come before this House at this point in time? Why is it necessary? What ills or errors or problems is it designed to correct or prevent?

The minister, in her remarks -- and in the past, actually, before this bill was ever tabled -- has spoken on occasion about contracts that provide severance clauses and severance provisions that she has said, and members of her government have said, are unfair. Yet we have seen and we are confronted by a whole litany of examples of these severance pay-outs that seem to go on and on. So when I ask myself why we are debating this legislation now, the answer I am compelled to come up with is that the government at last can take it no longer.

They have resisted the need for as long as they could, but the public's reaction to some of these pay-outs has become so overwhelming -- the public expression of disgust, of contempt for what they see as unfair severance pay-outs -- that it has at last registered at home with the government, and they are responding.

I think it does bear referring back and thinking back on what some of those pay-outs were. In her remarks the minister alluded to the fact that there have been what she termed unconscionable pay-outs that she says she disagrees with, but she glossed over the actual amounts and actual examples fairly quickly. I think it is worth reviewing in this debate with respect to this bill what some of those pay-outs were.

In November of last year, Ron Mulchey, the former CEO at St. Paul's Hospital, received half a million dollars. At the time, the minister was quoted as saying that she was upset by that pay-out. "That it was totally inappropriate," I think the were the words that she used -- she doesn't support settlements like that. Yet it was by no means the only one, and it was by no means the first time that she had made those remarks.

When she left in April 1996, Connie Munro, the WCB appeals commissioner, was given a severance pay-out of $313,000. At that time the Premier said that he thought the contract provisions were unacceptable. He said that the contract had had lots of public scrutiny and the government had

[ Page 5856 ]

said consistently that it was not an acceptable contract. Except it went ahead. The severance provisions were enforced, and Ms. Munro received that $313,000. At that time, April 1996, the Premier emphasized this -- the take-charge kind of guy that he is -- "What we've been doing is ensuring that this kind of contract never happens again." Of course, as we now know, it happened again. It happened again a number of times.

You can go back even further. You can go back to April 1995, when six WCB officials received a severance pay-out of $1.5 million. The present Deputy Premier -- he wasn't Deputy Premier then -- was minister responsible at the time. His comment was: "The board is finally acting on my request to clean those things up." That was the assurance he gave to the people of British Columbia that this wouldn't happen again. That was April 1995, and of course, we've just seen what happened in April 1996 when Ms. Munro left with her $313,000 jingling in her pocket.

You can go to B.C. Hydro. Ray Hunt -- the president, the chief operating officer -- received $912,000 in his severance buyout, which doesn't compare with Mark Eliesen's severance pay-out. Now, you've got to be careful here, because what it was, in fact, was a guaranteed pension of $1.2 million. What's interesting is that the Premier's communications director of the day -- and this was in 1994, when he was the minister responsible -- made a point of saying that Mr. Eliesen's severance is zero, so there has been a definite change of policy.

The assurance that the Premier -- the minister responsible in those days -- gave to British Columbians when Mr. Eliesen signed his contract was that severance would be zero. Well, in fact, we now know that what Mr. Eliesen received was a $1.2 million guaranteed pension.

William Dartnell, Ridge Meadows Hospital Association president and CEO, received two years' salary plus benefits -- $250,000. In September 1994 the NDP member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows described that as being a disgusting amount of money. "Disgusting," he said, and I think he assured his constituents -- assured British Columbians -- that that kind of severance buyout would never be permitted to happen again. How many times have we heard that: "disgusting, unacceptable, unconscionable"; "It will never happen again"; "We fixed it"? We've been hearing it for going on four years now, yet it continues.

Gordon Austin, Health Labour Relations Association -- $525,000. This was in May 1996. The Premier said that he opposed any severance pay-out to Austin. "That's my position," he said. "Absolutely no money will be paid by taxpayers." Over half a million dollars of taxpayers' money were part of that severance buyout.

When you ask yourself to what extent the government has truly been committed to correcting a problem that has apparently been of concern to them for over four years -- certainly it has been of concern to British Columbians -- you wonder what has taken so long. You wonder how many millions of dollars it takes to get this government's attention.

There is the example of Inge Schamborzki, CEO of the North Shore health board. She received, I am advised, a 12-month severance package for two years' worth of work at the North Shore health board. It's like a two-for-one deal.

You ask yourself why it has taken so long for this government to respond to a situation that, quite frankly, the average British Columbian finds disgusting, has difficulty reconciling with the circumstances of their own existence. They don't get 12 months' severance for two years' work -- nothing like it. They ask themselves: "Why are these public officials, who rely on public tax dollars, getting that kind of money?" In Ms. Schamborzki's case, that was May 1997. That was this year.

From the perspective of this opposition and the public, the money has continued to roll out of the end of the truck, with very little justification, with very little rhyme or reason. For the minister and members of her government to stand here today and say, "Look, we're responding," really represents something of an attempt to hide the fact that they've done nothing for at least four years while this has been a problem.

Worse than doing nothing, they themselves have entered into agreements, have themselves entered into contracts and countenanced the signing of contracts that provide these very lucrative -- extravagant, I should say -- severance buyouts, and it's offensive. It's offensive to members of the opposition, but more importantly, it's offensive to the British Columbians who are left footing the bills for these severance buyouts.

[8:00]

We dealt earlier in the evening with another auditor general's report. There was one, of course, commissioned and released earlier this year dealing with severance practices, and I had an occasion to look at it. I note that the auditor general found "one in four pay-outs made by Crown corporations excessive." Those are his words -- 25 percent of the severance pay-outs made by Crown corporations in the province were found to be excessive. The auditor general continued:

"During the six-year period surveyed, ministries and Crown corporations paid approximately $13.7 million to 87 senior executives as compensation in lieu of notice.

"Within ministries, the average severance package for 43 terminated senior executives was $133,250, representing an average of 15 months of equivalent gross salary. Within Crown corporations" -- this is interesting -- "the average severance package for 44 terminated senior executives was $180,258, an average of 16.3 months of equivalent gross salary and benefits."

The question you have to ask yourself is: what has taken the government so long? -- unless there's a hidden purpose here, unless the government, by virtue of who was receiving these moneys, was content to allow the practice to continue.

Certainly, in the case of some of the officials I've mentioned -- Ms. Munro, Mr. Eliesen -- you have to ask yourself . . . . Maybe the government was not as offended as the minister now purports to be by the amounts of money that were paid to these individuals. Does it have something to do with these individuals' political pedigree? It's not an unfair question for British Columbians to ask, when it appears that friends of the government of the day -- the NDP government -- are readily accessing public funds and collecting unconscionably huge severance buyouts.

In his report the auditor general speaks to the issue of what should be done when senior employees, senior executives, leave the government, receive these huge buyouts and then are back on the public payroll in one form or another.

It's probably understating the case in the extreme to say that if there's one component of this whole issue that the public finds particularly offensive, it is when an individual receives $300,000, $400,000 or half a million dollars as a severance buyout when they leave one public position and within a matter of months land on their feet and begin receiving a taxpayer-supported salary for doing another job within the public sector, be it in government or in a Crown agency.

[ Page 5857 ]

I want to refer to what the auditor general said in his report. This is on page 10:

"Public interest in severance packages for senior executives has frequently been roused by reports of 'double-dipping'. This is a situation in which a terminated employee, after having received a termination package, gains other employment within any government sector during the period of time on which the severance settlement was calculated, effectively drawing two salaries in that time."

The auditor general continues: " . . . we are concerned that where lump sum payments are made, government's ability to recover severances paid to an individual is difficult."

That circumstance -- that situation -- has existed at least since this government took power, and, in fact, well before this NDP government came to power. It's taken to this point -- to this date, July 16, 1997 -- for us to begin debating legislation that would put a stop to this practice.

I have to ask myself: why was the government dragging its feet? Why was the government reluctant to bring this legislation before the House sooner? -- except, perhaps, that they weren't nearly as upset by the way some of these severance pay-outs were operating to the benefit of particular individuals.

During the course of debate on what is really a short bill -- it's only a three-section bill -- we will have some questions about the manner in which the bill is crafted. For example, I note that the bill suggests, with permissive language, that PSEC may establish employment termination standards. I'm a bit confused by that kind of approach, that kind of language.

I would have thought that the language would have been mandatory, would have been directive, would have been crafted in a way to ensure that those directives would be established and would have removed any sort of discretionary authority from the agency responsible. That's an area of concern, and one that we will be canvassing with the minister. I signal that to her now.

In establishing those standards, I think it is noteworthy that although the auditor general speaks in his report of the need to incorporate common-law standards that are well known -- or certainly well established; they're not particularly well known unless one is engaged in the practice of employment standards law -- there certainly is a body of law that exists that is there to help determine what appropriate severance pay-outs would be. This legislation does nothing to ensure that it will be on those common-law principles that the standards will be based.

It leaves that broad discretionary power in the hands of a few individuals, with no guarantee to the public that appropriate standards will be in place. I'm not sure that after the passage of this bill, based on that single provision, we're going to be in any better position to ensure that these exorbitant severance buyouts don't take place, that contracts which enshrine severance provisions that the average person would find unacceptable aren't still signed -- unless there is something compelling the agency responsible to incorporate those common-law standards into their regulatory scheme.

The provisions of this bill that deal with repayment -- or what you might call double-dipping, where an employee has been terminated, has received a severance buyout and then lands back on the public payroll -- the monitoring provisions, I think, are weak. They don't provide the kind of assurance that I think the public is looking for to ensure that where that has taken place, the Crown will be in a position to reclaim the money that has been paid out.

Until that assurance exists and is enshrined legislatively and that mechanism exists legislatively, I think, once again, the bill will fail to accomplish what the minister says it is designed to accomplish, its primary objective. That, again, is something that we will need to explore through the committee stage of this bill. Otherwise, it becomes ultimately a very hollow document and falls far short of the expectations of the average British Columbian.

Finally, let me say and highlight that in his report, the auditor general suggested that there should be full disclosure of all severance arrangements in all sectors as a common practice. That is not something that exists now at the Crown corporation level. I don't think this bill provides for it. The minister may suggest differently, but I don't think that the recommendations of the auditor general, insofar as he was calling for full disclosure from all agencies with respect to severance arrangements . . . . I don't think this bill provides for that in the way envisaged by the auditor general. To that extent also, I think it is deficient.

So those are at least four areas that we will need to canvass in more detail as we move through the committee stage of this bill. But I think it is worth emphasizing again at this stage of the debate that it has taken a very long time for this government to move on something it purported to be offended by. We heard more words and saw very little in the way of deeds until this point, when I think the pressure from the public became too much even for this government to bear.

Though we are content to see the legislation come forward now, I don't think this is a moment for the government to be pounding its chest, saying: "We have responded." They have responded in a way, but it has taken a mighty long time, and a great deal in the way of public resources has been paid out -- public severance moneys have been paid out, taxpayer money. A lot of people have received a lot of money that the public questions their entitlement to.

J. Weisgerber: I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to this legislation. I rise to speak in support of the legislation, but I rise also to voice some serious concerns over the lack of detail that exists in the legislation.

The problem of excessive pay-outs for senior public servants, for order-in-council appointments, has been with us for a number of years now. I won't pretend that it first appeared with the election of the current government. But certainly, the frequency and the size of the settlements appears to have grown rather dramatically over the last five or six years. It was the rare exception that a severance became a public issue prior to 1991. It has now become commonplace.

As I look at the legislation, I can't help but say, yes indeed, it's legislation that's long overdue. But what in fact does the legislation set out to address? Will it provide the mechanism for a formula for severance? Will it be X number of years employment equals X number of years or months of severance pay? Will it simply define when an employee is entitled to severance, or will it be a combination dealing with the amount of severance that an employee is due and under what conditions?

It's very difficult for most British Columbians to rationalize an assistant deputy minister resigning their position, getting a severance package, and immediately taking employment with another government in another jurisdiction. No rational explanation for that kind of pay-out, that kind of termination, has ever been provided. I don't believe it exists in employment contracts with those senior public servants.

There may be contractual agreements with order-in-council appointments which this arrangement apparently will override. But I'm not sure what it's going to override. We're left to believe that there are going to be regulations brought in

[ Page 5858 ]

that are going to address all of the shortcomings, all of the difficulties that have been faced by government in dealing with senior employees over the last few years.

I have to ask myself about the principle of giving large pay-outs to employees who earn large salaries. It seems to me that the larger the salary, the longer the severance package is. Not only is the base amount much larger, but if you're earning $300,000 a year, you are entitled to perhaps a year or two years' severance for every year that you worked.

If you happen to be someone who works under employment standards, the formula is pretty finite. So somebody making $7 or $8 or $12 an hour finds themselves entitled to very, very short packages of severance. You've worked for a year, you're entitled to two weeks' pay; you've worked for five years, you may be entitled to five weeks' pay. You know that regardless of how long you've worked, you're going to be entitled to a maximum of about six months' pay. That's a principle that I've never been able to understand.

[8:15]

It would seem to me that if a person is making subsistence wages and they're terminated by their employer, perhaps they are the ones most needy of some severance to carry them through to the next job. It's difficult for me to understand someone who takes a job at Hydro as the chair or the president, leaves eight months later and is entitled to 24 months' pay in order to allow them to bridge to the next job, when they've been making a very handsome salary during that short period of time that they've enjoyed the position.

What I would like to see, and what I would have applauded the government for, is to say that in the absence of a contractual agreement, then the employment standards formula would apply to senior public servants. If there's no collective agreement, and if employment standards is good enough for the average British Columbian, then why isn't that same standard adequate for senior people appointed under order-in-council, or senior people within the bureaucracy who are no longer covered by a collective agreement? Why would you apply a different standard? I can't understand that.

I don't know why someone making $300,000 a year is entitled to a such a fundamentally different standard than someone earning $10 an hour.

I have the uncomfortable feeling that whatever regulations we see coming out of this legislation, they will not address that particular inequity in our society. If the Premier believes that we should treat people throughout society, throughout the workforce, fairly and equitably, perhaps that particular standard can be applied.

Again, I want to say that I think that legislation to control and to manage terminations and severances is important. I understand that over the last decade or so, governments have got away from putting any specific information into legislation. But I think that this bill brings that to a new art: this bill says absolutely nothing. This bill gives the reader no clue as to whether or not the intent is to constrain severances, whether it is to limit circumstances under which termination results in severance pay, or whether it is in fact to expand it, to enlarge it, to make the settlements greater.

All this says is that we have legislation which will supersede or override contractual agreements with particular employees, that we are going to establish termination standards for exempt employees, and that there is going to be, by regulation, the adoption of these standards. So while we are at a loss to get any sense of the specifics of this legislation at second reading stage, my fear is that we are going to be even less able to get information at committee stage, because the bill is so bereft of any specifics.

In closing, let me urge the government to consider the Employment Standards Act, to consider that they already have legislation which deals with those people who don't have collective agreements and find themselves working for private sector employers. That's legislation that this government has amended; it's legislation whose standards this government is apparently comfortable with. I say to the minister: apply the same standards to your senior bureaucrats and to your order-in-council appointments that you apply to those people in the lower-wage echelon who don't have the protection of a collective agreement.

If you do that, then I expect that not only I, but all British Columbians, will applaud your move into this area of legislation.

K. Whittred: I will speak with great enthusiasm in support of this particular bill. However, I share the concerns that have been expressed by my colleagues in terms of the lack of specifics surrounding the bill.

I think that there's no one in the province that is more appropriate to speak to this bill than someone from the North Shore. In the last year or two, there has been a revolving door with high-priced senior health workers moving in and out, the same people coming from one area to another.

I have to ask the same question that has already been asked, and that is: why has it taken this long for the government to get to the point of introducing a bill? It seems as though there wasn't an occasion to address this issue until public outrage absolutely forced it. If we can use the North Shore as an example, we find a situation where the senior health administrator had already received a substantial severance from another health district. She immediately accepts that severance and moves to the North Shore, where she is in another high-paying job.

When that took place, the administrator of the hospital was moved on and was paid a high severance. A year later, the hospital administrator -- a different one -- was once again let go with severance. It is no wonder the public looks at this and says: "Enough!"

I would like to share with you, hon. Speaker, and with the minister, a story about a nurse who phoned me the other day. This nurse had been nursing at a care facility, a residential home, for more than 20 years. She has lost her job. This particular nurse is the sole provider for her family. Her husband is disabled. Her children are in their twenties, so they are grown, but still somewhat dependent on the family. Her questions, I think, were quite topical. They were along these lines.

Why, after working at this institution for twenty-odd years as a charge nurse -- I believe that is the expression -- she is let go and gets something like six months of unemployment insurance, or whatever it is? A senior executive -- as my colleague from Peace River South so eloquently pointed out -- who makes a quarter of a million dollars would get a pay-out. I share the concerns of my colleague from Peace River South: it has never made any sense to me that the more money you make, the more money you get if you leave your job. It makes absolutely no sense.

The other thing that makes no sense to me is why people in these positions get campers or Jeeps. I cannot for the life of me see what a camper or a Jeep has to do with being either a health care executive or, in cases that I am familiar with, a school superintendent.

Now, I am not going to spend a lot of time repeating these issues, because they have already been addressed. I think that I have made my point. Like the speakers before me, I am very concerned about the lack of specifics in this bill. I'm not sure that they are going to address the concerns that have been raised. I'm going to be looking very carefully at the standards that are supposedly available to try to discover what kinds of regulations are going to be the outcome. Thank you.

[ Page 5859 ]

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join in this discussion of Bill 20. I'm going to keep my comments very brief. I think the colleagues on the official opposition side of the House have been very thorough in their comments, and I won't attempt to simply duplicate what they've had to say. This is a brief bill, and I'll keep my comments brief.

What the bill does, as has been noted, is provide statutory authority for the Public Sector Employers Council to establish employment termination standards. I think this is a very important step for the government to be undertaking. It's laudable, and it's long overdue. Hopefully, the consequence of the bill will be that in the years ahead we will see severance settlements that are reasonable to the taxpayer as well as fair to the severed individual. I think both sides of that coin are critical. We need to have settlements which are fair and reasonable.

I think it's regrettable, but I think it's also a fact that we have seen, through the life of the NDP government since 1991, a litany of very questionable settlements between the government and public bureaucrats.

The member for Matsqui has very thoroughly discussed this litany of questionable settlements, and I don't propose to duplicate that. But I do want to note just a couple of the ones that are most prominent, at least in my mind -- for example, the $313,000 settlement with Connie Munro, the WCB appeals commissioner. The Premier, for example, is quoted as saying: "I think the contract provisions are unacceptable.

I think the contract has had lots of public scrutiny, and the government has said consistently that it is not an acceptable contract." The same day, April 6, 1996, the Premier again notes with respect to Connie Munro: " . . . what we've been doing is ensuring that this kind of contract never happens again." Regrettably, it did happen again, and it happened again on numerous occasions. Hopefully, with this bill we are moving to an era where we do not see this kind of unacceptable settlement again.

The second example I'd offer at this point is that of Gordon Austin of the Health Labour Relations Association, of $525,000. Again, we have a quote from a newspaper: "The Premier said on Monday he opposes any severance payment to Austin: 'That's my position. Absolutely no money will be paid by taxpayers.' " So we have from no less an authority than the Premier, obviously, ample evidence that there have been numerous, unacceptable severances over time between this NDP government and some employees in the public sector. Hopefully, this bill will go some measure to resolving that.

We've also seen, particularly since the recent botched attempt at regionalization by the NDP, a real flurry of severance settlements within the health care bureaucracy. I believe the total is near $3 million in settlements to date that were occasioned by people departing for, among other reasons . . . .

[8:30]

Interjections.

G. Abbott: We don't know? Among other reasons, the departures resulted from regionalization. In looking down the list, perhaps some of these settlements are reasonable, particularly given the turmoil that was occasioned by the twists and turns surrounding regionalization. Obviously we take some exception -- and certainly will be doing so in Bill 28 -- to the manner in which regionalization has been imposed on the province. Given the twists and turns and so on involved in regionalization, it's not surprising that we see a lengthy list of severances.

Others may wish to deal with this in greater detail. The most notable is the severance settlement with Ron Mulchey, the CEO of St. Paul's Hospital, which is somewhat in excess of $600,000 -- clearly out of the ballpark in terms of what might be fair and acceptable. Hopefully, under the provisions of Bill 20, although as the member for Peace River South and others have noted, we don't get that kind of clear direction in this bill of where the council will be going on this . . . .

In conclusion -- and again I promised to be brief, and I'll actually follow through at this point -- it's an important step in the right direction. It may not provide everything that's needed to bring effect to the stated aims of government in this regard, but it is a step in the right direction. The member for Matsqui and other colleagues have outlined concerns and apparent deficiencies in this bill, and certainly they are right. But I won't attempt to duplicate or enunciate these deficiencies again.

Despite its deficiencies this bill is long overdue, and it's very much a step in the right direction. We -- at least I will -- on this side of the House will be supporting the bill. I was very relieved when the Premier appeared in the House. I thought that perhaps this Bill 20 might be suffering the same fate as Bill 44. Fortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case. It appears that Bill 20 is safe and secure, so I'm very pleased to conclude my remarks now, hon. Speaker. Thank you for your rapt attention.

S. Hawkins: As the member for Shuswap mentioned, it is a brief bill, but hopefully it will have far-reaching implications for fair and reasonable expenditure of public dollars. As some of the members who spoke previously said, this bill is long overdue. It didn't come before this House before the public expressed outrage, dismay and impatience over the severance packages that we've seen in the last few years.

We've seen precious taxpayer dollars frittered away while the government pretended to be outraged and expressed this outrage over some of these settlements. It's interesting, because some of the members opposite and the Premier came in and, when the member from Peace was speaking, said: "Well, that was the Socred contract." There were many more that the NDP made that were settled out and settled in severance, and they did nothing about it until this bill came before the House six years after they came into power. So it shows a little bit of hypocrisy.

Isn't it ironic, as well, that at the same time in the past six years that this government purports to protect health and education, we see precious health care and education dollars being spent on these severance packages? From the health care budgets, let's just read over a few for the record -- and I think some of the members had mentioned them before: Inge Schamborzki, Vancouver Hospital, $200,000; Gordon Austin, $525,000; Bob Smith, Lions Gate, $330,000: as the hon. member for Shuswap mentioned, Ron Mulchey, St. Paul's Hospital, $600,000. And it goes on and on.

There's another one from Surrey just recently, which the member for Shuswap mentioned. Over the bungling of the bureaucracy and problems that regionalization has, we see a CEO from Surrey just fired recently -- I believe June 11. He gets $100,000 in severance, and he was just at that region for a year. We see outrage, we see quotes from the Premier saying that it's disgusting. Yes, it was disgusting; it still is disgusting.

Hopefully, this bill will address some of those concerns that the public has had with the government being responsible and accountable for spending public dollars and failing in that regard to do that for the past six years. These contracts should have been reviewed, and the standards for reasonable

[ Page 5860 ]

severance packages should have been reviewed long ago. This bill is long overdue. We will be supporting this bill, and it is disappointing that it has taken this long to come to the House.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just let me make a couple of remarks in closing debate. I found the comments of the members opposite useful. I know that this is the kind of legislation that does lend itself to a bit of rhetoric, and I accept that, because the issue is important. There are certainly very strongly held opinions in the public about what, if any, severance is deserved by public employees who lose their job for whatever reason.

Let me just address a couple of the concerns about who is covered. I know we will get into this in committee stage, but all of the broad public sector exempt employees are covered by this legislation. The question arises about why it took so long. I know it's easy for all of us . . . . I expect that if the roles were reversed, we would take exactly the same position: why has it taken so long for the government to introduce this legislation?

Well, the fact is that we tried to do this in a voluntary, cooperative, consensus model with the employers in the broad public sector. We did introduce voluntary guidelines. For the very first time, under the leadership of our former Premier, we struck employers councils. We organized the broader public sector into employers councils for the first time ever. Those employers councils established guidelines for severance, and they tried to enforce those guidelines in a voluntary way with the various employer agencies across government.

The fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of cases they were successful, and in some they failed. Voluntary guidelines did not work with a certain number of employers. So that's why, after almost two years of trying to enforce voluntary guidelines, we are compelled to bring in legislation.

I suppose we could be criticized for trying a voluntary, consensus approach, and so be it. But we did try that. We tried to bring cooperation to this issue, and in certain circumstances it failed. Now we are forced to introduce legislation because a couple of bad apples have spoiled it for the whole barrel.

The legislation is comprehensive. I do look forward to a clause-by-clause debate on this matter. I know that different views are held on both sides of the House about severance: should there be severance or should there not? The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has actually indicated to me that in certain circumstances the government is obligated to pay severance under common law. I admit that he's advocating common law . . . . But who can ignore common law? The member is quite right. I have had other people suggest -- in the public domain, anyway -- that such a severance settlement may seem reasonable for long-term employees. Then there are others . . . .

I am on the record saying that I find it very difficult under any circumstances to understand how anybody in the public domain can leave a job with $500,000 in severance. I admit to that. I come from a background where that is simply not the case.

So we have legislation before us, and I'm very much looking forward to debating it. Our government is introducing legislation that is unprecedented across Canada. While the members opposite may vilify us for being late, it is groundbreaking legislation, and I very much look forward to debating the technicalities on a clause-by-clause basis.

I move second reading of Bill 20.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 28.

HEALTH AUTHORITIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to present to the House the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1997. As you may be aware, the Health Authorities Act served as the legislative vehicle for the first phase of health care regionalization in our province. The amendments before the House today represent the evolution of our government's approach, fuelled by input from hundreds of health care stakeholders representing virtually every sector of the health care system who contributed to an assessment of the regionalization process last summer in 1996.

The assessment found that while regionalization was still very much a necessity and an important ingredient in protecting the medicare services B.C. families depend upon, changes were necessary to address real and perceived flaws both in the model and in the way it was being implemented around the province. The input gathered during the review formed the basis for our Better Teamwork, Better Care approach introduced last fall, which is a simpler, more streamlined version that puts the needs of patients first.

This legislation represents an important step forward in getting on with the important changes in the governance and management of B.C. health care services -- changes designed to make the system more efficient, cut waste and duplication, all in order to keep the health care services we value affordable for the long haul.

Not only will they serve to strengthen the lines of accountability between our ministry and the new governing bodies, but they will also allow for the establishment of necessary checks and balances for the appointment and activities of our regional health boards and community health councils to ensure the highest standards of care are upheld and to assure that the best use of taxpayer dollars is made.

While a number of these amendments in this bill are simple technical changes of a housekeeping nature, some are significant in scope. Several amendments relate specifically to the composition of our regional health boards and community health councils, a topic that was widely debated as part of the assessment process. At that time, many board and council members suggested that given the lack of remuneration and the cost of running a campaign, the low-profile governance role would likely only appeal to health care providers and single-issue candidates.

Moving to fully appointed boards is the best way to ensure that our regional health boards and community health councils offer the right blend of skills, knowledge and experience to deal with increasingly complex governance issues in a climate of growing fiscal challenges and rapid technological change.

This decision is reflected in amendments to

section 4 of the act, which clarifies that the selection of board and council members will be done by appointment. However, the process will be broadened within the next year or so through some form of local nomination process.

We have also responded to concerns expressed about the rigidity of the act relating to the former appointment formula

[ Page 5861 ]

for RHBs and CHCs by deleting specific requirements for local government, aboriginal, service provider and other representation in order to allow for a greater flexibility to respond to the requirements of individual regions and communities. However, it should be noted that we have made the provision through policy to reserve one seat for a physician and one for a health care provider on each board and council to ensure that their input and expertise is reflected in the process of health care decision-making.

The appointment powers conferred through the act also include the power to name the chair, recognizing the need to ensure that the individuals at the helm of our boards and councils reflect the skills needed for this important and complex administrative and public policy role. They also include the ability to place a ministry employee on a board or council in an ex officio capacity to allow for close coordination between the board and the ministry and an ongoing awareness of ministry policies and regional plans.

A subsection of the act has also been changed to remove the power to remunerate our health board members, reflecting a long tradition of volunteer service in governance of health care services.

[8:45]

There is no question that the need for accountability in governance and management of our precious health care resources has never been greater, given the challenges facing our health care system today. As the government will always hold ultimate accountability for the maintenance of high-quality health services across the province, we need to find a mechanism for assuring that the interests of taxpayers are protected and that the highest standards of patient care are upheld regardless of who is at the helm of health care decision-making in a particular region or community.

Several amendments contained in the act will allow us to achieve that objective. They include a new

section allowing the Minister of Health to give direction to the new governing bodies if situations arise in which boards or councils are unable to adequately respond to public needs. The Health Authorities Amendment Act also includes several amendments designed to assist us in breaking down the walls of bureaucracy that have traditionally existed within our health care system, which allowed our major publicly funded health care providers to operate in virtual isolation.

Prior to the shift to regionalization, over 700 different boards governed the health care delivery process across the province, creating an environment of duplication and waste. Amalgamation of our major health care providers with our new governing bodies is essential to the creation of a more integrated, efficient and cost-effective health care system. The act reflects this with an amendment allowing the Minister of Health to direct the amalgamation of a particular agency with a board or council if voluntary amalgamation does not occur, where it is determined to be in the public interest.

Certainly the more facilities that can be brought under a single management and governing structure, the more resources we can divert away from administration and into the direct patient services that British Columbians depend upon.

I would also like to draw attention to

section 16.2, a new addition to the act which makes provision for trust agreements involving property and other assets that may have been bequeathed or donated to a hospital or other health care facility. Such agreements would ensure that when the facility amalgamated with the regional health board or community health council, the trust would be maintained and the wishes of the benefactor respected.

Each of the amendments contained in the Health Authorities Amendment Act reflects necessary changes in our approach to the governance and management of health care services as we work together with all of our partners throughout the system to better tailor the delivery of patient care to the priorities of the people in their own communities.

At a time when the challenges facing medicare have never been greater, British Columbians expect and rely upon us not to lose sight of what we're trying to protect. I really truly am confident that these amendments, brought forward in the spirit of our Better Teamwork, Better Care regionalization approach, will play a vital role in keeping medicare affordable and sustainable into the twenty-first century.

G. Wilson: In rising to speak to Bill 28, I would perhaps note -- I don't think I'm wrong in saying this -- that of the members on the opposition ranks who are present with us tonight, I think that I stand alone as one of those present in the chamber right now who actually stood in this chamber when a former Health minister stood at a seat opposite, where the current Health minister now stands, and introduced this new and wonderful bill that was going to provide us with regional health boards and community health councils.

This new Closer to Home program, which was going to be the be-all and end-all for the communities in British Columbia, was going to be a program initiated by local grassroots involvement of people from within the community to bring the communities directly into the engagement of health care delivery within their system, to decentralize power out of the office of the minister back into the communities so that we could bring health care closer to home.

We were told that one of the ways we were going to be able to do that in the existing structure, or the structure that was to be established, was for us to make sure that when the regional health boards and the community health councils were established, there would be a provision to make sure that the minister would not have the capacity to dictate, to direct and to otherwise run the board.

We were told that what needed to happen was for the community to come together and to volunteer their time and their energy and their work to find a structure within the community health council or the senior regional health board that would provide an opportunity for the communities to be directly engaged in the provision of health care services to meet the needs of their community.

That's what we were told. We were told that one of the ways we were going to do that was to make sure that the community would have involvement by allowing one-third of the members of the board to come from within the community. And Ms. Cull -- who was then the Minister of Health -- stood up and assured us over and over and over again that that government, that party, was committed to having members elected from within the community because they believed in the fundamental basic principle of democracy, which said that we should elect members from within the community to serve on those boards.

Even though the act didn't specifically say that they would be elected, because it said they would be drawn from within the community, we pressed them on it.

Hon. Speaker, I know there are others who will reflect back on that debate that night, both in second reading and more specifically in committee stage, where we pressed that Minister of Health and said: "Give us assurance; assure us that what you are doing is not diminishing the community involvement and the community role in the delivery of health services."

We were told: "Absolutely not. We will have one-third from within the community by way of election and another

[ Page 5862 ]

third" -- just to make sure that the minister didn't have a majority of members on the board through appointment -- "is going to come from within the ranks of local government."

That's what we were told; that's what we were promised. At that time, when the Health Authorities Act was brought into this chamber, there were members on this side of the House in the opposition ranks that pleaded with the minister and said: "Look, we are not sure this model will work. We think that the model you're attempting to put into place is complex, unproven, untested. What we need to do is take that model and establish a pilot project, or two or three pilot projects, that reflects the diversity of communities in the province from urban to rural, and let's see how those pilot projects work. Don't disrupt the whole health care system to bring in an unproven, untested process."

The minister of the day rejected that and said: "No, we're not going to have pilot projects. We have faith and we have confidence in the people in the communities of the province to make the system work." That's what we were told. So off they went to establish community meeting after community meeting -- filled with all kinds of the very best talent that we have from every community in British Columbia -- to sit down and try and make this system, this structure, work.

And they did. Certainly within my own community and many communities that I'm familiar with around the province, people gave up hours and hours and hours of their time in meeting after meeting after meeting, trying to hammer out something that would work and make this government's proposals on health care both relevant within their community and cost-effective in the delivery of services to the people who most need those services -- and those are the patients who depend on them.

Hours of work -- volunteer work. It is incredible to note that right at the very point where the community health councils and the regional health boards were finally coming together . . . . There were very complex issues around jurisdiction over certain matters in terms of health care dollars. There were very complex issues with respect to other private agencies that were delivering services, particularly extended-care services, services to seniors, in-home services, all of which had to be brought together under this new umbrella that was to be worked on.

They were very complex because there were many societies that operated out there with people who had given of their own time and many people who had given of their own money to make those private societies or those societies that worked for health care delivery have those services integrated under the new model.

The minister said: "We have faith and trust that the people within the communities can make it work." Do you know what? Reluctant as so many of us were who were on this side of the House, as much as we said: "We want it done in a pilot project; please do not ram this down our throat; please take your time, work this thing through properly . . . . " As much as we did not like the model, we begrudgingly said: "Okay, if that's what we have to have, if that's what is passed in this bill, we will trust the minister. We will trust this government.

We will trust that the model and the system they're putting into place is the one that will best serve British Columbians, and we will do what we can to make it work."

And we did, and so did the community volunteers -- people who gave up so many hours of unpaid volunteer time to try and make it work. At the very point that we were about to put in place the regional health boards and community health councils, we have a new Minister of Health -- in fact, we went through a couple of Ministers of Health. Guess what, folks: "It's going to change."

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

All of the hours of community work, all of the efforts, all of the energy, all of the promises, the promise after promise that was made to those societies -- independent societies who'd given up their own time, many who gave up their own money, who went out and raised all kinds of services so that they can be provided in their communities . . . .

Guess what, folks: "We've got a new model." This government, which promised us over and over again in debate in this House, in this Legislature, that we would have elected representatives on those boards, introduced this bill, the Health Authorities Amendment Act, that removes any democratic process from the communities and places all of the powers -- dictatorial as they are in this act -- right in the hands of the minister.

No longer will we have any elected boards. No longer will we have community government representatives. No, no. This minister knows better than anybody in the community; this minister will appoint those boards -- appointed boards.

Why? We hear tonight that it's because we are in an evolutionary stage. Well, evolution, I'm told, takes a while, and certainly trying to find a model of health care that fits under this regime has taken a long while. We're told that the reason that the minister wanted to go to appointed boards is because the remuneration was such that the only people who would be interested in serving on those boards -- says this minister -- would be people who have a vested interest in health care delivery -- i.e., doctors or other health providers or, says the minister tonight, single-issue candidates.

If that is true, how does the minister account for the hundreds and hundreds of volunteer community hours that people gave over the last four years to put this system in place? If that's true, why did these people spend hours and hours and hours in community meetings for years and years and years to make it come together? Why?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They were appointed boards; they weren't elected.

[9:00]

G. Wilson: The minister says they were appointed. That is absolutely not true. The community committees that came together to work to build up the community health councils, the regional health boards that they pulled together, were not appointed by this minister. They were not, and the minister knows they were not. They came together, volunteering within their communities with hours and hours of work.

If we're talking about trying to eliminate single-issue candidates, if we're saying the only people who are going to sit on these boards are people who have a vested interest in the health care service, then presumably the minister has a greater wisdom and will decide to appoint people who aren't single-issue candidates.

Just in case the minister makes a mistake in who the minister appoints to the board, well, they put in

section 7.1, which says: "A board or council must comply with any general or special direction made by regulation of the minister with respect to the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties of the board or council." Just in case they made a mistake and they didn't have all of the yes-women and yes-men sitting there doing exactly the bidding of this

[ Page 5863 ]

government, which this government wants them to do because this government no longer trusts communities, no longer puts faith in the people of British Columbia to have any ability to be able to run their affairs . . . .

There are two breaches of trust that have occurred in this process. The first is that there was a real promise, an absolute promise to have elected boards, and that promise has been broken. It's gone. No more will we have elected boards. The second breach of trust has to do with a much more important issue in the minds of some people who are directly involved in the running of societies. That has to do with where assets are going to rest in terms of ownership after the amalgamations occur. We heard the minister say that people who bequeath gifts will make sure, if they're placed in trusts, that those trusts will be established and maintained.

But let me ask you, hon. Speaker, when we get into the

section that deals with what we do with the assets of local societies who have operated extended care services, special needs services, at-home services, where those societies have raised money over the years through a whole host of various money-raising ventures, where people who have given dollars to those societies to make sure that the facilities are properly equipped . . . . Where do those assets rest? Where will those assets be?

The Premier may well wave a white flag, because they have no defence on this legislation, no defence on it. Maybe he's saying: "Okay, 44, 28 -- we'll do them both, get rid of them, and that will be it." That would be a useful way to terminate this debate. But when we get to this bill in committee, we want to know -- and we want to hear from the minister -- how we're going to protect the assets of those societies that are amalgamated into the new regional boards, because the members who sit on the boards of directors of those societies have a fiduciary obligation to the membership of the society.

Let's be clear that where those societies have gone out over the years and raised money for various machines that provide health care services, they're owned by the society. The government can't simply come in and decide that it's going to take those assets, seize them and put them under the jurisdiction of an authority that has been created without the minister providing some level of protection to those people who have been working in those societies in the past. That's the second question on breach of trust in this bill.

When the minister decided that they were going to go on a review, the third area that was looked at was the whole regional concept itself, who would have a regional health board and who would have a community health council. That was a very divisive issue for many communities. Quite frankly, that was done under a former Health minister prior to this Health minister taking over the office.

I want to say that when representation was made to the government on that question in the case of the Powell River-Sunshine Coast area, the government listened, the government did take advice, and the government did listen on the question of the region. That's something that I want to go on the record, because the constituents in the Sunshine Coast and Powell River region had very specific, very definite geographic concerns with respect to the structure of the region.

Other communities were not as lucky. Other communities did not get the same ear that we were able to get. As a result, conflict now exists in an area where conflict was finally starting to be put aside. This government decided it could and would do better. It decided that it wasn't going to listen to the people.

There are other areas that we'll get into in committee stage that deal with the matters of the bargaining units and the labour relations issues. They are more specific to the language and the change in the language. Similarly, we're going to want to look particularly at the question of amalgamation of two or more boards and the matter of liability of those members who sit on the board and how those liabilities may have changed.

Furthermore, we're going to ask this government to defend the position it takes that all power that the all-mighty minister is now going to give to herself and override the opportunity of people at the community level to have some say and some voice in the way that their health services are delivered.

We spend a lot of time in this chamber, many of us, when the House actually sits, which is, in the course of a year, not that long a period. Some of us -- I would hope all of us -- take seriously what we do with respect to our jobs as legislators. Sometimes it's a little difficult to ascertain whether or not we really do take our work seriously. The public, I'm told, doesn't really listen to what we do here and doesn't care. I don't believe that. I don't believe that for a moment.

The public trust that what we present by way of legislation in this House, what we commit to by way of legislators in this House, we will undertake to do. When we commit to have community involvement in health care delivery by way of elected boards, by way of representation from local communities, when we commit to a model that we put into legislation and promise, within this Legislative Assembly, that we will put in place the model that we introduced, the public expects that we will hold to our word.

What becomes even more galling is when we put that in place and then go out to the community and ask the community to give of themselves to make our commitment work within their community, they do that; and we then turn round and arbitrarily change it -- change it without consultation, change it without any notification and do it by order-in-council, which is exactly what happened. It was done by order-in-council. We learned that all of a sudden the new community health councils and regional health boards would no longer be elected.

All of a sudden this Minister of Health and this government no longer had faith or confidence in the people of British Columbia, and all of the powers once again rested within this minister. And why? Because this minister wants to dictate the delivery of health policy to British Columbians and does not want the communities to have input, say or to contribute to it.

That kind of sums up where they're coming from as a political party and as a government. They do not really want public input. They do not really want the democratic process to proceed. They do not really care about what the interests and concerns of British Columbians are. They are a party and a government that is stuck on a dogma that is going to be pushed through, come hell or high water, no matter what we

[ Page 5864 ]

want. That's the attitude they have taken, and that's the attitude that is demonstrated in Bill 28, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1997. That is the reason why British Columbians today have lost confidence and faith in the party that ran with the slogan "Putting People First" and came in and enacted a policy that puts people last.

Hon. Speaker, I don't know how members of the government opposite -- from the Premier down to the minister through to the back bench that sits over here -- can stand up and defend this bill, when not too many years ago they made promises and commitments to the people of British Columbia which they have now rendered completely useless and redundant. I don't know how those members defend that action. The community health councils and regional health boards were barely even in place before the authority that was to be vested in the communities by way of a democratic process was stripped from them, so that once more we could have a dictatorial regime from Victoria deliver our health policies.

I look forward to committee stage. I look forward to hearing this minister defend her actions. This minister, by way of order-in-council, thought she could amend the legislation. And when I put out a letter to all of the regional health boards and community health councils demanding that there be an explanation for how this government could breach its own legislation, I was told that they didn't need to change the legislation. We pressed it with respect to legal opinion, and then: "Oh, my goodness, it's going to get tricky here, because somebody is reading the law." Well, it certainly isn't the group opposite.

Therefore what we have to do here is amend the legislation. We have to retroactively amend the legislation so that all of a sudden this government can start to conform to its legislation -- conform, that is, until it makes the next change, which it will likely do in September or October or November by order-in-council and, as a result of that, will once again amend the legislation.

R. Thorpe: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible to have the members over on the government side tone down the noise so that we can hear the speaker here, please?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's a stranger on our side.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, to the House Leader, there are several strangers on that side.

Deputy Speaker: The point is well taken. The Speaker has made note of that and asks the members that are making the disturbance to cease. I will ask the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to continue.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I just wonder if my time might start again from the beginning because . . . . I guess not.

I do want to conclude with three comments that I hope the minister will take in a spirit of cooperation. The question of liability and the matter of debt and liability obligations from old boards to new boards are a concern to some community health councils, but not so much regional boards, particularly where those community health councils are now going to have this new creation that's struck -- and I don't know if it's unique to Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- which is going to have some power and authority with respect to determination of regional services.

There's some concern on how those liabilities are going to translate. I just flagged that by way of Hansard so that staff can maybe look at that, and if we can have a discussion before committee, who knows, we might save some time in committee stage on that question.

I would like to flag a couple of others. One is the issue with respect to the government's role in being able to force amalgamation where there have already been agreements made with societies with respect to the provisions or division of assets. That's another issue of concern, and I flag that for the minister. I hope that the minister might be prepared to talk in committee about how that's going to operate.

Lastly, I hope we really can have a serious discussion about the wisdom of removing any community involvement in the selection of its members to the community health councils and regional health boards. Notwithstanding the fact that promises were made -- and I can stand and try to challenge this government with respect to its commitments that are broken -- the issue of democratic representation on local community boards is a matter of principle for a lot of people in this province.

With respect to health care provision, it's a matter of serious, serious consequence to some boards, particularly boards that have worked well in the past, who are concerned that this new structure may eliminate their opportunity to have a fair say and fair involvement in the delivery of health services within their community. I think those are legitimate concerns; they really are.

I heard the minister say that there will be a movement that -- I think the words were -- will be broadened to involve the community. I hope we can flesh that out a little bit more in some detail in committee stage, because there is a general principle with respect to community involvement in the election of community boards. It's an important democratic principle and one that can't be lost sight of, notwithstanding the need to try to bring in more efficiencies in health care delivery.

Those are my comments on Bill 28 tonight. Once again, I do hope that the comments are listened to and taken seriously, because these are issues that I think are important if we are indeed to protect our health care delivery. This member and the party I represent certainly hold as one of our highest priorities the protection and maintenance of a truly affordable and accessible health care system that does provide opportunity for all British Columbians to be able to have access to a universal system that does not enter us into a two-tiered -- one rich, one poor -- system in British Columbia.

With those remarks, I'll take my seat, and I look forward to further comment in committee stage.

[9:15]

S. Hawkins: Bill 28 is about broken promises and broken commitments. If you recall the last few years, this government promised to follow the recommendations of the Seaton report, the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. It promised to make elected boards and councils for health care decision-making "closer to home," and it promised that there would be community involvement in the health care boards. Bill 28 takes that all away. It entrenches into legislation the NDP model of decentralizing or off-loading responsibility and centralizing control.

You know, it's very, very disappointing. Under this model that the minister introduces into this bill, the regional health board and the community health council members become unpaid employees of the government, and they're mandated, again in the new

section 7.1, to do the NDP government's bidding.

[ Page 5865 ]

In this bill and under this model that the minister is introducing -- which she has already put into place, because she made all the appointments in the past year -- the accountability to the community and patients in the community has gone out the window. You know, these folks that sit on the boards and councils now report to the Minister of Health.

We saw that in one very, very evident example: the contract with Elizabeth Cull in the capital health region. The community was outraged. They thought that a thousand-dollar-a-day contract with the health board, which this minister appointed, was outrageous. They thought that that was a waste of taxpayer dollars, and they wanted something done about it; they wanted something done about that contract. The minister and the Premier even said it was ridiculous and outrageous. But nothing was done.

There was no way -- no vehicle, if you will -- for the community to get the board's attention, other than going to the media and sending letters to the opposition and to the minister to express their outrage.

When we tried to get this minister's attention and asked her to show some leadership in doing something with the capital health board's decision to pay Elizabeth Cull $1,000 a day for a six-month contract, which I think the minister would admit is a lot of money . . . . Seventy thousand dollars for a six-month part-time contract is a lot of money. When this government says that it's protecting health and education and that it's spending those precious dollars responsibly, it was hard for the community to imagine that this money was going to a failed NDP cabinet minister in their district.

When they tried to raise those concerns with the minister, nothing was done. Nothing was done, because they were government-appointed board members, and they knew where their loyalty lay. It lay with the government. There was no accountability down to the community level.

The community tried to express that. They expressed outrage; they expressed dismay. They were very disappointed, and they were angry. I remember letters being sent to the paper. There were letters talking about how they were never going to donate to the Hospitals Foundation again if that's the way the money was going to be spent. They were never going to volunteer for committees or anything in this hospital district or health district, if that's the way their dollars were going to be spent. But nothing was done, and now this minister has the gall to put it into legislation.

I think it's absolutely outrageous. It's a slap in the face for those people who worked endless hours. I heard one of the members on this side talk about that: endless volunteer hours were spent on boards, trying to reshape health care, trying to bring health care decision-making closer to home, serving on boards and on committees to try to improve health care in their communities. What thanks did they get for years and years of planning for New Directions, as this government put it -- for three years? They got fired by this government; that's what they got. That's the thanks they got for trying to work with this government for three years on New Directions.

Then, after two or three Health ministers, we got a minister who introduced, after a review, what she calls Better Teamwork, Better Care. But we know who the team is, because she fired the team that the community picked. It's now the NDP team.

The legislation is very clear that they are going to be unpaid employees of the government and that they are going to be mandated to do what the government wants them to do. The NDP have removed democracy from health care decision-making. That's not really something that is a surprise, because in the famous words of the Forests minister: "Remember, government can do anything it wants." It has shown this in this legislation, because that's exactly what they've done: they've staffed the boards with their own supporters.

We asked about the process of how these appointees were chosen for these boards. We asked about that, and we were told that it was people from the community. We asked: "How were they selected?" They were selected because the minister thought that they were appropriate. Well, what about what the community thinks? The community was promised that it would have elected representation and that it would be able to choose who sat on these boards, so that the community knew who these boards would be accountable to. That's been removed.

The community's right to choose who they see fit to represent them on these boards, so that health care decision-making can be made for the community, has been taken away from them in the last year, and it certainly has been removed forever in this legislation under this government. That's very, very disappointing.

When I travelled around the province in February and March, I listened to people's concerns about our health care system. Overwhelmingly, what I heard was that people want the right to choose the representatives who sit on their health boards and councils. Now, I heard that. I know that other members on this side of the House heard that, and I don't know why the members on that side of the House are deaf to that. We saw letters to the editor; we heard radio and TV interviews. We hear people calling us and saying: "This is wrong. Why are our societies getting fired? Why aren't there going to be elections, like we were promised? What's going on here?"

People are absolutely demoralized, they're disappointed and they're tired. They worked for hours trying to get their community involvement into the health care reform, and they got fired for their attempts. This government has just created a whole new bureaucracy around this, but it's a bureaucracy that they can now control, because that's what this legislation puts into place -- and that's wrong. That is wrong, and we will not be supporting this bill.

The other point in this bill -- and it was brought up by a previous speaker -- is the amalgamation issue. For many communities amalgamation equals expropriation, and these concerns were again raised by people around the province. The minister talks about voluntary amalgamation. There was nothing voluntary about it; if they didn't do it, they were taken over. They had a gun held to their head. They either handed over their property voluntarily, or it was taken away from them. And now there's a

section in the bill that allows it to happen under legislation, and that's wrong.

We see a problem in the Chemainus area on the Island, with a community quite concerned about a piece of property, which was gifted to their community, on which a health facility sits. They wanted reassurance from this government that this gift of property would remain with the community. They had no issue with amalgamation, they had no issue with regionalization, they had no issue with health care reform, because they said they worked with this government and voluntarily went ahead with amalgamation. But they wanted some legal reassurance that this gift of property would remain with the community, and this government couldn't promise them that.

There was a meeting about three weeks ago. Over 800 people in the community attended it -- 836 to be exact -- and they still weren't listened to. This minister has yet to answer their questions on why their board was fired and removed from a position of trust that people in their community placed

[ Page 5866 ]

them in to make responsible decisions for them. They felt the responsible decision for them was to protect the interest in this land for their community. And this government has now expropriated that land. They have taken it away. They are now going to enact that into legislation, and that's wrong.

People around the province are very, very disappointed; they will not be happy with the provisions in this bill. The sections don't speak of the promises that this government made to the people of British Columbia. In the last act that was passed -- the Health Authorities Act -- this government promised elections and they promised fair representation, and that's not what this act is promising. This act speaks to broken promises and broken commitments.

The last part of the act speaks to the labour union and health care bargaining. It's the same old story. We could sit in here day in and day out and talk about the same old story about no consultation. When this bill came out, we heard that again from the health employers. We heard there was absolutely no consultation with the health employers on these provisions, and they are the ones that are charged with the responsibility for sitting down with the various parties and bringing about collective agreements. It is absolutely unbelievable.

It is unreal that they wouldn't be consulted when there are important changes in legislation like this. It absolutely boggles the mind, but it's the same old song, over and over again. Every time we see legislation coming before the House, we find that stakeholders -- parties that should have been consulted by this government -- are not consulted. When will they learn?

This bill came before the House, and then we hear people saying: "Well, what's going on? How come we weren't consulted?" From what we hear, the provisions for health care bargaining in this bill -- the concerns brought forward -- are that it's going to bring chaos to health care bargaining. We hear it's going to reduce flexibility, as well.

The question is: how come the government doesn't hear that? I think they choose to ignore that, because I really do believe that they think they can do anything they want.

In committee stage we will be canvassing these issues very closely. We will be representing the concerns of British Columbians, unlike what this government does when it brings forward legislation like this. We will not be supporting this bill.

K. Krueger: It strikes me that Bill 28, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1997, is an absolute classic of NDP legislation. It does the usual things, and it does them all at once. It takes away power from the electorate, for one thing, and sucks the power into the power base -- the Premier and his cabinet. It wastes tremendous resources -- resources that were available and fully used by the health care system of British Columbia up until this government seized control and launched its ill-conceived health care regionalization initiative.

As a major caboose to the act, it gives gifts to the Premier's buddies: the construction trade unions, the B.C. Federation of Labour -- the big union buddies of the NDP.

It does it at the expense of the public, contrary, once again, to previous commitments made by the Minister of Employment and Investment. When referring to the Dorsey report in 1995 he said, "The new bargaining structure will improve flexibility in the health sector while protecting the interests of employees," and that this government was accepting the Dorsey recommendations. Now, of course, it is reneging on that commitment. It's turning the clock back and giving the gifts to the Premier's buddies.

So once again we see this tremendous consolidation of power in the hands of the Premier and his designate, the Minister of Health -- a power grab from the people of British Columbia, the people who used to have a say in how their health care institutions were run. It's a tremendous decentralizing of responsibility.

So somehow these fuzzy organizations called community health councils, called regional health boards, called something else -- which can be fired, reappointed and fired again, back and forth, hither and yon at the whim of the minister -- will have the responsibility for all the things that are going wrong and will go wrong in this inane structure, while centralizing the actual control and the power in the hands of the minister. Isn't it ever thus in an NDP administration?

[9:30]

How can you keep all the authority while diffusing the accountability to others? Anyone who understands anything about management knows that that's impossible. You can't hold people accountable when they hadn't the authority to make decisions. It won't be their fault when this all continues to be a mess or gets worse, as it very probably will. Some management system! That doesn't work.

Consider the arbitrary firings of the fine people who served on boards for hospitals and health care facilities throughout this great province before the NDP launched this crazy regionalization initiative: the way that they were abused, the way that they were thanked for their years of service and all the effort that they put in. And even people since then -- people that this same NDP government appointed to community health councils and regional health boards were abruptly fired by this minister without so much as a thank you, and then some of them -- the same people -- were reinstated on regional health boards.

Many of them, like the people who worked so hard in Barri�re on the community health council . . . . They were never reappointed, never thanked, and were abused for all the effort that they had put in.

The sort of consequences that flow from that type of management behaviour at the top by the minister are exemplified, I think, by what's gone on in Kamloops and through the Thompson regional health board, which was one of the boards that was summarily fired and then substantially reappointed.

In the process, decisions were taken and mistakes were made, from my point of view -- including the firing of the chief executive officer of Royal Inland Hospital, who will no doubt be receiving a very healthy severance award either through the courts or from the government, through negotiation, because it's no way to run a business. He had a contract that stipulated that he was entitled to that if a major change was made in his contract or in his employment.

One person -- meaning the minister -- will never be able to do the job of running our health care system as well as all those thousands of volunteer people around the province did. It's physically impossible. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast related the litany of ridiculous decisions made by this government as it's gone through the regionalization process and the way that good people have been abused, a litany of waste and of disorganization -- absolutely lamentable.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Of course, one thing this government is good at is putting good names on things -- names that sound good. I remember

[ Page 5867 ]

when this government proudly talked about the New Directions policy. It wasn't very long after that when we heard people in the system referring to it as the No Directions policy. Of course, that's exactly what it's been for years now, so that a state-of-the-art health care system that was the pride of British Columbia and an example to the world has been brought to i