1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2629 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987 (Bill 59). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 2630

Oral Questions

Privatization. Mr. Harcourt –– 2631

Mr. Clark

Presenting Petitions –– 2633

Tabling Documents –– 2633

Insurance Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 48). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2633

Mr. Williams –– 2634

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2634

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 34). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 2634

Mrs. Boone –– 2636

Ms. Campbell –– 2638

Mr. Cashore –– 2639

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2640

Mr. Clark –– 2641

Mr. Mowat –– 2642

Mr. Lovick –– 2643

Ms. Marzari –– 2644

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 2645

Mr. Jones –– 2646

Mr. Mercier –– 2647

Mr. Miller –– 2648

Ms. Edwards –– 2649

Mr. Williams –– 2650

Ms. Smallwood –– 2651

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 2651

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

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2652

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, after consultation with both sides

of the House, I have given permission that the audio portions of the

proceedings of this House be broadcast to the public.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of deep personal loss that I speak of the passing of one of

the mainstays of local government in British Columbia; I refer, of course, to Mr. Jeff McKelvey. For 20 years he steered

the Union of B.C. Municipalities with a firm but gentle hand and an unerring sense of the direction our municipalities

should follow. Not one person can be singled out in the way Jeff can, as the shaper of local democracy in British Columbia.

His character truly reflected the high stature to which our municipal governments aspire. Most recently he served this

province as one of the architects of decentralization, having provided the report which created a framework for consultation.

There are many in this Legislature who owe him a tribute of thanks

for helping us in our early political careers. He was instrumental in

our basic training as municipal representatives of the citizens of

British Columbia. The scholarship fund which bears his name will carry

forward his commitment to professionalism in community service.

I ask the House to join me in sending our condolences to his wife

Jeanne, son Rick and daughter Judy. We share the loss. We'll remember

him in our prayers and hold his memory with admiration and respect.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the words

of the Premier in honour of Jeff McKelvey, with whom a number of us

here have had the honour of working with over a number of years.

Indeed, he trained most of us in the understanding of what local

government is about and what it can accomplish when we cooperate and

work together. And he did that: he put together packages for the

smaller municipalities in terms of purchasing in bulk he put together

benefit packages. He worked tirelessly for many, many years on behalf

of local government and made the Union of B.C. Municipalities the most

effective municipal organization in this country. He and his family

have contributed tremendously to British Columbia, and I would like, on

behalf of the New Democratic caucus, to pass on our condolences to

Jeanne and the family, and also our great sense of pride for his

contributions to local government and to British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, with us today is an individual who

is present only to observe the proceedings of the House. However, I know he

would really prefer to be down here on the floor to participate as a member

of this Legislature, and I suspect he's going to do his darnedest to bring

that situation about at the appropriate time. I would therefore ask all members

not to be conservative but liberal in welcoming him. He's a very social

individual, and I'm sure he'll be a credit as the head of his party.

Please join me in extending a warm legislative welcome to Mr. Gordon Wilson,

the newly elected leader of the Liberal Party of British Columbia.

Present today as well are good friends and neighbours Mr. and Mrs.

Del and June Martin and their sons Chad and Clint, and a couple of

other good friends who are traveling with them, Frank and Sarah

Suttles. Would the House please give them a big welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, we're honoured to have in the

galleries today the royal commissioner on electoral boundaries, His

Honour Judge Thomas K. Fisher. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

[2:15]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I

also would like to welcome Judge Fisher and his staff to Victoria.

Judge Fisher and I go back a long way together. Of course, he's

considerably older than I am; he remembers me when I was young. We

welcome Judge Fisher to Victoria, in spite of the fact that he would

like to move our capital back to New Westminster. On the serious side,

he has a big job, an awesome responsibility, and I'm sure he'll be

successful because his hands are extremely capable ones.

MR. MILLER: I would like the House to join me today in

extending congratulations to Mayor Peter Lester of Prince Rupert.

Although many fine candidates have run in British Columbia, Mr. Lester

is outstanding for the contribution he has made to public life in

British Columbia. He has recently been re-elected for his sixteenth

consecutive term.

AN HON. MEMBER: Think you can beat him?

MR. MILLER: I should say I had the foolishness to run against

the mayor last year, and I got clobbered. Nonetheless, it is a very

fine record of distinguished service. I talked to Mayor Lester after

the election, and he told me the secret of his success was that he

never got everybody mad at him all at once.

So it may be appropriate, Mr. Speaker — with the agreement of the

other side — that a suitable message be conveyed to His Worship Mayor

Lester for achieving this significant record.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I want to add very briefly my

congratulations and those from all members on this side of the House to

Mayor Peter Lester, and to all mayors, school board members and all who

were elected last week. Certainly I think it is right to single out Mr.

Peter Lester, since I don't believe there is anyone who has held office

for that long in our province — at least in that particular position.

He is certainly a fine gentleman. I have had the opportunity of

meeting him in a variety of capacities, and he is always firm and fair,

very involved and active, and very sincere about all the things he does

for the community. So from all members on this side as well.

congratulations to Mayor Peter Lester and also to all others elected

last Saturday.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like us all to join in welcoming to the

Legislature two visitors from Vancouver who have been very active in

the food bank and who expected to work themselves out of a job when

they started six years ago. We hope they are successful in getting the

food banks to be able

[ Page

2630 ]

to close down when we have the ability to deal with the poor and unfortunate in our society.

I think we should pay tribute to those two who are here today: the

executive director of the food bank, Sylvia Russell, and the chairman

of the board of directors, Arne Olsen.

MS. CAMPBELL: The Provincial Secretary has already introduced

our esteemed royal commissioner on electoral boundaries. I would like

to introduce two people who are accompanying him today: Mr. Terry

Julian, who is working with His Honour, and also, from Vancouver-Point

Grey, Professor Ken Carty of the department of political science at

UBC. Will the House make them welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to introduce friends to the House

today: Mrs. Chris Shaffer from Terrace, my executive assistant, and Bob

Thompson of Victoria, recently appointed regional development officer

for the North Coast region. Somewhere in the galleries is an old

friend, Tom Waterland, of Vancouver. Let's make them welcome.

MR. CASHORE: As I look about the gallery today, I see several

people with whom I have been connected in the United Church and in the

church ecumenical. There are too many to name them all, but I will

acknowledge Mrs. Jara Smith of Victoria, who is the chairperson of the

social action committee of Victoria presbytery, and she is here today

with 20 members of the Coalition for Democratic Process. I would ask

the members to join me in welcoming them.

MS. SMALLWOOD: A recognition well worth waiting for: I'd like

the House to join me in recognizing and welcoming the newly elected

mayor for Surrey, Dr. Robert Bose.

MR. LOENEN: I'd like the House to recognize three very

special guests who are in the precincts with us, Roman Herchak of

Richmond, John Stashuk of Vancouver and Peter Shostak of Victoria.

These three are representing the Foundation for Ukrainian Studies, and

they will, later on this afternoon, make a special presentation to our

cultural heritage committee of cabinet in regard to a very special

project, namely the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. I'd like the House to

welcome those three gentlemen.

MR. SIHOTA: I have three introductions to make, and I'll be

very quick. First of all, I would like to ask the House to join me in

welcoming in the gallery today two well-known residents of

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, Mr. and Mrs. Gibbons. Secondly, since our last

adjournment, there has been a change in the command of our base here in

Esquimalt. I'm sure all members of the House appreciate the important

role of the military and the navy in the defence of this country, and I

would like to ask members of the House to join me in welcoming

Commander Beckett and Admiral George, who are now respectively in

charge of the Canadian Forces base in Esquimalt and the Maritime

command.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, is a birthday I should bring to the attention of all

the members of the House. Last Sunday the youngest member of this House, the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), arrived at the great age of 30.

He is still, however, the pup of our pit bull crew in our caucus, but I can

assure members of the House that his bark, as a result of turning 30, has gotten

just a little bit deeper and he's gotten a little longer in the tooth. He

assures me that he will now be beginning to act his age.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Like many members in the House today, we

recognize a lot of familiar faces. There are two that I'd ask the House

to join me in welcoming. Firstly, my son Rod Couvelier is attending, I

think, his second session while I have had the honour of sitting in the

House. The second person I'd like the House to recognize is an old

working colleague of mine from my municipal days, Paul McKivett, who is

a good public servant at the municipal level and who recently won

acclamation election appointment to the Greater Victoria School Board.

I welcome Rod Couvelier and Paul McKivett.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House first to

join me in welcoming a constituent, Douglas Walker, who works in the

hotel industry in the lower mainland and who is pleased, I know, to be

at this first session of the fall. I would like to take this

opportunity to welcome my constituents: Judge Fisher and his

administrator Terry Julian. I know that in their task that are bringing

a historic perspective to their work from the first capital of our

province. Welcome, gentlemen.

MR. BLENCOE: There are a number of people in the gallery

today from the Victoria area. I'd like to especially recognize two

people: Mr. Doug Ottenbreit, co-chairman of the Vancouver Island Human

Rights Coalition Society; and Mr. David Szollosy, who works with the

Victoria Catholic diocese. Would the House please make these gentlemen

welcome.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, visiting the House today and sitting

in your gallery is a former colleague of mine, and the new mayor of

Langley district. Would the House please welcome John Beales.

MR. LOVICK: I hope I may use the clich — much as I hate them

— last but not least. I would like to ask members to join me in

welcoming a former research assistant of mine, now a graduate student

at the University of Victoria, Ms. Jan Pullinger.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987.

HON. B.R. SMITH: This is Miscellaneous No. 4, full of little

shortycoats. The most significant change in it, I guess, is a repeal of

the Investment Contract Act and the future regulation of investment

contracts under the Securities Act, which will provide an increased

level of protection for investors. The timely introduction of these

legislative changes, which implement some of the recommendations of Mr.

Lyman Robinson...

Interjection.

[ Page 2631 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH: Order over there!

...in relation to the Principal Group failure, demonstrate that the

government is committed to enhancing investor protection in the

province.

I am pleased to bring forward also a number of housekeeping

amendments. A long-awaited amendment to the Railway Act will amplify

and clarify the regulatory powers of the ministry with respect to a

number of matters affecting the safe operation of provincially

regulated railways and ski lifts.

The Municipal Act will be amended to allow local governments to use the provincial voters list to update their own voters list.

An amendment will be made to the Public Trustee Act to enable the establishment of a

schedule of fees for various services.

An amendment will be made to the Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act to expand the Regional District of Central Kootenay's

waste-disposal functions and to allow it to enter into a 20-year

service contract.

In addition to that, the Constitution Act will be amended to provide

for such additional parliamentary secretaries as are necessary to

support....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. B.R. SMITH: They don't want to hear, Mr. Speaker.

An amendment to the Funds Control Act will broaden the application

of the First Citizens' Fund to enable the making of loans as well as

grants to native-run businesses.

An amendment to the Supreme Court Act will increase by two the

number of judges in the B.C. Supreme Court to assist in dealing with

the increased trial volume.

An amendment to the Workers Compensation Act will enable appointment

practices to parallel those for other boards and councils that are the

responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker, this provides only a brief sketch of the contents of

the bill. I therefore move that the bill be introduced and read a first

time now.

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a matter of

privilege that pertains to comments previously made in this House with

respect to the Coquihalla Highway.

Under the rules, one is obliged to raise a matter of privilege

forthwith upon learning of the issue, and accordingly I'm standing at

this time to put the issue before the House. As you may be aware,

however, a commission of inquiry is currently deliberating on the

matter of the Coquihalla Highway, and I certainly would not wish to

upset its inquiry or its deliberations at this stage of the game;

hence, it may be prudent to wait until the report of that committee is

down. But having been caught between the rule and the fact of the

commission, I've chosen to put the House on notice as to the question

of privilege, and I ask that the question of privilege be deferred

without prejudice to the earliest opportunity or until such time as the

commission has completed its inquiry.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for giving me notice of his question of privilege. It is agreed.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier. Last week

the Premier said he wanted to get on with privatization, that he didn't

want to debate it in this House, and we want to know what he's afraid of. British

Columbians are entitled to know. The Premier should know that debate in Parliament,

particularly about a massive social upheaval such as privatization, is what

Parliament is all about. Will the Premier permit a full debate on privatization

in this Legislature, and when?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure there will be

ample opportunity to debate various aspects of the privatization

program as legislative changes may be required and introduced or as we

begin, sometime next spring perhaps, the whole process with respect to

budgets and throne speech and such. I'm sure there will be ample

opportunity in the regular process.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, that doesn't deal with the fears

and concerns of British Columbians. For example, the former Minister of

Highways, the member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), charged that

privatizing road maintenance — and I'd like to quote — "would put

motorists at risk, especially interior and northern British

Columbians." Can the Premier advise what studies have been undertaken

to prove otherwise?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker. we are certainly satisfied

that the private sector can deliver in a safe and acceptable manner

many of the services presently provided through the public sector.

Obviously standards are established in all of these matters and in all

contracts that are permitted with respect to any facet of this. The

people that build these roads. I'm sure all members would agree, should

have no difficulty maintaining them.

Furthermore, we already see the private sector involved in a number

of projects in provinces throughout this country, throughout many parts

of the U.S. and right here in our own province. The Alaska Highway is

certainly a challenging piece of road which is well maintained by the

private sector. We don't have any difficulty in that regard. We're not

trying to create or envisage or imagine problems in a very negative

fashion where they don't exist and where we don't see any.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, if you're not going to accept the

so-called negative opinions of the former Minister of Highways, how

about your House Leader, who has publicly expressed his concerns about

road safety if highway operations are privatized? What information has

the Premier given to his House Leader to calm his fears?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have no problems with

members of a good, democratic, free enterprise party expressing

concerns about any matter that might be considered by us as a

government or by the people of British Columbia. If there's some

concern, I would like not

[ Page 2632 ]

only to hear about it but to have some details as to why there is concern.

It must be frustrating and disturbing to a lot of British Columbians

when they see pictures of a train crash, which somehow must relate to

the privatization of highways; when they see there is some attempt to

create fear without someone explaining why in fact there should be that

perception, or why there ought to be that fear. Similarly, we've seen

the Leader of the Opposition making statements about carnage on the

roads, all sorts of problems — in fact, creating again the problem

where there is no problem, or where he can't provide any evidence that

there would be a problem or why in his opinion we should have a fear

about our people in the private sector carrying on their job

effectively and efficiently. This country was built by individuals,

built by people in the private sector. This country was not built by

governments. This country wasn't created....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The prosperity that we enjoy and the

things that make it possible for us to have the social programs we

enjoy, the highways we drive on, didn't come about because government

created this prosperity. It was done by individuals, private sector

people working out there.

Again, I would go as far as to suggest that the Leader of the

Opposition should consider his statements and also keep in mind that

when he says that because we as a party, or I as an individual, am

opposed to something proposed by government, it's okay to somehow break

the law, that is dangerous — as dangerous as to suggest that there will

be carnage. If we have concerns, we should present the facts upon which

these are based.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has just answered my question.

That's why we need a debate: so that those concerns and fears can be addressed,

right here in this Legislature, Mr. Premier. And if you wouldn't break campaign

promises to end confrontation, to start consultation, we wouldn't have protests.

If you're not going to listen to your House Leader and the former Minister

of Highways, then we're in greater trouble than we all feared.

Moving right along from the highways concerns.... After lunch it's

entirely appropriate to ask about the safety and well-being of British

Columbians in the food and dairy area. Can the Premier confirm that

with the sell-out of the dairy and food lab B.C. will be the only

province in Canada without a public dairy lab to safeguard public

health?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I cannot confirm that, though I'm

sure that information is readily available if you wish to address the

question to the minister responsible for agriculture. But frankly, I

don't think we need to follow Manitoba or Ontario or Quebec. I think

that in this Legislature it's British Columbians making decisions about

British Columbia.

MR. HARCOURT: I don't know about following Ontario, but following

the United States and Great Britain is a bit much.

Does the Premier know, and can he confirm, that 70 percent of the

dairy and food lab's $650,000 annual budget is now recovered from user

fees?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) indicates to me that this is about correct.

MR. HARCOURT: Last week the Premier advised the media that the privatization of ICBC was not included in phases 1, 2, 3, 4....

AN HON. MEMBER: Five.

MR. HARCOURT: Five? Well, we're waiting for the other shoes to drop. We've just heard that we've got stage 5 still being hidden — so stage 5.

Would the Premier advise the House what other public services are on the block in phases 3 and 4?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that's future policy.

MR. HARCOURT: The Premier is not being very straightforward.

He hasn't sought an election mandate for this activity. He refuses to

debate. He refuses an independent review. When are you going to come

clean with the people of British Columbia, Mr. Premier?

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Premier. Mr. Premier, the

consulting firm of Thome Ernst and Whinney was hired by the government

to review the sell-off of components of B.C. Hydro, and they

recommended against the sale of the research and development division

to private interests. In light of this, would the Premier inform the

House what new information he has that justifies the selling of the R

and D division?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Fortunately, as we considered the

various options with respect to privatization, there was a great deal

of consultation and certainly there was a great deal of involvement by

ministry people, and it wasn't just based on the recommendation of one

particular firm or group. There was a large involvement.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Premier. Is the Premier not

aware that a second consultant hired by B.C. Hydro has also reviewed

the proposed sell-off of the R and D division, and is he also not aware

that that consultant, Stone and Webster Engineering from Toronto,

concluded that the R and D division has saved B.C. Hydro millions of

dollars and that it doesn't make economic sense to sell it to private

interests?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: For the information of the hon. member

and other members, I think it should be noted as well that we as a

government are working in a variety of ways to assure that

diversification takes place in this province and that we have

opportunities for our young people other than in those industries which

we have historically in this province and for which we are grateful:

forestry and mining, or tourism or agriculture.

We see in this process — and I think the member has brought forth a

good example in the research and development division of Hydro — an

opportunity to build upon this service a whole new industry that will

provide research and development not only for B.C. Hydro, but for other

companies from elsewhere in Canada, countries in the Pacific

[ Page

2633 ]

Rim, the United States — to build an industry on

what now may be a small government undertaking to provide whole new

opportunities to many tens and hundreds of British Columbians, young

people who are looking for opportunities in this area.

I think, as we look at the privatization process, that we must keep

in mind the opportunities that are here to use those services as a base

to expand and to provide the service to others through a private sector

company, and thereby create further employment opportunities.

[2:45]

MR. CLARK: Supplementary for the Premier. The Premier is

expecting the people of British Columbia and the R and D branch to

listen to that bafflegab and rhetoric, when two consultants' reports

have said it doesn't make economic sense and won't fly. In addition,

Mr. Speaker, the Stone and Webster report also indicated that in

private hands "R and D costs would more than likely escalate at a

faster pace and not be as controllable as the present operation." We

now have two consultants' reports that recommend against it. Can the

Premier name one consultant's report that actually supports this

hare-brained scheme?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Some good information has been

obtained, Mr. Speaker, from various consultants. It should be

remembered as well by members in this House that what is being proposed

in British Columbia in the privatization process we're proceeding with

is not something unique that hasn't been tried elsewhere in the world.

As a matter of fact, I've spoken recently to someone from socialist New

Zealand who suggested that in socialist New Zealand they similarly went

through a process of consulting and looking at various reports, and

considering the privatization process. This program in New Zealand has

been very effective and successful and now certainly has the support of

even those New Zealanders who obviously acted much like the member for

Vancouver East.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order

35 to ask leave to make a motion calling for the adjournment of the House for

the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has insisted repeatedly over the past weeks

that he intends to proceed with his decentralization and privatization

schemes without the support, without the consent and without the

consultation of either this Legislature or the people of British

Columbia. The most radical proposals for change in the way our province

operates have been made — proposals that affect the public health and

safety, the selling off of public assets, the quality of public

services and jobs without a legislative look at that, legislation to be

debated in this chamber by those elected to protect the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, I and my party are prepared to speak out and not remain

silent at a time when the future of British Columbians and their

families is at stake, when our traditions and our social fabric are

about to be rent asunder.

We in the NDP demand an opportunity for a full and thorough debate

on privatization. I move therefore. Mr. Speaker, that we adjourn for

that extremely important debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments.

I will reserve my decision until later today.

MR. ROSE: Before proceeding to Orders of the Day, I believe I

gave you a note, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that there might be a

petition. May we have leave to return to petitions?

Leave granted.

Presenting Petitions

MS. SMALLWOOD: My petition is rather lengthy, so I'll speak to the intent of the petition and present the petition to the House.

To the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia and

the Legislature assembled, this petition is from the chiefs of the

Lytton and the Mount Currie Indian bands.

Whereas the provincial government's own select Wilderness Advisory

Committee recommended that the road should not be constructed through

the Stein River canyon without a formal agreement between the Lytton

Indian band and the provincial government and,

whereas no formal

agreement by the province and the Lytton Indian band has been reached,

the bands — represented by Chief Ruby Dunstan and Chief Leonard Andrew

— therefore petition this House to request that it postpone the

decision to initiate the road-building of the Stein River valley, that

that decision be rescinded.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the Ministry of

Finance and Corporate Relations for the period January 1, 1986 to March

31 1987; and the annual report of the superintendent of insurance for

the year ending December 31, 1986, in accordance with

section 351 of

the Insurance Act.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker. I'd like to welcome back all

members of the Legislative Assembly. I will advise the House now that

we will be sitting tomorrow and that today is the day to have members'

statements in for comment on Friday.

Second reading of Bill 48. Mr. Speaker.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, Bill 48 introduces a very

significant measure for the insurance industry in the province and an

administrative incorporation procedure for provincial insurance

companies. The insurance industry makes up an important part of the

financial services sector.

At present, a special act of the Legislature is required to

incorporate an insurance company in British Columbia. This procedure

has acted as an impediment to the incorporation of B.C.-based insurance

companies. In fact, today over 95 percent of the insurance companies

doing business in the province are incorporated extra provincially or

federally.

Bill 48 is a first step in the reform and modernization of

provincial legislation governing financial institutions. The government

is committed to encouraging the development of the financial sector as

part of its program to stimulate British Columbia's economic renewal.

Industries such as banks, trust companies, credit unions, investment

dealers and the insurance industry will all benefit from initiatives

which promote all aspects of the financial sector, including both

international and domestic financial activities.

[ Page 2634 ]

Bill 48 will make a significant contribution to the development of

the insurance industry in B.C. by establishing a quick, simple and

efficient administrative process for the incorporation of provincial

insurance companies. The flexibility of the provisions in the Insurance

Amendment Act, 1987, promote and support the development of smaller,

niche-oriented insurance companies, as well as the establishment of

broader-based general and life insurance companies. That is not

possible in many other jurisdictions. The process for incorporation

will be simpler and easier than in any other Canadian province; yet

sufficient checks and balances are built in to ensure the maintenance

and continued development of a viable and safe insurance industry in

the province. As a major additional safeguard, to ensure a strong and

stable industry, this bill ensures that greater reliance is placed on

boards of directors in governing the behaviour of insurance companies.

Bill 48 represents only the first instalment of amendments to the

Insurance Act. I expect to follow these changes with amendments to

further modernize the act, improve the regulatory provisions and

enhance the ability of insurance companies to provide other financial

services. In essence, Bill 48 is an important part of the total package

of measures the government will be undertaking to modernize and to

encourage growth in British Columbia's financial sector. I move that

the bill be now read a second time.

MR. WILLIAMS: In response, it's a little disturbing to hear

the Minister of Finance talking about quick, simple and efficient

establishment of financial institutions. In a sense, one could readily

agree with that. But if you were to stop and reflect for a little

while, you might think about the track record in the monitoring of

other financial institutions in this province. Then the goal sounds a

little disturbing, because, the track record is not good.

I don't know if the minister has beefed up his superintendent's

office in the last six months, but I'm not aware of that. The

superintendent's office, which is responsible for the various financial

institutions, has had a heavy load, and unfortunately it does not have

a good track record. We have other amendments coming before us that

presumably are of some help in that regard, but, you know....

The rhetoric of the right over the last few years with respect to

financial institutions is a little disturbing. They talk about removing

the original four pillars of financial institutions and merging them

for efficiency and the like. But the separation of institutions of

various kinds was really the result of problems in the past. Where you

have separate brokerage houses, banking institutions and insurance

institutions, you have arm's-length transactions, and the public is

saved from possible — if you'll forgive the term — conflict of interest

among these various institutions. When you start talking about

efficiency and all the rest, and pooling these things and allowing

various companies or separate institutions to get involved throughout

the piece, from insurance to other financial institutions, maybe you're

on the verge of trouble.

You have not shown that you have a sophisticated monitoring

capability under your ministry. You have not shown that with respect to

some of the credit unions in this province that have run into trouble

in recent years — particularly right here in the Victoria area, where

there are still problems. You have not shown that with respect to trust

institutions in recent years. You have not shown that there was

competence there to protect the investing public. We had people on the

steps of the Legislature today, and rightly so. We had the case of the

Newport mortgage institution, where there were similar problems that

were inadequately monitored by your ministry. And now we're getting a

kind of quick answer in terms of insurance. So it's disturbing.

We accept the principle that more insurance corporations should be

housed in the province, that there is an argument for establishing more

financial institutions of various kinds in the province. But now more

than ever there's probably a need for separating the various groups of

financial institutions so that the public is more fully and generally

protected.

Again, it does seem to beg the question. This is a government that

has supported free trade holus-bolus without, we suspect, as much

reflection as is necessary.

You just announced a few minutes ago that 95 percent of the

insurance corporations in this country have head offices elsewhere.

You're the one that removed in the last budget the premium tax

difference between provincially housed institutions with head offices

here and those elsewhere. If you really want those institutions to

establish here, then there should be some real incentives. I'm not sure

that this legislation is going to provide that.

[3:00]

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, there is the whole question of

consultation with the industry. Can the minister assure us that

consultation has taken place with the various sectors of this industry,

so that this is a statute based on a full understanding of the details

with respect to this industry? It is my understanding that that

consultation has not taken place. Have there been meetings between the

minister or his staff and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, or the

various agents' groups and the like here in British Columbia, or the

other players or consumer groups in this industry?

In principle, we endorse the idea of establishing new financial

institutions and expanding the insurance industry in the province. The

fact of the matter is that when we reflect on the track record of this

administration, it's pretty abysmal; you're in a tough competition with

the province of Alberta with respect to being in the basement in this

area. There is no evidence that you have the capacity and the

capability under your ministry to do the full job necessary with

respect to the range of financial institutions that you deal with in

this province, and we're not yet assured as a result of this

legislation.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I choose to respond to those remarks during the committee discussion.

Motion approved.

Bill 48, Insurance Amendment Act, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, this bill includes a broad

variety of miscellaneous amendments to various statutes administered by

the Ministry of Health. These acts involve the regulation of certain

health professions, issues related to public health, review of payments

to practitioners

[ Page

2635 ]

by the Medical Services Commission and filing of

changes of name. I would like to describe briefly the highlights of the

amendments to each act.

Community Care Facility Act. With these amendments, it would be

possible for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to designate a class of

facilities as exempt from the provisions of the act, rather than just

individual facilities. This is intended to cover such facilities as

babysitting services in shopping malls or at ski resorts. In accordance

with circumstances established in the regulations, the licensing board

would now be able to issue a letter of permission to a person to act as

a preschool supervisor without the full qualifications. This would

permit the board to deal with shortages of fully qualified persons in

northern and remote areas. Also the board would be able to delegate to

local medical health officers the power to issue licences. At present,

medical health officers can only amend licences or issue interim

permits. Another amendment would give the board the power to suspend or

cancel a preschool supervisor's certificate for cause.

Now under the Health Act. When some of the key amendments of this

act were given first reading, they created some undue concern that the

new

section 5.1 and the amended

section 7 were aimed particularly at

victims of AIDS. To help clarify the intent of these amendments and to

alleviate any public concern they may have raised, I would like to

speak specifically to these two sections. I am confident that with a

clearer explanation, those who may have expressed a concern will be

reassured that adequate safeguards will be put in place to protect

individual rights.

The new

section of the act,

section 5.1, has been included solely to

assist legitimate medical researchers in obtaining guaranteed access to

an uninterrupted flow of diagnostic data. Indeed, the Ministry of

Health received a specific request from the Cancer Control Agency of

British Columbia to legislate just such a provision. In further

consideration of expressed concerns, I have advised my cabinet

colleagues that I will be amending the bill to refer specifically to

the cancer control agency as the sole approved organization for the

purpose of collecting information pertaining to medical research. I am

confident that this step will substantially alleviate the concerns

voiced following first reading of the bill.

Of equal importance to me was the unfortunate reaction from some

quarters to the perceived intent of

section 7 of the bill concerning

the powers of a medical health officer or a court to make an order

respecting an individual with a reportable communicable disease. In

order to ensure that there is no misunderstanding with respect to the

powers and intent of medical health officers, the bill is being changed

to specify that an order restricting the activities of a person with a

serious infectious disease may only be made if the individual is likely

to wilfully, carelessly or because of mental incompetence expose others

to the disease.

Because of the particular sensitivity and misunderstanding expressed

earlier concerning

section 7, I would like to highlight briefly some of

the procedures that have been included in order to safeguard against

any potential for abuse of authority.

First, the medical health officer must have reasonable grounds to

believe that the person is both infectious and likely to expose others

to the disease. Second, any order by the medical health officer

requires voluntary compliance and cannot be enforced without a court

order. Third, a medical health officer cannot apply for a court order

without the approval of the provincial health officer, a requirement

which in itself necessitates an internal review before the matter can

be actioned further. Fourth, a proper hearing must be held in

provincial court, where the person will be given a full opportunity to

explain their position. Fifth, before the court can make an order, it

must be established at the hearing that the person (1) is infectious,

(2) is likely to expose others to the disease, and (3) has contravened

the medical health officer's order.

I think it is important to recognize that in addition to these

formal mechanisms. an individual with an infectious disease who is

under the order of a medical health officer can at any time request an

appeal of the order. If the person can demonstrate that they are either

no longer infectious or no longer likely to expose others to the

disease, the order will be cancelled. I would also like to remind all

hon. members of this House that while the revision of this

section of

the bill was originally prompted by concerns about tuberculosis

patients, these procedures are intended to apply to persons with any

serious reportable communicable disease.

On a final note with respect to amendments to 5.1 and 7, I would

like to point out that the ministry has consulted with the B.C. Civil

Liberties Association and the office of the ombudsman and has been

advised that they will support the bill with these amendments. With the

consultation that has taken place, and with amendments made which I

believe adequately address earlier expressed concerns regarding

sections 5.1 and 7, I feel it is now incumbent upon the members of this

House to ensure that their constituents be made aware of the value and

intent of these amendments.

Now the Health Emergency Act. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will

clarify that the province can establish different ambulance rates for

non-residents and for employers who are required by statute to provide

on-the-job emergency assistance.

Hospital District Act. Cost-sharing between the province and

regional hospital districts will henceforth be on a straight 60-40

basis. Most financing is already done on a 60-40 basis, but a small

number of districts are eligible for 80-20 cost-sharing after costs

exceed a certain threshold.

Various amendments are proposed to the Medical Practitioners Act,

which governs the practice of medicine in the province. The College of

Physicians and Surgeons, which is responsible for administration of

this act, requested these changes and has been consulted on the

wording. The rulemaking power to generally govern the profession is

expanded and a new power is added that gives the college the authority

to regulate the manner in which searches and seizures are conducted.

The

section respecting the holding of meetings has been replaced with a

new

section that includes special general meetings. An investigating

committee may inspect the clinical records of the members and other

documents related to the investigation. Refusal to cooperate may result

in a suspension. There is also a new provision to allow for auditing of

members on an informal basis, in an effort to offer constructive advice

to improve the quality of a member's practice. Such auditing may

include inspection of records, but is intended to be used in cases

where a formal investigation is not warranted. Under the amended act,

Mr. Speaker, the inquiry committee would make a determination following

a hearing and the matter would then be sent to the college's council

for imposition of a penalty. Previously, the

[ Page 2636 ]

council had to make the determination even though

the inquiry committee held the hearing. A new provision would restrict,

where it is to be used in a civil proceeding, the record of a patient's

testimony given at any investigation or hearing authorized by the

college. It is hoped that this will help to overcome the reluctance of

patients to testify in allegations of misconduct, particularly where

they involve sexual matters.

[3:15]

The Medical Services Act establishes the provincial medical care

insurance scheme. A number of amendments are included in this bill. The

B.C. Medical Association has been consulted on these changes. One

amendment would expand the authority of the Medical Services Commission

to issue practitioner numbers. In addition to the procedure now

established in the act and regulations, the commission would be able to

issue a practitioner number where an individual first satisfies

specific conditions. For example, a number could be issued where a

person agreed to practice in a specified location or in a salaried

capacity for a certain length of time.

A series of new amendments has been added dealing with audit

committees, Mr. Speaker. These committees will be empowered to review

the patterns of practice and the billings of any practitioner paid by

the Medical Services Plan. Inspectors can be appointed to review

records and examine the practices of individuals. A committee may hold

a hearing, and if it determines that a practitioner has an unacceptable

pattern of practice that cannot be justified, it may order that the

practitioner repay a sum to the commission or that he be paid on a

revised fee

schedule for a period of time. Additional powers for the

commission to collect moneys owed it by practitioners have also been

included with these amendments. A new regulation-making power is added

to permit limits to be placed on how much a practitioner may bill a

patient from another province who receives an insured service in B.C.

This change establishes reciprocity with the other provinces and will

ensure portability of medicare benefits throughout the country.

Name Act. The basic provisions for change of name are being

standardized and streamlined. An applicant must be over 19 years and

have resided here for at least three months. A minor with custody of

his or her child will also he able to apply. A married person will no

longer be required to obtain the consent of his or her spouse. The

requirements to change a child's name have been consolidated but are

substantially the same. Both natural parents must consent, even if they

are divorced. A person who marries a divorced person with custody of

the child must consent if he has adopted the child or if the surname is

to be changed to his surname. A child over the age of 12 must still

also give his consent.

New discretionary powers for the director are included. He can waive

requirements for consent to a name change where it is being

unreasonably withheld. He can also waive the requirements for

advertising a change-of-name application where appropriate — for

example, a woman attempting to avoid an abusive spouse. The director

can withhold information about a name change where it is in the public

interest. Also the director is given the discretion to waive fees where

appropriate. A new

section will make it mandatory for all persons

applying for a name change to use both a given name and a surname.

Physiotherapists Act. Mr. Speaker, I have advised my colleagues in

cabinet that following extensive consultation with the Association of

Physiotherapists and Massage Practitioners of B.C., I will be

introducing some amendments to this bill. Educational requirements for

registration will now be established by the Council of Physiotherapists

and Massage Practitioners. Present provisions in the act for approval

of schools by the council for the minister have not proved to be

satisfactory. However, I am pleased to advise this House that the

council has expressed full support of the amendment respecting

educational requirements for registration.

A new temporary register is being established in an effort to

alleviate the acute shortages of physiotherapists, particularly in the

northern and remote areas. This temporary registration will be for a

one-year term, with provision for two-year renewals. It is designed in

this way in order to allow partially qualified persons to be employed

while they complete the requirements to become fully registered. We

feel this is a fair and equitable provision for all concerned.

Psychologists Act. With amendments to this act, the board of the

B.C. Psychological Association is being enlarged from seven to nine

members, and the election of members will now be staggered to promote

continuity during periods of transition. The amendments to

section 8 of

the act will simply permit the association to use ordinary mail instead

of very costly registered mail to send out notices of proposed changes

to the rules.

Section 18 has also been amended in order to clarify that

the exemptions from this act that are now afforded to various public

sector employees will include persons employed by school boards as

school psychologists. This will not alter existing working

arrangements, but will merely confirm the entitlement of such persons

to describe themselves as psychologists in the course of employment.

This provision is consistent with most jurisdictions in North America.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the consideration of all

members of this House in support of amendments to this bill. For the

convenience of the assembly, I now table the amendments to Bill 34, and

move that the bill now be read a second time.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I will advise you that I am the designated speaker. I don't think I'll go two hours, though.

This is a very large bill, and it covers just about everything you

can think of. It's a difficult bill for me to deal with at this stage,

as you are supposedly dealing with the principle of the bill and the

principle of the bill contains so many aspects of it. However, I am

going to do my best, as the minister has covered just about all the

aspects in his comments.

This bill obviously deals with communicable diseases, hospital

funding, physiotherapists and psychologists. Just about everything you

can think of in terms of health care is touched in some way in this

bill. In this bill, I think you've seen two areas. You've seen areas

where consultation has occurred, and in those areas we have some fine

legislation and some fine amendments to the health acts. There are

other areas where no consultation has occurred, and we've had some

problems as a result.

The consultation obviously has occurred with regard to the hospital

districts, some of the actions with regard to the medical practitioners

and the Name Act. We really lack when it comes to the Health Act, the

Physiotherapists Act and the Psychologists Act. The minister has just

read changes and amendments to two of those areas, the Health Act and

the Physiotherapists Act, and I am pleased to see that he has in fact

listened to the physiotherapists and has brought about changes they

have been asking for. I'm also pleased that there

[ Page 2637 ]

are some changes in the Health Act, but we have a little bit of confusion and concern about what is going on there.

There are no changes with regard to the Psychologists Act, even

after the psychologists probably have been inundating the minister with

written correspondence and telephone calls, much as I have been

inundated. The psychologists have some definite concerns there, and I

wish the minister had addressed those concerns in his amendments as

well.

Now I am going to the area that is of grave concern and that most

people have been dealing with when it comes to this act. It is

unfortunate because this act covers a large number of things — many of

them good — and the focus has been on the

section that deals with the

Health Act; that

section is commonly known as the AIDS area. I think

it's unfortunate because this is not just an AIDS bill; it deals with

all communicable diseases.

I can understand and accept the concern of the minister and of the

people in this province and the necessity to protect people from those

who do not behave in a responsible manner and who wilfully — as the

amendment says — cause hazards or possibilities of infection for other

people. However, there are some real concerns as to what effect this is

having on people that do have communicable diseases.

Mr. Speaker, we originally stated when this bill was presented that

we accepted this and understood the necessity for these things, but we

wanted to see some confirmation of human rights and that people would

be assured that human rights would be protected and that anonymity

would be protected. I do not think that the amendments we have right

now deal with those things. The amendments you have in there are good

and they are accepted and well received, but they do not go quite far

enough, because right now, as far as I can see, human rights are not

protected at all. There is information that we may see some legislation

on human rights. This is the word I am getting in the community out

there, that there may be human rights legislation coming to pass. But

as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we don't believe

we can accept anything on the basis of something that may come about or

that this government will in fact put into place any kind of

legislation that will protect the rights of people. Basically, the

track record has not been good. I and my colleagues feel much distrust

of the government with regard to human rights legislation and believe

that we have to see the actual writing before us to ensure that people

in this province have their rights protected.

The fear of communicable diseases, AIDS in particular, has grown to

such a tremendous extent that it's one of the most fearful things

people have seen in many years, probably since the polio epidemic.

Because of that year, often people do things and behave in a way that

is not proper or responsible. Because of a lack of information and a

lack of knowledge about AIDS, they tend to treat people differently.

Although we haven't seen much of that occurring here in B.C., we've

certainly seen that occurring in other parts of the world. I can

mention the effect it had when a house was burnt down in the southern

U.S. with some children that had AIDS.

The city of Vancouver has just brought in some policies that I feel

are fine policies, ones that I would like to see the government look

towards to ensure that people are never discriminated against because

of having contracted AIDS. We must make sure that people are not

discriminated against for having contracted any communicable disease,

regardless of whether it is AIDS, tuberculosis, or what have you.

The minister mentioned the

section in the act that puts the

information and the records in the control of the Cancer Control

Agency. This is something that was asked for by the people involved,

from my understanding, and it's probably a reasonable thing to do.

However, there is nothing in that

section —

section 7 — that protects

the anonymity of the people who have those records. Although the cancer

agency is designated as the agency for gathering information, it also

states that the information and records can be disclosed to the

government. government agency or other organization for the purpose of

compiling statistical information by an organization in government.

That information is available to practically anybody out there, really.

I have some real concerns when information that is gathered and is

supposedly very highly confidential is available not on an anonymous

basis. If we are interested merely in gathering statistics and

gathering information for research, then surely we can do that on the

basis of anonymity. There is not any reason for people's names to be

attached to any of this.

[3:30]

I think that you also have to consider what will happen with regard

to the privatization that is currently going on. We see B.C. Systems

going off. At what later date will we see our medical services plan

being sold off, or our research areas? Just where is the information

that is going into these hands going to end up? I don't know. and I

don't think the minister knows right now, because, really, nobody in

the government has any idea of exactly where privatization is going to

end up, and what areas are the next to be hit. So there are some very

real concerns about this area.

There are some other small areas of this bill that I will deal with

in the clause-by-clause section. The major changes that I can see are

the requirements to change the amendments to the Psychologists Act,

decreasing the ability of the psychologists to establish their own

standards and limiting their ability to establish what educational

level is required for a psychologist; in fact, it reduces that level. I

know that the psychologists have been working and have suggested to the

minister, and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) as well,

that they come to some kind of agreement. I don't think it is an

impossible task to achieve. I believe very strongly that they — the

psychologists and the school psychologists — can come to an amiable

agreement that would allow the psychologists to protect their title, to

protect their standards, at the same time giving the school

psychologists the association that they require.

In closing, I would like to say that I'm really concerned with the

effect that the first section, the

section that deals with the Health

Act, will have on the people of this province. I fully accept, and I

would like to see, legislation that protects the people from people who

are behaving in an irresponsible manner, but I think that we can never

make that protection at the expense of the human rights and the

anonymity of other people, and that's what I believe this bill does. I

believe that we will see those people who have communicable diseases

driven underground, not going in for testing, not going in to make

their records available, because they are very fearful as to what is

going to happen to those records. I believe that you will see people

not going in for testing because they are very fearful as to what's

going to happen to their human rights. And I believe that these things

could be adjusted — they can be protected. Some changes to the

legislation to protect the anonymity and to protect the human rights of

those people would make this excellent legislation and change it from

[ Page 2638 ]

something that is going to be a fear out there into

a tool that could be used by everyone to protect everybody, including

those communities that are more inclined to contract AIDS.

I will close at this point, and I will deal with the other small

sections — because there are a lot of different areas here — in the

clause-by-clause debate.

MS. CAMPBELL: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 34 as

amended. It is a complex bill and the time will come to address it

clause by clause, but I'd like in particular to address the amendments

to the Health Act, which I think are the most significant aspect of

this bill, in terms of the broad range of public policy in this

province.

The day after the original version of Bill 34 was tabled in the

House, it was the subject of press commentary in the city of Vancouver,

and I can remember hearing the medical health officer of the city of

Vancouver, Dr. John Blatherwick, being interviewed on the CBC about

this bill. He spoke about it very positively and indicated how much he

welcomed the bill. The reason was that that very day a tuberculosis

patient had left a public facility and was at large, and he was a

person who was known to be careless of the infection that he carried

and his infectiousness in society. Dr. Blatherwick pointed out that

Bill 34 would provide the ability for public authorities to detain that

person, and he pointed out that those who suffer from tuberculosis are

in fact highly infectious and highly dangerous, and that if you were to

stand next to a tuberculosis patient in a bar, you would in fact be at

serious risk for contracting the disease. So he spoke in great favour

of the bill.

Clearly the bill also applies to people who suffer from AIDS, and

there is a great sensitivity in our society to trying to come up with

those programs and legislative protection that will protect the society

from this fatal disease — it is a death sentence when people get it —

but also respect the human rights of people, because AIDS is not in any

way as infectious as tuberculosis. And the bill was welcomed from that

perspective, Mr. Speaker.

But as people pondered the wording of the bill, there was some

concern that, given the experience, particularly in the United States,

of the kind of witch-hunts against innocent sufferers of AIDS that the

member for Prince George North has referred to, there might be some use

of the bill in ways that were not intended. The minister's first

reaction was to be very satisfied with the bill, and rightly so,

because it was not anywhere in his intention to have the bill used in

any way other than fairly and with due regard for the rights of

individuals of this province. But as a number of people pointed out to

him that there was this concern, particularly in the community with

respect to those who suffered from AIDS, the minister showed a great

willingness to listen to those concerns. And he has tabled amendments

in this House which answer those concerns in a very fair way.

But all of the people who expressed those concerns to the minister

reinforced their support for the basic direction of this bill. They

supported the legislation, but they asked him to consider making some

amendments that would alleviate some of the fears of people who were

concerned about possible abuses or possible lack of due process for

individuals suffering from AIDS. I think it is a sign of the minister's

caring that he was willing to listen, that he convened members of the

civil liberties community and convened the various ministries involved,

in order to come up with these particular amendments.

The member for Prince George North has spoken about the need for

human rights legislation. I would respectfully submit to this House

that human rights come under a different statute in this province and

that it isn't appropriate at this stage to introduce amendments. But

she has also pointed out that the minister has expressed a willingness

to discuss amendments to human rights legislation. This is an ongoing

process, and I have every confidence that these discussions will be

sincere and fruitful.

The concerns about confidentiality. When we look at the wording of

the statute.... The statute enables the authorities to convey the

information compiled on cancer patients, and it is important to note

that the bill has been amended to confine that information-gathering

function to the Cancer Control Agency. This has once again alleviated

the concerns of many people who are advocates for AIDS sufferers in

society. It says that that information may be given to other

authorities for the purpose of compiling statistical information. In

other words, the act makes very clear the only acceptable purpose for

communicating that information, and to communicate that information for

any other purpose would be improper and not permitted under the act. I

believe the act does provide considerable protection.

It is surely in the interest of all British Columbians to have

adequate and full statistical information on the health of British

Columbia. I would particularly point out to the member for Prince

George North the importance of statistical information in understanding

the health of her own area, because it was a matter of concern raised

by that member in this House that in a number of areas of disease,

citizens in her area of the province appeared to have a higher

mortality rate than was the provincial average. The only way we can

begin to understand and detect perhaps environmental agents, or other

kinds of public health factors that would enable us to understand those

statistical anomalies, is through the full gathering of information on

some of the more serious diseases in our province.

With respect to confidentiality, there are never any absolute

guarantees, and that is a great tragedy in our time. We've worked very

hard to develop confidentiality. It was commented earlier today in

another context that certainly people in government are aware of the

difficulties in that area, since many supposedly confidential documents

do find their way to other destinations. There was the recent case,

discussed in the newspaper, of an employee of Revenue Canada who had

stolen tax files. There will never be any absolute protection against

people who are willing to break the law and violate their oaths of

confidentiality, but I believe the statute goes as far as it is

possible to go in this case in protecting confidentiality while still

serving the research function that it is attempting, a function which

is to the benefit of all British Columbians.

So I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to speak in second reading debate

in support of this bill, particularly in support of the amendments to

the Health Act and the amendments tabled today by the minister, and to

compliment the minister on his great receptivity to the concerns of

British Columbians and his willingness to listen, and on his ongoing

commitment to listen to the concerns of British Columbians so that the

legislation sponsored by his ministry is effective yet sensitive to the

broader social circumstances in which it has to act.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

[ Page 2639 ]

MR. CASHORE: It's difficult to read, learn and inwardly

digest amendments to the amendments contained in the bill and still try

to have a total grasp of all the thinking that has gone into that. I do

realize we will have greater opportunity during the committee stage.

Having read the amendments, I find a small degree of reassurance,

but I'm not sure that the insertion of the words "wilfully, carelessly

or because of mental incompetence" prior to the words "expose others"

section 7(l)(

b) and

section 7(3)(

a) are adequate to deal with the

kinds of concerns we heard expressed from wide segments of the

community as the public dialogue was unleashed following the first time

this bill hit the order paper.

I think people in all aspects of the community, and especially that

part of the community which has worked, mostly as volunteers, among

those who are victims of the AIDS disease, are people who deserve to

have input into this process. I understand that the minister will

probably tell us such consultation has taken place, and I'm not about

to deny that. But I would like to ask that we have the quality of

consultation with these people that enables us to come up with the best

possible bill at this time to deal with an issue so serious for the

future of health care within this province that it's phenomenal.

I would like to start by asking the question: what is the purpose or

the goal in bringing forward this legislation at this time? On both

sides of the House I think we agree that the goal of the legislation is

to do everything we possibly can (

a) to stop the spread of AIDS, and

(

b) to find the research capacity to enable us to eliminate this

disease from the face of the earth. I'm sure we agree in terms of that

goal. I also understand that the situation is urgent, Madam Speaker, to

the extent that we must be preparing to take action quickly; indeed,

some actions have been taken. But I would like to point out that it is

still possible, in the pursuance of a goal, to take steps in haste to

the extent that we actually find we have made mistakes in those initial

stages which result in the denial of that goal. Were that to be the

case, I think all of us would be extremely disappointed to have

participated in the passing of such legislation in a state where it

might in fact be a stumbling block to the goal we wish to achieve.

[3:45]

We've had assurances from the minister that the civil liberties

people and the ombudsman have been consulted: he has reported to us

today that those two entities have said that they feel these amendments

are appropriate and therefore deal with their initial concerns and

fears. I hope I'm paraphrasing adequately. However, I don't think that

any of us, be we people who work in the ombudsman's office or people

who work in the Civil Liberties Association, would ever say that we

have had adequate opportunity to discuss this issue from the

perspective of those who work most closely in the field. Therefore we

come to the nub of the problem.

Madam Speaker, the nub of the problem is this: can we achieve the

intended goal of this legislation if in passing it we instill a kind of

fear into the community that has been affected by AIDS that will result

in driving that disease underground? If that is the result of our

actions here in this House, we will look back and say: "We erred; we

made an irrevocable mistake; we could have gone about it a different

way."

I don't want any of my remarks to be taken as saying that I am

opposed to legislation or even to building on this legislation, but I

am saying that the urgency of the situation is not sufficient to put us

in such haste that we err in a way that cannot be reversed. Therefore I

would like to point out that even with the assurances the minister has

told us about from the Civil Liberties people and from the ombudsman's

office, we do have those concerns out there in the community of those

who work most closely at the grassroots level.

I have in my hand a pamphlet that has been put out by, as I

understand it, a coalition of groups and individuals who are very much

involved in this issue, the Committee for Responsible Health

Legislation, and I would like to read into the record some of the

concerns that they have about Bill 34. I would like to point out that I

don't really believe the amendments that we have seen before us today

come to terms with the fears they have expressed. These are people, let

me point out, who are deeply committed to the resolution of this issue

for the benefit of the future of our society. These are not people who

in any way should be categorized as those who seek to be

rabble-rousers, fear mongers or any of those kinds of pejoratives.

These are people who are saying that they are willing to put into the

public dialogue the benefit of their experience, and it's a hands-on,

grassroots experience that is extremely valuable.

This is what they feel this bill will do. They feel it will let the

government invade the private lives of any suspected individual in

complete disregard for civil liberties. We could argue in this House

whether or not that is the case, but it is the type of issue we are

hearing from this part of the community. It is so serious, coming from

them, that we really need to take a sober second look when this type of

concern is being expressed, when this type of fear is being instilled

by this bill.

This group, pointing out the powers and the

definitions parts of the

act, indicate a great deal of concern over the power that the cabinet

would have by order-in-council to develop new

definitions on the run,

to be defining as they go such terms as communicable disease,

reportable disease, isolation and quarantine. To think that the cabinet

could decide to make those kinds of decisions on the basis of one

cabinet meeting, without having the benefit of debate within the

Legislature, without having the kind of consultation that would be

necessary, is wrong. It's simply inappropriate.

While this is probably not the intent of this bill — I am sure it is

not — it leaves the door open for excesses and inappropriate actions in

the future that have nothing to do with AIDS. This is a very

frightening part of this kind of legislation. Frankly, I am concerned

to hear the minister say in this House today that the people he has

consulted with in the Civil Liberties Association are not concerned

about the definition

section of this bill. I would think that, as one

group that prides itself on being the guardians of civil rights, the

Civil Liberties people should be extremely concerned about the

definition

section of this bill.

In all seriousness. Madam Speaker, this coalition also states that

they fear that Bill 34 will give the government and other agencies

access to medical records, and that this would destroy the trust

relationship between a doctor and patient with regard to

confidentiality. I know that the medical community, the doctors of our

province, recognize the need for some kind of legislation. I know that

this concern about the doctor-patient relationship is coming from a

group of consumers, but certainly it is important to be able to judge

the value of a doctor-patient relationship from two perspectives: the

doctor's and the patient's. If we hear the people who have the ear of

patients saying that they would fear the regular, normal consultation

with their physician because of the fear that this bill would instill,

then I think we really need to take

[ Page 2640 ]

notice. I think we need to take a little more time and have that sober second thought.

They also say that it will create a precedent for future government

actions, which would invade personal freedoms in areas such as

mandatory AIDS testing and in employment drug-testing. They further say

that it will limit people's ability to fight the government. A fight

would take costly legal action in the Supreme Court and threaten public

exposure and ridicule. We are dealing here with a situation which could

result in a kind of confrontation coming into the arena that is not

necessary, that could be developed in a better way.

Here is what is suggested as an approach that needs to be found

within a Health Statutes Amendment Act or, indeed, a new Health Act

that would start to come to terms with this issue. I would ask the

minister to very seriously consider instituting some measures that

would make these points. These are positive points, and I want to

congratulate the minister for having taken some steps already to do

some of these things. I'm not saying that the minister is not concerned

about these points, but I am saying it's a serious enough issue that it

should be in the legislation.

The provincial government should be funding clear and hard-hitting

educational programs. We're seeing what has been developed so far on

television. We know there has been a process of consultation. We think

that needs to go a lot further. A lot more needs to be done; we cannot

let up. It's going to require a major portion of funding so that that

educational development can really take effect.

There's also a need to fund support and education groups such as the

Vancouver Persons With AIDS Coalition, AIDS Vancouver and AIDS

Vancouver Island. These are the groups that can help us because of

their background, their knowledge and their serious willingness to work

on this issue for the benefit of all of us.

Another thing that my colleague from Prince George North (Mrs.

Boone) mentioned was the need to adopt human rights legislation to end

discrimination based on sexual orientation. While we may find that

there are some assurances that the human rights legislation would be

amended, or that an appropriate human rights bill would be brought in,

it is cold comfort for those who are facing the imminent passing of

this legislation without those kinds of assurances being there. Also,

as this group points out, there is a need to fund counselling programs

for people affected by AIDS, including research into alternative

therapies and support for health care workers. There's a need to

establish distribution programs for free condoms and intravenous

needles. There's a need to establish in a fund adequate and indexed

social assistance programs for those unable to work due to illness.

These are points being made by people who have a concept of a

preventive approach that will bring people forward to consult with

their doctors and to voluntarily receive the kind of testing and

treatment that are going to enable us as a society to keep this disease

from going underground and going into a situation where we lose the

opportunity to achieve the goal that we have said we all agree on, to

rid the world of this disease.

We have to ask ourselves as we look at this issue: will this legislation stop

the spread of AIDS? There is a serious question about whether it will. If it

forces this disease underground, then what is the value of us passing this legislation?

Where is the assurance in this legislation that public education will continue?

How will this legislation help those people who are already ill with this disease?

Can we demonstrate that this legislation will effectively reduce the anxiety

and the paranoia surrounding AIDS that exists among those people who have been

infected with the disease and those people in the community? Can we say that

this legislation will really help existing medical research programs? With all

due respect for the amendment that has been presented here today, we realize

that this could very well result in people who are needed to help with that

process not coming forward.

Finally, there's a serious question as to whether this program will

be effective in terms of the economic aspect of it, because the medical

costs will be phenomenal if this legislation, which is not intended to

do so, results in driving the opportunity to deal with this disease,

and driving those people who are frightened, underground. Madam

Speaker, I think that this is cause for sober second thought, and I

would call on the minister to bring this matter before a standing

committee of the House so that we may discuss this issue with the full

benefit of those people in the community who have not had the

opportunity to date, through consultation, to participate.

I just want to say in conclusion that I feel very upset and

disappointed that the Premier has introduced legislation and programs

that are going to lead to massive changes in the fabric of our society.

Those kinds of things are taking public attention away from an issue as

important as this one. This is what we really need to be putting our

time and energy into if we are going to be dealing with this most

serious situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 34 and to comment briefly on the remarks that have been made thus far.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about highways.

[4:00]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In a different bill.

I am encouraged to hear from members of the opposition — the Health

critic, the MLA for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) and the member who

has just taken his seat — that they do agree that we have had

consultation with respect to this bill.

If we are going to speak to the principle of this bill — it has

many, many amendments and many sections dealing with a variety of

health issues — perhaps one of the principles of this bill that we can

address today is the principle of wide and, in my mind, extremely good

consultation. If we examine the Orders of the Day ,

Madam Speaker, you will note that the bill was introduced on June 7 in

the spring session, and we're all aware of the variety of concerns that

were expressed at that time.

I guess the debate could be characterized as being quite polarized.

There were members of the Civil Liberties Association and others who

saw some real fear in what had been proposed. Others, of course,

thought it was the type of legislation we needed given the terrifying

circumstance we have with respect to this most contagious disease AIDS,

and the fact that it is to date incurable and fatal. Nevertheless, the

Minister of Health, I think, did a yeoman's job, in consultation with

the gay community in Vancouver, with people who are concerned with

civil liberties, and many others, and did spend some serious time and

consideration drafting amendments which he knew would be acceptable to

those people who did express those concerns, and yet maintaining the

integrity of the bill.

[ Page 2641 ]

I commend the minister and those who worked with him, and those

people who expressed their concern in establishing, that. It's a

language that is acceptable to those who cherish civil liberties and

also maintains the integrity of the bill, given the extent of this

very, very serious health situation that exists in the western world,

if not the entire world.

In speaking to the consultation process.... I wish to speak briefly

to the sections of the bill, and I will do this in more detail in

committee stage. I now speak to the fact that the-government has been

listening to health care concerns throughout the province. I would

commend to all members the work of the Cabinet Committee on Social

Policy, which has traveled extensively throughout the province and

which has done very good work and made very good recommendations.

One of them is contained in this bill — and I speak particularly as

a member for the central interior — with respect to the changes to the

Physiotherapists Act. I will recount for the House briefly the Cabinet

Committee on Social Policy which met in Prince George in January. At

that time I was a member of the committee. A variety of concerns were

expressed to us. One of the most serious — and it's one I have

experienced for some time now as a representative of the central

interior — is the lack of physiotherapists and the inability to attract

the required number of physiotherapists to our communities. It's very

specialized training. We don't appear to be training or graduating

enough of them, and that's another issue we can address. Nevertheless,

the result has been that we. are facing an acute shortage of this type

of specialty in the central interior.

The Ministry of Health has recognized that shortage and has put in

place a scholarship program which rewards students who want to study

the various health care disciplines and encourages them to relocate

upon graduation in areas in the north. However, it's going to take some

time for that process to be in place and for the students who are being

trained and are taking advantage of that scholarship program to get

into the medical workplace.

Therefore it was deemed essential — and many representations were

made to the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, particularly from the

Child Development Centre in Prince George — that we should encourage

and in any way assist organizations like the Child Development Centre

and the Prince George Regional Hospital in attracting physiotherapists

trained in the U.K. and in western Europe. We did that by

order-in-council earlier this spring. We were able to react to that

concern and deliver the services and programs in Prince George. I am

pleased to see that it is now contained in legislation that we can aid

the immigration of those people who are so desperately needed in our

communities in order to provide better service to those who need it.

For that I commend the minister and the work they have done. Also, I

commend the physiotherapists' association for the input they had to our

legislation. Members will also note that amendments just recently filed

by the minister with respect to Bill 34 really alleviate some of the

concerns the physiotherapists had with respect to their legislation and

how they would govern themselves. I am pleased to see that the minister

was able to do that.

The important thing is that we now have a mechanism to ensure that

we have a better delivery of health care professionals in the central

interior, and that will greatly alleviate some of the problems faced by

our regional hospital and also by the Child Development Centre.

The other aspect with respect to consultation that the minister

considered in this act — again, I will briefly refer to sections — is a

reference to school psychologists. There has been long-standing concern

by the psychologists' association as to how they would govern

themselves and who they would admit and who could call themselves

psychologists. I am sure there are many people in this assembly who

know more about the subject than I do, but speaking as a former school

trustee, I know that many school psychologists are employed in

districts throughout the province. They provide a great help for the

district, for the students, for the teachers and for the parents, and

they did want some recognition. I am pleased to see that the minister

was able to recognize the service they provide and not to get hung up

in any protection-of-turf arguments that were raised by some members of

the psychologists' community and to address the concern that the school

psychologists — all very talented people — had.

That, essentially, is what I wanted to say. Just to sum up my

feelings about this bill. I think it has been a model of consultation

on behalf of the Minister of Health. He has spent considerable time

since June 7 listening to the concerns of the various communities,

recognizing that those concerns were legitimate, spending an awful lot

of time with his staff, with legislative council and with other

members, ensuring that when we drew up amendments to Bill 34 they would

answer the concerns we have.

So I do see it as a model of consultation. I commend the minister. I

am extremely pleased with the additions that have been made and with

the intent of the Psychologists Act, because it will be of an immediate

benefit to the riding I represent. I know the same will apply to the

psychologists' section.

So with that, I thank you, Madam Speaker and hon. members, and

advise you that I am voting for and am totally supportive of Bill 34.

MR. CLARK: I'll be very brief, Madam Speaker. I rise quite

simply to go on record as being opposed to this bill, in particular the

sections that deal with communicable diseases. The member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) very eloquently stated the

concern, as did the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), and I

would like to try to summarize a little bit. Surely the goal is to

prevent or control the spread of communicable diseases such as AIDS.

That is such a very serious goal in society generally today, and even

more so in British Columbia because of the high percentage of the

population that has the disease compared to other jurisdictions.

Therefore it behooves us to be particularly vigilant and aggressive in

dealing with this disease. But quite frankly, I don't think this act

does anything to deal with that. In fact, I believe quite strongly that

it will weaken the cause of dealing with that very serious disease, and

it will do so for two reasons.

The first is essentially that we lack human rights legislation that

deals substantially with discrimination against people with

communicable diseases and against those with sexual preference. I think

those two things are very important for human rights legislation. The

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has included them in his model

legislation, and it has to be in place. As a precursor to dealing with

or giving the quarantine powers contemplated in this act, I feel very

strongly about that, and I know other members on this side of the House

do as well. The reason it's important, first of all, is that without

anonymity and human rights protection for those

[ Page 2642 ]

affected by the disease, people are driven

underground, and testing and education and control of the disease

become much, much harder without that kind of protection.

The solution to this problem that is contemplated in the act may

appear to be simple, but it is a very complex problem dealing with real

people and with fear and apprehension on the part of those who do not

have the disease as well as those who do have the disease. I think the

minister has consulted many groups, and for that he is to be commended.

But in my view, he hasn't consulted adequately enough with AIDS

patients themselves. I must say that I have a number of constituents

who have the disease whom I have talked to. They have talked to me at

length about the legislation, with very real concerns that are not

allayed by this legislation. Even if one accepts the argument that this

legislation deals adequately with the problem, if those affected don't

feel it does, if you haven't convinced them that you've dealt with it

effectively, then in fact it won't work. Once again we have the

situation, as with other legislation brought into the House, that

without the consent or at least the understanding of those affected,

these kinds of solutions do not work.

I think that the track record of the government in dealing with this

very serious topic, with the disease of AIDS, is not reassuring,

because the ministry has consistently taken the view that the ministry

will deal with this problem with centralized solutions, with solutions

from the Ministry of Health. They have spent some money on those kinds

of solutions, yet all the studies show that the most effective way of

combatting AIDS is with community-based solutions, dealing with people

in the community. It's not only the most effective but the most

cost-effective way of dealing with it. This government has not

adequately funded Aids Vancouver and those who are on the front line

dealing with the disease. Rather, they have chosen a more centralized

and bureaucratic approach to the problem. I think that's folly. It's

ironic that a government that uses the rhetoric and talks about

privatization and less government all the time continues to fail to see

that the solution is in the communities affected — and I don't mean

just geographic communities, but the communities of people who have

contracted the disease. The gay community has a higher percentage and

more likelihood of getting the disease, and people in the gay community

who are working very hard, volunteers dealing with this disease; have

not been consulted on this legislation, have not been funded by this

government. Rather, we have a statist approach from the Ministry of

Health, telling people how to deal with it, throwing a significant

amount of money at it, but not in the most cost-effective way. Quite

frankly, this legislation scares me a little bit because it gives that

kind of power to bureaucrats and to the ministry, without the consent

or understanding of those affected.

Therefore the goal, which is to deal fundamentally with a very

frightening disease, one that has very serious consequences, won't be

realized.

[4:15]

I think the legislation really is somewhat draconian in that

respect, and without adequate human rights legislation to protect those

people, without consultation, without anonymity respected, it's doomed

to failure. We on this side of the House, at least speaking personally,

feel strongly that the type of human rights legislation we have

constantly proposed should be brought in before we contemplate giving

unelected bureaucrats this kind of power to deal with what is a very

frightening disease. So I have to go on record today as opposing — I'm

actually pleased to go on record as opposing — this kind of

legislation. I think all people on this side of the House feel very

strongly about this very serious problem.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendments to Bill 34.

I'm a bit concerned that the opposition is zeroing in on just one

aspect of very large amendments to some essential parts of our health

care system in British Columbia. Coming from Vancouver-Little Mountain,

where the major hospitals are located — and most of them are provincial

facilities — I support very strongly what the bill does in many areas.

I think the minister has listened in the community; the consultation

process has taken place. He mentioned also in passing that the civil

liberties group has looked at the amendments that have been tabled and

they are in support of that. I think the act opens up a number of areas

in our province to allow better health care, particularly in the

northern and the remote areas.

I think one aspect of the act that is really going to make a

difference will be in the Physiotherapists Act. I'm pleased to see that

we're giving more power to the Council of Physiotherapists and Massage

Practitioners and allowing temporary registrations for a period of one

year. We know there's a critical shortage of these types of persons

within our health profession, and we hope to address that by having

more of them graduate through the University of British Columbia at the

school of physiotherapy.

The other area that we're looking at is in the Medical Service Act,

where we will be allowed a different rate of payment for doctors who go

into remote areas. That will, I think, encourage medical practitioners

to take up their practice in areas of the province that don't have a

medical practitioner now. In addition, there will now be an area where

the doctors can receive a conditional billing number, and this again

will assist those remote areas or areas of specialty that we want

medical practitioners to practise in or be available in. I think

sharing of the information from research is essential. I think the

safeguards are built into the act, and particularly into the amendments.

I hear the concerns of the opposition in regard to the human rights

legislation dealing with AIDS. In the correspondence that I receive,

mainly as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, the

communities are very concerned, and the AIDS community.... The

government in British Columbia is probably, if not the leader in North

America in the information on AIDS and the prevention of AIDS....

Obviously some of the work that is being done in research on AIDS in

British Columbia is now being recognized. So while some of the items in

the act are housekeeping, some major benefits will occur to the

citizens of our province through this.

When we go into third reading we will be debating the act

section by

section, and at that time we will be speaking more to the various

sections. I strongly support the amendments. The Medical Practitioners

Act is opened up to give the college more rights and allow them, in

consultation with the government, to change their acts so that they can

better administer within the college; that's a point and a

demonstration that we as government are listening. I think the public

health act section, the community care dealing with that act, will

allow for pre-schoolers to be licensed in the remote areas.

[ Page 2643 ]

I, Madam Speaker, strongly support all amendments to the act and will speak to it in third reading. I will support the act.

MR. LOVICK: Madam Speaker, I'd like to begin my comments by

saying that I'm absolutely delighted to discern that members on the

other side of the House are taking

part in the second reading debate. I

hope that that is the way this session of the Legislature is going to

unfold. Certainly that was not the case, as we all recall, in the first

session of the Legislature, and I hope that this is a sign of things to

come. I certainly welcome it, and I'm sure the people of the province

will welcome that kind of interchange of discussion and ideas.

I'm also looking forward to the discussion of this bill in third

reading, particularly in response to the comments from the last member

who spoke, the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat),

who made reference to the fact that various studies, submissions and

bits of evidence had come before the minister's office and staff. I for

one am looking forward to being informed of precisely what that

information is. It seems to me that the people of the province will be

well served when we have some very hard evidence, some concrete

illustrations, of why it is argued that this particular measure for

dealing with infectious diseases will apparently be addressed and

grappled with by this bill, as we are told.

We are now, of course, debating the general principle of this bill,

and there is not much doubt that the principle is protecting the public

interest. Clearly, that is the intention of all the legislation under

the umbrella of the Ministry of Health. The predicament. however, as

I'm sure we all know, is that it is all too easy, in the name of

protecting the public interest, to violate the rights of the private

persons, the individuals. That is what my colleagues have addressed,

dare I say eloquently, thus far.

My colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore)

has offered us a statement that in my mind suggests to us the best self

that we all ought to listen to. I don't want to praise him too much,

Madam Speaker, but I think that his comments were sufficiently profound

and insightful, and sufficiently leading us to encounter the individual

we would like to and ought to be, that they should perhaps be required

reading for all of us before third reading commences.

My colleague from Vancouver East also spoke very well to the debate, talking

more specifically about the mechanics, about the reality of that legislation

as proposed to us. I want to suggest that in third reading we must, and I hope

we shall, have a debate concerning whether this legislation will achieve the

ends for which it is intended. I must confess, Madam Speaker, that I do not

see that as likely to happen. Rather it seems to me — for the kinds of reasons

adduced by my colleagues already — that what is more likely to happen is that

it will have the opposite effect: it will be counterproductive. Taking this

particular approach to preventing the spread of AIDS, paradoxically, we are

more likely to cause the increase of AIDS. I don't think I need to go into

those reasons again.

I'm not about to engage in an elaborate civil liberties case here,

but I do want to suggest that that civil liberties argument must occur

in third reading. I would like to give notice that I am preparing to

engage in that debate, and I hope that members opposite will too. We

need to grapple with those questions, and we need to come up with a

resolution to those questions that all of us at least understand — not

simply accept and act on but understand. The nature of our liberties

and the nature of the limitations on our liberties, it seems to me,

must be understood by the citizens. Otherwise they are fragile indeed.

What I want to talk about now is the general principle of health

care, specifically the protection of the public interest. I was pleased

to hear the Minister of Health, when he began speaking, acknowledging

the fact that this bill clearly deals with a broad variety of health

issues. I want to commend the minister insofar as there appears to be a

clear recognition on his part that there must be a vigilant, active and

aggressive Ministry of Health, that we accept that that is the

responsibility of the Ministry of Health. I am pleased, for example, to

discover that the thrust of the legislation would seem to be towards a

more interventionist position. Perhaps if anything it errs too much on

the interventionist side. But the proposition embedded in the approach

is nevertheless the sovereign duty and responsibility of the Ministry

of Health, i.e. the government, to protect the public interest.

For example, I see that in the bill we have changes to the community

care facilities legislation. How interesting to note that apparently

embraced and embedded in that argument is the sense that we do have an

obligation to do something about providing community care facilities. I

for one am delighted to discover that that is still the case. Indeed,

Madam Speaker, given various announcements that have recently emanated

from the Premier's office and the cabinet's office, I think I might be

forgiven for wondering if that was still the stated responsibility of

this ministry. I'm delighted to find that it apparently is.

I'm also delighted to see, in another

section of the bill, under the

Health Act changes, that it is recognized that there is a need to

empower health officers to prevent the spread of communicable diseases.

Again, the principle is crucial. You'll notice I keep saying

"principle," because that's the point I want to draw your attention to,

and what I perceive as perhaps a threat to that principle.

I also want to commend the approach and the principle that is

embraced in the other part of the bill, namely the Health Emergency

Act, where we see the primacy of the public interest expressed

implicitly and directly. Again, stated as it is, I think we can fairly

conclude that the ministry is endorsing and accepting its

responsibilities and its duties.

I see the Minister of Health looking across and wondering about the

note I'm about to read. I've had to change my notes, because I

discovered that an amendment to

section 47 has addressed the next

concern I wanted to draw attention to. I was worried about the

relaxation of the authority and the relaxation of qualifications that

were originally. I think, made possible by

section 47. I'm happy to see

that apparently that has been modified so that the Physiotherapists Act

will still be written in such a way that we can guarantee suitable

qualifications for practitioners in that field.

[4:30]

All right, then, let me pull this together if I might. The apparent

acceptance in all of these pieces of the bill of the interventionist

role of the government, the acceptance of the public interest as being

paramount, the acceptance that the Ministry of Health has a sovereign

and, dare I say, sacred duty to protect the well-being of the people —

good, wonderful, accepted. But bear with me as I express to you some

concerns I have that we, on the one hand, can elucidate and

[ Page 2644 ]

speak about these kinds of principles — I'm sure in

all honesty — but at the same time we can be undertaking some actions

which would seem to me clearly to go directly against those very

principles. Two small examples, by themselves not terribly important,

but cumulatively perhaps significant. Now, instead of having direct

control of vehicles that we modify for use by the Ministry of Health to

satisfy Ministry of Health standards, we have — to use the British

phrase — hived them off; we've given the task to somebody else. I'm

referring, of course, to phase 1 of privatization. Similarly, I see

that Riverview Hospital is again to be hived off, to be sent to the

private sector. I'm wondering whether those kinds of gestures are not

directly contradicting or, at the very least, undercutting the

principle embedded in the rest of this bill. That's my point.

My fears become, dare I say, even somewhat more strained and

passionate when I reflect a little bit on the not very clearly and

specifically stated parts of the next round of initiatives under the

heading privatization with regard to health care and the principle

thereof. Let me quote, if I might, Madam Speaker, the passage that I

think deals directly with the principle of this bill, namely that the

public interest must be protected.

Let me suggest to you that another statement perhaps contradicts or

challenges that. I'm quoting to you from a press release issued by the

Premier announcing the plans for what is euphemistically referred to as

privatization: "The Premier said government has also appointed action

teams to begin an immediate review of the Ministry of Health. 'Our

health...programs are essential and we must protect them by acting now

to contain costs and to increase efficiency."' Most people who saw that

thing, that statement called phase 2, were immediately seized by fear

and trembling. They began to wonder whether in fact the principle of

health care, the principle of the government's responsibility to

provide and to oversee health care, was in fact being challenged,

indeed eroded. I think they have every justification for feeling that

way, because we've had other statements emanating from the Premier's

office that, if I may put it boldly and bluntly, directly contradict

the stated principles of this bill and certainly the stated mandate of

the Ministry of Health. I'm referring to the Premier's recent

announcement about perhaps having another system of hospital care for

those who can afford it. And the Premier is suggesting to us that that

was not somehow to be considered to be incompatible or in contradiction

of the existing health care system.

As I'm sure the Minister of Health well knows, a number of experts

in the health care field immediately responded by saying that the

moment you allow that kind of thing to happen, you have opened the door

to a two-tiered health system in this province. That, of course, is

precisely what my colleagues and I are apprehensive about happening in

this province in the name of apparently increased efficiency, in the

name of apparently downsizing government, in the name of apparently

getting government out of the way of business, and in the name of — in

a word — privatization.

If the minister can in all clear conscience talk to us about the

need as elucidated in this bill, the same minister, it seems to me, is

morally obligated to come out four-square against all the talk about

privatizing the public health care system in this province. That seems

to me a logical and fair conclusion.

I will of course save my other remarks about this bill until we get

to the committee stage. I nevertheless hope I have succeeded in showing

to the Minister of Health what my concerns are and why I think they are

legitimately generated by recent developments in this province. I also

hope that my colleagues and I have thus far — and I'm sure others will

do the same — given notice that the debate about the public interest

versus the individual interest must occur in this province, must be a

protracted debate, and must be one in which we understand clearly what

the so-called arguments are for those who would suggest that we need

the kind of — dare I say draconian? — legislation suggested by sections

7 and 8 of the Health Act according to the changes presented to us.

MS. MARZARI: In the context of the theme of the last speaker,

that of preserving the public interest, I would address myself to Bill

34. I want to talk about the dilution of standards and the dilution of

protection of the public interest as I perceive it through a couple of

clauses in this bill. I think that that is as important a point to be

made as any assurances of the government that we are not diluting but

strengthening.

The dilution of standards in the social field and in the health

field has been an ongoing problem in the province for some time. We

have witnessed it in the form of the privatization of many of our youth

services. We have witnessed it in the development of a possible

two-tiered system. We have heard, time and time again, about new

facilities and new services that have been privatized — or will be in

the next few weeks — such as massage therapy. We have heard about it in

terms of payments which now must be paid by seniors for their drugs, or

payments for treatments like podiatry and various other medical

services.

The fracturing and dilution of the public service has been a major

concern, and I cannot help but believe that many of the clauses here in

the Health Statutes Amendment Act perpetuate this dilution of standards

of service.

It's not always the most dramatic item that one must look at here.

One must look at, for example, item number one. The Community Care

Facility Act is being adjusted ever so slightly. A definition, ever so

slightly changed, can bring about a dilution of standard of service and

the changing of the tone in this province to make way for the

privatization acts that this government is engaging in.

For example, when we take in

section 1 the simple business of

substituting the words "a facility designated by order or a class of

facility designated by regulation," what we are doing is taking a youth

detention home and changing its definition to a youth containment

centre. From my reading of the new bill, what we are doing is saying

that there will be exceptions. That is well and good; there are

exceptions to most acts. Under the old act, the occasional youth

detention centre or youth containment centre was exempt from the

Community Care Facility Act. Under this new definition, there will be a

whole class of facilities which will be exempted from the Community

Care Facility Act. I think that what we have here is the possibility of

youth containment centres that are privately run in communities being

exempt from the inspection, from the licensing authority, from the

public standards that the Community Care Facility Act provides. I am

most concerned about that.

I have very often taken on the Community Care Facility Act in the

past and said that its standards were too high. I had a facility I was

advocating. I have to say that in every instance the Community Care

Facility Act has acted appropriately, and the board under that act has

acted appropriately, with concern and with due care, and has caused the

development

[ Page 2645 ]

of a very solid standard for community care

facilities in our province. We may want to decentralize that authority,

we may want to vest more of that authority in our municipal councils,

but by exempting a whole class of youth detention centres, I dare say,

we are setting the stage for unmonitored, unlicensed, uninspected youth

detention centres. That causes concern.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

In a similar vein,

section 5, at the bottom of the first page of the

act, suggests that Community Care Facilities Licensing Board will be

able to license not just preschool supervisors. We all know what a

preschool or day-care supervisor is about. We know what kind of

training they get. we know what's expected of them, we know what the

community college offers in terms of training and care for preschool

teachers, but now we have the suggestion that there will be classes of

preschool teachers, classes of child care supervision. I worry and

wonder about what those new classes that we are going to be licensing

in the next little while will look like. It has come to my attention

that there may well be a group of welfare mothers, possibly trained for

a minimum number of hours in child care centres, put back in their

homes to offer unlicensed day care. That worries me. Are they going to

be licensed as this new class of pre school teachers? Are they going to

be this new class of child care supervisors? Are they going to be

licensed themselves and yet their homes not licensed? The dilution of

standards concerns me.

The dilution of human rights has concerned all of us in this

province in the last number of years. The sections pertaining to AIDS

quarantine and communicable disease quarantine quite blatantly lay out

a provision which gives the province considerable power through

order-in-council to define a communicable disease, to define isolation,

to define modified isolation and to define a reportable communicable

disease — all by order-in-council without a word of debate.

The best possible scenario is that the medical health officer, for

example, of Vancouver, who has recently come in with what I consider to

be an excellent set of guidelines, provisions and safeguards for the

AIDS community.... That's what could happen. The medical health

officers might be coming forth from various towns and municipalities

around the province with their own set of human rights guidelines. The

city of Vancouver adopted his guidelines just last Tuesday, and I think

the city of Vancouver is to be congratulated for preserving the

anonymity of AIDS victims and for setting up a bylaw or a regulation

that prevents discrimination in the hiring process against people with

AIDS.

[4:45]

But this provision does not do that. There is nothing in this bill

to protect and safeguard the individual suffering from AIDS or the

whole class of people who might end up suffering from AIDS. We have

taken a heavy-handed approach on the power side, and yet we have a very

diluted or non-existent human rights code in this province to deal

effectively with the protection side.

Once again, I'm talking about dilution and about the protection of

public interest being eroded — the safety net or security net being

removed — while the state allows or encourages it to happen, or takes

the driver's seat in forcing it to happen.

Section 47 deals with the physics and massage therapists. The

physios came to all of us in the House and expressed their deep concern

that their educational requirements were being eroded and diluted and

that. In fact, because we have not been paying them well enough and

because we have not been graduating enough physios from our school at

UBC, we have lost many of the ones we have to other provinces, and we

have not been able to make up the shortfall. When the chance came for

this province to give the physios a decent sessional wage, that

sessional increase went to the chiropractors instead of the physios and

the physios were stuck, I believe, with a 3 to 5 percent increase in

their sessional fees. Consequently we have a shortage, which has been

made up in this province by a two-year moratorium on the physics'

licensing abilities, so we have brought people in from overseas.

Granted, the amendments remove this. The amendments, I gather, still

allow the importation of physios but protect the ability of our

licensing authority and our physios to protect their standards and the

standards that we all enjoy in this province.

That is well and good, but I turn to the fact that this

section

deals also with massage therapists. Massage therapists, as we all know,

are in the process, at this very moment, of being privatized and

removed from the Medical Services Plan altogether. On the continuum of

physical pain, if you want to put it that way, the massage therapist

might often be the first person the individual patient goes to; the

physio might be the second; the chiro or the medical practitioner might

be the third. What you have done, basically, is kneecap the patient in

this process. What you have done and are in the process of doing,

without legislation, is removing and privatizing the massage therapists

altogether.

So, what we have gained in physios whom we may be able to bring into

this province, hopefully at a decent rate of pay, we have lost in our

ability to deal with the patient whom the massage therapist often deals

with — that first level of intervention, the first door that a client

might want to walk through when he is suffering pain.

I am saying, then, that by getting rid of the massage therapists and

knocking them off the medical plan, you are only creating for

yourselves increased problems further down the road — possibly more

expensive problems. By increasing the number of physios but knocking

the massage therapists off at the bottom of the spectrum, you are not

solving any problem whatsoever. You are increasing the fees that you're

going to have to pay, and you are putting an additional strain on an

already overloaded profession in this province, namely physiotherapy.

I would suggest that all the way through this bill, although each

item is very distinct and stands out by itself, there is a theme. The

theme is — as I said before — a reduction in the level and the

standards of service, a dilution in the safety and protection factor

for the individual client, consumer or patient, and a laying of the

foundations of the privatized network this government envisages for the

whole province. We're selling the province off by nickels and dimes by

the dilution of our standards.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I want to comment just briefly on this act in second reading. I might add some comments later in clause-by-clause debate.

I can see some of the theme of how, somehow or other, every clause

in the bill is a move towards privatization, which has not been planned

or announced. I suppose, given the

[ Page 2646 ]

correct motives, anything can be translated into whatever

interpretation a person wishes.

What I see in this legislation is a concern for the people, a

concern to protect the public interest, a concern to try to provide the

services that people do want and need. Perhaps the classic examples in

this are the ones that have been referred to on a couple of occasions:

the physiotherapist

section and the psychologist section.

As a northern member, I am very familiar with the need for

physiotherapists, the allotment of funds, the provision of and approval

for physiotherapist positions, and yet the inability to get a

physiotherapist to help those people in the more remote, northern

communities who need that service as well.

Despite the talk of wages and all that, there seems to be a limited

supply of physiotherapists in this province, and so we have had to go

outside for physiotherapists. I have worked with some of the

organizations in my community which tried to attract a physiotherapist

here — absolutely qualified, from schools in the United Kingdom and in

other places, from recognized schools of physiotherapy — and they could

not get the people to make a commitment to come here to serve a very

urgent need, because they were informed