1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 5, Number 10
[ Page 3287 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
AN ACT TO PROTECT OWNERS OF
MANUFACTURED HOMES, 1992
W. Hurd presented a bill intituled An Act to Protect Owners of Manufactured Homes, 1992.
W. Hurd: I am proud to rise and speak in favour of this private member's bill, which is the result of numerous meetings and consultations I have had with the owners of manufactured and mobile homes in the province who find themselves in a vulnerable position with respect to pad rentals in mobile home parks in the province. They have also argued long and loud in favour of having Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters extended to the owners of manufactured homes in the province.
This is something that has been promised under numerous governments to be considered by the legislators in the assembly. I think it is something that all members of the assembly need to carefully consider before this session winds down.
I should mention that a private member's bill to protect the owners of manufactured homes was introduced by the government when it was in opposition in 1990, and many of the excellent ideas incorporated in that bill are reflected in Bill M203, and I would urge its passage.
Bill M203 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.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply -- this is for members of the House -- until 12 noon; from 12 till one, we'll do a couple of bills, then adjourn from one to two, and come back if we need to for Committee of Supply, hon. Speaker.
The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Lord in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
On vote 48: minister's office, $365,941 (continued).
L. Reid: We left off yesterday evening in the area of multicultural health. I want to continue that line of questioning this morning, and I want to specifically address access to health on behalf of second-language users. It is an issue for us, and certainly we just touched the tip of the iceberg yesterday evening. Could you give us some guidance in terms of how you intend to have those services more readily available to non-English speakers in our communities?
Hon. E. Cull: We've awarded a $1 million research fund through the B.C. Health Research Foundation to look into multicultural health issues and to address some of the concerns around multicultural access. Earlier in the estimates I described one of the projects that we're funding with respect to women's health and multicultural aspects, a project that is making both breast cancer and cervical cancer issues made better known to women of various multicultural groups.
L. Reid: I appreciate the comment regarding the $1 million research fund, and certainly the comments you made specifically about women's health issues. My concern today is: how are we going to make hospitals and community care facilities more welcoming for non-native speakers now? If indeed we have no plan and we're waiting the outcome of this research report, fine. You can just give us the time as to when that may be available.
Hon. E. Cull: We encourage hospitals, community care facilities and certainly ones where we are the direct employer in our own public health units to have people of various ethnic backgrounds, people who speak other languages. We have an affirmative action program that deals with native individuals. This is perhaps not a language issue -- although in some cases it may be an issue -- but a culturally sensitive issue, and we are trying to ensure that those groups are represented wherever we have the influence to do the hiring. Where we don't, of course, it's a concern that we discuss with hospitals and community care facilities.
L. Reid: Another concern a number of community leaders across this province have brought to our attention is the inability, if you will, to avoid discrimination in hospital settings. A number of individuals who are second-language users do believe they are discriminated against. It may be the language barrier. Their suggestion is that it's very much racist interactions. Would you comment on that?
Hon. E. Cull: Racism is a very serious problem, and a problem that is not unique to the health system. It's unfortunately met wherever one goes, in any part of our society. All I can say to the member opposite is that we try, through our own internal policies, again where we are the employer, to eliminate racism wherever we find it. I know that the hospitals, through their union organizations, have programs directed at racism. I know that the BCGEU -- and I speak here from history when I was a BCGEU member -- has an excellent program to combat racism. I know other unions involved in the health care field do as well. I haven't got details that I can give her, but I can assure her that racism is an issue that we all have to take seriously, whether we are politicians, employers or workers in the system.
[10:15]
[ Page 3288 ]
L. Reid: Certainly it is a complex issue. My question would move to the $1 million research fund. Is it going to be looking at aspects of racism? Could you give us some details as to what the money has been allocated for? Who is involved in the process? Who is involved in a project, and what is their particular background for receiving a research grant of that magnitude?
Hon. E. Cull: The proposals are being sought right now. We've actually announced that the money is available, and we're requesting proposals. The guidelines to direct the proposals are very broad, because we'd like to have a broad range of ideas come forward to us. I don't know what the closing date is, but when they do come forward, the B.C. Health Research Foundation will have a look at them, evaluate them and bring them forward to the board, of which I'm the chair. We will be making decisions then about which projects to fund.
L. Reid: For clarification then, do you have an expectation as to how many people will be employed as a result of the $1 million? May it expand to a single research project or more than that?
Hon. E. Cull: It would probably be quite a number of projects. We just dealt with one on native health, and if I remember correctly, for about the same amount of money under that particular program somewhere between five and seven projects were funded.
L. Reid: In terms of funding research projects, what background are you looking for from the people who submit applications to do research of behalf of this ministry?
Hon. E. Cull: In the case of the multicultural program, the program's proposals have to come from community groups that are then associated with some kind of research body, whether it's a university or group with some professional academic expertise. But the proposal itself must come from a community-based group.
L. Reid: I want to share with the members of this House this morning a very interesting document called "Caring Across Cultures: Multicultural Considerations." It's been prepared by the Saint Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association of Ontario. So it's not a B.C. document, but it's tremendously useful in terms of looking at issues in multiculturalism and access to health care.
There are a couple of very salient points that I want to share with you. It's addressing issues in communities from the grassroots level, and I believe it is key because it has been prepared by nurses in the community. They are writing:
"As nurses in the community we are inevitably involved in helping patients and their families deal with death and dying. The reactions, emotions...and rituals related to illness, dying and death vary" -- across cultures.
"A nurse's knowledge of the personal and cultural background of the patient can help promote a supportive and trusting relationship between the nurse, patient and the family."
It goes on in that vein, and it certainly is an interesting grassroots document, because this one, in particular, is addressing palliative care. They are looking at producing booklets that address all aspects of medical intervention and community-based care as it relates to certain ethnic groups in their community. They take a look at an effective cross-cultural plan being worked out if the nurse understands the beliefs and values of the family; if those understandings are not in place, the plan will not be effective.
They have an assessment tool built into the delivery of this plan. It talks about perception of health and illness, the use of traditional remedies and practitioners, and that's a discussion I believe we need to have with many consumers of our health care system because they may wish to participate in something that at this time is considered non-traditional medicine.
It goes on with perceptions of nurses, hospitals and health care, the role of the family and emotional and spiritual support. All of these things have a different focus and different emphasis based on the cultural group that this group in Ontario is hoping to reach. They're quite honest in their approach by suggesting that this is not the answer; it's simply an interesting starting point.
I'm wondering if you have any comments about such a tool, and if you could perhaps suggest to the House whether or not something of this nature is underway for the province of British Columbia.
Hon. E. Cull: Not having seen the document, but having it described to me, it looks like a very interesting and worthwhile document to have available to people in the health care system.
We do have some similar types of materials. I recently had the opportunity to look at a series of dental posters that have been done with information on dental health translated into five or six different languages. There are, no doubt, other examples of that nature that I'm not personally familiar with, which I'm sure staff could bring to my attention.
The Vancouver public health department, which delivers public health and community health services for the ministry in the Vancouver area, has quite an excellent array of multicultural documents dealing with their very diverse population.
L. Reid: This booklet was designed for the Saint Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association of Ontario. Their role is to provide individualized home care. We support that notion. Would something such as this form a reasonable application for the research dollars that you have outlined?
Hon. E. Cull: Potentially, yes, that could qualify.
L. Reid: One of the other interesting aspects of this document is an overview of the religions that are particularly prevalent, if you will, in providing multicultural health care. I am not sure if your ministry has
[ Page 3289 ]
looked at how the different religions impact on the delivery of health care. Would you comment on that?
Hon. E. Cull: Sorry, I'm not aware whether there has been any staff work done on religion and health care.
G. Wilson: The questions that I will be directing to the minister today will, for the most part, be restricted to native health. However, I would like to generally get a more detailed clarification, if I might. As I start looking at vote 49 with respect to the ministry operations, we note that for grants and contributions under management operations, there is an increase of roughly $3.7 million; under prevention and treatment of substance abuse, an increase of roughly $10 million; and under community and family health, an increase of roughly $61.7 million. I wonder if the minister might just briefly explain those increases, keeping in mind that I will be focusing primarily on native health. Could the minister break out how those grants and contributions might be identified with respect to the subject matter I'm moving to?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm going to have to ask the opposition leader to direct me again to the particular areas he wants explained. It sounds to me like you're talking about the increases in each part of the budget. Are you asking for an overview of what we've put into each of those major areas, or are you zeroing in on native health issues here?
G. Wilson: I would like to zero in on native areas. But before I do that, I wonder if we can just simply look at the grants and contributions portion under vote 49 for management operations, prevention and treatment of substance abuse, and community and family health. Those are the three principal areas that I will be addressing questions to with respect to the native community in British Columbia. Before we do that, I wonder if you might identify where the $3.7 million, $10 million and $61.7 million increases are being directed.
Hon. E. Cull: We are having staff pull together the answer on that. Maybe the member would like to go on and ask us a few more questions, so that we can pull the information together.
G. Wilson: With respect to the health of native people, one of the clear recommendations put forward by the royal commission was to establish a ministry or subministry within the Ministry of Health -- a branch for health services for native people. It suggests that the native people's health branch would increase the potential for an individual to be able to direct the resources of the ministry more specifically for the needs of native people in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister might tell us to what extent she has been committed towards the establishment of a native health services branch, to what extent there are now dedicated personnel of native origin working on native health matters, how many there are in her ministry and what proportion of the budget there would be for that.
Hon. E. Cull: I'll go back to the first question the member asked. With respect to management operations, the increase in grants and contributions is attributed to two aspects: one is funding of $1.66 million to expand wellness programs, and the other is debt servicing for capital projects, which is about $2 million. With respect to prevention and treatment of substance abuse, quite a number of things are contributing to that increase. I'll quickly go over the list. There is funding for non-wage inflation; funding for maintaining the service level to an increased population, so that's maintaining the same level of service but recognizing population growth; funding for wages and benefits; funding for pay equality; funding to bring up the level of services in the Fraser Valley area, which has been unable, because of their rapid growth, to keep pace with the level of services; and funding for enhanced services to native people. Since this is the area you're asking about, I'll give you the figure: $1,403,000. Funding for program enhancements to at-risk children: over $5 million. That covers that particular vote.
With respect to community and family health, the increase in grants and contributions deals with a number of similar items -- in other words, wages, benefits, non-wage inflation, demographics and pay equality -- but also specific programs: community services for the disadvantaged, $3.2 million; at-risk children, $2.1 million; regional equity, the same as I described in the alcohol and drug program, $2.8 million; vaccines and prevention, $2.6 million; heart health, $50,000; residential services for the handicapped, $1.2 million; and pay equity that's required under contract.
G. Wilson: How much money was pay equity?
Hon. E. Cull: This was pay equity for the Professional Employees' Association, $4,500 -- a very small amount of money.
G. Wilson: If I could just very briefly go back, there are a couple of questions that relate to that information before we get more specifically into native health. I wonder if the minister might just break out where that $1.7 million is being allocated for funding wellness.
[10:30]
Hon. E. Cull: One of the principles that we're operating under this year with respect to spending money in the community is that we've made broad allocations to regions and to communities, but we have not detailed all of that money at this point in terms of its program, because we are working with the communities to determine what the priorities are. The money that has been made available to wellness programs is now being discussed with union boards of health to determine exactly where the dollars should go and to what kinds of programs.
We're working with the healthy communities network as well on this particular matter, so there is still a
[ Page 3290 ]
considerable amount of discussion going on as to exactly what should be funded. It is through the office of health promotion. It covers seniors as well as other wellness activities. At this point everything hasn't been finalized, because there's a process in place that is allowing communities to have more of a say about what the priorities are for the spending of dollars.
G. Wilson: Under prevention, treatment and substance abuse, I notice that there is a salaries and benefits portion of $11 million. The minister suggested that the $10 million increase in grants and contributions also included a wage and benefits portion. I wonder if she might explain the differences there.
Hon. E. Cull: The grants and contributions go to agencies that provide services to us, and we make some provision for wage and non-wage inflation in carrying on their services. We assume that they will have to make appropriate increases to their employees, and they will have appropriate inflationary increases in their operating costs.
G. Wilson: The agencies that the minister is referring to are agencies currently under contract to the Ministry of Health. Or are these agencies community-based and simply applying for aid?
Hon. E. Cull: They are community-based agencies, but they are under contract.
G. Wilson: Would that also essentially be part of the wage and benefit portion of the $61.7 million under community and family health? Is that a similar proposition, given there's $134.6 million going into salaries and benefits under that vote?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, that's the same situation there. The salaries and benefits line is the direct employees of the ministry, whereas there is a wage and benefit component under grants and contributions because of services that are provided through agencies.
G. Wilson: I'm well aware of the prevention and treatment contracts that are out there. I'm not that clear on the community and family health contracts. I wonder if the minister could tell us how much money is involved in the wage and benefits portion. I think she did mention that, and I didn't write it down. Could the minister give us some examples of the contractors and agencies that are currently working under community and family health?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not sure which area you are asking about. Is it STOB 82 under family and community health? Is that what we've got?
I'll give you a few examples of the contracts. One you may be familiar with is the pregnancy outreach program. Again in the area of mental health, we have boarding homes; we have rehabilitation programs. A number of different services in the area of mental health might be provided through contracted agencies. Certainly in the area of health promotion there would be contracted agencies. Some of the programs for at-risk children might be through contracted agencies.
Again, those are some examples. I don't know if you want specifics. I appreciate that it's easier to understand what the alcohol and drug programs might look like through the contracts, but there is a wide variety of programs that fall under community and family health. Funding of the municipal health departments, of course, is part of the grants and contributions that are provided. That's in the metro areas, where they directly provide a whole range of public and family community health services.
You were asking about the wages and benefits component of this. Was that your question? The wages and benefits are $2.257 million, and non-wage inflation is $267,000.
G. Wilson: The final question just on these more general questions is with respect to those agencies. These are agencies that contract with the government. Are they through established government programs, or are they programs that are community-based? Perhaps I can be more specific. If, for example, there is a perceived need within a particular community for a violence-counselling program, problems associated with a chronic abuse situation in families, or those kinds of things that are operated out of a community-services organization, would money for that work be available through the family health program? Is that how that functions?
Hon. E. Cull: Through our public health units, there is some discretionary capability to use those kinds of services or to contract with agencies like that. I can't really speak about what's happened in the past. In many ways what we see when we look at the health care system that's in place today is a result of past policies. But the policies that we are putting into place this budget year, in the process I just mentioned where I said I couldn't answer exactly what wellness programs were going to be funded, is one where we are saying to our staff: "You work with the union boards of health or other bodies in the community to determine what the priorities are in that community." We are trying to ensure, this year through union boards and next year perhaps through a bit more fully developed process, that communities will have a much greater say in what the priorities to be funded are. We're actively working now with union boards throughout the province on all of the community-based funding so that they have more of a say. The ministry is really there to advise and to try to bring some kind of consensus to where the money should go.
G. Wilson: I wonder if we can just put that aside for a moment; I'd like to come back and revisit community family health in a minute.
Let's move on to my question with respect to the recommendation for the provision of a native health branch and operations within the ministry. It's not easy to identify whether or not that has been done. I wonder if the minister can tell us if there has been a move toward the establishment of a native health branch, and
[ Page 3291 ]
if there are aboriginal people with appropriate qualifications who have been brought into the ministerial staff to provide these services.
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, we do have a native health branch within the ministry. It is a part of the ministry that I'm having a look at to see whether it is meeting the needs of aboriginal people throughout the province. We may be making some changes, but there are eight native individuals employed now in this branch. There is also appropriate support staff, so that's not the entire complement of the branch.
In addition, the budget -- which I think the member will be interested in -- has a significant increase this year for programs in the native health area, almost a doubling of funding for native health. In alcohol and drug programs it is $5.9 million for native health services. In the native health program within the ministry, which does not include alcohol and drug programs, it is $2.4 million. Then there is an additional $1 million for sex abuse intervention, for a total of $9.3 million. That compares with last year's $4.85 million.
G. Wilson: Where does the $9 million, which is up from $4 million, appear in the budget that we have before us now? What votes are those amounts contained in?
Hon. E. Cull: They will appear in two places: community and family health, and prevention and treatment of substance abuse.
G. Wilson: That confirms what I had suspected. In asking some initial questions, I was trying to set the general parameters of where we're going.
It's noted with respect to the provision of native health services in the province that the statistics on adequate care provided for native people in British Columbia are less than acceptable. I think the minister would agree that everything from accidental death through to both neonatal and postnatal death, suicide rates, alcohol abuse, spousal abuse.... In virtually every single instance, all these rates seem to be well above the provincial average for native people in British Columbia. I think the minister would agree that this is unacceptable, that we have to try to identify root causes and start to address where the health care system is failing native people. I wonder if the minister has some thoughts on that and if she might outline what direction this government is undertaking this year within the vote before us.
Hon. E. Cull: Madam Chair, the member is right when he talks about the health status of native people, the very poor showing that we make in this province with respect to native health. The Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs identified two groups in particular which said that they are poorly served by a health care system which probably otherwise is of a very high quality. The two groups that it identified were the mentally ill, which we spent a bit of time on last night, and aboriginal people.
Clearly, no matter how you look it, with the kinds of statistics the member mentioned, we have some serious health issues to be addressed with aboriginal people, and we have recognized that this year by almost doubling the funding. But there is more to it than just that. The alcohol and drug programs have just developed over the last number of months an advisory committee on substance abuse issues related to native people. It's an all-native committee. I've met with them once, and it is certainly doing some very good work in that area.
In addition, there is work being done right now with the native community trying to develop a broader-based native health council. I don't think it's good enough just to have a branch in the ministry, even if that branch is staffed by native people. I think we really need to have more of a participatory structure such as a native health advisory council, which would give the ministry advice on the kinds of programs that are necessary to deal with native health issues and on how to ensure that even the regular health care system which we all access, whether we are native or not, is sensitive to the cultural needs of natives. We hear many stories, and I'm sure the member has stories in his riding of cases where the health system has not responded appropriately because it has failed to understand the culture it was dealing with.
[10:45]
We need to take a much bigger look at this, and it is my intention to develop a native advisory health council that will be guiding the native health programs the ministry delivers. That's going to be a little tricky to put together, because we want to make sure it is representative of the native people in the province. We're working with them to try to determine the process. Ultimately, we have to find ways to delegate not only the planning and the prioritizing of these services, but the delivery of these services to native organizations.
Right now much of the service that is being delivered to natives is through native friendship centres and other groups that are directly involved with native issues.
G. Wilson: One of the difficulties we have when talking about matters in relation to aboriginal people in British Columbia -- and it has come up in the estimates on a number of matters -- is that Health and Welfare Canada, of course, has a statutory obligation or responsibility under the Indian Act, and I'm sure the minister is well aware of the constitutional and fiduciary obligations the federal government has with respect to the provision of funding under Health and Welfare Canada.
But the province also has an administration role to play in the provision of health services. I'm interested to note the direction the minister says is underway, although not complete, with the native advisory health council. I wonder if the minister might comment on how that might affect or interact with moneys currently going to tribal council health boards in the province of British Columbia. What is the minister's feeling with respect to the interrelationship between that kind of
[ Page 3292 ]
system and the tribal council health boards that exist in the province?
Hon. E. Cull: The member has identified one of the jurisdictional problems we have in delivering health care to native people. We consider our services to be available to the people of British Columbia, whether they are native or non-native, on reserve or off reserve. The federal government, though, does provide direct services to natives who live on reserve. We are trying to work with them because we don't want to create the kinds of difficulties that I've seen well documented, where there is an advantage to a native person to live either on or off, depending on the level of services. You don't want to have people being directed where to live because one place they can get good-quality health care services and the other place they can't, simply because you are either on-or off-reserve. That seems to be kind of an absurd situation to force people into having to make decisions about -- whether to live in their tribal community or in the rest of the province simply because of health care services. So we are trying to work with the federal government to reduce that gradient, if you like, of services between the two. But it's tricky because we do tend to view our programs as open to all people who are resident in the province, whereas the federal government takes a more narrow view of its programs.
I hope that we will be able to start to address some of these issues through the native advisory council, particularly if we are looking at increasing the independence of native organizations in planning and delivering health care services. The kinds of things that we're doing right now with AIDS prevention, through one of the urban native organizations that is looking at AIDS in the native population, will be directed, I hope, better than they are right now. That's not to fault staff or the people who are delivering programs. I think they are doing a good job, but I certainly think we can improve upon it. It falls into the philosophy that this government is bringing throughout the health care field: wherever communities can take more control over the direction of services, those services will be better directed and more appropriate for their community. I think that has to be the way that we are going to ultimately address the on-reserve, off-reserve, federal-provincial issues and have the people who are receiving the service help us work through that problem.
G. Wilson: One of the difficulties, I suppose philosophically, one might have -- and it's a point that I've debated at some length with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in that minister's estimates -- is the difficulty of not wanting to, as the minister correctly points out, make a distinguishment between those who are eligible for services on the basis of residency or on the basis of some kind of membership, if you want, in a group that provides them various levels of health care not available to others.... Regrettably, however, that has been the history of this country, and we have to -- all elected members, no matter what political stripe they may wear -- try to eradicate those distinctions and build a level of equality among the population, so that we can in fact achieve the goals that the minister quite correctly identifies to be the ideal, and that is that adequate and proper health care is available to all citizens regardless of their residency and regardless of their race. Regrettably, that isn't the way it works at the moment.
I wonder if the minister could outline, with respect to the native advisory health care council, whether any consideration has been given to discussion with the federal government in relation to the dollars actually allocated in this vote from the provincial coffers and the moneys already coming into this province through Health and Welfare Canada that are being directed toward tribal council health boards, as to whether that might be more appropriately or more properly committed directly to those boards, so that the boards can in fact have the money to commit to their people, rather than simply direct it through some advisory body that will allow government to once again hand out.
It's a very similar question I put to the Minister of Education. The way it works is that money comes in, tends to be administered through a province, and tends to be handed from one government to another government to the tribal councils. Here we have two governments both trying to provide what may quite clearly be duplicated service. We could get rid of the administrative cost of the duplication and simply make those dollars available to tribal council health boards, and we could perhaps then regulate the operation of the health boards to make sure that adequate provision of service occurs.
Hon. E. Cull: I think we're entering into a very large issue here with respect to federal and provincial jurisdictions and, more importantly, sovereignty issues such as who is providing the services and whether we should be giving the money to some of the nations to provide their own services.
We have had some discussion around this issue, particularly with the money that is now coming through the National Health and Welfare minister. A lot of the money for the program that's directed at children will be going on reserve. Both the Minister of Social Services and I have expressed concern to the federal minister that we need to have some coordination with respect to the money that they are putting into the communities and the various bands and the money that we are trying to provide. We have started those discussions. From talking to my staff, I don't get a sense that they are very well advanced at this point. But it's clearly an issue that we have to address.
I guess my approach, in the short time that I've had to look at how we have been approaching native health in the province, is to take another run at it from another angle; that is, to try to create an advisory group, not of ministry employees but of people representing the aboriginal community in British Columbia. I regret that that group is not up and running, because if it was up and running, we probably would already be grappling with the issue that you are seeking answers on.
I guess all I can say is that I agree with you: it's a problem. It's an issue involving federal-provincial jurisdiction and one which we need to sort out. It's also an
[ Page 3293 ]
issue of whether governments will provide the services or whether we will have native groups providing the services. My preference is certainly the latter. But we now need to build the mechanism to make that transfer. I hope that when you ask me this question a year from now, I will be able to answer that we are well advanced in these discussions.
G. Wilson: I am encouraged by the minister's response. I would like to offer the assistance of the Liberal opposition in any work that we can do to coordinate a removal of the duplication of service created by what often tends to become a rather unwieldy bureaucracy, especially at the federal level -- not so much provincially because we don't have the resources to support it. But certainly at the federal level we tend to end up with a big bureaucracy administering programs, with very little money actually going into the programs.
If we can move more specifically to the question of infant care, one notices that among aboriginal people in the province the infant mortality rate is 21.8 percent, compared to 8.9 percent for the general population. That's quite an astronomical figure. As somebody who has grown up in what is traditionally called a Third World nation and who understands the difficulties and problems associated with that, I would not expect to see a 21.8 percent infant mortality rate in a country like Canada, which we assume to be developed and to have one of the best health care systems in the world. I wonder if the minister might talk specifically about what is being done in this vote with respect to both the neonatal and postnatal care of aboriginal infants.
Hon. E. Cull: This year we have an additional $500,000 going into a program that I think is very effective in addressing the issue that the member is raising, and that is the pregnancy outreach program. There will be nine communities this year which all have high at-risk populations. They tend to have significant native populations. These programs are designed to assist pregnant women who are at risk of having low-birthweight infants or poor pregnancy outcomes. They deal with a whole range of things, through nutrition and making sure that you're looking after yourself and your fetus during pregnancy. There is certainly an emphasis on substance abuse and the impact that even moderate drinking or very limited drinking can have on new babies -- fetal alcohol syndrome, and the rest. So there are a number of communities that will be involved in this.
I just saw a video that was done on this particular program and which is designed to increase community support for those programs -- because it is a partnership with the community. A number of young women who were interviewed in the video all had really positive things to say about how this program had helped them from virtually the moment they discovered they were pregnant right through until after the baby was born -- providing a network, support, information and a lot of life skills information which is necessary to these young women.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister could just break out for me the half a million dollars she refers to with respect to pregnancy outreach. I understand, first of all, that this is not exclusive to aboriginal people. But in the nine communities that are identified -- and maybe the minister can tell us which communities those are -- how is that half a million dollars being committed? What proportion of it actually goes into direct counselling and direct hands-on work, and to what extent is it administrative? Is it brochures and promotion and those kinds of things?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't have the percentages for a breakdown between administration and actual program delivery, but the vast majority of the money goes into providing service directly to the individuals. So it's counselling services and other informational material that would be going there. The administrative portion is not by any means the majority or a large amount of this.
There are 23 programs provincewide -- nine new this year. Unfortunately, I do not have the total list, but I could give you an indication of some of the communities that are covered, and I think it will answer your question. I'll give you the agency names, which I think helps, because we fund through an agency in this case. These are the 1992-93 funding allocations: Campbell River Family Services, Quesnel and District Child Development Centre, Prince George native friendship centre, Esquimalt Neighbourhood House, Cranbrook Home Support Services. I've got a word here and I'm not sure whether it's the initials or the name of the organization -- and I couldn't pronounce it if it was. It's AHOPIA, on central Vancouver Island. There is another friendship centre in Skeena; Cariboo friendship centre; Kamloops Home Support Services; Valley Native Friendship Centre, which is central Vancouver Island; Tillicum Haus native friendship centre, again central Vancouver Island; Terrace Child Development Centre; and the Surrey Community Resource Centre Society. Quite a number of those are through native organizations, but you can see they are community-based organizations. I think just that flavour of the geography will tell you those are areas with a significant native population that is being targeted with the program; but of course, it's not exclusively directed at natives.
[11:00]
G. Wilson: It's encouraging to see that I am familiar with many of the organizations which have been mentioned, especially the native friendship centres -- many of which I've visited. They do excellent work and have excellent personnel, and I think they are certainly well worth providing the assistance to. If there is a difficulty with the native friendship centres, it tends to be their geography, in that they are centralized services. Many of the difficulties that exist among aboriginal women in particular exist on reserve and away from access to services. Transportation for a regular journey to these services is not always available. I wonder if the minister might address that question. Is there anything in this vote that would look after the interests of people not living in urban centres and
[ Page 3294 ]
therefore not able to readily access the kinds of services the minister just outlined? What provision is there provincially for on-reserve service? Or is that something that, in this minister's mind, is exclusively left to Health and Welfare Canada?
Hon. E. Cull: The member has identified a significant problem. It goes back to the discussion we just had about the coordination between federal and provincial on-and off-reserve money. Our priority has been to try to target that money to those urban natives who may not be getting any support through their band because they're not living in a tribal situation. Clearly there are women on reserve who could benefit from this program. If they're not coming off reserve into the native friendship centres, they're not going to be able to avail themselves of the service. If I understand the new federal program that the Health and Welfare minister announced in the last couple of months, that is one of the areas that he wants to see his money targeted to. As I said, both the Minister of Social Services and I are keenly interested in coordinating with the federal government on this money so that there is a match between what we're doing provincially and what they're doing federally.
G. Wilson: With respect to those services, I concur that the jurisdictional question needs to be addressed and outlined. The minister makes a good point. Four out of five aboriginal people in the province live off reserve, despite the fact that many of the potential dollars are available only on reserve. This in itself is a question we've got to come to grips with if we're to provide adequate assistance with the dollars available.
Let's talk for a moment about health care provision for off-reserve people. Statistically, death among aboriginal people as a result of accidents, poisonings, violence.... A good portion of that is suicide; in that population, it accounts for 33 percent of the deaths, compared to 9 percent for non-aboriginal people. Again, I'm sure the minister will agree that these statistics are alarming and need to be dealt with. I wonder if we could look towards matters relating particularly to suicide, because statistically, suicide also appears to happen at a much higher percentage in aboriginal people under age 25 -- people whom you would think might have much to look forward to. Native men 20 to 24 years old, for example, are five times more likely to commit suicide than similar non-native persons living in Canada.
I raised this in the Social Services estimates, with respect to the provision of social services. I raised it again in the estimates on Native Affairs. It's something that the Ministry of Health clearly is going to have a role to play in with respect to counselling services. I wonder if the minister might address that.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry, I didn't catch your last question. Were you asking about natives being involved in the delivery of service? I was trying to get the information together on the money, first of all.
G. Wilson: That's understandable. I was saying that a native man 20 to 24 years old is more likely by a factor of five to have suicide be the cause of death than a non-aboriginal person. This is unacceptable. Given that I've raised this in other estimates and it would appear that the Ministry of Health has a role to play, particularly in bringing in native or peer counselling organizations, what role is the Ministry of Health playing in providing those services?
Hon. E. Cull: There is the $3 million of additional money on a base of $2.9 million -- so just a little more than a doubling -- into alcohol and drug and mental health services specifically targeted at aboriginal people. I think that the concerns the member has raised with respect to suicide and other mental health problems frequently tied to substance abuse are being taken very seriously by the government in terms of the funding allocation we've made this year in that area.
We are working through the alcohol and drug advisory committee that I mentioned had already been established to determine how this money will be allocated around the province. The contracts are going out to the URBAN society in the lower mainland. There will be someone selected in the Fraser Valley, but I don't have a group there yet; the Kamloops friendship centre in the southeast interior; the Prince George Friendship Centre in the northeast; Smithers Indian Friendship Centre in the northwest; and the Nanaimo friendship centre on Vancouver Island. We are specifically looking at areas that we could broadly categorize as mental health.
We have some programs to try to develop aboriginal training in peer counselling and encouraging aboriginal people to become health care providers. Obviously, one of the ways that we're going to start to address this is by having more people who are of aboriginal descent working with their fellow men and women to address the problems that are unique to their culture and unique to their position in our society. I don't have a lot of details on it, but I know we do have a program. There is an institute that has received some funding for aboriginal training this year, and that will be implemented to train aboriginal health care workers for work both on and off reserve.
There is also a bursary program, which I touched on the other night, for aboriginal students entering the health care field. This year the amount has been increased to $96,000 in terms of bursaries. Last year there were 37 bursary applications, and 25 students qualified for assistance. I realize that it's not a large number of people, but slowly we are trying to increase the number of workers who have native backgrounds.
G. Wilson: While this seems to be a modest number, it's certainly encouraging to know that there is a focus on it. I would urge that this receive some high priority in terms of allocating care resources in this province. The suicide rate among native people in British Columbia, as I'm sure the minister knows, ranks the fourth-highest in the country. In the general population it ranks among the third-lowest. Clearly there is a very wide discrepancy with respect to the problem for
[ Page 3295 ]
aboriginal people, which does not seem to be in the non-aboriginal community.
Having said that, the matter of alcohol abuse as a contributing factor, and substance abuse generally, is community-based as well as a problem with respect to aboriginal people living in the urban centres. I know there's a lot of good work being done by the United Native Nations in the Vancouver region. Many of the friendship centres that the minister has just outlined are actively involved in those kinds of programs. When you see that alcohol abuse is a common factor in 93 percent of the communities, and that an additional 81 percent of those communities demonstrate drug abuse as being a central problem, it would seem that the training incentives for natives in the health care professions really does need to be highly prioritized not just among off-reserve aboriginal people living in the urban centres, but also back on the reserve.
I wonder if the minister can answer this question. What kinds of allocations of resources are being provided for post-treatment ongoing counselling, where aboriginal people with substance -- alcohol or drug -- abuse problems are treated off reserve and then sent back on reserve? There is no facility there whatsoever to do post-treatment work, counselling and ongoing guidance, and they find that they're right back in the situation they were in before they originally had treatment. I wonder if the minister could comment on the dollars that are available for that.
Hon. E. Cull: We have been doing some work in trying to train community health workers on reserve to provide this ongoing support to people who may have received their services off reserve but, as you point out very correctly, require some sort of ongoing system. Again, I don't have a full and complete answer for the member. It is something that needs to be addressed.
We go back to this issue that you have constantly zeroed in on in this discussion, and quite rightly so. That is the question of how to ensure that people receive adequate and complete services, and that they don't have to be on reserve or off reserve to get them, that there is some kind of seamless web so people can move back and forth without having to remain outside their reserve community if they want to get well, and then go back and find no support. I'm sorry I can't say that there is a well-developed, well-thought-out, well-coordinated program, but again it's something we have identified. We understand it's a problem and have been slowly and incrementally trying to address it.
Prior to this year it has been very difficult for the ministry to address it precisely because there has not been funding put into this area. Last year, I believe, there was no additional funding for alcohol and drug problems, and if my memory serves me correctly, the year before there was an actual cutback; I think they had a 95 percent budget. It's very difficult to improve services in an area of great need when there has been no recognition in the past that this area requires additional funding. We've recognized that. We have certainly heard what the royal commission had to say about the health status and health services provided to aboriginal people. We've made a funding shift this year which I think reflects our seriousness about the matter, but we're going to have to give it some time to actually see some outcomes as a result of the funding shift that is still not actually up and running in the community.
[11:15]
G. Wilson: Not only is there a difficulty or a problem associated with aboriginal people going back to the reserve, but it would appear that there is also a problem -- and I wonder if the minister could address this -- with respect to the available detox centres and ongoing treatment services, which tend to be adult-oriented facilities and not necessarily suitable for youth. I believe that only Peak House is being funded for aboriginal youth. I don't know if there's another one; if there is, I'd like to know about it. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on treatment centres for native youth and on whether she has any dollars earmarked for that. The minister might talk about dollars that this ministry might be putting toward Peak House and about whether there is an attempt to establish new centres within this budget. Quite clearly, the difficulty we have with aboriginal youth -- and it's been identified by many different groups -- is that there are no direct, youth-oriented services and that many of the services we do have in place tend to cater to adults. You have quite young children being put into these centres where often the services are simply not acceptable.
Hon. E. Cull: The aboriginal advisory committee on alcohol and drugs has identified youth as its priority. I'm happy to let the member know that we've recently opened a youth-oriented detox centre in Vancouver, called Connections, which will probably see at least 50 percent of its clients being native people. Peak House, I understand, doesn't actually take in a lot of natives. Connections will have a detox component plus a supportive recovery bed component. It's just new; it was opened four or five months ago.
G. Wilson: That is interesting and even exciting news. I wonder if the minister might elaborate a bit about its budget and how it's funded, what capacity it has, what kind of staffing it has and so on -- even its address. Or maybe you don't want to give that.
Hon. E. Cull: The budget is in the area of $600,000. That all comes from the alcohol and drug programs in the Ministry of Health, although I understand that some one-time funding is coming from Social Services as well. It will have a three-bed detox and a seven-bed supportive recovery component. I don't have the total number of staff, but I know that some of the staff are native people.
G. Wilson: So this facility has a capacity for three people plus seven. It's a ten-bed system -- three detox, seven support -- and it is exclusively designed for aboriginal youth. Is that so?
[ Page 3296 ]
Hon. E. Cull: Not exclusively. It's designed to hit the highest-risk street kids, many of whom tend to be aboriginal.
G. Wilson: If that is so, then the $600,000 that's going for the provision of a ten-bed facility.... One looks at the overall cost of the provision of that service. I wonder if the minister might comment on how there may be a direct return for the investment of the dollars currently being put into prevention and treatment of substance abuse. Has this house been purchased? Is it owned by the government? Is it run by a society? Is this a contracted service?
Hon. E. Cull: I know ten beds don't sound like a lot, particularly when you look at $600,000; you'd say $60,000 a bed. But the detox beds are intended to be used for two or three days, so there's quite a movement of people coming through the detox itself.
We have contracted that the seven beds for supportive recovery would be available for youth to stay there for up to three months, should they need that length of time in recovery. But at present, I'm advised that the average length of stay in supportive recovery is two weeks, which to my way of thinking is probably not long enough. It may mean that some of those youngsters are checking themselves out too early. I'm saying that totally on my own sort of evaluation, just from the numbers that have been given to me. Perhaps I'm incorrect there, and that is a sufficient amount of time.
The point is that between two weeks and three months in the detox, you can see that the $600,000 can actually go a long way in serving young people who may be using that facility. I don't have a total number, but I'm sure that even picking an average we could quickly calculate that quite a number of youth would be able to avail themselves of the services there.
G. Wilson: This is administered then by a registered society, is it? And it's a contracted service?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, that's correct.
G. Wilson: If we could look at some of the problems with the urban youth, native youth in particular. But I don't think it's exclusive to native youth, by any stretch of the imagination. That is with respect to the problems related to physical abuse, sexual abuse, high rates of sexually transmitted diseases and in particular the rapid and somewhat alarming increase in HIV and AIDS. I wonder if the minister could comment on what is being done with respect to those matters. It isn't just urban youth, but that tends to be the highest concentration.
Hon. E. Cull: I assume we're still focusing on native people here, are we? Your question is in that context?
G. Wilson: Yes.
Hon. E. Cull: I had the opportunity in December to attend a conference put on by urban natives to specifically addreses the issue of the spread of AIDS in the native community. As you've pointed out, it is alarming. The numbers are very small at this point, but the rate of increase is the highest of all populations that are seeing an increase in HIV and AIDS.
They have just reported to me. This week I received their recommendations coming out of their conference, in terms of what they think the ministry can do to support them. This year we have provided an additional $500,000 to support native AIDS issues out of our entire AIDS budget, which is somewhere over $2 million additional money this year. I can't remember the exact figure. But because of the priority around the increase of AIDS in the native community, there will be additional resources going there. I'm hoping that I will be able to use the recommendations coming out of that group to design the programs we will be delivering to them.
G. Wilson: With respect to the budget allocation and while I am focused primarily on native youth -- the reason being that I'm the critic and need to ask some questions with respect to it -- I think the minister will appreciate that it is not only native youth that this impacts. I wonder if the minister might talk about the allocation of dollars toward what are generally considered three areas in which HIV and AIDS need to be dealt with. One of the questions is on prevention, which is the first thing we try to do; second is the question on treatment; and the third one is with respect to educating the general population not only as a preventive measure but also to educate people who may interact with those who have HIV, so that they know what the parameters of the disease are and to make sure that discrimination on the question of people with an illness does not occur and is not pervasive.
There have been some alarming reports over the last several months, as I'm sure the minister is well aware, of physical abuse being inflicted upon not only native youths but other street youth in the province, in particular in Vancouver. I'm speaking about beatings, stabbings and so on. People are taking strong action against them because there is this great fear that these people are or may be carriers of HIV and AIDS. I wonder if the minister might talk a bit about that.
Hon. E. Cull: We are working right now with the community-based agencies, redesigning our provincial advisory committee on AIDS. The member may be aware that the former government chose not to involve the community-based AIDS support groups: AIDS Vancouver Island, the People With AIDS society. Those types of groups were not involved under the former government because of their attitude towards this particular illness.
We are now redesigning that group, and I think having quite a bit of success in working with the community groups to make the priority decisions. Some funding decisions were made initially, because they were considered to be emergency decisions. I believe the needle exchange program in Vancouver -- correct me if I'm wrong -- was one of the early ones to
[ Page 3297 ]
be funded again this year, because we needed continuity with them.
Some decisions have been made, and some decisions are still being worked on, but this year there is a base of $23 million going to all kinds of AIDS funding, although this does not include the hospital-based care that would be part of.... Sorry, it does include hospitals and acute care. We're getting these figures together here. My apologies.
There is money for prevention. I'll just talk about it now. There is new money of $3.6 million. I was incorrect when I said a few minutes ago that it was somewhere over $2 million. It's $3.6 million in new money this year. About $2.5 million of that is going to prevention activities through the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. There is another $500,000 going into education and communications of quite a wide variety: native-based, school-based, multicultural, women's programs, physician-based education programs. Also, additional money is going into Normandy lodge, which is a palliative continuing-care program for AIDS.
We touched briefly the other night on IV home treatment and other programs that are being developed under the hospitals' budget. As you appreciate, AIDS cuts across hospitals and community-based programs.
G. Wilson: I was sorting through this and understand that the $23 million is an inclusive figure. Or is the $3.6 million on prevention in addition to the $23 million?
Hon. E. Cull: All included.
G. Wilson: So the $23 million is an inclusive figure. I understand the minister to say that.
With respect to that, questions have come to me in my role and capacity as native affairs critic in British Columbia, also with respect to matters related to sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and AIDS and others, and higher-risk populations, particularly among -- and again, I'm talking about aboriginal youth, but it could be any youth -- women who are involved in prostitution and activities that would put them at high risk. I wonder if the minister might talk a little bit about what is being done with respect to identification within this population, administration within this population, and hopefully, some measure of prevention.
[11:30]
Hon. E. Cull: Certainly the issue of women and AIDS has been identified as one that needs addressing. Under consideration right now is an initiative from a group called POWER, Prostitutes and Other Women for Equal Rights, which would, among other things, fund condoms. I guess there are quite a number of programs being considered for funding this year which would address women's needs, but they're not exclusively addressed to women: the needle exchange program; some of the outreach programs occurring in the smaller communities like Kelowna and Nanaimo; the street workers available through DEYAS in Vancouver; we've already talked about the urban ones; certainly the work that's going on through the health promotion and Positive Women's Network. There are a number of projects. I've just touched on a few here that have caught my eye as I've looked over the list of what's being considered. There are projects that are specifically targeted at women being looked at for funding under this new provincial AIDS advisory committee, which is looking at the overall funding allocation this year.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
G. Wilson: I apologize. I was writing and missed the information about POWER. Is POWER an independent group that is funded? I missed exactly what the minister said this group was and how it was funded.
Hon. E. Cull: POWER is an independent group that has requested funding this year. A decision has not yet been made on all of the allocations. As I've just explained, we've done some emergency funding, but it hasn't gone through the process, because there are anywhere.... It looks like about 27 or 28 projects have come forward for funding for the additional dollars. We're trying to decide where the priorities are.
G. Wilson: The minister mentioned two groups. POWER was the Prostitutes and Other Women for Equal Rights. Is that correct?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes.
G. Wilson: The minister mentioned a second group, but I missed writing it down.
Hon. E. Cull: Let me mention a few others, then, so you can get them all down: Women and AIDS Support Network; Positive Women's Network rural education project. That's two anyway.
G. Wilson: It was the Positive Women's that I was trying to identify. Could the minister then tell us, in terms of the application for funding, if this would come out of, presumably, the community and family health portion of the budget? I would assume that would be a functional part of the grants portion. Is that the way these groups would be funded? Could the minister tell us upon what criteria this money is available and what kind of administration or accounting is done? Once the money is given, is that it? Do you just send them a cheque, or is there some follow-up to see how the programs are working?
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct: it is in the family and community care portion of the budget -- grants provided to agencies. If I could just explain again how we're going at deciding how to allocate this money, there has been for some time a group called PAC-AIDS -- Provincial Advisory Committee on AIDS. It has been essentially dominated by government and caregivers -- to use the broadest context of the word -- as opposed to community-based groups. We have met with the AIDS network. They have raised quite a number of concerns about the composition of PAC-AIDS, so we are redevel-
[ Page 3298 ]
oping that committee in consultation with them. We are trying to build a new committee that will more accurately represent all of the community groups.
A provincial AIDS strategy has been developed and is now being updated through consultation with this group, and we have asked this group to work with us to identify the funding priorities. As you can well imagine, project requests will always exceed the amount of money available, so it's a question of deciding where to spend the money. In keeping with our philosophy that communities have to have a greater say, we are restructuring the committee so that communities will in fact have much greater input into how the decisions are made for funding allocation.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the clarification on how that process works. Although the minister didn't specifically so, I assume there is some follow-up through this PAC-AIDS group that would monitor and observe and make recommendations on whether groups that are receiving funding in fact are making a successful contribution, so that we know that the money allocated is being wisely distributed. I would assume that is happening. If it isn't, I'm sure the minister wouldn't tell me....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: No, I'm sure the minister would tell me.
Having said that, I come back to the original question that sort of led me off on this interesting and informative tangent, and that has to do with the concern that I was expressing with respect to the number of youth -- aboriginal youth in particular -- that are being pulled into prostitution and the problems that are associated with prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS being only one. Does the Minister of Health now have an active and ongoing program with respect to some form of monitoring, an assistance program for young people who are faced with this problem, or is that something that is more generally left to another ministry?
Hon. E. Cull: We certainly provide services in this area, primarily through street nurses and outreach workers who are on the streets in the communities dealing with these kids. Other people who are living on the streets may be involved in prostitution and other very high-risk activities, so we provide a lot of service through that. In the metro areas a lot of that is being run through the metropolitan health units, which are funding the programs -- needle exchange and the rest -- and we support that as well.
G. Wilson: This leads me nicely into the next question, which has to do with street nurses and the funding available in communities which are outside the larger metropolitan group. It has come to my attention, for example, that in a community such as Vernon, which you would ordinarily not associate with a high number of homeless youth, there is an alarming number of young people who seem to be homeless and in need of service. A significant number of that group, in fact, are aboriginal, but others are not.
Can the minister tell us what is being done with respect to an assessment of these numbers, and what would motivate or drive perhaps the reallocation of existing scarce resources to make sure that street nurses and counselling services are available to young people who require them?
Hon. E. Cull: We are doing a number of things outside of the major urban centres in response to the needs that have been identified either by union boards of health or by our own public health people in the communities. There's a very successful street outreach project in Kelowna, another one in Nanaimo, and one in Surrey that is being funded. Sometimes we think of Surrey as not being outside the metro area, but it is a community with a large street population that needs some consideration. We're also looking at a number of new needle exchange programs, outreach programs: Chilliwack, Campbell River, Mission, New West, Kamloops. Prince Rupert and Vernon, as you just mentioned. Decisions on the funding of those haven't been yet determined, but they are certainly under active consideration.
Through some of the other projects that have come forward, particularly the friendship centre ones that we mentioned, there are AIDS programs being run, and they are scattered throughout the smaller communities in British Columbia.
G. Wilson: I wonder if I could just come back on this, because there are a number of constituents in Vernon who have come directly to me with this question. If it's possible, I wonder if I could have the minister identify what will be available in Vernon. This information will be most useful to people who are currently associated with a number of church groups that are actively involved in counselling and providing services to homeless youth.
Hon. E. Cull: The way this works is that the community groups submit proposals to the ministry, and we'll actually be looking at them through the Provincial Advisory Committee -- the PAC-AIDS group. I don't know what they are proposing to do, but my information tells me that the category that Vernon is being considered under right now is a needle exchange program, and I think the member is fully familiar with what that involves.
G. Wilson: I wonder if we could then move on. I'd like to try to wrap up my questions by noon, and so I will try to move through this fairly quickly.
With respect to the provision of services to aboriginal people, we've talked a little bit about the need to work out an arrangement, and accommodation if you want, with Health and Welfare Canada and the provinces jurisdictionally on that. One of the areas in which the province does have some substantial power, however, is in what is licensed and funded under the Medical Service Act. I wonder if there has been any discussion or any movement within the purview of the
[ Page 3299 ]
vote that we're considering now to the integration within current health care practices of native healers. This is something that has been promoted and proposed by a number of bands and nations, and I wonder if the minister might comment on that.
Hon. E. Cull: We have, through staff, been meeting with elders in the native community to get a better understanding of native health practices and some of the traditional healing practices that aboriginal people use, to see if we can't find ways to incorporate them into the health delivery system. With respect to considering funding under fee-for-service, if that is what the member is asking with respect to the Medical Services Plan, no, we haven't considered that. Given the circumstances around the fee-for-service budget right now, we would be unlikely to consider that in the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean, though, that we might not find ways to incorporate traditional healing arts into other ministry programs. We will be, I hope, receiving guidance from the advisory group that we talked about earlier, as to how that might be incorporated into the traditional health care system.
G. Wilson: It's my understanding that there are roughly 62 reserves that are served by provincial community health nursing provisions. If I'm incorrect in that figure, then perhaps the minister could correct me; but that's my understanding. Of that group, I wonder how much of the provision of health care that is provided by community health nurses on-reserve in fact involves the provision of practices that are culturally defined, if you want, as native healing practices, and whether that's a functional part of the training of those services.
Hon. E. Cull: I can't confirm the number. My staff tells me it sounds a bit high, but I don't have any way of confirming that at this point. There is no incorporation of traditional native healing practices that I'm aware of, although we are trying to train our staff to be more culturally sensitive when they are going to be working with the native community, or multicultural communities for that matter. Anything that we can do to increase sensitivity, I would think, is a benefit to the clients.
[11:45]
G. Wilson: With respect to the provision of this service -- and we can argue about the numbers that are actually involved -- I understand that this program is put in place through a federal exchange-of-services program. Last year, my records indicate that it had about $1.25 million in it as a functioning part of that exchange program. Could the minister tell us if that figure has increased or decreased? Or is that federal exchange of services still available for this community nurse service?
Hon. E. Cull: I can't confirm that figure right now, but I'd be happy to try to get back to you on it.
G. Wilson: While you're doing that research.... It leads to my next question. If you didn't know the answer to the first one, you won't know the answer to the second one. It has to do with the health stations that are in the province. I understand that that is also a functional part of an agreement between the province and the federal government with respect to funding. I believe there are 48 health stations that are part of that joint-funding program. I'd very much like to get some information on that, unless that information is available now, in which case I'd be anxious to hear it.
Hon. E. Cull: There is some cost-sharing between the federal and provincial governments with respect to nurse practitioners. We do some sharing of the funding and services that are provided off-and on-reserve. To the best of my knowledge, it's a much smaller number, perhaps eight or ten. Again, rather than try and guess at this stuff right now, I'll get back to you with a more complete answer.
G. Wilson: As I'm going through my list, I see that we're getting closer to the end.
I wonder if we might talk now about preventive health care and wellness generally among aboriginal people. There is still an alarmingly high percentage of cases of tuberculosis among aboriginal people, a disease that has been all but eradicated in non-aboriginal communities. I'm told that it is generally contributed to by very poor socioeconomic conditions -- housing conditions and so on -- and I've witnessed that in some instances. In terms of the overall wellness of these communities, I wonder if the minister can tell us what is being done with other ministries or, again, through a potential shared arrangement with the federal government to really go after this specific disease.
Hon. E. Cull: Earlier in these estimates we talked about the social determinants of health and the impact that income, housing and one's social environment can have on health. That's precisely what the member is talking about here. TB is directly related to poor socioeconomic conditions. Because we have targeted aboriginal people as a concern in the health care system this year and we recognize that addressing their concerns goes well beyond the purview of the Ministry of Health, we are working with the Ministry of Social Services and particularly with the Ministry of Housing to try to address some of the concerns around native people and the high level of tuberculosis and other diseases that are directly attributable to economics.
I have some figures from last year and the year before which confirm the comments that the member made. The number of active cases in status native Indians, both on and off reserve, has increased from 37 to 42. That's alarming.
G. Wilson: If I can be so bold as to use this opportunity to advance an idea and then lead into a question from it. One of the approaches that have been considered by the Liberal opposition -- and was even prior to election -- is the introduction of a community-services base, which would provide an integrated service. It would essentially collapse the casework from four different line ministries into one ministry -- a
[ Page 3300 ]
ministry of community development -- that would look after all the interests and needs of the people, rather than trying to break them out. I offer that as a suggestion.
On the question of tuberculosis, it would seem to me that that is one very clear avenue that could be approached as a possible resolution. Again, I recognize that we have a real jurisdictional nightmare with the federal government. But perhaps moneys that are coming into the organizations could be earmarked to provide a better integration of services.
With respect to that, I wonder if I could come to matters associated with the funding. I'm very sensitive about not wanting to drift into a bill that's before us today and is likely to be before us for several more weeks or months. Who knows? That's an attempt at levity.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: Hon. Chairman, I hear from members opposite that it wasn't funny. So be it.
In every province, with the exception of B.C. and Alberta, the cost of native health care services has been reported as being covered by general revenue. The province of British Columbia, as I'm sure the minister is aware, negotiates a sum annually with the federal government. I understand that last year it was roughly $7 million. I wonder if the minister can tell us if she sees that as an advantage over and above the arrangements and agreements that have been made between the other provinces and the federal government. Instead of trying to negotiate this sum for native health services with the federal government, would it be better for us to simply build it into a proposition that would allow us to take it directly at source and then fund it through general revenue?
Hon. E. Cull: I regret to say that I haven't been able to do a comparison of what we have here versus what other provinces have, so I can't say conclusively that it's a better arrangement here than elsewhere. Certainly, if in looking into it it turns out that someone else has figured out a better way to deal with the feds over getting tax dollars to support health care in this province, we'll quickly look into changing the way we go about doing things.
G. Wilson: We also have some ideas on that that we'd be anxious to share with the minister. Not only is there a better proposition in terms of trying to avoid the kind of negotiation that we've been involved with, but with respect to joint health and education funding programs especially, there is a possibility that direct revenue-generation at source and therefore direct payment into either tribal council health boards or their equivalent might work well.
If I could move quickly into my last couple of questions. They have to do with the proposition of levels of government funding and support for physician services that are directly tied to mental health services in native communities. In some provinces, programs are established specifically with physician services in the mental health area tied into native communities and directly funded into bands. British Columbia is not one of them. I wonder if there is a reason we don't do that, and if so, could the minister tell us what it is?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm a little puzzled; I'm not sure I quite understand your question. Are you suggesting that in other provinces there is federal money tied directly into bands for this purpose? Once we get into talking about federal money, I'm afraid you've got the wrong minister.
G. Wilson: No. What I'm talking about is that other provinces directly negotiate with the federal government to have money that is administered essentially to provide physician services in mental health for native communities as a functional part of the provincial health care provision. It's a direct negotiation. British Columbia is not one of the provinces that do that. I wonder why we don't do that, or if we have some equivalent program available, which is the reason we don't do that.
Hon. E. Cull: Certainly I could get more details for the member if this isn't a sufficient answer, but my understanding of the way it works here is that, as I said earlier, we provide our services to all British Columbians, so those services are available through the Medical Services Plan, particularly to people living off reserve. The federal government, through its own medical services program, does provide mental health services through physician services on reserve. I think we're rapidly back to this question of how we do the integration and avoid the overlap. It's a question of working on it in the future.
G. Wilson: Perhaps it's a matter that the Minister of Health might want to nudge her colleague the Minister of Finance to get onto. I think revenues are there that we could be getting that we're not. I would suggest that there may be a way to get some direct federal money back into the province, since we pay it out in taxes in ever-increasing amounts. It's nice to sometimes get it back into the province. I know that that money in Ontario and Quebec is directly negotiated. I'm not sure what the mechanism for that negotiation is. Nevertheless, if there's a way for British Columbians to get more of our tax money back here, so that we can have it dedicated into the province, that would be useful.
That concludes my line of questioning with respect to native health. I would like to thank the minister for her concise and direct answers. In those areas where she was to provide written response, I anxiously await that.
Hon. Chairman, the opposition House Leader isn't here, but in his absence I'll move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 3301 ]
Hon. G. Clark: By leave, hon. Speaker, I move that the House continue to sit till 1 p.m.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 79.
FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1992
Hon. D. Miller: Bill 79 clarifies the Forest Service's mandate to protect and manage recreation resources throughout British Columbia's forests. It also provides new authorities to better enable the Forest Service to exercise this mandate.
[12:00]
The Forest Service recreation program is really one of the untold success stories in this province. I suppose typically people look on the ministry as one that is primarily concerned with issues of timber harvest, but in fact the forest recreation program and the recreation sites that my ministry establishes and manages around the province are used by over 40 million people annually, which is a higher number even than the B.C. parks system, and provides recreation sites in less refined circumstances than the normal campsites that you find in parks throughout the province. I really have tried to take every opportunity to publicize the recreation program that we do conduct throughout the province.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
For more than a decade the public has demanded improvements in the management of forest recreation. This bill provides the legal authority that the Forest Service needs to meet many of these demands. Bill 79 defines recreational resources in order to clarify that the forest service's role in managing forest recreation covers the full spectrum of recreational values and opportunities. It also defines the current terms "recreation site" and "recreation trail" and adds "interpretative forest site." These definitions clarify the purposes of these sites and trails.
This bill enables formal designation of interpretative forest sites so that they can be regulated appropriately. Currently about 50 interpretative forest sites, typically under 1,000 hectares in size, are established throughout the province. These sites are outdoor classrooms for discussion on the nature and management of forests, and require regulations that differ from the regulations for recreation sites used mainly for camping.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair]
Hon. Speaker, I had the opportunity very recently, in terms of describing these interpretative forest sites, to officiate at the opening of an interpretative forest in Ucluelet, one that was funded by my ministry but was really put together at the instigation of the community of Ucluelet. I spent a very enjoyable day out meeting with municipal officials and touring the site. I came away from that tour and said to the person who had been largely responsible for building the trails and putting the signs in place that it was a natural outdoor classroom, and I hoped that the schools in the area made use of the interpretative site, in terms of trying to understand in a better way the need to manage our forest resources.
I was struck particularly by an area that had just recently been thinned. We hear a lot about the advantages of thinning forests to achieve better growth rates. Right beside the area that had just been thinned -- and that area probably had trees about 40 years old, maybe averaging about 8 inches to 10 inches in diameter -- was an area that had been thinned 10 years previously. The trees were the same age, and yet the area that had been thinned previously had trees that were at least 1 times larger than the area adjacent to it. It was certainly a dramatic illustration of the benefits that we can achieve through that kind of program.
These interpretative forest sites that we have established, and will continue to establish throughout the province, really do provide an opportunity for members of the public, particularly for the schools, to get out and actually see on the ground the kind of advantages we can get through better management.
The bill clarifies that the current authority of regional managers to prohibit incompatible uses on designated sites and trails applies to both non-recreational and recreational uses. This authority is extended to district managers, because they typically have a better understanding of local management needs. The bill also clarifies that this authority cannot be used to prohibit uses explicitly permitted under other acts.
Hon. Speaker, this bill adds an important new authority for regional and district managers to regulate by written order recreation on an area-specific basis anywhere in provincial forests. This authority will enable them, in consultation with other agencies and the public, to protect recreation resources and manage dispersed recreation. It will enable them to assign incompatible uses to different areas, and prohibit uses that damage a recreation resource. This new authority does not apply to commercial recreation operators licensed under other acts.
The new enforcement provisions are another important aspect of this bill. One of the problems that we face in some of our recreation sites is over-use. There are areas, particularly here on Vancouver Island -- and I've had MLAs come to talk to me about it -- which are so overused that the use is now starting to denigrate the recreation site itself, yet we find ourselves without the ability to regulate that use. So contravention of a regional or district manager's order that regulates recreation is identified as an offence.
Forest officers are given authority to stop individuals and request identification if they believe a recreation offence has occurred. This authority is similar to the current authority of conservation officers to enforce hunting and fishing regulations. To ensure that the public is aware of orders that regulate recreation, the bill requires posting of notices and makes it an offence to remove or deface a notice.
[ Page 3302 ]
The Forest Act currently requires the consent of several types of tenure-holders before the chief forester can designate sites and trails. This bill adds the requirement of prior consent before development or expansion of a site or trail, and revises the list of tenure-holders whose consent must be obtained. The Forest Service will continue to consult with the public and other agencies to ensure that our management of forest recreation provides the greatest possible benefits and opportunities to all British Columbians.
Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
W. Hurd: It's a pleasure to rise in the House in support of this bill in principle in second reading. The minister's move towards integrated resource use, particularly as it relates to recreation opportunities and interpretive forest opportunities in the province, is something that the opposition certainly welcomes.
As we've come to expect with a bill before the House which pertains to forests, I would like to also thank the members of the assembly who have hung around to participate in this particular bill -- in particular the government House Leader, who makes a rare appearance to debate second reading of a forest bill. We don't see too many people interested in participating in these bills on the floor of the House. I think that's somewhat unfortunate, because the Liberal caucus had an opportunity -- or at least the land use committee had an opportunity -- to tour the Walbran Valley on Friday with a representative of the Carmanah Forestry Society, Mr. Sydney Haskell, whom we all know and love, and also representatives of the company. I can attest to the fact that when it comes to looking at the forests of British Columbia, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and very often the lack of information is one of the major barriers we face.
I am particularly supportive of the idea of establishing interpretive forests which will give British Columbians an opportunity at a young age to go out into the woods and interpret for themselves exactly how the forests and the resource are being managed in the province. We also are pleased to see one particular clause in the bill which requires the consent of licence-holders in planning these multiple-resource-use facilities in the province. Certainly the minister will recognize that some excellent recreation facilities currently exist on tree farms in the province, and this is an opportunity for the minister and the ministry to work with the private sector in promoting the multiple use of our forest resource, particularly in second-growth areas of the province, which provide some of the most excellent recreation facilities we have.
We're pleased to support the principle of Bill 79, recognizing that there's a critical need in the province for far more information about how our forests are being managed, and in particular the recreation opportunities on public forestland, which many people are not aware of.
Earlier this session we debated at length during estimates the rather steep increases for provincial parks, and we would hope that as this particular program becomes expanded, the sites for recreation within existing forest areas may be an option for people who, for whatever reason, are not able to pay the cost of staying in a provincial campground for any length of time.
I think the move by the minister is a positive one. We generally support the principles established in the bill. We look forward to discussing some of the clauses in the bill at greater length during committee stage.
C. Serwa: I will speak to this act very briefly. Our critic is unable to be here today, and I thought I'd seize the opportunity again. We certainly support the new definitions that have been included. If one is to satisfy the expansion of interests that our forests have to serve, it's entirely appropriate that these definitions be included. Not only is there an opportunity for expanded recreation but also the interpretive aspect, so that a greater opportunity and broader understanding for the people of the province on forestry issues is enhanced. This certainly stands to enhance that awareness.
The majority of our Crown land in British Columbia has potential for forest production. There is a concern, though, with access to the public to these particular sites. As a matter of fact, at the moment, that access is being challenged in some areas by the Douglas Lake Cattle Co. Ltd. When we're talking about access to forests and Crown lands, perhaps it's cognizant -- although it's not part of the Forest Amendment Act -- that the protection of access is always maintained at a very high profile so that the public always has ungated access to their forestry resources, which include wild game habitat, recreational resources, wilderness hiking, lakes and fishing.
On the whole, the Social Credit caucus applauds the philosophy and principles behind this bill. I believe that the end result of this will be a greater confidence and understanding of the public on forestry-related issues.
Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the support coming from both of the oppostion caucuses. I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 79, Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1992
The House in committee on Bill 79; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
Sections 1 through 4 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 3303 ]
Bill 79, Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
[12:15]
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 83, hon. Speaker.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1992
Hon. G. Clark: On behalf of the Attorney General, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act contains amendments to the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act, the Hydro and Power Authority Act and the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act.
Several amendments are being proposed to the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act which will support and assist the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Council in the performance of their duties. The act is to be amended to provide for the designation of alternates to attend meetings of the first peoples' advisory committee, which provides advice to the council. Because of frequent staff changes, it has proven to be unrealistic and unnecessary to have tribal councils send a single appointed individual to all meetings.
The composition of the council will be changed to provide for the appointment of three additional members, based on the recommendations of the advisory committee. This change will help ensure that the major native language groups in the province are represented on the council.
The act is also being amended to provide for remuneration of council members. The provision of a per diem to members for attendance at meetings will give recognition to the valuable efforts of these people, who help offset the economic hardship imposed on some members by their participation on the council.
The Hydro and Power Authority Act is amended to remove the requirement that there be not more than 15 persons appointed as directors of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Directors are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This amendment will enable the achievement of greater flexibility and a broader representation of individuals from different sectors of British Columbia society on the board of directors.
An amendment is made to the First Citizens' Fund, which is established as a special account in the consolidated revenue fund pursuant to the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act. The First Citizens' Fund presently provides for the expenditure of interest earned on the fund by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations to advance the culture, education and economic opportunities of "persons of North American Indian race who were born in, and are residents of, the province."
The amended section will provide that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs rather than the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations may provide loan guarantees in addition to making payments or lending amounts equal to the interest earned on the First Citizens' Fund special account. The amendment will also provide that the beneficiaries of the fund will be "persons of North American aboriginal ancestry who are ordinarily resident in British Columbia." This amendment will extend the benefits of the fund to all British Columbia residents of North American aboriginal ancestry, whether or not they were born in British Columbia.
Just to make a point, this is a miscellaneous bill. Obviously some amendments can be debated with full discussion. There is no actual principle of the bill to speak to, so that is why it's appropriate for me to carry the bill on behalf of the Attorney General. He will certainly be here for the committee stage of the debate for full and complete discussion.
I am pleased to recommend this bill to the House.
A. Warnke: The bill that's been presented before us is very unique. It's the most unique bill of its kind in the entire session. One reason for its uniqueness is something that I hope is not repeated during the entire administration of this government in this parliament. Indeed, as the initiator of this bill has pointed out in representing the Attorney General, there are two main themes, as I would break it down. Obviously there are four sections, but from what I can see of this bill, there are two essential themes and, if one likes, two essential principles.
One of the principles concerns assistance to the native peoples and first peoples of this province. Very quickly, the sections dealing with the first peoples do provide an amendment, so there is proper designation. Obviously we want to see better representation among our native peoples on various committees and so forth. Indeed, the fourth section, which deals with establishing the First Citizens' Fund for the purposes of advancing, expanding and enhancing native culture.... The principle of that part of that bill certainly can be endorsed, and the people of British Columbia see no reason not to encourage the enhancement of first peoples' culture and so forth.
I find it interesting that there is an aspect of this bill in which two principles evolve. They seem to be incongruent with one another. I'm referring to section 2, which increases the representation of native people on the various committees. Here the number is rather definitive. They increase the number from six to nine representatives and, as the initiator of this bill put forward, the number is definitive -- there are an additional three.
Those three sections which deal with native peoples certainly can be endorsed in principle. We may want to ask about some particulars of these sections, which we will do at committee stage. But for some reason section 3 is totally incongruent and makes me even wonder whether they were initiated by the same author. Indeed, when one compares sections 2 and 3, we find that there is an incongruency. Whereas section 2 is rather definitive in terms of an expansion, the implications of section 3 are very clear -- there is no definitive number.
I really wonder whose brilliant idea this was to write up section 3. If you go back to the original Hydro and Power Authority Act, section 2 reads: "The corporation
[ Page 3304 ]
known as the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority is continued, consisting of...." If we were to delete what is being proposed here in section 3 of this bill, it would read: "...consisting of persons appointed as directors and holding office, as provided in this Act." The English is not even right. But most important, by eliminating a definitive number, how many directors are we talking about? Are we talking about merely adding 14 as has been suggested, or 1,400 or 14,000, for that matter? It is so loose-ended.
Hon. G. Clark: It's the same as the other three sections.
A. Warnke: No, it is not. The Minister of Finance is saying that it's the same as the other three sections. It's obvious that....
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, I do know that with these kinds of miscellaneous bills, it's very difficult to stay on the principle. But I would encourage the member to try, as far as possible, to avoid debate that would be more appropriate at committee stage.
A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I think the point that you have made is worth making: it is difficult at times to talk about the principle in miscellaneous bills.
Nonetheless, there are two themes that do stand out. I would say that given one of these themes, which can certainly be supported very strongly in principle, I find it provocative in responding to this bill. I am provoked to think that someone would inject a particular section in a bill that can be supported; all of sudden we see something as strange as this. It's enough of an error that it makes this side seriously question this particular bill, despite the fact that it's a miscellaneous bill with only a few sections, and all the rest of it. It's a ridiculous section that jeopardizes the entire bill. Were it possible to suggest an elimination of this section at second reading, I would do so. But of course, as we all know, you cannot do that. We will argue in committee stage that something has to be done about this particular section. I'm convinced that this section will have to be amended or eliminated altogether.
Hon. Speaker, on that note I will conclude my remarks in response to Bill 83 that has been introduced before us.
J. Weisgerber: I'll be very brief. This amendment has only three sections. As the minister indicated, it's difficult to get into a lot of discussion about the principle of the bill. In a general sense, I approve the notion of providing more flexibility for tribal councils and other native organizations to appoint whoever they might choose to the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Council. I have no difficulty with that, nor with the decision to expand the membership on that board.
The notion of expanding the Hydro board would normally not raise a lot of concern, except insomuch as it would appear to provide more opportunities for the NDP to appoint more of their supporters. Surely there can't be many left who are even on a recognized basis by party headquarters and who haven't already found themselves something more attractive than the Hydro board. But there may be one or two lurking around, a few favours left unrewarded and a few folks left unpaid. While the Hydro board has operated efficiently and effectively and even by the government's analysis has served British Columbians very well, we're just a little suspicious of the need to expand the board membership. We'll watch and see who we're making room for, and we will know that, I suppose, after the bill has been passed.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
The section that deals with the expansion of the First Citizens' Fund to native Indians not born in British Columbia is one that I support. When I was minister, on occasion I met individuals who for some reason or another were born in the United States or other parts of Canada, but were in every other sense eligible under the fund, and it didn't make any sense. As a matter of fact, the term in there seemed contrary even to the constitution. With that section we would support it, and we look forward to going section by section through the relatively few sections in this bill.
[12:30]
G. Wilson: My remarks will likewise be very brief. With respect to section 3 and removing the limit on the number of directors on the B.C. Hydro board, it was interesting to note that at a roast last week, when the Premier was raising money for Canada's basketball team, a former IWA chief was heard to say: "Mike, I'm the only long-term supporter of yours that hasn't received a patronage appointment." Well, here we go. Now we're able to do it. With this we can now increase the Hydro board to make sure that one former IWA chief can get on it. We do have some concerns about what is intended by section 3.
On the section that deals with changing the discrimination against the non-B.C.-born aboriginal people, I have taken an opportunity to consult with a number of the aboriginal leaders in British Columbia. Generally speaking, there is in principle some agreement. The concern that we would raise -- and we will raise again in committee -- is whether or not what we're doing is expanding the number of people that will be fighting over a very limited pool of money. As a result of that, that might be difficult for some aboriginal people to accept.
However, with those comments on record with respect to the pool of money being sought after by a larger number of people.... That may be an issue that this government will find will be of concern to aboriginal people.
Bill 83, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.2), 1992, read a second time and referred to a
[ Page 3305 ]
Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 65.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 65; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
Sections 1 to 25 inclusive approved.
On section 26.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 26, in the proposed section 126(4) by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (a), by adding ", and" at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following paragraph:
(c) a notice in conspicuous type that any member or auxiliary member may obtain a free copy of the full financial statement at any branch of the credit union.]
On the amendment.
F. Gingell: I just rise to acknowledge my support of this amendment.
Hon. G. Clark: It is to more than support it. This was an amendment which was generated by the spokesperson for the opposition party. I think it's a very constructive amendment, one which I have no hesitation supporting. The government appreciates the kind of constructive comments that continually come from that member.
Amendment approved.
Section 26 as amended approved.
Sections 27 to 34 inclusive approved.
On section 35.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if the minister would be kind enough to discuss the kind of person that he might appoint to these two new positions on this board so that there might be a record in Hansard about it.
Hon. G. Clark: This is where, if I had my way, you might see another axe. This is a self-regulatory body, which consists entirely of people from the industry. I'm asked to approve by order-in-council the people they put forward, which I don't really have a problem with; obviously that's the purpose of a self-regulatory organization. What we've done here is add two public representatives. There are several self-regulatory agencies -- the Law Society; the Vancouver Stock Exchange, I guess, is another one -- that have public representatives on their boards. This is a genuine attempt to have someone from the public -- a lay person, so to speak -- on the board of the Insurance Council. I think it enhances the integrity and the public credibility that those regulatory agencies would have. I might advise the House that the Insurance Council was very cooperative on this; they have no problems with it. I think that, generally speaking, they agree that this is a good move.
The opposition spokesperson on this issue has suggested that because it's to put on lay people, we should actually say that it must be someone who does not hold an insurance licence. What we have done instead is say "who need not be licensed." The reason I'm not prepared to amend it, as the opposition spokesperson has suggested, is that we'd like to retain the flexibility that the current wording provides. There are some groups who sell insurance and have insurance licences who are not necessarily well represented on the council. The particular one that I have in mind is travel agents. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of travel agents who sell insurance. As a result of that, they have insurance licences. But they are not represented on the Insurance Council, and they are not likely to be, given the current structure. So this is an opportunity for us to put a lay person on the board. It's also an opportunity to perhaps put someone like a travel agent, whose primary business is not selling insurance at all but who does in the course of business sell insurance, on the insurance council.
I'm not standing in the House today saying we will do that. I'm just saying that it provides us the flexibility to do it. That's why I'm not prepared to accept it at this time, although I agree with the spirit of the amendment that the member opposite put forward.
Sections 35 to 55 inclusive approved.
On section 56.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 56, by deleting section 56 and substituting the following:
Commencement
56. Sections 35 and 51 come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.]
Amendment approved.
Section 56 as amended approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; M. Lord in the chair.
Bill 65, Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete with amendment.
[ Page 3306 ]
Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. G. Clark: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 65, Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada