Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1992

Volume 5, Number 11

[ Page 3307 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's with pleasure that I rise to introduce Raj and Baldev Nijjer. I am fortunate to have both Raj and Baldev as friends and political colleagues. They are strong activists in the area of multiculturalism. They stand strongly beside people from the Indo-Canadian community and other communities who are contributing to British Columbia's future. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure today to welcome Carol Riley, one of my constituents from Saanich South. Carol is a hard-working community volunteer who devotes many hours of service to helping others. I'd like the House to make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

NATIONAL ANTHEM APPRECIATION ACT

J. Weisgerber presented a bill intituled National Anthem Appreciation Act.

J. Weisgerber: As all Canadians know, tomorrow marks Canada's 125th birthday as a nation, a milestone that for many British Columbians will evoke the images and symbols we share with all Canadians, because we are in fact all Canadians. Two of these symbols stand above the rest: the flag and our national anthem. The flag flies everywhere. Regrettably, our national anthem is heard less and less with each passing year, relegated to be played only at sporting events, service club meetings or on special occasions.

"O Canada" is not just the song of our nation; it is each citizen's pledge to our nation. In the context of the challenges facing our country today, that pledge could bear repeating, particularly in our schools, for it is our children who will always see us through as one nation from sea to sea, from pole to border.

It is therefore my great pleasure to introduce the National Anthem Appreciation Act. By process of referendum at the time of the next provincial referendum or election, this act gives voters the right to decide whether they want the national anthem returned to every classroom in British Columbia. This act would ensure that every child in British Columbia has an opportunity to learn, appreciate and sing our national anthem every day of the school year in a manner prescribed by each school district.

Notwithstanding the Premier's objection to this practice last week, I trust he and all members of the House will support this bill and ensure its speedy passage so that the question can be decided by voters in concert with the referendum on the future of Canada. I therefore move that this bill be read a first time now.

Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ABORIGINAL FOOD FISHERY QUOTAS

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Can the minister inform this House what consultation took place between him and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to the new quotas that have been established for the aboriginal food fishery in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: There have been no direct consultations between me and the federal minister; however, there has been some information-sharing at the officials' level. I'm not certain whether other ministers have had direct consultations, but I have not.

G. Wilson: Supplementary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The decision taken by the federal government yesterday is a final recognition of what we all know has been going on for many years with respect to the aboriginal food fishery. However, the question that I put to the minister is whether he has knowledge of whether this new quota is the final quota in the native fishery, or whether this quota will be on the table with individual bands during subsequent Indian land claims negotiations.

Hon. A. Petter: As the Leader of the Opposition points out, the proposal has been put forward by the federal government, and I think that question would more properly be put to the federal minister.

G. Wilson: The question is properly put to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, because this province has an obligation and responsibility in the final settlement of treaty negotiations here. What members of the commercial fishing community in British Columbia are asking today with respect to these new quotas, recognizing that there is really only one fishery, no matter how we divide them up.... Salmon don't volunteer to be a food fish, a sports fish or a commercial fish; they are but one salmon in one fishery. Therefore in the final resolution of this question, if these quotas are not established as a principle that has a finite number, they are likely to be subject to final negotiations with respect to the land claims process. Can the minister tell this House what his position is with respect to those quotas that have been established and whether commercial fishermen can expect to see them negotiated upward as a result of subsequent land claims consultation and conclusion?

Hon. A. Petter: The announcement made by the federal government yesterday relates to arrangements that are being made by them in advance of treaty negotiations; they do not relate specifically to the treaty negotiations. I have been meeting -- along with the Minister of Fisheries and other ministers -- with the fishing industry within this province, speaking to their concerns and engaging in consultation. In addition, we've been working very hard to get the federal

[ Page 3308 ]

government to participate in our third-party advisory process so the fishing industry will have a strong voice.

I'm pleased to see that as part of these proposals the federal government has spoken about initiatives to ameliorate some of the adverse commercial effects on the commercial industry. But we will be maintaining a very vigilant voice to ensure that the fishing industry of this province is well protected as we move towards treaty negotiation settlements.

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on the same question. I would like the minister to advise this House whether or not this government supports the decision by the federal Minister of Fisheries.

Hon. A Petter: I welcome the initiative of the federal minister to address an area of conflict that has been percolating along for a number of years -- more than percolating; it has been an inflammatory situation. I think it is a genuine attempt by the federal government to address that situation by recognizing the need to establish some commercial allocation at the same time as ensuring that it does not adversely affect the fishing industry.

However, this government and I are far from convinced that the concerns of the fishing industry have been fully addressed. We will continue to work with that industry to ensure that they are and to ensure that the allocations are fair for aboriginal peoples as well.

[2:15]

J. Weisgerber: As I understand the minister, he supports allocating fish to the aboriginal people, but he doesn't support taking them away from the people who have them now. It makes one think of one loaf to feed many. If he can manage that, it would be wonderful.

Given his support for this allocation of fish, I'm wondering whether or not the minister could advise this House if the government will support allocations of fish on other river systems in British Columbia, outside the treaty-making process.

Hon. A. Petter: I know I'm new to this House, but the technique of misquoting me and then asking me a question based on the misquote is not unfamiliar to a teacher. So let me get back to the basics.

I think the member well knows from his own experience in this portfolio that the aboriginal fishery has been a commercial fishery in fact, if not in recognition by government, for a number of years, and that there has been a good deal of conflict. What I said I welcomed was the attempt by the federal government, whose jurisdiction this is, to acknowledge that fact and to address it.

I further said that it's the position of this government to ensure, as that acknowledgment is made and allocations are recognized, that it is done without jeopardizing the interests of the fishing industry. I think this is an attempt to do that. The fishing industry has some concerns, and we will be working with them to address those concerns. I am pleased to see that there is at last an acknowledgment of a longstanding problem, and I think that's a step forward.

J. Weisgerber: Again, in the tradition of this House, we didn't get an answer to the question. The question was: do the minister and the government support similar commercial allocations of fish to other tribal councils and bands on other river systems in this province?

Hon. A. Petter: I am pleased the provincial government is obviously doing so well in this area that the member is required to quiz me on federal government matters. Nevertheless, I will be happy to answer. We support moving toward a just settlement of aboriginal issues, which includes fish but also looking at the full range of resources in the province.

It has been the position of this government and to some extent of the previous government that a fair allocation will come about by not dealing simply with one resource, but by dealing with all resources and all opportunities. That is the process I intend to continue to push forward both within and without the treaty negotiation process.

NATURAL GAS DRILLING
IN FRASER VALLEY

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources about the decision of the government to approve two natural gas drilling applications in the Fraser Valley. When did the minister determine that her ministry couldn't honour the government's campaign pledge to place a moratorium on natural gas drilling in the Fraser Valley?

Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Speaker, the first thing to clarify to the member is that the government has not approved applications for drilling. The government has said that it will accept applications for drilling. Of course, what the government has also said is that it will stick with its decision to not accept applications to drill for gas storage; therefore there will be no gas storage. These two applications that would be accepted would be for drilling for natural gas itself. You have to apply differently if you apply to explore for storage than if you apply to drill for natural gas. That's a technical question, the answer to which we were attempting to put out at the open house yesterday.

Certainly this government has looked very carefully at what we want to do in the Fraser Valley, and the decision that we made to allow applications followed a look at the one well that was drilled last fall in Delta. We decided after that that the situation had changed significantly. There will be rigorous evaluation and examination before a decision is made.

W. Hurd: A curious answer indeed, because I'm holding a letter addressed to Mr. Al Vickers, chairman of the Friends of the Fraser Valley, from the current Premier of the province, who in July '91 said: "I want a moratorium on natural gas exploration and storage in the Fraser Valley. I also want David Anderson's 59

[ Page 3309 ]

recommendations brought back to Fraser Valley residents for full public consultation, so all questions can be answered about the environmental and economic impact...."

My question to the minister is: when was this campaign pledge -- in this particular letter from the Premier -- jettisoned as a commitment by this government?

Hon. A. Edwards: The Premier's letter was sent, as the member says, in July of 1991. At that time we agreed to full public consultation before any decisions were made about what would happen in the Fraser Valley. We are still committed to full public consultation. In announcing that we would accept applications for the drilling, we said that we would do full consultation. That consultation will be done with various government ministries and the Agricultural Land Commission. We will have a citizens' advisory committee to represent the citizenry of the area, and there will be very rigorous examination before such time as we allow a permit to follow the applications.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can confirm that the provincial government has sold subsurface mineral rights totalling 22,000 acres in Langley and 184,000 acres throughout the valley? The question that people of the valley have is that there seems to be nothing in place to prevent drilling from taking place as early as late August of this year. Can she issue a confirmation and assurance to the people of the valley that drilling will not start as early as this August?

Hon. A. Edwards: In 1989 the previous government sold four licences and six leases. Of those, there were three which the purchasers indicated were of interest to them. One of them was drilled last fall, and on two of them we have said we expect applications. So certainly we are following the sale of two licences. We are responding to what was done legally, and we are attempting to respond in a way that the citizens of the Fraser Valley will have an opportunity to have their input.

PAYMENT OF FORMER PREMIER'S
LEGAL COSTS

A. Warnke: I have a question for the Attorney General, and it concerns the recent court ruling involving former Premier Vander Zalm. Mr. Peter Butler, counsel for the former Premier, stated that he will be asking the province to pay for the legal costs of Mr. Vander Zalm -- the charge having being laid as a result of an alleged breach of trust while he was Premier. Will the Attorney General assure us that no money will go towards the defraying of legal expenses of the former Premier, who, while acquitted of a criminal charge, was still found to have been in conflict of interest?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will have nothing to say on the matter until the appeal period is completed.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY

A. Warnke: I have just another housecleaning question here. It concerns the parameters of the investigation into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society being conducted by the special prosecutor, Mr. Ace Henderson. Can the Attorney General confirm that the scope of Mr. Henderson's investigation will also include other Commonwealth societies such as the Broadway Society and the Courtenay Society, and of course, their links to the New Democratic Party?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's a police investigation underway. I have no comment on that matter either.

CLOVERDALE TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM

K. Jones: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. I wear this black ribbon for the closure today of the Cloverdale Transportation Museum. Today's the final day, at the height of the tourism season. As the minister responsible for bringing tourists to this province, will she do something at this late hour to carry on this tourist attraction through the rest of this summer? It's still costing the taxpayers the same amount of money.

Hon. D. Marzari: The Minister of Economic Development and I authorized the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars to the tune of $300,000 to keep the car museum open during the month of June. The first week in July will mark the point at which tenders are opened from a number of people across the province who think they have a good idea of an innovative way to display the cars that will continue to attract tourists. We will be reading those tenders with great interest to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are well protected, that the collection of class A heritage cars remains intact, and that we can avoid some of the $5 million expenditure every year to keep that museum alive.

S. Hammell: I would like leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce Baldev Nijjer, Raj Nijjer, Deepak Nijjer, Imaan Nijjer and Aman Nijjer. They are all here to celebrate these proceedings. Welcome to the House.

L. Hanson: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make a motion of substitution on one of the select standing committees.

Leave granted.

L. Hanson: I move that the name of Harry De Jong, MLA, be substituted for that of Len Fox, MLA, as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

[ Page 3310 ]

Motion approved.

AIR AMBULANCE CONTRACTS

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I would like to answer a question taken on notice yesterday with regard to Carson Air. As part of the terms set out in the request for a proposal, Carson Air needed to establish bases in Kelowna and Prince George by June 26, and in Kamloops by June 29. Also stated as part of the RFP process was the requirement that government air services undertake an audit inspection of Carson Air to establish whether RFP terms of contracting had been complied with. On June 29, which was the first working day following June 26, this comprehensive review was started. Staff at air services are now in the midst of that review, which should be completed late this week or early next week. Until the review is completed, we will continue to use the services of Southern Interior Flight Centre of Kelowna and Seymour Air of Kamloops.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt, on behalf of the Premier, tabled the 1991-92 annual report of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation.

Hon. G. Clark tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992; the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority's financial statements and auditor's report for the year ended March 31, 1992; and the British Columbia Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority's financial statements and auditor's report for the year ended March 31, 1992.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

[2:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS

On vote 48: minister's office, $365,941 (continued).

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Chairman, I'll take notes for the minister. I'm sure she'll be here shortly.

D. Mitchell: I wonder if we might wait until the minister and her officials arrive, because we have some important questions that beg to be asked. I know the Minister of Finance, as capable as he is, wouldn't want to belabour the process, but it probably would be much more efficient if we simply waited until she arrived. I wonder if we might either just wait for a couple of minutes or adjourn the House for a few minutes.

Hon. G. Clark: I agree with my colleague across the way that we don't want to belabour the matter, but I don't think there is a provision that would be appropriate at this time. I know that the minister is right here as we speak. So as we continue to talk about the great work that the Minister of Health is doing in the area of health care.... I'm delighted that she is here. We will continue expeditiously, I am sure, to conclude the ministry estimates.

D. Mitchell: Welcome to the minister and her officials.

Perhaps while they're getting settled, I could direct a question to the minister. I'm wondering whether or not any special provision has been made in her budget, which we are reviewing here today, for the fact that the Ombudsman Act is going to have a special schedule proclaimed -- according to the throne speech that came into the House at the start of this session -- that will allow for the review of a number of public agencies that up until this point have not been reviewable by the office of the ombudsman, including hospital boards in this case. I wonder if the ministry has made any estimates as to any extra cost that's going to be incurred by hospitals as a result of that and whether or not that's reflected in the budget.

Hon. E. Cull: We are currently reviewing that, because not only might hospitals come under the purview of the ombudsman but also professional bodies. In fact, we may start with those, because the cost implications there are smaller. We've had some meetings with the ombudsman's staff, and there have been some direct discussions with the ombudsman around how we will proceed to bring that section into play. I know that people are certainly very interested in having access to that independent appeal mechanism when it comes to disputes that they have not only with hospitals but with professional governing bodies.

D. Mitchell: Given what the minister has indicated to the committee, could she tell us whether or not there is an estimate of the extra cost and where that is reflected in her budget? I understand what she said: that it is being reviewed. But is it possible to estimate what extra cost will be incurred by hospitals and hospital boards, for instance, throughout the province? Where might that be reflected in the budget?

Hon. E. Cull: That estimate has not been completed because of the discussions that are going on about what kinds of procedures would be needed. It's not clear whether the cost -- if there are additional costs -- would be borne by the hospitals, the governing body or the ministry, or whether it would just provide additional cost to the ombudsman's office itself. It will probably be the latter, but it's not clear yet. We're having a look at whether there would be any additional cost.

Most of the larger hospitals have their own internal procedures, like an ombud type of service, to handle complaints. I wouldn't anticipate that they would have any additional costs as a result of us proclaiming that section of the Ombudsman Act. But we do have to look also at our own internal ministry procedures around this, because it would have an impact in a number of places.

[ Page 3311 ]

D. Mitchell: I appreciate what the minister has said. On this topic, though, I would imagine that if the general public will soon have the opportunity to take complaints about how they have been dealt with by the bureaucracy, so to speak, within the health care system -- if they will soon be able to have that opportunity through the office of the ombudsman because that section of the act will be proclaimed, as the government has indicated.... If a large volume of complaints come forward to hospitals, for instance, then I'm assuming that there is a greater administrative burden in terms of dealing with those complaints, and surely the cost of dealing with that administrative burden will not be borne by the ombudsman's office but, as the minister has indicated, by the hospital, the governing body or perhaps the ministry. Is the minister indicating that one of the options might be that the ministry itself would bear the cost of any extra administrative burden as a result of that change?

Hon. E. Cull: As I said, there are already avenues for complaints both at hospitals and at the governing-body level. I don't think there will be a massive increase in the number of complaints by having the ombudsman be able to review the decisions of hospitals or of something like the College of Physicians and Surgeons. If that was the case, we would have to have another look at the hospital budget to make sure that those administrative costs were not excessive and not accounted for in the global budget. At this point we haven't got an estimate; we don't have a clear understanding yet of what procedures the hospitals may not have in place to cover this kind of situation. Those that do, I would imagine, would have very little impact; but I don't know how many hospitals out of all the ones in British Columbia have well-developed complaint departments and how many still have to put more of that in place.

If it's just a question of those hospitals that don't have that capacity right now while other hospitals do, my assumption is that they're all equally funded for that kind of administrative procedure. We do expect hospitals to have that ability to deal with complaints, and I can tell you that I certainly deal with enough of them coming across my desk every day. I'm sure you receive some of them over there on the opposition side. Hospitals do investigations and have administrative staff assigned to that function, so my assumption is that the majority of additional costs will be with the additional staff required by the ombudsman, and I gather we're soon going to have time to debate that.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for her comments on this. I guess there is simply no way of knowing whether or not there is going to be a large increase in complaints. I take it from what the minister has indicated, though, that there has been no allowance for that, no special provision, in the budget that she's presented to the House and that we're reviewing.

In the same vein, in this session of the Legislature, the Legislative Assembly has approved a freedom-of-information law which allows for the appointment of a privacy commissioner who deals with and administers the freedom-of-information legislation. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether the appointment of this new officer of the Legislative Assembly, which will allow British Columbians to come forward with requests for information about medical files and other information pertaining to them through the health care system.... Will there be any allowance in her budget for extra costs incurred with respect to that officer of the Legislative Assembly -- the privacy commissioner, that is?

Hon. E. Cull: As the member is aware, the provisions that affect hospitals or bodies outside the provincial government ministries don't kick into place for another year, so that will be in a subsequent budget. There is money provided this year through the Attorney General's ministry, I understand, to deal with the costs that ministries will have to face this year.

D. Mitchell: I do understand that while the law is not being proclaimed for some 18 months, it was the intention -- as the Attorney General has stated on more than one occasion in this House -- that the spirit of the law would be lived up to in the intervening period while we are awaiting proclamation. Is the minister anticipating any significant increase in administrative costs for health care bodies -- hospitals in particular -- as a result of this legislation coming forward, and can we expect to see that reflected in future budgets?

Hon. E. Cull: That is work that we are going to be doing this year in preparation for next year's budget. In approximately 12 months' time I would be happy to debate it with the member.

K. Jones: I have several questions I'd like to ask the hon. Minister of Health. Most of them are directly related to my riding, and they are of great concern. The first one is a letter written to the minister from the Canadian Mental Health Association, North Surrey branch, on June 11. I wonder if the minister has received it and what her response was to this letter. It states:

"Some of the funding that was allocated to three Surrey mental health centres to relieve their caseloads has been diverted to the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society."

I understand the author, president of the Canadian Mental Health Association in North Surrey....

"The Vancouver health centres have approximate caseloads of 40 to each worker; in comparison, the caseloads in Surrey are 60 to 80 patients per worker. Why are Surrey patients treated with less funding than the patients in Vancouver?

"Admissions in the lower mainland area are highest at Surrey Memorial Hospital."

She feels that it's important to keep clients out of the hospital, if at all possible.

"If funding were more balanced, it would aid to decrease the hospital admission rate."

Could the minister respond to that?

Hon. E. Cull: I am aware of the letter and have had a quick look at it, but I have not had a chance to provide a detailed response back to them. My understanding is that after the preliminary cut of the mental

[ Page 3312 ]

health budget was done, allocating dollars to the various regions.... As a result of some consultation taking place in the greater Vancouver area, a decision was made to reallocate some more money to the Vancouver mental health program because of the need with a greater number of mentally ill gravitating, as they do, to the urban core and into the downtown east side particularly.

I understand the member's comments about the need in Surrey, particularly the need to make sure that we provide services before people end up having to be in an emergency situation and go into hospital. All I can say is that we're trying our best to get an appropriate distribution of the dollars, recognizing that we could probably use many more to totally satisfy the needs of the mentally ill.

As you know, we've made a significant step forward this year by increasing funding to mental health by 25 percent. But we're going to have to follow that commitment in future budgets, perhaps not at the same large percentage amount, but with continued investment of resources into that area, if we're to really be able to turn the whole situation of mental health around so that there are adequate services in everyone's community.

K. Jones: I hope the minister will get a little clearer understanding of the mental health situation in the Fraser Valley. That's the area where most of the mental health patients are going because of simple economics: group homes are being built there because you can't buy land and build facilities in Vancouver. You have a large number of people, with a growing population, an additional factor in adding to that burden on the mental health agencies in our area. They need that extra support, yet here we have an example of funding being drawn away because of a stronger lobbying group in Vancouver, it appears. Could the minister please explain that?

[2:45]

Hon. E. Cull: I think we have demonstrated our understanding of the problems that Surrey faces. Let me give you the figures for Surrey alone. There has been an 85 percent increase in the funding for mental health services in Surrey this year. It has gone from about $4.5 million to $8.9 million. While that may still not be enough to address all the needs, it is a very significant increase. If we look at the Boundary health unit, which is sort of the larger geographic area, there has been an increase of over $6 million of funding. So you can see that a great deal of that money is in fact going into Surrey to address the needs of your area.

K. Jones: I think that we could probably have an extended discussion on this subject. I'm sure that we've got our point to the minister. I could start bringing out some of the hospital catchment area statistics that would probably give a much clearer definition of the growth of the area and the seriousness of the problem. I hope that the minister and the ministry will really look much more seriously -- and re-look right now -- at the allocation of funding. It appears to be totally inadequate even though it's doubled. It was totally inadequate previously. Now it's just making a jump forward, but it's not nearly enough for the people in that area to be properly served.

I'd like to go on to another area, which is a concern of the Langley Memorial Hospital. It's with regard to the plans for a CAT scan unit for their hospital, initially scheduled to be shared with the Peace Arch District Hospital in White Rock. Could the minister tell us the status of those plans?

Hon. E. Cull: Just on the last question, before I answer about the CAT scanner, I'm glad to hear your commitment towards providing more funding to mental health in your community. I hope that I will continue to have your support as we make those small incremental shifts to provide additional community-based funding by holding the line on doctors' incomes and on hospital budget increases, because that's the only way that we're going to be able to start making these very large increases that need to be made in the community sector.

With respect to the CAT scanner, we have been in discussions with both Langley hospital and Peace Arch hospital about sharing a CAT scanner in terms of the money that would be available, because there's a large community to be served there. I'm hoping that there will be a positive announcement with regard to that particular piece of equipment in the very near future.

K. Jones: Could the minister give us a clearer definition than "the very near future"? What are we talking about -- a month, a week, two months?

Hon. E. Cull: I guess the clearest definition I can give to the member is sometime in this fiscal year, but I would hope that it would be sooner rather than later. No, I'm sorry, I can't tell you when I'll be making any announcement.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what difficulties she is undergoing in getting that CAT scan unit in place?

Hon. E. Cull: There are no difficulties. We're in a process. As I said, we're talking to the two hospitals, making some decisions, and as soon as we've completed the process, I'll be in a position to make an announcement. If that hospital is in your riding, I'll make sure that I let you know as soon as we're about to make the announcement.

K. Jones: In both cases the hospitals are not in my riding, but their catchment areas are within my riding. They overlap my riding, as does Surrey Memorial. We have people in our riding going in three different directions trying to find hospital service, because they don't have a hospital in our riding. It's one of the serious problems that need to be addressed. I've addressed it in the election campaign and recommended that we start with an ambulatory emergency facility in Cloverdale. It's very definitely needed. You could utilize an existing facility. You actually have an existing building that was formerly the temporary court

[ Page 3313 ]

facility, a building that perhaps could be utilized. It's owned by B.C. Buildings Corporation.

Perhaps the minister would like to give us her thoughts on the possibilities of establishing such a facility. It complements another facility that appears to be needed in the north Delta-north Surrey area along the Scott Road boundary, which seems to be a long way from the emergency facilities of other hospitals.

Hon. E. Cull: I don't have with me here me all of the figures that would show the capacity in that area. You'll have to excuse me -- my knowledge of the geography of the Cloverdale area is not as good as yours. But we do look at the capacity of adjacent facilities. I understand the Langley Hospital does have the capacity to deal with the needs in that area. As we are constantly reviewing the needs of communities, particularly in the Fraser Valley, where there is a lot of growth going on right now, we are reviewing the needs for additional facilities and building those into our long-range planning and capital budgeting programs.

K. Jones: I'd be only too happy to take you on a complete tour of the Surrey, White Rock and Langley area at your convenience, any time. I think it's important that the Minister of Health see the fastest-growing area, right there on the ground, and just see the impact on the community. I would certainly like to extend this invitation right now. You set the date; we'll take the tour. It's an area that's really growing, and we need to address that.

I'd like to further pass on a concern, or an interest, from Langley Memorial. Because of their growing community, they would like to find out when the minister would be able to include in her plans the establishment of a separate CAT scanner in their area to serve the upper valley, because they not only provide a large catchment area....

Interjection.

K. Jones: The Langley Memorial Hospital. The other one is proposed for Peace Arch District Hospital, with their people having to travel a considerable distance, and with stress, to that facility. The desire basically is that they would have their own facility, which would serve not only the immediate area of Langley but also a considerable area to the east.

Hon. E. Cull: It's my understanding that both Peace Arch and Langley have been talking about sharing a CAT scanner. That's the discussion taking place between those hospitals right now. No decision has been made as to where that would be located. It might be located in Langley.

K. Jones: If it is the intention of the minister to locate it in Langley, perhaps she might seriously look at the problems entailed in not having it in Peace Arch hospital. Peace Arch hospital has the largest elderly population, and probably because of that has a very high incidence of cancer and other related diseases that require this type of equipment to better diagnose those diseases. There is a real need in both communities, because they are geographically a fair distance apart. They're more than half an hour apart as far as hospitals are concerned -- in rush hour it's probably an hour, maybe even more. There is a serious problem with that distance and with the density of the populations in both areas. I would hope that the minister could give us some indication that in her planning there would be an initial one immediately, and maybe within a year or two there'd be another one in the budget for the Langley location.

Hon. E. Cull: The decisions the ministry makes generally, and I won't say absolutely, with respect to the location of CAT scanners is tied to population, and we use a guideline of one CAT scanner per 125,000 population. When I say "generally".... When we get into places that have much more difficult transportation problems than the lower mainland, for example the north, we do take other things like long distances, geography and climate into consideration. Right now we have scanners at Chilliwack, Surrey, Richmond and Abbotsford, and there is soon to be one in either Langley or Peace Arch. As the population grows, there may be need for another one.

K. Jones: I'd like to take us now to the Surrey Memorial Hospital, which has probably got the biggest demand on it. First of all, I'd like to get the minister to give us her and the ministry's concept of the direction that hospital it going. Is it just growing as an acute hospital? I understand there's a cancer clinic under construction or nearly under construction. Is it going to become a regional hospital?

Hon. E. Cull: The Surrey Memorial Hospital is already a regional hospital, and is therefore providing and expected to provide the full range of regional facilities. The member is correct: there will be a cancer clinic there. I believe it's 1994; if it's not, it's 1996. I can't remember which year that one is. I'm sure somebody will tell me precisely in a minute or two. Right now the hospital is going through a planning process. I've had a chance to visit it and talk to them about their long-term plans for creating new beds, and I believe there will be a total of 500 beds when the expansion is completed. It's just over 400 right now.

K. Jones: I'm reading from an article from the Surrey-North Delta Now report that was done on the Surrey Memorial Hospital. One of the articles talks about a senior surgeon at the hospital who says he and his colleagues suspect the institution's intended status as south Surrey's tertiary care hospital is being scaled down to one that performs less sophisticated procedures. They're faced with a shortfall of some $3.3 million this year, and its administration is having to shift its emphasis from conventional in-patient surgery and acute-care towards out-patient treatment and day surgery. Does the minister know why that is happening?

[ Page 3314 ]

Hon. E. Cull: There is no plan to scale down the services at Surrey Memorial Hospital. In fact, they're being expanded and new ones are being added. The reference you make to more day surgery and out-patient surgery is something that is happening throughout the acute-care sector. It is not a change in the status of the hospital but more a change in the way many procedures that used to require lengthy hospitalization are now being done either on a day patient, out-patient or a very simple quick-turnaround basis.

K. Jones: I have another article. As a result of wage increases and a smaller increase in provincial funding, the already overburdened hospital intends to shut down more beds than usual for longer periods, to close two operating rooms and lay off staff. It will also cut in-patient surgical beds, decrease relief staffing and cut its renovation budget. Key members of the medical staff believe the cuts will leave Surrey Memorial Hospital unable to provide adequate care, and they have vowed to resist it. The chief executive officer, Roger Bernatzki, said the hospital needs $3.3 million extra to maintain service levels and to affect a number of initiatives, some of them mandated by the Minister of Health.

How does the minister relate to those statements versus what she just said?

Hon. E. Cull: Surrey Memorial Hospital got a 4.8percent increase in funding this year. In addition, they were fully funded for the pay equity portions of the various union contracts that were negotiated after the budgets were set. Their total amount is in excess of 4.8 percent, but if you exclude the pay equity components, that's what you have.

It's news to me that the hospital is having difficulty living within its budget. I've just checked with staff, and they tell me that we're expecting a balanced budget from Surrey. As is the case in all other hospitals, they are having to look very closely at how they can do things more efficiently. They did well because of the growing population in that area. I recognize that Surrey, which probably has somewhat less than two beds per thousand, has a long way to go to catch up to the average in the province. That's a factor of the high growth; and that's why they got 4.8 percent and some of the hospitals in the north got very close to zero percent -- so we could put the money where the population growth was.

[3:00]

K. Jones: Of the $2.8 million increase, $2.3 million will be absorbed by wage increases alone. That leaves only $500,000 to cover inflation, population growth and new initiatives. That doesn't seem to be sufficient to even get started dealing with problems of any one of those three factors. There is no way that $500,000 is going to deal with the population growth, inflation, trying to provide new initiatives or trying to provide a facility that is going to be able to act as the regional hospital for this area.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chairman, 80 percent of the money that goes to hospitals goes immediately into wages, benefits and salaries. That's the nature of the business. We deliver health care through people, not through machines and buildings, for the most part, and that's why 80 percent of any budget goes there. So I'm not surprised at all that the vast majority of the increase is going to wages and benefits. Please recall what I've just said about the fact that there is additional money provided to fund the pay equity portion of those union settlements, which is not insignificant.

K. Jones: One of the unique parts about Surrey is that, because of the limited hospital facilities in the area -- Surrey Memorial being the only one in the north and Peace Arch being the only one in the south -- about 50 percent of the 250,000 residents in the area leave their catchment area of Surrey Memorial and routinely go to other hospitals. This doesn't show in your records, I don't believe, because your calculations are just based on the catchment areas and not those people who go beyond the catchment areas. This may be the serious problem that you have in trying to get sufficient funding, or realizing how much underfunded the people of Surrey are.

Hon. E. Cull: We are quite aware of the patients who have to go out of the Surrey catchment area to other hospitals because of the lack of capacity. We can track that very easily and are using that information in our planning. I'll give you again an indication of how we understand that and how we translate it into our budget decisions. I mentioned a minute ago that Surrey's increase in its funding before the pay equity additions was 4.8 percent. If you look at some of the Vancouver area hospitals, which right now are treating.... You might think they are treating Surrey patients, so we want to make sure that we increase the capacity in Surrey and then decrease the capacity a little in Vancouver, so those people can be treated closer to home. Their increases were in the order of 2.4 to 2.7percent.

We have made a funding decision which says this is an area that needs more funding, so Surrey has received additional funds over and above some of the other hospitals. The ones I'm looking at are St. Paul's, University and Vancouver General. I think it's a reflection of our understanding that we want to increase the capacity of Surrey to treat the residents in that area, so that they don't have to drive into Vancouver to receive services that they should expect to receive at their own hospital.

K. Jones: The minister is using the 4.21 percentage increase for Surrey Memorial, but perhaps she should also look at the increases that were given to Langley Memorial, Richmond General and Fraser-Burrard, which I believe used to be called the Royal Columbian. Fraser-Burrard is getting a 4.45 percent increase; Richmond General is getting a 6.54 percent increase; Langley Memorial is getting an 8.54 percent increase. These are only a few selected; I wouldn't even say that they are including all of the other hospitals. But they do show that Surrey, which has the largest growth rate and has been the least funded over years, is still not getting

[ Page 3315 ]

to the top of the ladder even among other hospitals in the lower mainland.

Hon. E. Cull: The member has the same figures in front of him that I have in front of me, and I would suggest that he move one column to the left in understanding the funding formula. The figures that he is reading from include not only the basic increase to the hospital but also new programs that are added to the hospital, so if you want to compare apples to apples you have to look at the column. I assume you're reading off the same charts, since I have the numbers here in front of me. When you compare Langley to Surrey in the funding to the basic services and not the add-on programs, it's 4.8 percent for Surrey and 3.7 percent for Langley. The reason that you see an 8.5 percent increase for Langley over last year is that there's a whole number of new beds there, and that's annualized funding from last year's bed openings. So I just caution you a little in using those two columns of figures.

K. Jones: Could the minister explain a little further about that funding from last year's bed overage at Langley Memorial? Does that mean you are now providing the operating funds to deal with the beds they had last year?

Hon. E. Cull: When beds are opened partway through the year, they receive sufficient funding to operate for the number of months of the year that they're actually opened. In the following year, because those beds will be open for the full 12 months, it requires an annualized amount, which -- when you're comparing figures year over year -- looks like there has been a dramatic increase in funding. It's simply a question that you may have been funding those beds for only two or three months in one year, but you have to fund them for 12 in the following and subsequent years. It creates a blip in the figures. Again I suggest that you have a look at column one to the left.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what is being done in the way of improving the out-patient facilities in the Surrey-White Rock area and the Surrey-Cloverdale area? What is the ministry planning to do to improve the out-patient and emergency facilities?

Hon. E. Cull: There are a number of projects going on in the different hospitals, and I couldn't pull together all the information on exactly what they're planning at this point. I am aware of an expansion of the ambulatory care in the Peace Arch, which is an example of the type of thing that's going on.

If the member would like to receive a complete listing of what hospitals in that area are doing to provide more out-patient service, and he gives me a list of the hospitals he'd like that information for, I will pull it together and have it sent to his office.

K. Jones: Basically the ones I was looking at were those related to Surrey, Langley and White Rock within the catchment area of my riding.

Hon. minister, I would like to ask you what plans there are to improve the situation in this province of what appears to be a total lack of both staffing and funding of occupational therapy positions.

Hon. E. Cull: I need a clarification of where you're looking for that service. Is it in continuing care or community care, or are you just asking generally about it?

K. Jones: I'm glad the minister recognizes that there's a great need in many different aspects of servicing the community in occupational therapy. We're looking at all aspects of it, because generally it appears to be inadequately supported at every phase of operation. Could you give us some idea of what sort of program you have in place to rectify that problem?

Hon. E. Cull: In the community care area, where we, as you know, have advertised for 700 positions to be directly employed by the ministry, there are a number of occupational therapists in that posting. If staff are able to find the numbers in the next few minutes, I'll give that to you in a subsequent answer.

The difficulty with the hospitals is that they do make their own decisions about these things, and so I'm not aware of what their plans are in terms of how they're managing their budgets to meet that need within the hospitals. I could not do that without doing a survey of the hospitals to ask them about that subject.

I've just got the number of occupational therapists. In the public health area, a total of eight positions are being recruited this year.

K. Jones: When you say only eight are being included in public health, is that including the child development areas and special needs for children, or is that including both adults and children?

Hon. E. Cull: No, those eight positions don't include the child development centres. I don't have an FTE number for you, but there is $2.3 million additional funding this year provided to occupational therapy and physiotherapy. That additional funding will provide services to approximately 800 children who have extraordinary problems, severe multiple handicaps, as part of the school health protocols.

K. Jones: Recognizing that there's a demand for additional occupational therapists and physiotherapists in the province, what has the minister done to direct her fellow member who is responsible for Advanced Education on a means of increasing the training program to make it possible for more people from British Columbia to fill those positions, rather than having to bring in people from other parts of the world? I understand that isn't very easy to do right now, since they also have their own growing recognition of the need for occupational therapy.

[3:15]

Hon. E. Cull: We do have a human resources planning unit in the ministry that is looking at the

[ Page 3316 ]

supply and demand of all kinds of health care practitioners, and we work with the Ministry of Advanced Education to identify those areas that require additional spaces to be provided in post-secondary institutions. We work with them to try to be proactive about increasing the supply, and also increasing the opportunities for young people here in this province to become trained in a skilled area and enter into very good employment.

K. Jones: Is the minister prepared to allocate funding from her ministry to the Ministry of Advanced Education in order to supply training for a specific number of occupational therapists and physiotherapists? If so, how many does she feel should be added to the current, very limited numbers that are being brought through the University of British Columbia, which is our only occupational training facility?

Hon. E. Cull: We work with the Ministry of Advanced Education to ensure that they are aware of the same information that we have with respect to the need for training. Their budget is the one that has to provide adequate funding for universities and colleges, not the Ministry of Health's budget.

K. Jones: Could the minister give us an idea of the status of negotiations with regard to the last contract that is outstanding in the health care field? I believe it's the PSA.

Hon. E. Cull: I haven't had a briefing on that for a while. But I believe you're referring to the HSA, the Health Sciences Association. The last time I had a chance to talk to the parties involved in those negotiations, they were getting into a very intense period of bargaining. I have not yet heard whether they have reached any conclusion.

C. Tanner: I just have a couple of general questions, a couple of particular questions and one question on behalf of another member who is not present today.

The first question is with regard to hospital boards. The minister has said she would like to see hospital boards elected from the public at large. I happen to agree with that position, recognizing there are some difficulties as to area, definition and so on. I understand that the minister has also said that she would like to see members of the various employees' unions being able to sit on boards as well. If those two things happen concurrently, would it not be better for the functioning of the hospitals if they happen with a year or so in between?

Hon. E. Cull: It's my position that if you are to have elected boards, they should be elected on the same basis that we elect municipal councils or school boards. What I mean by that is that we do not preclude employees of municipalities from voting in municipal elections and we do not preclude employees of school boards from voting in school board elections, so we should not preclude employees of hospitals from voting in hospital elections.

Under the School Act there are provisions to ensure that those who run to be a school trustee are not in a conflict-of-interest situation with respect to their employment, as there are under the Municipal Act. I would expect that we would have to bring in similar provisions for hospital boards should they be elected in the same fashion. That being the case, I think it could all be done at once. It makes sense to follow the guidelines that have already been well established and, I think, well tested in the courts.

C. Tanner: You gave me exactly the right answer -- eight out of ten for starters.

Some of the medical facilities in my constituency and in other constituencies are wondering whether the ministry is going to pick up the actual negotiated costs of union settlements. I understand that when they costed them out, as they pertained to their specific unit, they're not going to be able to cover the total cost. Is the ministry going to pick up the difference?

Hon. E. Cull: We provide global budgets to hospitals. When contracts have not been negotiated, we make estimates as to where they're likely to come in. If they have been negotiated and we're dealing with subsequent years, we cost them in. But we do not guarantee to the employer that we will fund anything they negotiate; otherwise there would really not be much incentive on the employer to bargain tough at the table. We don't bargain directly with any of the hospital unions; it's all through the hospital labour relations association. But in the special case this year where we resolved the Hospital Employees' Union dispute through the direct intervention of a special conciliator, and because of the government's commitment to pay equity, we have agreed and already conveyed to the hospitals that we will be funding the pay equity portion of that settlement, in addition to what was in their base global budget for wages and benefits this year. The vast majority, if not the entirety, of the budget that exceeds what we had initially put in our budget that came out to the hospitals is pay equity.

C. Tanner: Two specific questions. One concerns the Lady Minto Hospital on Saltspring. My question is a fairly simply one. Does the hospital on Saltspring get the same allocation on a per capita basis -- or whatever unit you work on -- as hospitals on either the big Island or on the mainland?

Hon. E. Cull: We divide hospitals into different categories. I believe there are seven peer groups. Lady Minto is in one of them; I don't know which number it is, but probably one of the smaller peer groups. We try to provide equitable funding to hospitals of the same size in similar communities. That's the basis for comparison. We don't compare Lady Minto to the Greater Victoria Hospital Society, because they're not comparable. We do compare it to other hospitals in similar communities of similar size and then try to provide an equal distribution of resources to those hospitals.

[ Page 3317 ]

C. Tanner: I appreciate what the minister says, except Lady Minto Hospital on the Gulf Islands is in a particularly unique position. I'm wondering whether that is taken into consideration.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm just having a look at the peer group that Lady Minto is in, and I assume you're suggesting Lady Minto is unique because it is on Saltspring Island. That's true, but there are other hospitals that have other situations that make them unique. The one that immediately caught my eye was Fort Nelson, which is, as you can appreciate, 300 miles up the Alaska Highway and close to virtually nothing. They may not be surrounded by water, but they are probably equally as isolated. We have tried to identify hospitals that are roughly in the same kind of situation. They may not be identical, but they are comparable.

C. Tanner: Good try, but you're talking about my old country, and I know what it's like to work up there. The school district on the Gulf Islands has the highest per capita cost of any school district in British Columbia. Obviously that's a consequence of bringing the children from island to island; it makes it more difficult and more expensive. However, this hospital area has the same constituency, if you like, and has to deal with the same problem occasionally. Surely moving people across land in Fort Nelson is not the same as moving people across water on the Gulf Islands.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm shocked, knowing where the member has lived before -- and with the former mayor of Fort Nelson here in the House -- that he would suggest that travelling across the north in the dead of January was easier than taking a ferry from Chemainus to Vesuvius. I think, having travelled both, I'll take my chances down here.

C. Tanner: I knew that was coming.

One other problem they have is moving patients from the hospital in Minto, or off any of the islands, over to one of two places, either Cowichan or Saanich. I have had a number of complaints from the Gulf Islands. They do have a penchant for seeing things a little differently than the rest of us, but I have had a number of complaints that they don't always receive the best treatment when they get to one of those two hospitals, not from any problem within the hospital so much as that they haven't been informed of the transportation or other needs of the patient when they leave the island. In other words, I think there's a mutual problem there.

Does the minister have any special circumstances or any way of dealing with those problems when they get to either Victoria or Duncan?

Hon. E. Cull: If the hospitals that are receiving these patients are not aware of the travel arrangements that affect people on islands, I'll be happy to have my staff explain that to them. But I'd be very surprised if the hospitals that serve the people on the Gulf Islands are not aware of the fact that they live on islands and have to get back and forth by ferry, and that there are unique transportation circumstances.

Certainly when I talked to the people in Terrace when I was up there a couple of weeks ago, the hospitals had no difficulty explaining to me the difficulty they have in dealing with patients who also must come in by boat -- not by ferry but by private boat -- from far-flung communities up and down the north coast, or across some pretty difficult conditions in the dead of winter.

C. Tanner: I knew I shouldn't have given the minister...by saying the problem originated in the islands, because sometimes it doesn't. In fact, she and I will have correspondence on the subject in the future.

The last question I have is on behalf of another member of this side of the House. It concerns privately operated mental health facilities, which they claim have been underfunded for the last five years under the old government. Could the minister tell us what her attitude towards privately operated mental health facilities is?

Hon. E. Cull: Before I answer that, I just got an interesting bit of information the member might be interested in with respect to the Gulf Islands local health area. I'm advised that people who live there are fortunate to have some of the best health in the province. They have significantly lower death rates than other local health areas, and significantly lower infant mortality rates. They do enjoy good health.

With respect to the mental health boarding homes, yes, it is recognized that there has been underfunding in the past. There was a study done by Peat Marwick to have an independent look at that. I've received it, and there's an additional $4 million in this year's budget to address that problem.

C. Tanner: I thank the minister for the answers. She now realizes the benefit of living in a Liberal riding. All those people are living a lot longer.

L. Reid: As I pointed out during our discussions on health estimates, certainly we've travelled in different areas of this province to look at wait-lists, whether it be intermediate care or, as my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands has outlined, whether it be for mental health.

I have a specific question with reference to the Castleview Care Centre. What is the basis -- and I believe the decision has been made -- to refuse funding for new beds at Castleview? If that is not the situation, I'm interested in the status of that decision.

Hon. E. Cull: With all those kinds of long-term-care facilities, we base our planning on the needs of the community in the context of the overall needs of the province. We do projections based on the existing services in the community, the need in the community, the wait-lists. We prioritize those and fund what we can. We've made a significant increase this year in our funding to provide an additional 500 beds provincewide. In the case of Castleview, my understanding is that the owner of the facility was expecting to get some private-care patients, so they undertook an expansion.

[ Page 3318 ]

The patients didn't materialize, and now they want the government to fund those beds. Unfortunately, they're not high enough in our priority list for funding this year.

L. Reid: In fact, hon. minister, there's a difference of opinion here. The Castleview Care Centre believes they were encouraged by the Ministry of Health through the process of developing new beds, but were later refused funding after their new wing was constructed. Any indication of that particular discussion would be most helpful.

[3:30]

Hon. E. Cull: My staff met with the Castleview care people about two months ago, and that particular point of view was raised with them. To my understanding, they were unable to substantiate any promise at the staff level in that respect. It may indeed have been a former government member who led them to believe that there would be funding coming, but certainly not at the staff level. When I say a former government member, I mean a former member of this Legislature.

L. Reid: Thank you, minister, for that comment.

I want to come back to an earlier comment you made in terms of the demographics of an area and looking at waiting-lists for different facilities. It seems to me to be a particularly bizarre type of irony, if you will, that we tend to put elderly people -- some very elderly people, upwards of 90 years of age -- on a waiting-list for sufficient care. I mean, oftentimes their lives have come to an end prior to them being put forward and actually placed in care. This is placing a tremendous burden on the families and communities which are trying to cope with very elderly people. I speak particularly of Alzheimer's patients.

My understanding of the situation that was going to go forward in Castleview was that they would look specifically at having a wing for Alzheimer's patients. We have upwards of 50 people, I believe, on a wait-list in that region of the province who need specialized care, who are elderly -- 85 years, 90 years and beyond -- and who often are suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Is there some indication for those communities today that they can count on some resolution to this very difficult question?

Hon. E. Cull: I appreciate the concerns the member is raising. All I can do is repeat that we try to prioritize need, recognizing that in this budget year we cannot meet all the needs and clear up the waiting-lists instantly. I would like to be able to do that, and perhaps the member would support an additional shift in funding next year into this area. Clearly, with the 7.5percent increase we've given to health care this year -- 400 million additional dollars -- we have done very well here with respect to Health. It is the largest increase of all of the ministries in this budget. I'd be happy to receive more, certainly. We have had to do our best to keep the deficit down and meet other priorities. But if the member is giving support to a further shift in funding next year, from institutional acute-care and physicians' services, I'll be glad to have a look at it.

L. Reid: Hon. minister, you would certainly have my undying support for future consideration for the treatment of Alzheimer's patients in this province. A number of individuals come to my office who have a family member suffering form Alzheimer's, and they are finding it to be an incredibly difficult situation to handle.

Could the minister give us her position with respect to funding for women's health centres? Is there funding being increased in this budget?

Hon. E. Cull: I need some clarification from the member. Are you talking about the abortion clinics, the Women's Health Centre at Shaughnessy or the women's centres that are funded under the Ministry of Women's Equality? Or are you talking about something new that doesn't exist?

L. Reid: The original discussion we had about stand-alone abortion clinics was in fact that they were women's health centres. I'm still under the understanding that that is indeed the direction you wish to go and that those clinics will operate services other than abortions. If you could kindly comment on that.

Hon. E. Cull: Those clinics are funded to provide abortions and additional services related to counselling around women's reproductive health. They are not women's health centres in the broadest scope. You have to put the word "reproductive" in there to provide the correct definition for those two. An additional $1 million of funding was provided to the two free-standing clinics in Vancouver.

L. Reid: I appreciate the comment; I'm looking for the minister to expand on it. Is this government going to proceed with the concept of a women's health centre, which I believe -- and I understand the minister believes -- is broader in scope and mandate than simply reproductive services?

Hon. E. Cull: As the member knows, a task force is looking at women's reproductive health. It will be making recommendations to me later this year about how we provide access to abortion and other services such as counselling around reproductive health. I hear what the member says about the broader need for providing health services to women. We have to look at whether it is best to provide services to women in one health centre designed only for women or to increase women's health services throughout the system. I can see benefits to both approaches, and I would want to have a closer look at that before I suggest that we put all of women's health issues into one centre.

We are doing a number of things that I'm sure the member is aware of, such as the mammography screening program and programs dealing with pregnancy and parenting. We have programs designed specifically for women who have substance-abuse problems, and there is AIDS education directed specifically

[ Page 3319 ]

at women. We have funded the women's health centre at University Hospital to the tune of about $800,000. Certainly there is increased funding for the very serious issues of family violence, violence against women and children, and sexual abuse treatment and counselling, in addition to free-standing clinics.

L. Reid: The official opposition is looking at women's health services to be integrated into the community. We're not at this point believing that we'd always want to go with the stand-alone clinic -- referencing the women's health centre at Seattle's university hospital. That arrangement is all-encompassing and looks to provide all those kinds of services. I'm hoping it's the direction this government is going in, because we would very much like to see women's health issues integrated into currently existing community care structures or hospital structures.

My next question refers to the Centre for Disease Control. Will it have a particular mandate for this coming year in terms of research projects, or is it something that arises?

Hon. E. Cull: There is additional funding for the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, but if you're asking if we have made a shift in its priorities or given it a new mandate this year, no. We've enhanced the things that they are already doing in terms of monitoring disease and responding to the various things that they're already doing. We've tried to enhance and expand its capacity.

L. Reid: Just a status question on the hepatitis B vaccination program, hon. minister. What is its time-line, and is there a plan to put it to young people in this province at a future time?

Hon. E. Cull: This program is targeted to school-age children, so the program will start in the fall when schools are back in session. The specific details about how it's going to be provided to school-age children are now being worked out by a committee of medical health officers.

L. Reid: Would the minister please explain what has happened to the $25 million that was allocated for the physicians' pension plan?

Hon. E. Cull: The $25 million which would have been due on March 31, 1992, was used to cancel the debt the physicians of British Columbia owe the government of B.C. as a result of their last contractual arrangement with the government. It is roughly equivalent to $25 million, although all the adding-up hasn't been done yet. The second instalment of $25 million has been put into the Medical Services Plan budget for this year, so that it continues in the base from year to year.

The Chair: Before proceeding, I should advise the committee that the subject matter just raised by the member deals with legislation. I would advise that the committee does not discuss legislation.

L. Reid: I want to clarify a point the minister raised, hon. Chair, and I will take your guidance on this. Since the obligation expired on March 31, who is now responsible by law for paying for the medical services rendered?

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Hon. E. Cull: ...on March 31.

L. Reid: You mentioned, hon. minister, in your remarks that of the $25 million we were discussing, half has been used to service the debt, and half has been added to the base. You referenced a contractual obligation. Has the entire obligation been cancelled, or are we now looking at some other future development?

Hon. E. Cull: If I can use very simple terms that anyone would understand, there was a collective agreement in place that expired on March 31, 1992. That was for wages and benefits to be paid to doctors. I believe it was a three-year agreement that just expired. As a result of that contractual arrangement, the doctors agreed with the government that they would pay half of the additional utilization which had not been planned for in the initial budget. That amount is approximately $25 million and would have been due and payable on April 1 of this year. No, I understand it's due and payable as of October 1 of this year. It would have been collected back at that point.

We have told the BCMA not to expect us to be sending them a bill in the mail for this money, because we have cancelled that by applying the pension plan which -- if Bill 14 was not coming into place -- we would have been paying to them. The remainder of that money has remained in the base, where instead of paying for doctors' pensions, it will be paying for medical services.

K. Jones: On the order paper, number 45 was a question with regard to tinnitus being covered under health benefits, workers' compensation and ICBC. I realize they're outside your responsibility. Our caucus critic on Health has forwarded those to you as a follow-up, but I was wondering if you would like to take this opportunity to give us a response to how you would be moving ahead to allow those people -- and I understand about 17 percent of the population have debilitating tinnitus: ringing in the ears and head noises in various forms -- to be considered for health benefits, pensions, disability and also directly under the Medical Services Plan.

Hon. E. Cull: Could the member clarify? Is this is question on the order paper?

K. Jones: It is related to motion No. 45 on the order paper, which we had put forward previously. I was taking one aspect. I wanted to know what the minister would be doing this year in order to facilitate those people who have tinnitus and a great deal of difficulty getting any compensation or health care for it, pensions included.

[ Page 3320 ]

There is a problem in having it identified. It seems to be one of the serious problems that perhaps the ministry needs to address, and they need to acknowledge the fact that it does exist. It's a worldwide, acknowledged injury, but there appears to be no support for that within the province. The Workers' Compensation Board doesn't even admit that it exists, although as far as a compensable item is concerned, they do admit privately that it does.

Hon. E. Cull: As you know, motions on the order paper are not subject to debate during estimates. If I can respond to your question in a very general way, services for people who suffer from that problem are covered under the Medical Services Plan, and physicians have to deal with them as best they can. Beyond that, I don't know enough about the condition to be able to give you any more specific answers. It sounds like you want more of a medical answer than a budget answer at this point.

[3:45]

K. Jones: No, what we want is some budgeting and ministry commitment that recognizes the fact that 17 percent of our population has a very serious disability that isn't visible. These people are still suffering out there. There are people who are going through depression; they are going through a lot of different things that the medical profession doesn't often know about. There seems to be limited training or educational programs throughout the entire health and social care community in this area. There is one self-help group that meets one evening a month. That's the only service there is in British Columbia for people with tinnitus.

I put this on the order paper with the intention that the ministry would be flagged on it six months ago. I was wondering whether by now there would be some indication of a direction to help serve these people. These are very serious cases. Some people can't go out of their homes, because the ordinary street noise causes a severe flare-up in their heads, and they go into very difficult suffering. There are those who have a continuous ringing sound in their head that they have to live with. Some people contemplate suicide as a result of it.

Hon. E. Cull: I've had a look at the motion on the order paper, and it covers things well beyond health, which of course I can't respond to with respect to WCB and ICBC disability pensions. Those types of things are not the purview of my ministry, and I assume that you will be getting an answer directly from the ministries that are involved in that.

But the health benefits are covered under the Medical Services Plan. The difficulty is not in the coverage or the insurance that is provided under the Medical Services Plan; it is in finding treatment. I have to rely on the medical community to try to find appropriate treatment and on the scientific and academic community to try to do research to find appropriate treatment. It's not really a matter of the Medical Services Plan budget. It might be a question to consider with respect to research budgets, but I don't have enough information to answer a specific on where the various medical authorities are doing research on this particular area.

K. Jones: I would be only too happy to make available to the minister and her staff the binder of material on this subject that I've acquired. Actually, it's two binders, and that's only the beginning of what's available out there. There is a serious problem of research.

I'd like to ask you what proactive programs you have or plan this year within your budget to work towards reducing the necessity for abortions.

Hon. E. Cull: For the first time we have provided an additional $300,000 to an agency. I don't know whether it has been selected yet, but we have provided money so that they can provide additional information on birth control and how to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

W. Hurd: I have a quick series of questions under seniors' health, which affects my riding quite dramatically given the percentage of seniors who are residing in Surrey-White Rock and relying on continuing care. It's my understanding that a sizeable number of services have been shifted from Social Services to continuing care. Organizations that were providing home care to seniors and that were previously funded under Social Services are now coming under community care. Can the minister advise the committee as to whether those transfers have in fact now taken place? Or is there still a backlog?

Hon. E. Cull: I am not aware of any shift from Social Services to Health in this respect.

W. Hurd: I am referring specifically to senior support networks that may have been providing counselling, telephone services, grocery pickups or that kind of program that enabled seniors to live in their homes longer than would otherwise be the case. Is the minister then advising the committee that those types of community-based programs and community organizations have always been funded under Health and not by Social Services? Or has there been a change in how those community groups are being financed?

Hon. E. Cull: A number of programs are funded under the hospital-community partnership program. Other programs may be funded directly through ministry programs. The member was suggesting that there was a shift of programs that were funded by Social Services that are now being funded by Health. As I said a minute ago, I'm not aware of any transfer of responsibility in that area. It may be that in one year some community organizations may have obtained a grant from the Ministry of Social Services, and in another year, in relation to another program or project that they were proposing, received Health funding. But there is not a transfer.

W. Hurd: I have a brief question regarding the role and function of the chief medical health officer and

[ Page 3321 ]

medical health officers, particularly as they pertain to water quality. Where the chief medical health officer makes a determination that the water quality may be hazardous to consumption or human health, are there any parameters under the ministry to force compliance or changes in activities with respect to things like resource extraction or float homes? Does the chief medical health officer have the ability to recommend a course of action to ensure that water quality for human consumption is placed at the head of the list in terms of resource management or in terms of being a health issue that supersedes any other type of use?

Hon. E. Cull: The member has identified an area that we're looking at very closely right now, and in the near future I hope to be able to provide an answer that will please the member. We're looking at the whole question of regulations under the Health Act that govern safe drinking water.

British Columbia has lagged behind the rest of Canada in provisions for safe drinking water. Right now the medical health officer has limited powers with respect to drinking water. Boil advisories are issued on a regular basis in the summer. We are contemplating ways of addressing that, so that we can give more teeth to our medical health officers to ensure that the water that comes out of the tap is fit for human consumption.

W. Hurd: Is it the intention of the ministry to take a more active role in working with community water boards, particularly where the community is relying on surface water for its consumption? This may be getting into a future policy area or legislative program. Is there anything in the short term that members of the opposition and indeed all members of the chamber can offer to the concerned citizens in the remote and rural areas of the province that are relying on lakes and surface water for their everyday requirements?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, in the short term we've provided in this year's budget an additional $1.8 million that will increase the ministry's ability to do water testing and monitoring. In the longer term we're working with the Ministry of Environment, particularly with community water supplies and surface supplies, to put in place stronger safeguards to ensure that the water that comes out of the tap is fit to drink.

L. Reid: The questions I will pose to the minister in the next few minutes pertain directly to the area of seniors, as this is the ministry responsible for seniors. My colleague from Surrey-White Rock touched on housing difficulties faced by seniors on fixed incomes. What about seniors who have special health care needs? Specifically, are there any plans for housing that will allow seniors whose health is declining to stay together?

Hon. E. Cull: In conjunction with the B.C. Housing Management Commission, we are doing a study on supportive housing and the effectiveness of that type of approach to providing housing with some support to seniors that's somewhat short of the traditional concept of intermediate care. I hope to be receiving the report on that later this year. We'll be making a decision as to what directions we can move in, in terms of expanding the options available to seniors.

In addition, the Seniors' Advisory Council has identified housing as being one of their main concerns. They are looking at it and will be providing me with advice once they've completed their work. The member may be aware that they are holding a number of open houses -- for want of a better word -- around the province. They had one here in Victoria a few months back. They were up in Courtenay and Comox a little while ago, and in September they will be in Castlegar or somewhere in the Kootenay area doing the same. Housing keeps coming up as an issue. I know they're getting a lot of useful information through that process and will be providing me, I hope, with some very good recommendations for government action -- which the member will appreciate is beyond the Ministry of Health's purview, but which I will certainly be discussing with my colleagues in Housing, Social Services and other appropriate ministries.

L. Reid: The minister has mentioned a number of different conference sites around this province where these issues will be discussed. I support that. I think it's really important that they're making some of those decisions. Has the minister had discussions with any of the municipal or regional governments on the issue of housing for seniors? When questions come regarding housing for seniors, should they be directed to your office, as the Minister Responsible for Seniors, or to some other agency?

Hon. E. Cull: I would suggest that anyone who wants to talk to the government about seniors' housing could maximize their impact by addressing correspondence to both me and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

As the Minister Responsible for Seniors, I haven't had any direct discussions with municipalities around seniors' housing. But in a prior lifetime I had a wealth of experience on housing issues, particularly in this area, and I am very aware of the municipal implications of housing for seniors. One of the things that I will be doing in bringing forward the concerns of seniors is making sure that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has the responsibility for the funding provided to municipalities and, probably more importantly, for the law that pertains to land use in this province, is aware of how that can help or hinder seniors' housing. A lot of innovative ideas have been tried in other provinces across Canada with respect to seniors' housing, but they are difficult to put in place here unless you have a courageous municipal government. I think that we could work with those municipalities, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, to provide more opportunity for seniors in this province.

L. Reid: Has this minister done any work, or is she currently undertaking any work, with the private sector to alleviate housing problems facing seniors? I would make reference to my colleague from Prince George-Omineca. He mentioned the possibility of allowing pets

[ Page 3322 ]

to be retained by their owners when they have to leave their property and move to rental property. Regarding those kinds of issues, do you have any comment on making seniors more comfortable in society?

Hon. E. Cull: Not specifically on the pet issue. But, again, I am working with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on this, as opposed to dealing directly in an area that is primarily his responsibility. As the member knows, a task force has recently been created to look at affordable housing ideas. I have referred the information on that task force to the Seniors' Advisory Council, and I will be bringing the Minister of Municipal Affairs together with the Seniors' Advisory Council for a meeting in the near future.

L. Reid: One of the issues that I am deeply concerned about is elder abuse. I believe, as do most British Columbians, that seniors are a resource, and having contributed to our society for many years, they deserve to be treated with respect. Studies show that elder abuse is a much bigger problem than we once thought. I would like to know what initiatives the minister has undertaken and what resources she has committed to dealing with this very serious problem.

[4:00]

Hon. E. Cull: There is an elder abuse task force, which was started prior to me becoming the Minister Responsible for Seniors. We have a coordinator within the Ministry of Health who is working with health care providers to encourage a consistent and appropriate response to elder abuse. The Seniors' Advisory Council has identified it as one of the issues that they're looking at. They have recommended that efforts continue to be directed towards data collection, the development of protocols, and education and training initiatives, rather than the development of legislation. So we are pursuing the recommendations that they have given us.

The council has specifically recommended that the government provide funds to develop a video presentation stressing preventive measures, addressed to a cross-generational audience. We're looking at that proposal right now and will be making some decisions on it in the near future.

There has been a generic protocol document developed by the interministry committee on elder abuse, and there are a number of other actions going on in this area. In June 1991 there was a conference on elder abuse sponsored by the ministry at the Justice Institute in Vancouver, and some of the recommendations that stemmed from that conference are now being worked on by the interministry task force.

There is also research being done this year. The B.C. Health Care Research Foundation has provided $126,000 for an elder abuse demonstration project in greater Victoria. There is also, through the work that the Ministry of Women's Equality is doing in the area of violence against women and children, an aspect dealing with seniors' abuse that will be receiving additional funding for materials necessary to address the problem.

L. Reid: What is this minister's position on the abolishment of mandatory retirement as a way of emphasizing healthy lifestyles for seniors? Indeed, are we in favour of allowing them to work beyond the age of 55 or 65 if they still wish to be participating in the workforce?

Hon. E. Cull: As the member knows, that matter is probably subject to the Charter of Rights, in terms of whether you can discriminate on the basis of age. The minister who is responsible for human rights is going to be addressing that issue in the overall review of human rights legislation in this province.

With respect to my particular involvement in it, I've asked the Seniors' Advisory Council to give me a direct recommendation on their thoughts on the matter. Just to make this answer totally thorough, within my own decisions in the ministry where we have to approve individuals who want to continue being employed after the age of 65, I have generally approved all of those that have crossed my desk. If the individual wants to continue working and is able to continue doing the job, I wonder why we would throw away the wealth of skills, knowledge and wisdom that such a person would bring to the job.

L. Reid: The B.C. task force on issues of concern to seniors identifies drug and alcohol abuse among seniors as a major problem in the community. Frequently, drug abuse among seniors is really misuse, because it is the result of a mix of prescription drugs from different doctors. Programs like the seniors' drug action program are a step in the right direction. Can the minister tell us the status of that program? Has it been expanded, or will it be revamped? How much money has been directed towards it in this budget?

Hon. E. Cull: Under the alcohol and drug part of the ministry, there is $170,000 budgeted for special prevention programs for the elderly. The seniors' drug action program addresses the training of physicians to more appropriately prescribe drugs to the elderly, particularly psychoactive drugs, and supports the seniors' resource centre, which distributes educational information about drug misuse to the elderly across British Columbia. Again, the Seniors' Advisory Council has been involved in this matter. Staff in the alcohol and drug part of the ministry have asked the Seniors' Advisory Council to give them more information, and they are now preparing a plan for '92-93 to improve our ability to respond in that area.

The whole question of the overprescription of drugs to the elderly is one that has to be looked at. It touches on a comment I made in an earlier debate. I said that the way the fee structure operates in British Columbia right now for fee-for-service, it tends to reward procedures as opposed to time spent with patients. I think that's one of the ways we'll address this. If pharmacists and physicians can spend more time reviewing what drugs seniors already have in their medicine chests and what they are taking, we would probably go a long way to being able to reduce the abuse of prescription drugs among the elderly in particular.

[ Page 3323 ]

L. Reid: Because many seniors and, frankly, most British Columbians, do not understand the risks associated with mixing prescription drugs, it is necessary to attack this problem from a number of perspectives. I would speak today in favour of an essential pharmaceutical registry. That certainly seems to be something that's been explored in a number of jurisdictions. It allows individuals across this province, whether they be a pharmacist in Prince George or in Vancouver, as an example, to pull up on their computer screen all the medication that an individual patient will have received. Do you have any comments on that? Is that something we can look forward to having in British Columbia fairly soon?

Hon. E. Cull: We have funds in this year's budget to introduce a computer network that will link all pharmacies so that you can immediately see what prescriptions an individual has. We'll be able to achieve the results the member suggested.

L. Reid: I think that's wonderful news. Do we have a time line in terms of when we can expect that system to be operational?

Hon. E. Cull: The money was just approved in this year's budget. It will probably take over a year to put it in place, but we've got the money and we can get started.

L. Reid: As our population ages and seniors' issues become more visible in our society, issues like dying with dignity have come to the fore. Many health professionals are exploring this. Many conferences around this province are exploring this. Does the minister have a direction in terms of providing those kinds of services to seniors, who truly do not wish to receive additional technology and simply wish to end their life before more invasive treatments are undertaken?

Hon. E. Cull: No, I haven't had time to see what can be done in terms of developing a ministry position on this, as opposed to the work that's being done through the palliative care and hospice programs around the province.

L. Reid: In terms of an ongoing discussion, perhaps I could ask the minster to review legislation so that individuals who are wishing to make choices, either about a family member or about themselves, will have some options when it comes time for them to make those kinds of decisions. Clearly people living out their final years would rather spend them in familiar surroundings if at all possible. We have touched on this, hon. minister, in terms of our community care discussion. They would also prefer to maintain a maximum level of independence as they age. For many seniors, these two needs can be fulfilled and extended. Hospital stays can be avoided by participation in hospice programs. How much of this budget, hon. minister, is apportioned to hospice programs? Is the hospice program being improved, or are its goals or aims being expanded?

Hon. E. Cull: I don't have the exact hospice dollars available here. We'll try to get that for the member. I did answer the palliative care issue the other night, and the figures can be looked up in the record.

L. Reid: I would make reference, for my own clarification, to the project underway entitled Canuck House, which is going to look at palliative care, extended care for very ill young people in our province. Does your ministry have any direct involvement with that project?

Hon. E. Cull: To the best of my knowledge, it's an entirely private project.

L. Reid: The interministry coordinating committee on security for seniors is chaired by the executive director of the office for seniors. Can the minister tell us what activities this committee will be undertaking this year?

Hon. E. Cull: No, I'm sorry, I don't have the details of what that committee is doing. Again, I'd be happy to provide them to the member.

L. Reid: Presumably this committee is considering ways to better coordinate seniors' policy between different ministries. This is an issue for many individuals in our province. Has the committee recommended or considered making recommendations with regard to the centralization of seniors' services within the Ministry of Health, so that government services for seniors are easier for them to access?

Hon. E. Cull: No. I don't believe that seniors would be better served by having all of their services lumped into one ministry. I think they are better served, as other British Columbians, by having the ministries that are dedicated to that issue provide for their needs and be sensitive that seniors are an important group. We do have a resource booklet that is widely distributed throughout British Columbia, which seniors can look at to find out where they can get access to services, with addresses and phone numbers and all the rest. We are considering the development of a toll-free line on such information.

L. Reid: I appreciate the comments. However, the many seniors who come to my office have said that there's a stand-alone ministry for women in this province, the Ministry of Women's Equality. What about seniors? I know, quite honestly, that question will be coming to your doorstep very soon.

The federal seniors' independence program and the New Horizons programs, through which the federal government provides some services to seniors in B.C., should be coordinated as much as possible with provincial programs. Can the minister tell us if she's had any discussions with federal officials to this end?

[ Page 3324 ]

The Chair: Could you clarify the last part of your question?

L. Reid: My apologies, hon. Chair. I believe the support person was giving guidance on the question.

We were looking at coordination between your ministry and the federal seniors' independence program and the New Horizons programs. Has your ministry had any contact, and have any directions been provided for British Columbia?

Hon. E. Cull: Unfortunately I don't have the answer for that, but again, I'm sure staff are noting it and will provide an answer to the member later.

L. Reid: If indeed this information is going to be coming, can the minister also provide an estimate of how much money the federal government will be providing this year for seniors' services through its various programs, and how many of these will be joint projects?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes.

Vote 48 approved.

On vote 49: ministry operations, $3,994,714,303.

D. Mitchell: We can't let a vote of this size pass without some comment. The one comment I'd like to make to the minister is: please, spend it wisely.

Vote 49 approved.

Vote 50: Medical Services Commission and Pharmacare, $1,836,282,756 -- approved.

ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN

On vote 5: ombudsman, $3,633,000.

D. Mitchell: Just a quick question. I'm not sure if the Minister of Finance will handle this. Has there been any allowance in the budget for the ombudsman's office for 1992-93 for the expanded duties under schedule B, which were announced in the Speech from the Throne?

Hon. G. Clark: My recollection is that it's in the vicinity of $300,000. That's about half-year funding for the operation of the ombudsman's office in order to accommodate the expansion of its jurisdiction. The thought was, working with the ombudsman's office, that we would provide some funding this year so that they could start to hire and train more staff, and, most importantly, work with groups affected by the expansion -- like school boards -- to make sure their internal complaint mechanisms are in place in order to do the work and then have the ombudsman's office review the work. They're working hard on that now.

My understanding is that it may come in slightly over budget, so I'm not sure that the full-year funding won't be more than that. At the moment there's about $300,000 specifically earmarked to enhance the operations of the ombudsman's office to accommodate the expansion of their jurisdiction.

[4:15]

Vote 5 approved.

ESTIMATES: CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER

Vote 4: conflict-of-interest commissioner, $206,000 -- approved.

ESTIMATES: COMMISSION ON
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Vote 3: Commission on Resources and Environment, $4,000,000 -- approved.

ESTIMATES: AUDITOR GENERAL

On vote 2: auditor general, $6,684,000.

F. Gingell: I was wondering if the minister could please advise me whether $6.684 million is the amount that was requested by the auditor general.

Hon. G. Clark: No, it is not. The auditor general requested enhanced funding, and the government decided to simply give an inflation adjustment this year. I think we canvassed this in my estimates, but I might advise that there is an ongoing discussion about value-for-money auditing.

As you know, we decided to enhance the budget of the Ministry of Finance to do value-for-money auditing. It's my view and our view that it seems a bit ridiculous for the government not to have any program evaluation, value-for-money auditing, program reviews or cost-benefit analysis. There was nothing when we got elected, so the auditor general is to do value-for-money audits of programs -- which I have no problem with. But it seemed to make most sense in a tough fiscal environment for the government to be doing value-for-money audits and for the auditor general to be reviewing those, critiquing them and commenting on them. We decided, at least this year, to begin the program evaluation and value-for-money auditing in the Ministry of Finance for government proper. The auditor general does have a budget for value-for-money auditing. That's an area in which he would like to significantly expand his work, and this year we chose not to do that at this time. We did not, in fact, cut the budget or anything else; we simply enhanced it by an inflation allowance.

F. Gingell: The amount that you increased it by is $92,000, about 1.4 percent of the previous year's budget. With the tremendous amount of money being spent by the government in various other projects -- that I would have thought, in the normal course of events, would have been more properly carried out by the auditor general -- in which you are spending fairly substantial sums of money with outside firms of accountants and management consultants, do you not think that it would be better in the future to have a lot of

[ Page 3325 ]

that work done by the auditor general -- which, one would assume, would be at a fairly substantial saving to the taxpayer?

Hon. G. Clark: I guess my short answer is no, I don't. I think that the government has to set up internal mechanisms for program evaluation, program review and value-for-money auditing. We're working very hard to do that, because we believe that significant cost savings can be achieved. We intend to do that. Other provinces have had some success in that area. British Columbia has never tried that approach, so we're going to focus the resources there. They will be internal resources. We have an internal audit branch with superb staff in the comptroller general's office, and we want to work with them to make sure that they do broader value-for-money auditing. That's not to say that the auditor general doesn't have a clear role in this regard. We've not cut value-for-money auditing; we just didn't enhance it significantly this year.

F. Gingell: Seeing as the last answer was completely off the subject of the question I asked.... I asked this question: seeing as this government sees fit to appoint commissions to do all kinds of things -- to spend all kinds of money with various chartered accounting firms around the city, including, of course, $975,000 with Peat Marwick Mitchell -- don't you think it's appropriate to ensure that the auditor general fulfils the majority of those functions, rather than using outside firms?

A series of government audits are now done by outside firms that would perhaps be more appropriately done by the auditor general's office. One of the problems we see in the Public Accounts Committee is that there very often tends in the end to be a lack of final integration. We find the accounts of B.C. Hydro being kept differently from the accounts of the government. Some $325 million was advanced by the government to B.C. Hydro. They record it in their accounts one way; the government records it in its accounts in an entirely different way. If we were to have the auditor general playing a larger role, I'm sure we would both save money and get rid of a lot of these minor irritants.

Hon. G. Clark: The auditor general does audit, as you know, various agencies of government. That's an area that I'm prepared to review, in terms of making sure it's cost-effective. I don't want to be in the position of attacking the auditor general, but I think the Peat Marwick report demonstrated that they missed a fair amount of operations. Frankly, I am disappointed that the auditor general chose, for example, to support the BS fund. I just find that a bit strange, to be candid, and not good public policy. So I'm not prepared to accept that the auditor general is necessarily in a position, at least automatically, to do something which a private firm is.... To give the auditor general's office a monopoly on that would, I think, be a mistake.

Can we do it more cost-efficiently by using the auditor general? I'm prepared to look at that. I'm not sure.

I agree with you that the accounting with respect to B.C. Hydro is in error, and I think the auditor general's role was quite appropriate. He pointed that out. He wrote about it, and now there's a chance for the government to take some action. I can advise the House that action will be taken on precisely that point.

J. Weisgerber: As I was coming in to raise a couple of questions on the funding of the auditor general, I was reluctant to suggest that the Minister of Finance and the government would not have confidence in the auditor general and that it would be from that lack of confidence that they chose to appoint Peat Marwick. I would think that the government would have developed a more appealing argument than to simply stand in this House and suggest that they were unhappy with the performance of the auditor general.

It seems to me that regardless of and notwithstanding the report by Peat Marwick, the auditor general in British Columbia has a great deal more credibility in his report than the Peat Marwick report has been able to engender in this province, notwithstanding the enthusiasm that the government embraced it with. I suspect it's that enthusiasm that the government had for the report, which appeared to me to be much more skewed in favour of the current government than the auditor general's report.

Given that, there seems to be some argument about the role of the auditor general. I think that it makes a solid argument for the notion that the budget of the auditor general should be approved by this Legislature, rather than by the government.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: There has to be an opportunity for the Legislature to establish the budget and for the auditor general to report to the Legislature, as opposed to us finding ourselves....

The minister says to vote against it if we don't like it. The reality is that that's a yes or no kind of ultimatum. There is no opportunity for the opposition, for the Legislature, to involve itself in the establishment of the budget, and there is no clear-cut relationship between the Legislature and the auditor general. While I'm going to vote in support of his budget, I am disappointed that the budget had to be presented to the Minister of Finance, someone who, at least today, has been critical of the auditor general. I think that the comments of the Minister of Finance today put him in a difficult position, and it would make ongoing kinds of relationships between the two of them more difficult. I hope that when we come back to establish next year's budget for the auditor general, we do it by way of the Legislature as opposed to the minister's office.

Hon. G. Clark: I would just say that when the opposition has to raise taxes to pay for it, then they can have a say in the budget. But to delegate authority to the opposition to formulate the budget for the auditor general or any other agency, when they have no responsibility to deal with it.... For every single item that has been in this House, the opposition has

[ Page 3326 ]

demanded we spend more money. Every day it's spend, spend, spend. I'm just not prepared to delegate that authority. I don't think the government is prepared to do that at this time.

Let me be clear about the auditor general. I have full faith in the auditor general. What Peat Marwick did was not an audit; it was a financial review. What we did to demonstrate my support for the auditor general was set up a steering committee which met virtually weekly, with the auditor general sitting on it, to review and talk about the findings of the Peat Marwick report. The auditor general was intimately involved in dealing with all 18 volumes before they were released to the public. I fully expect that he will publish in his annual report or otherwise a full comment on Peat Marwick's findings. That is quite appropriate; I understand that; I expect that. When I asked him to sit on the steering committee, it was pretty clear that he was a servant of the House, not of the government. He fully has the opportunity to discuss all of the findings of Peat Marwick, including some -- probably several -- findings which he disagrees with. That's quite an appropriate debate and discussion to have.

I have full confidence in his ability as an auditor. This was not an audit exercise by Peat Marwick. It was a financial review much broader than that, in which the auditor general played a role in terms of reviewing the work before it became published. And I hope the auditor general will take the time in his reports to fully comment on the various findings of Peat Marwick, some of which he may agree with and many of which he may not.

[4:30]

J. Weisgerber: The argument I would have with the minister's logic is that all taxes and all revenue measures are approved by this Legislature. For the minister to suggest that if we don't take a hand in raising taxes we should have no say in the budget of a servant of this House seems to me to belittle the role that the Legislature plays in the budget process generally, and it certainly doesn't recognize the relationship between the members who serve this Legislature directly as opposed to those who serve the government directly.

F. Gingell: I would like to point out, if I may, that every single province other than three -- leaving out British Columbia -- does have the estimates of the auditor general's office reviewed and analyzed by a bipartisan committee of the legislature, similar to the Board of Internal Economy or the new management committee that is going to be set up under Bill 82. I really do ask the Minister of Finance to reconsider his position that he won't allow the estimates of the auditor general, the ombudsman, the conflict-of-interest commissioner and the new privacy commissioner to be included as one of the roles and responsibilities of that committee. The only other provinces that have not yet joined the twentieth century all begin with the letter "N" -- Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia -- and seeing that British Columbia begins with a "b," I really don't see any reason why we should stay in the past with these other three provinces. Every single other province in this country and the federal House of Commons have now had these estimates first reviewed and set by a bipartisan committee, and I sincerely offer the suggestion to the Minister of Finance. I know that it is supported by the present Minister of Tourism, the present Deputy Premier and the grey eminence of this government, the past member for Vancouver East. They all spoke in the Public Accounts Committee strongly urging the past administration to make this change. You should now live up to your own words.

Vote 2 approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

On vote 1: legislation, $23,415,000.

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. This relates as well to some of the other votes that we've just passed dealing with the auditor general, the ombudsman's office and the conflict-of-interest commissioner. In the absence of a functioning board of internal economy this year, could the minister enlighten the members of the committee as to the budgetary process for vote 1 and these other votes? There was no board of internal economy. This new management committee that's being established by Bill 82 is not yet functioning. Could the minister tell the committee how vote 1 was formulated this year in the absence of any multipartisan board?

Hon. G. Clark: The Speaker is....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: I apologize.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm pleased to respond on behalf of the Speaker, who has been working very hard. I think I can tell you that the Speaker's office, which includes all the costs of vote 1, was very much concerned about the situation that affected this government. So they brought in various measures to reduce the costs of vote 1, in keeping with the request from the government and our Finance minister to reduce costs in all the different areas. We have had considerable reductions in a number of different areas. Of course, they affect all of us. The members' protocol allowances were cut, the one-time costs for TV have been removed, the formula for establishing caucus office funding has remained the same. I think you can see that the administration of vote 1 was doing its best to keep the cost constraints of this government under consideration.

D. Mitchell: I suppose what was missing this year, in the absence of a functioning board of internal economy which was established by statute of this House, was consultation among all parties of the House. I take it from what the minister was saying that the Speaker was very actively involved in the process. I understand that Treasury Board officials would have been involved. Could the minister enlighten us on that?

[ Page 3327 ]

Was she herself, as Minister of Government Services, involved in putting together this budget for vote 1?

Hon. L. Boone: No, Treasury Board was not involved with this -- the Speaker only. But the Speaker certainly took her responsibilities to heart and realized that she, along with every member of this House, had a responsibility to curb costs, and she did so.

D. Mitchell: I'm heartened to learn that Treasury Board was not meddling with vote 1, a vote that we all have near and dear to our hearts as members of this House. The independence of this Legislature from government is crucial to this whole process that we're all part of here. It's something that I think should apply to the auditor general's office, as the member for Delta South indicated. The ombudsman's office, the conflict-of-interest commissioner's office and all of those legislative offices should be dealt with in the same manner.

To get back to a specific question on vote 1 and legislative committees, the government indicated in the Speech from the Throne, and we've seen some follow-through, that there is going to be a new commitment to legislative committees. We are going to truly have private members of this Legislative Assembly function through referrals from this House to committees. They're going to be active; they're going to be busy. When I take a look at the budget, I notice that the budget is essentially the same as last year. Does the budget really reflect a greater increased activity on the part of legislative committees?

Hon. L. Boone: No, it doesn't. When we built the budget, there was no way of determining how many committees there would be. It's a statutory obligation. It is paid for automatically by government funds out of vote 1 without going through Treasury Board or any such thing as this. But it is a statutory obligation. As I said, we had no idea how many committees would be formed by the government.

D. Mitchell: The answer is an important one, because I think it signifies the independence of the Legislature, and that's good. Yet there is a budgetary process that's going on here. We have budgeted, for instance, $220,000 for legislative committees, which may or may not be a meaningful number.

But we seem to be saying that if legislative committees have the authority to go out and engage in serious study in the matters that are referred to them, they essentially have a blank cheque. Is that what the minister is indicating?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't think one would call it exactly a blank cheque, but certainly there's no restraint on what committee members spend doing the work of the Legislature. We're all honourable members in this House, and it is expected that honourable members would keep their costs within the means of this House.

D. Mitchell: Just following up on that with respect to legislative committees or any other item under vote 1: is the minister saying that under vote 1, if the House should so choose to spend more money in any of those areas, it is up to the House, and that this is not subject to any Treasury Board approval or approval of the executive in any way?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that's right.

D. Mitchell: I have one other question under vote 1, and that's dealing with the legislative television system. I find this interesting, and I just seek some clarification on this, because the marvellous system that brings the proceedings of this Legislature out of Victoria into the homes of British Columbians right around the province is a new innovation.

I notice that last year in the estimates there was a budgetary cost for both this television system and the distribution system for our legislative television system. This year there is no expenditure noted in the budget; it's nil. I was just wondering if the minister can explain that. Why are we not spending any money on this marvellous television system that's bringing the proceedings of the House to the people of the province? Do we have a new system of sponsoring this? I haven't seen the commercials yet on the program.

Hon. L. Boone: There is a legitimate reason for this. The money that was in the previous vote was for the temporary system. There is now money under Hansard, because the television system is declared under Hansard

F. Gingell: I note that there's a major anticipated increase in costs for some $410,000 through asset acquisition in the office of the comptroller of the Legislature. I was wondering if you could tell us what that is.

Hon. L. Boone: It is the acquisition of a new computer system.

Vote 1 approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the committee rise and report resolutions.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee reported resolutions.

The Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. G. Clark: Forthwith.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on April 21, 22, 23, 28, May 5, 12, 25, 26, and June 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 25, and 30 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province, there be granted from

[ Page 3328 ]

and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $17,696,575,153 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1992.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 1992-93

Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 1992-93.

[4:45]

Hon. G. Clark: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for government programs for the 1992-93 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by vote in Committee of Supply after consideration of estimates. In order to maintain uninterrupted delivery of government programs, it is essential that this supply be granted expeditiously. As the appropriation covered by interim supply will expire shortly, supply is urgently required in order that a variety of essential payments to GAIN recipients, hospitals, school districts, universities and social agencies, as well as the government's payroll, may continue uninterrupted. Therefore in moving introduction of first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81. I move first reading.

Bill 80 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, 1992-93

Hon. G. Clark: This supply bill is the second and final one for the 1992-93 fiscal year, the first having been passed on March 31, 1992, when the Legislative Assembly authorized the value of appropriations for three months, right on time. This bill, which is in the general form of previous years' final supply bills, requests a total supply of $17,696,575,153 for voted expenditures as outlined in the schedule to this bill.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I point out the requirement for passage of the supply bill in order to provide for the expenditures of the government for the 1992-93 fiscal year. I move second reading of Bill 80.

Motion approved.

Bill 80, Supply Act, 1992-93, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, 1992-93

The House in committee on Bill 80; E. Barnes in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 80, Supply Act, 1992-93, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will be with us shortly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Law Clerk:

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1992

Compensation Fairness Repeal Act

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Health Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992

Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992

Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1992

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1992

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1992

Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 1992

Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1992

Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1992

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

Law Clerk:

Supply Act, 1992-93.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: I wish everybody a happy Canada Day. With that I move this House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada